Category Archives: Movies

Remake Hell

.

I am not one of those movie watchers who decry the very concept of remaking a film. Quite the contrary, there are several films where the remake is the classic that we revere to this very day. 1941’s The Maltese Falcon was the third adaptation of the novel, while The Thing from 1982 is a wonderful and unique adaptation of the source material while leaving the original film version standing as its own version and a classic. This applies to foreign film remade into English language version as well with Christopher Nolan’s Insomnia crafting a better film than the 1997 Norwegian production. There are also films crying out for a new version, such as Starship Troopers, which while having its fans, so thoroughly inverts the themes and point of the novel as to be like an adaptation of 1984 that crafts Big Brother as the hero.

But, with all that said, there are certainly mountains of remakes that exist for no purpose and that terribly miss the mark, skill, and heights of the films that they imitate. The made for television version of Double Indemnity drops a crucial subplot and an entire act and spends its time with a lifeless cast that only serve to remind the audience why John Huston once proclaimed that he solves 90 percent of his problems by casting the film correctly.

Last night my sweetie-wife and I began watching the 2016 production of Ben-Hur on Amazon Prime. This, like the ’41 Maltese Falcon is the third adaptation of the 1880 novel by Lew Wallace, the first being a silent film from the ’20s and the well-known and massive production which made a star of Charlton Heston from 1959. We decided to watch this 2016 version because we are fans of the director, Timur Bekmambetov who directed the Russian fantasy/horror film Nightwatch. We have watched about half of this Ben-Hur and while we will complete the movie I can already announce that it is a terrible remake that missed the point of the story and presents the audience with visuals that are meant to excite but instead provoke, at least in me, laughter, such as oar-powered galleys judging by the bow-wake that are slicing through the seas at nearly twenty knots.

In the sprawling story of Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ Judah Ben-Hur and the Roman Messala are friends closer than brothers, torn apart when Messala, made the military commander of the local legion, demands the names of Jews agitating against Rome and Ben-Hur refuses. Messala, following an accident that nearly kills the Roman governor of Judea, condemns Ben-Hur to enslavement aboard a galley. By a circuitous sequence of events Ben-Hur returns years later burning with hatred and a thirst for revenge for the treatment of his family at the cruelty of Roman occupation and even the death of Messala was unable to lift the hate from his heart. However, witnessing Jesus’ crucifixion transforms Juda Ben-Hur, making him a believer in the Christ and turning him away from hatred and revenge.

This version’s Judah Ben-Hur begins as a pacifist making the presumed ending as a return to baseline rather than a transformation of a hate filled man into a devout Christian. The accident from the source is changed into an actual assassination attempt with Ben-Hur giving the would-be killer time to escape, changing an unjust political conviction into one that can only be judged as fair considering Ben-Hur’s guilt in not turning the man over. The entire revenge plot of the story, both in the novel and in the previous adaptation turns on the fact that Ben-Hur and his family were actually innocent, removing that element weakens the story beyond measure.

Beyond the changes to the plot, the 2016 movie only throws into sharp relief the genius of the 1959 film. Director William Wyler never showed the face or allowed the audience to hear the voice of Jesus, but instead as in every great horror film, left it to the audience’s imagination, showing the effectthis man had on others, how this face that we never see caused hardened Roman warriors to quell their spirit and to wordlessly lower their swords.

We, my sweetie-wife and I, will finish this movie but what I have seen already is more than enough evidence that it should have never been produced.

Share

Movie Review: Over Your Dead Body

.

Last week I published a list of the summer movies I anticipated going out to the theaters to enjoy and here is my review of the first film on that list, the black comedy, Over Your Dead Body.

Independent Film Compan

Married couple Lisa (Samara Weaving) and Dan (Jason Segel) Burton have retreated to their isolated wooded cabin for the weekend, ignorant of the fact that each has plotted to murder the other as a solution to their marital troubles. Wholly inept as would-be killers their plans are exposed to one another but before either party can fulfill their rather simple and highly unlikely to succeed plots, the couple is confronted by a trio of strangers,  Pete (Timothy Olyphant), Allegra (Juliette Lewis), and Todd (Andre Eriksen), that present a far more credible, if not equally comedic, threat to them both, resulting in the film climaxing with over-the-top, farcical, Sam Raimi-like gore.

 

Over Your Dead Body, adapted from the Norwegian film, I Onde Dager, (Streaming on Netflix with the English language title The Trip) works as broad comedy with a strong sense of the absurd. All of the actors involved play their characters well, walking that fine line between believable, credible persons and exaggerated caricatures, never straying so far on either side as to damage the entirety of the story or the project. The director and the screenwriters, Jorma Taccone and Nick Kocher & Brian McElhaney respectively, played an expert level of set-up and payoff through the film, with several moments that are first presented seem minor color details later revealed to be clever and subtle foreshadowing.

Perhaps the most elegant and deft piece of screenwriting centers around the possibility of a sexual assault that threatens one of the characters. (It is not the character that you would expect that is threatened, providing an inversion of the trope, sliding away from the terrible titillation that often accompanies such sequences in lesser movies.) Once this element arose, I became seriously concerned about the rest of the film. It looked as if the writers had maneuvered themselves into a nasty, ugly little corner. If they took the scene to its conclusion the tone of the movie would irreparably rupture never to return to its comedic color and yet once begun it looked as if there was no way but to play the scene out as it threatened. Their solution displayed the genius of the scribes and saved the movie. I salute such brave and inventive writing.

The film’s final act escalated into cartoonish, wildly impossible, and, for my tastes, hilarious gory violence. I suspect for some it may be a bridge too far which shatters their suspension of disbelief but for those who had correctly calibrated their engagement and understand the movie’s attitude, it should play perfectly.

Over Your Dead Body is a movie that is best seen in a theater, with few distractions and preferably an engaged and laughing audience.

Share

Summer Movies

.

While not every movie being released over the next four months or so is to my taste, there are enough to make this summer something to look forward to cinematically.

In roughly release order but with no particular preference, here are some of the films and movies that I plan to see in the theater.

Independent Film Company

Over Your Dead Body – A black comedy about a couple’s weekend plans to off each other. Samara Weaving has sold me that her performance in these types of movies is worth a ticket alone.

 

 

 

Black Bear Pictures

Hokum– An American and a haunted hotel in Ireland. It’s not a slasher or adapted from a video game so that grows my interest.

 

 

 

Amazon/MGM

The Sheep Detective – The favorite script from the man who wrote Chernobyl  and show-runsThe Last of Us, returning to his comedic roots as sheep set out to solve the murder of their shepherd.

 

 

 

Black Bear Pictures

In The Grey – Guy Ritchie, action and crime film with a lighthearted tone. His action movies have worked for me and my sweetie-wife in the past, particularly when they have that light tone to them

 

 

 

Blumhouse

Obsession – Horror movie about the dangers of getting what you wished for with a what looks to be a side statement about male entitlement.

 

 

 

Lucasfilm/Disney Studios

Star Wars: The Mandalorian and Grogu – Do I really need to say anything here?

 

 

 

 

A24

Backrooms – Atmospheric horror adapted from a viral YouTube short film. This could be very good or it could become too self-important. It will all be in the script or not.

 

 

 

StudioCanal

Pressure – Weather forecasting as drama leading up to the Normandy invasion on D-Day turning on the very real historical fact that access to north Atlantic monitoring may have turned the war.

Masters of the Universe – Live action, tongue in cheek adaptation of the 80s toy selling cartoon. I was out of the age range, too old, for the cartoon but the silliness of the trailer has sold me on this as ‘popcorn fun.’

 

Universal Pictures

Disclosure Day – Steven Spielberg returning to aliens and conspiracies, launching the conspiracy that this is a stealth sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

 

 

 

 

Signature Entertainment

Hungry – A rogue hippopotamus stalks unlucky tourists in the Louisiana bayou. Hollywood still chasing the Jaws high but this looks to be a ‘turn off your brain’ creature feature and have fun.

 

 

 

Universal Pictures

The Odyssey – Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of the ancient classic.

 

 

 

 

Disney/Marvel Studios

Spider-Man: Brand New Day – The next Marvel Cinematic Universe feature.

 

 

 

 

Ketchup Entertainment

Coyote vs ACME – The movie that the studio tried to kill in favor of a tax break. As a Baby Boomer, I grew up on these cartoons, and the trailer looks interesting enough and I despise the ‘tax loss’ argument so much that I must see this in the theater.

 

Share

Movie Review: Ready or Not, Here I come

.

 You may have noticed that I did not use the numeral ‘2’ in the title of the film as all the advertising has done. I was unimpressed with the addition of the numeral as I thought the title worked perfectly without and when the film’s title card appeared on the screen it pleased me that the filmmakers agreed with my sentiment over the marketers.

Search Light Picture

Ready or Not, Here I Come is a direct sequel to 2019’s Ready or Not. The previous film Grace MacGaullay (Samara Weaving) marries into the insanely wealthy Le Domas family, only to discover that her new in-laws obtained their wealth and power by way of a dark pact with Satan and only by sacrificing her life to their dark god could they not only retain their privilege but their very lives. Ready or Not ends with Grace surviving her ordeal and her in-laws facing the wrath of their benefactor. The sequel, despite 6 years passing between the two movies’ production, starts precisely where the previous entry ended, with Grace sitting on the steps of the burning mansion as first responders arrive.

Grace’s escape from the torments of the satanic cult is quickly ended when she and her estranged sister Faith (Kathryn Newton) are abducted by the wider cult that the La Domas’ were only one facet of. As explained the organization’s Lawyer (Elijah Wood) control of the global cult, which until their destruction, rested with the La Domas, is now up for grabs. Determination of the family to take control is by yet another game of hide and seek with Grace and Faith as the targets of the murderous representatives.

While the sequel is much the same as the original film, the basic plot remaining unchanged, and the retcon creation of a sister for the orphaned Grace of the first film could have been ham-handed Ready or Not, Here I Come works surprisingly well. Weaving and Newton have a great sibling chemistry which acts as tonal counterbalance to the principal antagonists the fraternal twins  Ursula and Chester Danforth (Sarah Michelle Gellar and Shawn Hatosy.) Like the previous movie Ready or Not, Here I Come is more comedy than horror with few sequences of intense dread and more of exaggerated cartoonish violence. In some ways this compares favorably with Alien and Aliens. Where Ridley Scott crafted a slow burn horror film which James Cameron did not try to replicate but instead focused on an action driven film that share the same beats as its predecessor with this pair of movies, the first is more of a horror film, albeit interspersed with absurdist comedy, the sequel never tries to duplicate the horror of the first, understanding its mission to plow new ground.

Running a mere 108 minutes, this movie doesn’t waste time before diving into its central plot and troubles for its protagonists. The sequence of events is laid out in such a manner that the newly introduced Faith does not suffer an extended period of ‘disbelief’ that would only frustrate an audience that had already been exposed to the supernatural reality of this film’s world. Economical with time and exposition Ready or Not Here I Come knows just why the audience has come to the theater and it delivers. This is a not a horror film that is meditating on grief, or obsession, or the nature of good and evil in a complex world, it is here to show you a good time as two morally decent women are faced with seemingly insurmountable challenges.

If you were a fan of the first one then there is no reason to avoid its sequel, this is a movie best seen in a theater with few distractions and a loud engaged audience.

Share

Do Not Think About Timeline of Star Wars

.

I am sure that there are some devoted Star Wars fans out there that can conjure some twisty and convoluted explanation for the compressed and strange timeline that flows through the main sequence of the Skywalker saga in Star Wars, but if you sit and think about the years and the characters it really doesn’t quite add up.

20th century studios/Disney

Before I continue let me stress that there is much of the franchise that I am a fan of. I am an old fart and saw the original release in the theaters and when people mention Star Wars, much like with Star Trek, the images that fly to mind are of that original late 70s and early 80s adventure films. All the assorted material in comic books, novels, and television programs, both live action and animated, held little draw for me except for Andor, which I adore and is brilliant, even as it exposes the fault line in the ‘canon’ history of the saga.

The saga of Star Wars from the prequels, through the various programs, and the original trilogy, is the story of the fall of the Galactic Republic, the rise of the Empire, and, the restoration of the Republic by a dedicated rebellion. A story that in the films is principally told through the viewpoint of the Skywalkers, Anakin and his son Luke. When we meet Luke in Star Wars he is nineteen and ready to apply to the ‘Academy’ desperate to leave his life as a farmer and see the wider galaxy.

Nineteen.

Luke was born simultaneously with the Galactic Empire, Emperor Palpatine’s entire reign as the despot of the galaxy is about 24 years from start to his death on the second Death Star. In terms of Empires that’s a very short time, though it beats out Nazi Germany that lasted a mere dozen years, and Fascist Italy that managed to squeeze out 21 years. However a quarter of a century is still a very short period of time, you have only the youngest cohort of adults that know only the Imperial system with a much larger segment of the population that lived in the Republic era.

This was really brought home to me while watching Andor. (And again I adore Andor I think it is a masterpiece of television.) The character Dedra Meeroa, played beautifully by Denise Gough, announces that she has no family. Her parents were criminals and she was raised in an ‘Imperial Kinder Block.’ Ms. Gough was born in 1980. Andor  had its principal photography in 2020 making the actor 40 years old when she first portrayed Meero. Now, even if the character is 5 years younger than the performer that makes her 35 at the start of the series and by the ‘canon’ calendar with this being a mere five years before the destruction of the first Death Star, making the entire Imperial system just 14 years old. This makes Dedra 16 or so when she goes into the Imperial Kinder Block, provided that the systems starts with the Empire and still this is hardly ‘raised in a Kinder Block.’ The numbers simply do not add up.

And you know what — I don’t really care. It is a great bit of character building and backstory that explains the cold hard and dedicated Dedra Meero. I will always take good story over slavish devotion to ‘canon.’  Of course it is always best if you make everything fit neatly, but given the choice, give me great characters and great stories over a perfectly fitted history.

Share

Movie Review: Project Hail Mary

.

Adapted from the novel by Andy Weir, who also wrote The Martian, Project Hail Mary is a

MGM/Amazon Studios

science fiction adventure to save the Earth from a dimming sun which threatens all life on our fragile planet. A fantastic microorganism is populating the sun, causing the dimming, and a molecular biologist, Dr. Ryland Grace, whose published theories align with the newly discovered ‘astrophages,’ is recruited by a global effort to reverse the ‘infection,’ by traveling to Tau Ceti, the only star in the corner of the galaxy not showing signs of dimming. The film opens with Dr. Grace awakening from a medically induced coma used during their transit to Tau Ceti, finding himself the only survivor of the process and with his memory damaged and only recovering as he suffers intrusive flashbacks. The mystery of Tau Ceti’s immunity to the astrophages deepens when Grace encounters a massive alien vessel in orbit about the star.

Like Weir’s novel The Martian, this story is really about the sacrifice, skill, and dedication of highly competent people who have set out to solve a seemingly unsolvable problem. Project Hail Mary functions without the need for a villain or motivated antagonist, with the closest analogy being a medical drama as doctors fight to diagnose, treat, and save a terminal patient, but in this case the patient is all of humanity.

Ryan Gosling plays Dr. Grace managing to convey both the character’s brilliance and his goofy ‘every man’ nature keeping the audience engaged both intellectually and emotionally as Grace navigates a strange, terrifying, and nearly impossible task alone.

Directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, the team responsible for writing and producing the Spider-Verse films, this film is visually stunning, inventive, and striking in its emotional core. Aided by a sharp script by Drew Goddard, who also adapted The Martian, Gosling carries the film effectively alone. While there are other important performers in this film the ultimate success or failure of the project rested on his shoulders and Gosling’s ability to make you laugh and cry in moments while still conveying unrevealed depths to his character is what makes him a star.

All in all this is a remarkable film and while the two-and-a-half-hour running time might give some pause before buying a ticket, I would recommend seeing this in a proper theatrical setting.

Share

Movie Review: The Bride!

.

After taking a few days off from serious work and the day job I am back posting on my blog and I will return with a review of a film I had been anxiously awaiting The Bride!

With trailers making the movie appear to be a mashup of 30s gangster flicks and the classic Frankenstein tale the very oddness of it compelled me to see this unique vision in the theater. After pushing back my attendance by a week so I could see Blood on the Moon, where I was warned that the 40s noir western was superior to The Bride! yesterday after a nice lunch my sweetie-wife and I caught an early afternoon screening.

Warner Brothers Studios

There is a triumvirate of positions that greatly affect the look, feel, and tone of a motion picture, The Producer, The Director, and The Writer, and when all three posts are occupied by the same person, as with Maggie Gyllenhaal for The Bride! it comes as close as possible for a major studio release to fulfill the concept of the auteur theory and the final product for good or bad rests on that person.

I wish I could say I loved The Bride! but that is not the case. The film feels terribly unfocused and scattershot, with each sequence interesting and executed with tremendous vision but never coalescing into a coherent whole. I can see what Gyllenhaal was trying to achieve and I can see the thesis of her work, she was shooting for something proudly feminist and while she for the most part avoided pulling out a soapbox from which to lecture her audience the final product, in my opinion, never scaled the summit she set out for herself. The script feels like something that was written by the seat of the author’s pants and never revised afterwards. Major story elements are introduced late, earlier plotlines are wrapped with a sensation that feel forced and pressured as though someone had suddenly discovered that they were running out of pages, and references to other films proved distracting. I think, outside of comedy, it is a very risky proposition to refer to other films in your movie as you rarely come off as anything other than inferior. If I am watching your adaptation of Frankenstein you rarely want me to be thinking of Whale’s version or worse yet Young Frankenstein.

The film had far too little of the 30s gangster and I felt it did not deliver as promised on either the mad scientist or organized crime elements.

The cast is uniformly good and the production design and cinematography are striking, everything that doesn’t work in this film comes from the script and vision behind it and as such if you love or hate this movie the person responsible is Maggie Gyllenhaal.

Share

Scheduling Conflicts

Warner Brothers Studios

.

From the moment I laid eyes on the trailer for The Bride! (one must not skip the exclamation mark) I knew that this was a film I wanted to see. A mash-up of classic Warner Brothers’ 30s gangsters with Frankenstein? That is an idea so wild, so unconventional that to wait for streaming struck me as a crime against cinema. It was a natural for me. I have several WB classic gangster films on Blu-Ray disc and while no direct adaptation of Frankenstein exists in my library of films, it is a property I have seen many movie versions of thus seeing The Bride! became a requirement. It opens this weekend.

My sweetie-wife let me know that she wants to see this new film as well and that means we watch it at our usual time and convenience: the earliest available Sunday morning matinee. She is not a late-night person as I am and so these showings not only fit her circadian rhythm but if it’s early enough also provide an excellence chance for a lunch out.

So far all is well and good, but then San Diego Film Geeks had to go and get into the picture.

San Diego Film Geeks is a local organization, club, association, a something, that hosts cinema screenings throughout the calendar year. In addition to their Secret Morgue, a six-film marathon each September where the titles are kept secret and only a theme is announced, they also host a year-long film festival at a micro theater, the Digital Gym, screening one film, or sometimes a double feature, a month for that year’s theme. Previous festivals have been ‘Get Hammered,’ celebrating Hammer Horror, and ‘Noir on the Boulevard’ for film noir. In the past, I have purchased the year-long pass giving them the maximum support, but this year’s theme is Westerns, a genre that, with a few exceptions, I have never particularly taken to.

March’s western is Blood on the Moon and is described as a film noir western.

Damn, if that one doesn’t interest me. Of course it is screening Sunday at noon. If I want to see the San Diego Film Geeks presentation, I will have to push the trippy gangster/monster movie off for another week.

As if starting a diet this week was painful enough.

Share

Movie Review: How to Make a Killing

.

Glen Powell, displacing Benedict Cumberbatch as the actor now found in everything around you, stars in the black satire as Beckett Redfellow, this bastard son of a disinherited daughter from a massively wealthy family.

StudioCanal

As the patriarch of the family, Whitelaw Redfellow (Ed Harris) placed his vast 28-billion-dollar fortune into a trust to avoid estate taxes, the disinheritance of Beckett’s mother is no barrier to Beckett inheriting the fortune. What is a barrier is the 7 people ahead of him in the family tree. A chance encounter with his childhood crush, Julia (Margaret Qualley) ignites Beckett’s drive to eliminate the people standing between him and the vast fortune, a program made riskier and more fraught with Beckett’s affections torn between Julia and a new woman in his life, Ruth (Jessica Henwick.)

Adapted from the 1907 novel Israel Rank: The Autobiography of a Criminal by Roy Horniman, the source material that also inspired Kind Hearts and Coronets writer/director John Patton Ford updates the material to current times, making the satire of wealth and privilege sharp but without ever stopping the story to pull out a soapbox for a lecture. The movie unfolds as a flashback with Beckett recounting his life and crimes to a priest as a framing device that neatly provides a witty and wry narration. The failure of many voiceover narrations in movies is that they lack character, the distinctive voice and point of view that elevates them from mere exposition dumps to genuine vehicles of insight. Beckett’s narration provides enough warmth and vulnerability to make the character empathetic while never fully excusing his acts of murder for mere monetary gain. Powell’s deep reservoir of charm serves him and the film well, keeping the audience engaged and on his side, concerned for his fate as events spiral out of his control.

Jessica Henwick as Ruth isn’t given a lot to do here, but she does well with what is handed to her in the script.  As the ‘pure’ love interest in contrast to Qualley’s ‘corrupt’ love interest Henwick breathes life into a character that is given little depth beyond voicing the counter-ideology that wealth is far from the real meaning of life and that value can be found in service. Henwick is also a performer who with only modest changes to hair and make-up transforms greatly. I failed to recognize her as Peg, one of my favorite characters in Glass Onion, a tribute to her underserved talent.

The more biting and dynamic female role is given to Qualley’s Julia. A woman who at first appearance seems to be quite likeable but as the story progresses reveals that she operates with little to no empathy for anyone, not even Beckett. I have become quite a fan of Qualley’s work having seen her now in three films, this one, Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, and Honey’s Don’t. (I skipped The Substance knowing that certain sequences, ones that have nothing to do with the central spectacle of the film, possessed a high probability of triggering a migraine.)

Few people arrived for the late Saturday evening screening that I attended which is a shame. How to Make a Killing is not going to make box office history nor change the course of film in the 21st century but it’s entertaining, well made, and with a point of view that many other supposed satires lack.

It should be seen.

Share

A Starship Troopers Reboot? Color Me Doubtful

.

Sony is reportedly looking at a fresh adaptation of Robert A. Heinlein’s young adult novel Starship Troopers. The book has been previously brought to the silver screen in 1997 by Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven, but that interpretation took the route of being a satire and in my opinion a terrible film. Yes, I know it has its fans, but I am not one of them and the point of this piece is not to debate that film or even the themes of the novel. No, I am here to say why I think this novel is nearly impossible to adapt as a film or television series.

Heinlein was the gateway drug that seduced me into fiction reading. Prior to being forced to read Red Planet for a book report I consumed only non-fiction, after that one novel, my course was set, I mention this so you understand that I come at this analysis from a position of someone who admires the author and the novel.

Starship Troopers has no plot.

It has a story, and it has a very strong point of view as the author ruminates, lectures, or rants, choose your preferred descriptor, on service, duty, and patriotism. The story has young Filipino Johnny Rico going from being a callow youth with self-serving interests, he only joined the service because of a girl, to a leader of men with a deep and dedicated sense of duty. The protagonist’s journey from boy to man is the story. To me story is the transformation of the character. Plot on the other hand  is the mechanical aspect of the tale, the objective and obstacles that challenge the protagonist. I can illustrate my views on plot vs story with two James Bond films.

Casino Royale has both plot, Bond tries to bankrupt Le Chiffre so he will be inclined to betray his clients to save himself, and story Bond opens his heart, making himself emotionally vulnerable only to be betrayed, becoming the cold man who uses women but who never trusts.

Moonraker has only plot. Bond must discover and stop Drax’s plan to eliminate humanity and reseed it with his eugenically perfect population. As a person Bond experiences no transformation, no growth. He ends the movie the exact same character as he was at its start.

Starship Troopers has story, Rico’s transformation into an adult but it has no plot. The war that supplies the narrative with its action scenes starts off-page while Rico is in basic training for his military service and the novel ends with the war still raging. There is no special big mission that drives the book from start to end. The ‘capture the brain bug’, something that would take place in a movie’s third act and might be the spine of an entire film, is not established prior to its introduction. In terms of a 3-act structure, Establishment, Conflict, Resolution, Starship Troopers simply doesn’t fit.

The novel is first and foremost a polemic of Heinlein expounding or hectoring (again you choose) the reader with his views on duty and sacrifice. Given that, I hold to my reservations as to how you can make a film adaptation that is both a good film and faithful to a controversial novel that is built around a series of classroom lectures.

Share