The Writer's Poke

This is a romance, a musical, and a war/propaganda film. In other words, it has a lot of boxes to check off.  Beautifully shot in technicolor, I kind of understand why some people write, "Who cares if there's a plot? It's beautiful."  Kind of understand, but sorry... a film still needs to be good.  One of the first problems with the plot, I guess, is that Rosalind (Rita Hayworth) can do better. Or to put it another way, she can have any man she wants. Paul (Lee Bowman) tries to make a quick move on her, and she sees it happening and calls him on it.  Which isn't to say that she shouldn't give him a second chance, but what exactly do they have in common? And, the second problem with films like this: They've known each other for a minute, and she's going to marry him and give up her dancing career just like that? Huh?  Tommy (Marc Platt) is in love with Rosalind, too. But not only does he not say anything to her, but he essentially never shows it in any ...

Since this movie has such a low Letterboxd and IMDb rating, I avoided watching it for a while... but guess what? It honestly isn't that bad for a Karate Kid movie. I would still rank the original movie a smidge higher, because it has the original movie mystique going for it; that said, I have to admit I'd rather see Mr. Miyagi working with Julie (Hilary Swank) than Daniel (Ralph Macchio). She's just a better actor.  Getting Mr. Miyagi to Boston is a bit of a plot stretch. He somehow convinces Julie's grandmother to fly out to California for a house swap. I mean, maybe she was at her wits end with Julie, but it's funny, because we once she leaves for Mr. Miyagi's place out West, we never see or hear from her again.  Michael Ironside (as Dugan) is a perfect replacement for Kreese (Michael Kove). He's the leader of some sort of student patrol group at the school. (Listen to his first speech. He could easily be the prototype for Secretary of Defense Pete Hegeset...

The third in the Doris Day/Rock Hudson/ Tony Randall trilogy, and I'm surprised to find out, the best of the three.  I'd like to know more about Doris Day's hair. In this film, sometimes it looks like her normal hair, and sometimes it looks three times the size. It sort of reminds of NFL football player helmets -- the standard helmet versus the special helmet some players wear to protect their heads from concussions.  But in all seriousness, I'm guessing that Day wore wigs for at least some of the scenes in this film, but if she did and didn't wear them for all scenes, I'm just left confused. Why did she have to wear wigs in some of the scenes? And why did they have to be so big? Meanwhile, Tony Randall has a little bit better part here. In the first two films, he's a rich friend of Rock Hudson, and he goes to a psychiatrist. That's really all we know about him. In this film, he's a lawyer and neighbor, and he's got a drinking problem. He's m...

Because Pillow Talk (1959) exists, this movie should never have been made. Do I like Rock Hudson and Doris Day together on screen? Sure I do. Do I like the sex comedy plot of two people who hate each other but somehow, through convoluted circumstances, end up falling in love because the man pretends to be someone else? Yeah, that's fun.  But at least in Pillow Talk, the Rock Hudson character starts falling in love with the Doris Day character. In Lover Come Back, Jerry (Hudson) is still the womanizing guy that will do whatever to get whatever he wants. He does not, however, begin falling for Carol (Day). He's just tricking her until she finally finds out who he is.  That's the biggest difference between the two films. And yet, Jerry and Carol STILL end up married. But the marriage is one that happens simply because they end up accidently drunk on Jerry's VIP mints. Carol doesn't magically fall in love with the real Jerry. In fact, she wants to immediately annul the ...

A rather odd genre from this era called "the sex comedy."  Jan (Doris Day) is a single, professional woman. We don't know her exact age, but Day was 37, and it's likely Jan is supposed to be in her mid-30s. So it's a rather sexist question, but audience members would likely be asking it too themselves at the time: Why is she still single? The obvious answer is that she hasn't found the right man to fall in love with. Jonathan (Tony Randall) loves her, but she doesn't love him. She even lets him give her an "exploratory kiss," but the sparks don't run down her back. That's what she wants. She wants sparks.  Brad (Rock Hudson) is the man she shares a party phoneline with. She hates him, considering him a womanizing playboy. When Brad first sees her in the flesh, though, he knows that she's pretty special. He also knows that based on their past history, he doesn't have a chance with her. So her creates a whole new persona and pretend...

With a current IMDb score of 9.3/10, this film has to be in the conversation for the best film of all time.  What makes it so special? Well, if that was so easy to say, then every movie ever made should be equally as good, right? I guess we just like the main characters, Andy (Tom Robbins) and Red (Morgan Freeman). We want good things for them, and when they are somehow able to defy all odds and have their happy ending, that feels awesome. The film also does a masterful job of showing that the happy ending was plausible. In both men's cases, they had to survive decades in prison, but as Red puts it, Andy was too pretty a bird to be caged. Red, too. He served 40 years for a horrible crime, but he was no longer the person who committed that crime. This is one of those movies that I remember pretty much from beginning to end. In a way, I would never need to watch it again, because I know it. But somehow I do return to it every 5 or 10 years, and every time I watch it, I'm left com...

Prequel, sequel, stand-alone?  I recently re-watched Prometheus (2012), but even so, I wasn't completely sure about the timeline for this one. I had to look it up, and then I learned that this one is supposed to be 10 years after Prometheus.  And yet, the colony ship didn't have a clue about the planet they decided to detour to on a lark? That seemed a little unbelievable. I get that ship in space don't get a daily newspaper, but I'm guessing they would have known about the last ship to visit, especially if no one from that ship made it off the planet.  In terms of the special effects in this one, I liked it. One of the aliens jumped scared the crap out of my wife, and the continuation of the synthetic humans storyline is cool.  Is it a little obvious about "David" at the end? Yeah, maybe, but he's a bad dude. It's neat that he had a need to create, and he didn't give a darn about humans. Why should he?  Do I feel a little "tricked" with ...

A first-love sort of Romeo and Juliet story. Bud and Wilma (Warren Beatty and Natalie Wood) are high school sweethearts. His family has come into oil money, but hers is still more working class (although her father has potential money in the stock market). As it stands, however, Bud's dad doesn't consider Wilma a match for his son... at least he doesn't want his son to marry early and kill his chances at going to college.  Women are definitely cast into two categories. Nice girls and whores. Bud's own sister is a "whore" type, which is weird, because Bud's dad wants his son to sow his wild oats with all the whores he can. At the same time, his dad warns him not to let a "nice girl" catch him, or not to "go too far" with a nice girl and then end up being required to do the responsible thing.  Bud is conflicted. He can see what has become of his sister. What any of that has to do with Wilma, I'm not sure. She's the pure girl, 100%...

Daisy Clover is a 15-year-old girl being played by a 27-year-old Natalie Wood. That's a bit of a stretch, and I have to admit that I never really got past that. She's just too old for the part, and I'm not sure that it's absolutely necessary that Daisy is 15. Why can't she just as easily be 25? Does she need to be 15 so that she can be more vulnerable to the powerful forces trying to use her? She's a minor, so her estranged sister ends up being her adult guardian, signing off on all her official paperwork. That's a small detail, though, and I'm not sure it matters that much. Just let her be 25.  Because she's supposed to be 15, though, it is a lot creepier, although the film doesn't make it as Lolita creepy as it could be. Wade Lewis (Robert Redford) is never given an age, but I suppose he's supposed to be in his 20s. Redford was 29. Anyway, Lewis and Clover end up briefly married. This is sort of where the whole film goes south for me.  What...

I like War movies, but I probably like War movies that spend more time and effort asking, "What are we fighting for?"  There's gotta be some sort of balance. I don't like War movies that go so far over the line the other way that everyone is just dying to end the war and get home. If there's a war, then let the people fighting it have a reason to fight it, and let them be into fighting it, sure. But don't give me 100% propaganda, either.  As I watched this film, I started thinking: Maybe the problem is that this is more propaganda film than war film. It was made right in the middle of World War II, and while the Allies were "winning" the war in 1942, maybe they didn't completely realize that yet.  After all, Hitler has entered Paris, and the British are being bombed and they've had to evacuate Dunkirk...  This film mentions details like that, but it's more interested in following the lives of a few men who have survived having their vesse...

I guess you call this a family bi-op. It's under 2 hours, so it doesn't quite qualify as an epic. And the actual period of time it covers is very strange. The World Wars are there as almost bookends, but the film doesn't use them as the bookends. Rather, it uses the period of time the family spent in their flat as the beginning and ending points.  So much happens in this family in roughly a 20-year period, because that's all there is, 20 years. It honestly feels like it should be a 30- or 40-year period. It feels that way because Frank and Ethel Gibbons (Robert Newton and Celia Johnson) age much more than 20 years, and Frank is on the brink of retirement, which should put him closer to 60 than 40.  Overall, I guess I like that focus on the family rather than on world events. Of course the family is impacted by what's going on in the world around them, but the drama of their day-to-day lives is what matters most. They are aware of Hitler and the prospect of a new war...

Why is Charles (Rex Harrison) so blithe? I guess that's the question I never get answered. He's married to a woman for about 5 years, and she dies unexpectedly of a heart attack. Seven years later, he's married to another woman, and things seem to be fine.  Then, I guess for fun, they and another couple invite over a weird older woman for a seance. You know she's weird because she rides a bike. Anyway, she doesn't really know what she's doing, and somehow Charles's dead wife crosses over.  This starts what I guess is supposed to be a bunch of funny shenanigans, a hilarious lovers' triangle. And maybe it's serious. Maybe the dead wife is trying to kill the husband so she can have him back on the other side?  I don't know. The humor is 1940s British, but even so, it just doesn't work for me. The female ghost is green, for reasons I never figure out. And while he can't touch her, she can touch and move physical objects. She can even drive a ...

Rose (Rosalind Russell) is a vaudeville mom. Her goal in life is to make her kids stars. Actually, she wanted to be the star. She wanted to fulfill her dream through her kids. Louise (Natalie Wood) eventually gets her mom to admit it, but that's way late in the film, after Louise has basically said, "I'm not you. I'm going to do burlesque, because that's what pays the bills." The movie is an odd musical. I didn't count the number of times characters broke out into songs, but it felt like just a few times, with it mainly being Rose doing the singing. I could 100% be off on this, because Russell didn't keep my interest as an actor, but I'm not sure even Marilyn Monroe in her part would have kept my interest in this film. I get the plot, but the movie felt overly long. It goes for almost 2 1/2 hours, and I'm thinking it deserved about 90 minutes. The musical numbers were not memorable at all, and they felt somewhat off the cuff -- no rhythm, no r...

Yeah, not a surprise, but the real problem with this franchise is that it's a one-hit wonder. Is the idea novel and somewhat interesting the first time? Sure, but when you go five sequels deep, you should have developed something more than what they ended up developing.  Now, what claims to be the "final" final destination is separated by 14 years from the last sequel. That's 14 years for them to try to figure out something a little bit better, and I have to admit, I was hopeful. The opening sequence and even the first half of the film did feel slightly above the average Final Destination fair.  Over the course of the film, we get to see that maybe all of the films were "related." My man Bludworth (Tony Todd) even gets a full name in this film, and we learn just a smidge more about him -- he was the little boy at the beginning of this film...  Brief note about Tony Todd: He looks horribly thin in this film. He's bald and gaunt. I didn't know until I ...

Based on the ending death montage, I'm guessing that the writers really did think this one was the final movie in the series. And compared to the previous film, this movie did seem to have something going for it. The formula is the same as always: A major accident, with a few younger people surviving, only to realize that you cannot outlive death.  Each time, one person has the vision, and then they start to figure out there's a "pattern," and deaths start to occur in the order in which they "should have occurred." This time, we also get the wrinkle that if it's your turn to die, someone else can "take your place" which returns death's balance. The problem is: you only end up with as much time as that other person was slated to live. If you kill the wrong person and they had an extra day to live, then that's all you get.  Maybe I was most happy to see Bludworth (Tony Todd) return to the series, after being absent in the 4th film, He act...

Man. The team that did the 2nd Final Destination is back with another chance. They have a $40 million budget. How do they use it? They don't hire any high-end acting talent. They don't use it to write a script. And quite honestly, I can't say they use it for special effects, because I've seen equivalent CGI used in C-level films. Nick (Bobby Campo) is the one with the visions. Is there a reason he would need to have visions in CGI? Going into this film, I cheated and looked ahead. What I saw scared me. First, they dropped the number from the film. Second, for an already gimmicky franchise, they filmed this one, apparently, in 3D. Third, whereas in the first film, when they took the time to be clever with character names, in this one, they don't even bother to name most of the characters -- Cowboy, Racist, Racist's Wife, MILF, Girl on Top.  And, a personal note: No Bludworth? Seriously? As minor a character as Bludworth has been, you could find a way to include h...

The premise of these movies is always that people are fated to die, and yet, for some unexplained reason, someone always has the vision that they are about to die. These deaths are not just about the person with the premonition. They are about a group of people -- generally young people. First it was the airplane crash, then it was the multiple-car pile up, and for this movie, it's the roller coaster. All of these events are out of the ordinary, as are the ways that Death "recovers" the lives of the people fated to die. I guess that's all necessary for the purposes of movie magic, but I'd prefer deaths that are a little bit more boring and mundane. When the death scenes get too crazy, I lose all sense of verisimilitude. I want to watch a movie that feels like real life, or in this case, real death. Even something like this: Why not have the character survive death and then have the character go to the doctor and find out that they have incurable cancer? Now that w...

“What did you think?” I asked my daughter. "It was okay," she said. "About equal to the first one." I thought so, too, but if the second one is no better, no worse than the first one, why make it? Money, I know. Money. But definitely not for "art." There's nothing really artistic about these movies, and no one is pretending that they are going to be changing cinema forever by making the Final Destination movies.  Bludworth. What a wasted character. I've looked ahead, and I know he's the character recurring the most in the series. I still hold out hope that his character will eventually be developed and mean something. In the first film, it felt like they didn't know who he was or what to do with him. Same feeling in this sequel. He basically plays the same one scene role here. In fact, I'd say less effectively, as he comes off a little too hammy, not as creepy or as eerie as in the original.  Alex (Devon Sawa) does off camera -- never m...

I'm not sure what I expect when I watch movies like this. It doesn't seem right to say, "I expect to see people killed in graphic and cool ways," but I suppose that's part of it. If a woman steps one inch out into the road and gets slammed by a bus going 75 miles an hour, that's one thing. But if another character gets their head sawed off right below the eyeballs, that's something else... The movie is somewhat intriguing because the "Jason/Freddy" villain isn't human... it's just Death (not even Death personified... not even the Grim Reaper).  This is a movie I've seen before, but the first time, I wasn't paying attention to the "classic horror names" some of the characters had -- there's the obvious, like Billy Hickcock (Seann William Scott), but then there's also the "deeper cuts," like Valerie Lewton (Kristen Cloke), aka "Val Lewton."  Even the minor throwaway characters sometimes had cool...

Is it or isn't it part of the Alien franchise? Of course it is, but for whatever reason, they make it difficult to place in the series. And so people debate whether it's a prequel, a reboot, a completely different thing, or whatever.  In many ways, it doesn't matter. Is it any good as a movie? I think it has a nice look. The acting is okay. The story. Eh. Somewhat predictable. We've seen this story before, and so no matter how nice it looks and how well the actors play their parts, something still feels like it's missing. That aside, what do we think of human curiosity? Are we worse than cats? Does our curiosity drive us, even when we might rationally know that being so curious is ultimately not in our best interest? I like Captain Janek (Idris Elba). He's a curious guy to a certain extent, but he knows where to draw the line. He's curious enough to wonder what it would be like to have sex with Meredith (Charlize Theron), but he's not curious enough to s...

When I originally watched Interiors (1978) and Stardust Memories (1980), I had watched Bergman and Fellini, but I don't remember thinking about or even making the connection that Woody Allen was simply copying (or paying tribute) to their work. I'm sure a lot of his more knowledge fans knew what he was doing, but it does make a difference to have Bergman and Fellini in mind when watching these two films. In Stardust Memories, we have a director, Sandy (Allen) trapped in his own fame. He's known for his comedies, and everyone expects comedies from him. They don't want him to be serious. They don't want him to change, but Sandy doesn't want to be trapped. -- in the types of films he makes, or in life, for that matter. If he feels serious, then he wants the artist freedom to be serious. This isn't a film about anything more than a director going about his business, professionally and personally. It really is Woody Allen's 8 1/2. The reason I don't like ...

Roger Ebert liked Woody Allen a lot, and he ended up giving 4-star ratings to nine of his films by my count. Including this one.  This was Allen's first serious film, and not coincidentally, perhaps, the first film he wrote and directed that he didn't appear in.  It's the story of three sisters. You see them on the DVD cover, in that famous, staged scene. They're carefully arranged, looking out the window at the stillness of the ocean. That's the film's last scene, much different from the roaring waters that ended up swallowing their mother.  Their mother wasn't well, and their father decided, at the age of 63, that he no longer needed to be responsible for her wellbeing. He finds another woman who makes him feel more youthful and alive, and after a month, he marries her.  It's a lot for his daughters to accept. These daughters have their own "life issues." Like a lot of Allen characters, they all want to be creative, and they all want to have ...

Early Woody Allen movies are fun to watch, and a much different brand of humor from his later works -- even most of his films after, say, Manhattan.  I watch a film like Love and Death, for example, and although I'm not an expert in Groucho Marx, that's exactly what it puts me in the mind of. In other words, the plot of the film is secondary. It's all about the gags, the one-liners, and the facial expressions. If you watch it for that, then you probably have a good time.  The setting for this one is Napoleonic Europe. Boris (Allen) doesn't want to be a fighter, but he's not built to be much of a lover. He loves his cousin, Sonja (Diane Keaton), but she loves just about everyone but him. Eventually, they do marry, and she might even admit that he turned out to be the love of her life. By that time, however, Boris is frolicking through the trees with Death.  From time-to-time, Boris breaks the fourth wall and speaks right to the camera. That's even how the film en...

The first Woody Allen movie to feature Howard Cosell. (He also appeared in archival footage in Sleeper and had a small cameo role in Broadway Danny Rose). It makes me laugh that Cosell would play his Wide World of Sports ABC self, because basically, he's acting like the opening scene assassination and the closing scene consummation of a marriage are both nothing more and nothing less than boxing contests. That's funny. Maybe the funniest bits of the film, to be honest. Fielding (Allen) is a product demonstrator. That's his job. He meets Nancy (Louise Lasser), a young activist who goes door-to-door to get people to sign petitions. And through this chance meeting, he eventually ends up trapped in a fictious Latin American country, becomes part of the rebels seeking to overthrow the new dictator, and even briefly becomes dictator himself. I think it's fair to say that a lot of Woody Allen movies feel like live-action cartoons. I see this one in the same light as maybe Grou...

Not really a "movie." Or, a movie, but told as answers to seven questions, with each "answer" being a separate "chapter" or story. Only Woody Allen appears in more than one of the stories. To fairly rate the movie, I guess one would first need to rate each chapter. Then, you would either take the individual ratings and divide by seven, or you would figure out another method to give an overall rating.  Chapter 2 -- Gene Wilder and the Sheep. Has to be my favorite. It's ridiculously stupid. An Armenian shepherd falls in love with one of his sheep. Then, he fears the sheep has lost interest in him. He flies the sheep to America so that Dr. Ross (Wilder) can see if he can help bring the two back together. In the process, however, Dr. Ross inexplicably falls in love with the sheep. His marriage and life are ruined as a result.  That's my favorite Chapter and I might give it 4/5. Only Gene Wilder and Woody Allen could pull this one off.  Chapter 6 has an...

Yep. This movie does briefly reference the first AVP movie, but if you're looking to make sense of how this one continues from the last one, good luck.  And yep. This is supposed to be the second movie in a trilogy, and if you watch the very last scene, we're introduced to a new character at the very last second -- which makes absolutely no sense if there's not going to be another movie to explain who she is...  Unfortunately, this movie killed any future plans for the next movie. Just blew it right up.  The main problems with this movie, really, is how it was shot. It's consistently too dark, and almost all of the shots are extreme close-ups. I'm guessing the budget was on the lower end, and it was simply easier and cheaper to shoot dark and too close. Beyond that, none of the human characters seem to know what's going on, except for the "Colonel." He knows, and just for the sake of adding some clarity to things, I think they really needed to develop ...

 At first, it doesn't seem very "versus," because a team of humans are placed right smack dab in the middle. But later, it becomes clear that the humans are needed just for the Aliens to have something to face jump and chest-burst out of.  Predators are the ultimate hunters. They will hunt humans, yes, but maybe Aliens are more of a sporting challenge. Alexa (Sanaa Lathan) is the smart human of the team. I don't know how much of a spoiler it is to note that she is the one that makes it out alive. None of the other humans are really all that developed as characters, and our focus is always mainly on Alexa... so I don't think it's a real spoiler.  What might be more of a spoiler is to note what kind of relationship she develops with the lead Predator. Alexa understands that the humans need to pick a side, and the side they need to be on is the Predators.  If you've seen a lot of Predator and Alien movies, you know this is the right move to make. Predators ha...

Why is this movie shot in black and white? I might Google it, but after watching it and spending a night to sleep on it, I don't have a clue.  Danny Rose (Woody Allen) is an agent, and all of his acts are pathetic. Anytime he represents an act that has any sort of potential, they immediately leave him at the earliest opportunity. And for the most part. Rose has come to terms with that.  Then he's representing Lou Canova (Nick Apollo Forte). What is he? A Lounge singer? But Canova's career has floundered, and he's thinking about seeking new representation. At the same time, he wants Rose to be his "beard" for his girl, Tina (Mia Farrow). Why? The Mafia, I guess. So Rose does that, ends up having the Mafia come after him, ends up falling in love with Tina, and so on.  This is all being told, by the way, by a group of guys, OG comedians, I guess, who are trying to tell their best Danny Rose stories? I'm not sure I get the framing technique here, or why it...

Zelig starts with a cute idea. Imagine a guy, Zelig (Woody Allen), who was famous in his time, but who is now almost completely forgotten. What made Zelig so popular? He was a human "chameleon." Just put him next to anyone else -- black, Chinese, Orthodox Jew, Native American, and he would start to take on their look, physical traits, dress.  Interestingly, I guess, he didn't have the ability to change gender. That would be a bridge too far.  But put him in a cockpit, and he could become a very bad pilot. Or, put him in a hospital, and he could become a very bad surgeon.  Anyway, the movie uses a documentary form, and the way that it captures the real look of 1920s-1940s footage is very well done. I never question if it's "real footage." I'm sure a lot is, but anything altered or created new for the film is seamlessly done. Bravo. The problem is: The human chameleon gimmick isn't enough, really, to sustain a complete film. If you think of other mocku...

Miles (Woody Allen) went to sleep in 1973 and woke up in 2173.  Until you start watching (or re-watching) the entire Woody Allen canon of films, you don't stop to think about how many of his movies have a fantasy element. Even the more "serious" of his films usually include some sort of "discussion" between science, religion, philosophy, and pseudo-science.  Sometimes the Allen "fantasy" element works for me, and sometimes it doesn't. I do, however, almost always enjoy the "discussion" element. I'm writing this down here because I'm about 16 films into my Allen re-watch, and I'm still debating if I like his work as a whole, or if I just like his "best stuff" -- his best stuff generally being "discussion" not "fantasy" (the one exception being Midnight in Paris).  Sleeper, to me, isn't one of his better films, but at least it's a film that I can watch without finding myself zoning out. I ha...

Knull is played by Andy Serkis, the director of the previous Venom movie. I like that. My problem with Knull is that I wish he had been introduced as a character in the earlier Venom movies. He just sort of appears out nowhere, as does the plot point for the third movie. We always kind of knew a lot more of Venom and his kind were out there, ready to invade Earth. But you think that over the year Venom and Eddie (Tom Hardy) have been partners, Venom would have told Eddie what was out there.  The second problem with Knull is: All he needs is the Codex, and the Codex -- the key -- is too simple -- it's just the full-bond of man and symbiote. When Knull has that, he can send a tracker to retrieve the Codex, which then ends the universe. Big threat, too simple.  Even if you can overlook the simplicity of the plot, the writing is pretty lazy in parts -- just telling us what we need to know rather than taking the time to let it develop more naturally. This movie treats its viewers l...

While the first Venom received mixed reviews, I ended up liking it. Was it deep? No, but I liked the humor, and it the pacing was good. The weird thing I noticed was that the run time was 107 minutes, but by 90 minutes, the film was running credits. Then it had a sneak-peak scene for the sequel. Then it played the full credits. And THEN it played a Spiderman multiverse clip. Yes, I know that Marvel movies do this "show a clip after the credits" business, but this somehow felt excessive.  Anyway, I wondered if the sequel, which also received mixed reviews, would be able to sustain my enthusiasm. Tom Hardy is back as Eddie and Venom, and he also received a co-writer credit. No doubt he loves this film series. And the way this film is approached is interesting. For lack of a better term, Eddie and Venom are a "couple," and in some respects, the film comes off like not just a bromance, but a full-blown romance. Eddie and Venom "break up" and then, just like in...