Rate The Last Movie You Saw
Reply to Topic
An average gangster movie, not to say a mediocre one. Quite amateurish screening of influences by the obviously inmatured brothers.
Jon Polito was the only good thing here. It was hard to finish it, so uninteresting it turned to be. Just skip it and move to something better.
40/100
Jon Polito was the only good thing here. It was hard to finish it, so uninteresting it turned to be. Just skip it and move to something better.
40/100
__________________
"Population don't imitate art, population imitate bad television." W.A.
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." M.T.
"Population don't imitate art, population imitate bad television." W.A.
"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." M.T.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Forgive me for re-posting this review, but I fell short on time at my computer session at the local library yesterday, and I was unable to finish my reviews of Monkey Man and Civil War. Below is a complete review of all the films I've seen at my local movie theater on April 9 and 16, 2024.
APRIL 9, 2024:
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (Adam Wingard / 2024)
The First Omen (Arkasha Stevenson / 2024)
APRIL 16, 2024:
Monkey Man (Dev Patel / 2024)
Civil War (Alex Garland / 2024)
Well! So much to unpack... so little time! But hey, I'll give it a shot...
My little monster mash last Tuesday was nothing much to write about. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is the latest FX bonanza to feature a lot of CG behemoths flailing about and knocking each other into next Tuesday (see what I did there?
), ultimately to little or no avail. I wouldn't quite make a claim of this being just a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. But it amounts to a paltry minimum. Just color me very underwhelmed. I'm also sick and tired of seeing all these movies in which monsters or superbeings throw each other about and smash each other into buildings - y'know, big tall edifices of steel and glass in which people live and work in, for God's sake! I mean, does this not enter into the screenwriters' or the director's or the FX wizards' minds - at all?? Or do we just simply shrug it off and regard all those poor smashed-up people as mere collateral damage? Simply just necessary sacrifices to the spectacle? Or am I simply just overreacting like crazy? Well... perhaps. But my dissatisfaction remains regardless. I can trace the very first time I started to feel uneasy about mass destruction as cinematic spectacle to my very first viewing of Roland Emmerich's Independence Day back in 1996. (Before the horrors of September 11, 2001, take note.) Back then, I sort of shrugged off my humanist discontent as being inapplicable to any sort of valid criticism of a summer blockbuster, but later developments - or should I say degenerations - within the creative side of this kind of FX-laden cinematic spectacular filmmaking over the years have borne out those discontents. Hey, that's just how I feel. Deal with it...
The horror prequel The First Omen, on the other hand, was actually halfway decent. At least it was better than the 2006 remake of the 1976 original! But that's not really saying all that much. Of course I was immediately reminded of the recent Immaculate (which I had just seen the week before on April 2), in that both films deal with the diabolically-inspired pregnancy of a nun instigated by fanatical extremist elements within the Catholic Church. Admittedly, that's something of a new and "provocative" wrinkle within the Omen franchise. (I put "provocative" in scare quotes because trying to do or say anything casting the Church in a sinister light has become a rather tired cliché at this point. Not without justification to some extent, but a cliché just the same.) It's also worth noting how much of a '70s Euro-horror vibe has started to creep into the Hollywood satanic-horror genre. I already pointed out the similarities to the work of Argento in my recent review of Immaculate (y'know, the little American lamb abroad in decadent Europe and discovering scary things happening, a la Suspiria or Phenomena). And once it's time for our little infant anti-Christ to finally enter the world, our much put-upon heroine (in this case played by Nell Tiger Free) starts to manifest symptoms that immediately made me think, "No, wait a minute. That can't be, she can't... is she really...? Yes! Holy s***, she is actually channeling Isabelle Adjani in 1981's Possession!"
(BTW, if you've seen that Andrzej Zulawski cult classic, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!) So ultimately, it comes down to... is The First Omen actually any good? Well... it's not awful, mind you. And it's actually a couple notches above Immaculate. But that's not really saying a heck of a lot overall, is it? So I guess I can rank nun-themed horror movies alongside big glossy Japan-originated monster mash-ups as things which are pretty well played out for me.
Dev Patel's Monkey Man, on the other hand, is really something else! Yes, it's basically one of those one-man army Revenge-O-Matic action thrillers that - just like giant monster mash-ups and diabolically-impregnated nuns - have proliferated like piranha fish over the years. But this one has got a number of interesting wrinkles to it. Set in modern India, it has interesting spiritual and mythological themes, as well as a left-leaning political slant. Our hero (played by Patel) is out to avenge the rape and murder of his mother at the hands of a corrupt police chief who has forced out the inhabitants of their village in order to acquire the land for the benefit of corrupt spiritual guru. Many years later, our hero is working as a monkey-masked fighter in a boxing club where is paid to lose, and eventually he infiltrates a luxury brothel frequented by the aforementioned police chief. But when his assassination attempt goes awry, he has to fight his way out of the building, getting shot by the police and narrowly escaping death and/or arrest. He is eventually nursed back to health by the priest of a temple belonging to the oft-persecuted transgender community, or hijara. After taking an hallucinogenic drug to confront the trauma of the memory of his mother's death and physically training himself, he resumes his mission of vengeance, fighting not only to avenge his mother but also for the nation's downtrodden and disenfranchised.
Co-produced by Jordan Peele, and with Dev Patel performing double duty as action man hero and director (now that's stamina!), Monkey Man can perhaps be compared with the films of the John Wick franchise for its flamboyantly hyper-kinetic ultraviolence, but it also deals with themes of political corruption, poverty and discrimination. It's definitely the only film I've seen in which towards the end, a group of transgender female warriors (the aforementioned hijara) shows up to aid the outnumbered hero in his time of need and help kick the crap out of a well-trained goon squad! Also, while definitely being a very violent movie, Monkey Man is not exclusively masculinist in its concerns. It has a definite sympathy with the underclass, with women and with social minorities. If that's too "woke" for some people, so be it. But the film can hardly be considered preachy in its execution, and in terms of sheer visceral kick it has few competitors in contemporary action cinema. Y'know, if anything, I felt slightly alienated by the aforementioned John Wick films' violent sequences because they were perhaps a bit too clinical and clean in their execution. (I've only seen the first three on Blu-ray, but then only once. I haven't rewatched them.) On the other hand, Monkey Man's violence, while excessive, is ultimately redeemed by its sense of pain and trauma. In other words, it's messy. But then, so always is the fight for social justice.
When I first saw the trailer for the new Civil War, my first reaction was, This is a rather cool and timely idea for a film in 2024. My second reaction, on the other hand, was that of, This is something that can quite easily go wrong in so many ways!. Or rather, specifically I was thinking of two ways: 1) The movie could make the mistake of taking cheap shots at the current election-year situation in order to score easy political points. And 2) The movie could make the mistake of being too evasive in the interest of not offending anybody. One definite red flag for me was when I learned that the two secessionist states which were fighting against the U.S. government were California and Texas (whose politics are definitely on opposite sides of the spectrum if not necessarily the furthest ends). I hoped for the best from the film, but I was definitely bracing myself for a cop-out of the first order. As it turns out, I needn't have worried. First of all, I'll just say when I saw Alex Garland credited as writer/director in the trailer I relaxed a little bit, knowing that his were the best possible hands for a movie like this to be in. I hadn't seen any of his earlier directorial efforts, but I was a huge fan of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and Sunshine, which I knew he had written, so I had a good reason to be optimistic. And Garland quite expertly walked that tightrope and delivered a very moving, disquieting and compelling film with Civil War.
It should be said that although the trailer leads one to expect a big, full-on epic treatment of the theme of civil war in America, the film is actually a lot more intimate than that. The story specifically concerns itself with a trio of journalists and photographers who are traveling cross-country to Washington, D.C., in the hopes of getting an interview or a photograph with the president (Nick Offerman) - now in an unprecedented third term - before the collapse of the government. These media veterans are joined by a young woman with aspirations toward becoming a photographer herself. The relationship with the veteran war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and the younger woman Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) who idolizes her, is a very interesting one, and more or less provides the emotional backbone of the film. Because the hardened Lee has traveled around the world and seen all manner of horrifying things in the war zones she's covered, and consequently has become emotionally calloused, while the younger Jessie has to initially come to grips with all the terrible things the group comes across in their cross-country journey. There is very much a dynamic here similar to that of Naomie Harris' Selena and Cillian Murphy's Jim in 28 Days Later, in that the hardened older survivor is reluctant to have to take care of and give comfort to the younger character after experiencing the more disturbing and traumatic events. (And the similarities with 28 Days Later certainly don't end there, in my opinion. The distance between civil war and zombie apocalypse - excuse me, rage virus apocalypse - is not that far, at least for Garland.)
Although as I said, the film's preoccupations are more intimate and character-related, the film definitely possesses a sense of the large and the epic. It also doesn't skimp on action. There is a major action sequence at the end which deals with the siege of D.C., and it's definitely a doozy. And the quieter character-based scenes are quite often directly followed by a jump straight into a violent action scene involving loud gunfire. The jump from one to the other can be quite jarring and startling at times, so any viewer of the film would be strongly advised to brace themselves! And while Civil War really isn't terribly on the nose with matters relating to the current political scene, there is a very intense sequence involving a uniformed militia who are responsible for some sort of atrocity and are first shown dumping bodies into a mass grave and covering them with lye, and whose leader (an uncredited Jesse Plemons) threatens our heroes at gunpoint and demands to know what "kind" of Americans they are. (Believe me, this moment plays a lot less cute in the film than it does in the trailer!) The subtle implication is that although right-wing politicians may not have any genuine racist or nationalist beliefs themselves (assuming they believe in anything besides that which gives them the most votes), they implicitly rely on the aid and support of those who do. (BTW, when Plemons and his ultranationalist cohorts get their just desserts - no spoilers, so I won't say how it happens - I swear I haven't jumped out of my seat higher or pumped my fist into the air harder inside a movie theater since Toby Jones shot Marcia Gay Harden in Frank Darabont's 2007 film of Stephen King's The Mist!) Certainly the President in the movie, while certainly not specifically cast in the mould of Donald Trump, seems willing to do or say anything in order to hold onto what remains of his power. In the very first scene, in fact, the President is shown rehearsing and going over the words of a big political speech, mulling over their effectiveness while the camera editorally intercuts with images of violence and bloodshed on the nation's streets outside. The empathetic disconnect between the ambitions of people in power and the consequences of their actions and policies is thus made obvious right from the jump. And ultimately, it's the issue of empathy that Civil War is primarily concerned with, not politics. There's also a great scene where our group stops into an idyllic small town that seemingly hasn't been touched by the conflict. They ask a clerk in a clothing store if she is aware of what's going on in the world outside. She replies that she feels like it would be the best thing to just keep one's head down and not get involved. And although the trailer makes a humorous moment out of this line, making the young woman seem insensitive and clueless, it plays much differently in the actual movie. We actually find ourselves sympathizing with her, probably feeling like, yeah, if the s*** really hit the fan and under similar circumstances, most of us would probably want to keep our heads down and wait for the storm to pass.
Like I said, I won't give any spoilers, but the ending of the movie - although upbeat to a certain extent - is quite disquieting in the extreme. By the end of the film, the young Jessie has definitely gotten into the swing of things and is throwing herself into her role as junior war photographer. And the very last shot of the film is a still image of one of her photographs. In a sense, she has become the older Lee at this point, or at least is well on her way. And that very last image - while representing a victory of sorts - raises a lot of disturbing questions and potentially makes us feel slightly complicit in what's gone on before. Does this represent the ultimate failure of empathy? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not your usual "happy ending." It will certainly linger on in the viewer's mind long after the film has ended, and to me that is the ultimate acid test of any work of cinema that hopes to make a long-term impact.
Good soundtrack, too. Very effective use is made of the music of '70s alt-rock legends Suicide, in particular Rocket U.S.A. and Dream Baby Dream.
Recommendations? Certainly for Monkey Man and definitely for Civil War.
And as far as Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and The First Omen are concerned? Well... If you absolutely, positively must see every single entry within those franchises, then yeah, sure! But I certainly wouldn't consider them the best of those particular series.
APRIL 9, 2024:
Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire (Adam Wingard / 2024)
The First Omen (Arkasha Stevenson / 2024)
APRIL 16, 2024:
Monkey Man (Dev Patel / 2024)
Civil War (Alex Garland / 2024)
Well! So much to unpack... so little time! But hey, I'll give it a shot...
My little monster mash last Tuesday was nothing much to write about. Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire is the latest FX bonanza to feature a lot of CG behemoths flailing about and knocking each other into next Tuesday (see what I did there?
), ultimately to little or no avail. I wouldn't quite make a claim of this being just a whole lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. But it amounts to a paltry minimum. Just color me very underwhelmed. I'm also sick and tired of seeing all these movies in which monsters or superbeings throw each other about and smash each other into buildings - y'know, big tall edifices of steel and glass in which people live and work in, for God's sake! I mean, does this not enter into the screenwriters' or the director's or the FX wizards' minds - at all?? Or do we just simply shrug it off and regard all those poor smashed-up people as mere collateral damage? Simply just necessary sacrifices to the spectacle? Or am I simply just overreacting like crazy? Well... perhaps. But my dissatisfaction remains regardless. I can trace the very first time I started to feel uneasy about mass destruction as cinematic spectacle to my very first viewing of Roland Emmerich's Independence Day back in 1996. (Before the horrors of September 11, 2001, take note.) Back then, I sort of shrugged off my humanist discontent as being inapplicable to any sort of valid criticism of a summer blockbuster, but later developments - or should I say degenerations - within the creative side of this kind of FX-laden cinematic spectacular filmmaking over the years have borne out those discontents. Hey, that's just how I feel. Deal with it...The horror prequel The First Omen, on the other hand, was actually halfway decent. At least it was better than the 2006 remake of the 1976 original! But that's not really saying all that much. Of course I was immediately reminded of the recent Immaculate (which I had just seen the week before on April 2), in that both films deal with the diabolically-inspired pregnancy of a nun instigated by fanatical extremist elements within the Catholic Church. Admittedly, that's something of a new and "provocative" wrinkle within the Omen franchise. (I put "provocative" in scare quotes because trying to do or say anything casting the Church in a sinister light has become a rather tired cliché at this point. Not without justification to some extent, but a cliché just the same.) It's also worth noting how much of a '70s Euro-horror vibe has started to creep into the Hollywood satanic-horror genre. I already pointed out the similarities to the work of Argento in my recent review of Immaculate (y'know, the little American lamb abroad in decadent Europe and discovering scary things happening, a la Suspiria or Phenomena). And once it's time for our little infant anti-Christ to finally enter the world, our much put-upon heroine (in this case played by Nell Tiger Free) starts to manifest symptoms that immediately made me think, "No, wait a minute. That can't be, she can't... is she really...? Yes! Holy s***, she is actually channeling Isabelle Adjani in 1981's Possession!"
(BTW, if you've seen that Andrzej Zulawski cult classic, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about!) So ultimately, it comes down to... is The First Omen actually any good? Well... it's not awful, mind you. And it's actually a couple notches above Immaculate. But that's not really saying a heck of a lot overall, is it? So I guess I can rank nun-themed horror movies alongside big glossy Japan-originated monster mash-ups as things which are pretty well played out for me.Dev Patel's Monkey Man, on the other hand, is really something else! Yes, it's basically one of those one-man army Revenge-O-Matic action thrillers that - just like giant monster mash-ups and diabolically-impregnated nuns - have proliferated like piranha fish over the years. But this one has got a number of interesting wrinkles to it. Set in modern India, it has interesting spiritual and mythological themes, as well as a left-leaning political slant. Our hero (played by Patel) is out to avenge the rape and murder of his mother at the hands of a corrupt police chief who has forced out the inhabitants of their village in order to acquire the land for the benefit of corrupt spiritual guru. Many years later, our hero is working as a monkey-masked fighter in a boxing club where is paid to lose, and eventually he infiltrates a luxury brothel frequented by the aforementioned police chief. But when his assassination attempt goes awry, he has to fight his way out of the building, getting shot by the police and narrowly escaping death and/or arrest. He is eventually nursed back to health by the priest of a temple belonging to the oft-persecuted transgender community, or hijara. After taking an hallucinogenic drug to confront the trauma of the memory of his mother's death and physically training himself, he resumes his mission of vengeance, fighting not only to avenge his mother but also for the nation's downtrodden and disenfranchised.
Co-produced by Jordan Peele, and with Dev Patel performing double duty as action man hero and director (now that's stamina!), Monkey Man can perhaps be compared with the films of the John Wick franchise for its flamboyantly hyper-kinetic ultraviolence, but it also deals with themes of political corruption, poverty and discrimination. It's definitely the only film I've seen in which towards the end, a group of transgender female warriors (the aforementioned hijara) shows up to aid the outnumbered hero in his time of need and help kick the crap out of a well-trained goon squad! Also, while definitely being a very violent movie, Monkey Man is not exclusively masculinist in its concerns. It has a definite sympathy with the underclass, with women and with social minorities. If that's too "woke" for some people, so be it. But the film can hardly be considered preachy in its execution, and in terms of sheer visceral kick it has few competitors in contemporary action cinema. Y'know, if anything, I felt slightly alienated by the aforementioned John Wick films' violent sequences because they were perhaps a bit too clinical and clean in their execution. (I've only seen the first three on Blu-ray, but then only once. I haven't rewatched them.) On the other hand, Monkey Man's violence, while excessive, is ultimately redeemed by its sense of pain and trauma. In other words, it's messy. But then, so always is the fight for social justice.
When I first saw the trailer for the new Civil War, my first reaction was, This is a rather cool and timely idea for a film in 2024. My second reaction, on the other hand, was that of, This is something that can quite easily go wrong in so many ways!. Or rather, specifically I was thinking of two ways: 1) The movie could make the mistake of taking cheap shots at the current election-year situation in order to score easy political points. And 2) The movie could make the mistake of being too evasive in the interest of not offending anybody. One definite red flag for me was when I learned that the two secessionist states which were fighting against the U.S. government were California and Texas (whose politics are definitely on opposite sides of the spectrum if not necessarily the furthest ends). I hoped for the best from the film, but I was definitely bracing myself for a cop-out of the first order. As it turns out, I needn't have worried. First of all, I'll just say when I saw Alex Garland credited as writer/director in the trailer I relaxed a little bit, knowing that his were the best possible hands for a movie like this to be in. I hadn't seen any of his earlier directorial efforts, but I was a huge fan of Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later and Sunshine, which I knew he had written, so I had a good reason to be optimistic. And Garland quite expertly walked that tightrope and delivered a very moving, disquieting and compelling film with Civil War.
It should be said that although the trailer leads one to expect a big, full-on epic treatment of the theme of civil war in America, the film is actually a lot more intimate than that. The story specifically concerns itself with a trio of journalists and photographers who are traveling cross-country to Washington, D.C., in the hopes of getting an interview or a photograph with the president (Nick Offerman) - now in an unprecedented third term - before the collapse of the government. These media veterans are joined by a young woman with aspirations toward becoming a photographer herself. The relationship with the veteran war photographer Lee (Kirsten Dunst) and the younger woman Jessie (Cailee Spaeny) who idolizes her, is a very interesting one, and more or less provides the emotional backbone of the film. Because the hardened Lee has traveled around the world and seen all manner of horrifying things in the war zones she's covered, and consequently has become emotionally calloused, while the younger Jessie has to initially come to grips with all the terrible things the group comes across in their cross-country journey. There is very much a dynamic here similar to that of Naomie Harris' Selena and Cillian Murphy's Jim in 28 Days Later, in that the hardened older survivor is reluctant to have to take care of and give comfort to the younger character after experiencing the more disturbing and traumatic events. (And the similarities with 28 Days Later certainly don't end there, in my opinion. The distance between civil war and zombie apocalypse - excuse me, rage virus apocalypse - is not that far, at least for Garland.)
Although as I said, the film's preoccupations are more intimate and character-related, the film definitely possesses a sense of the large and the epic. It also doesn't skimp on action. There is a major action sequence at the end which deals with the siege of D.C., and it's definitely a doozy. And the quieter character-based scenes are quite often directly followed by a jump straight into a violent action scene involving loud gunfire. The jump from one to the other can be quite jarring and startling at times, so any viewer of the film would be strongly advised to brace themselves! And while Civil War really isn't terribly on the nose with matters relating to the current political scene, there is a very intense sequence involving a uniformed militia who are responsible for some sort of atrocity and are first shown dumping bodies into a mass grave and covering them with lye, and whose leader (an uncredited Jesse Plemons) threatens our heroes at gunpoint and demands to know what "kind" of Americans they are. (Believe me, this moment plays a lot less cute in the film than it does in the trailer!) The subtle implication is that although right-wing politicians may not have any genuine racist or nationalist beliefs themselves (assuming they believe in anything besides that which gives them the most votes), they implicitly rely on the aid and support of those who do. (BTW, when Plemons and his ultranationalist cohorts get their just desserts - no spoilers, so I won't say how it happens - I swear I haven't jumped out of my seat higher or pumped my fist into the air harder inside a movie theater since Toby Jones shot Marcia Gay Harden in Frank Darabont's 2007 film of Stephen King's The Mist!) Certainly the President in the movie, while certainly not specifically cast in the mould of Donald Trump, seems willing to do or say anything in order to hold onto what remains of his power. In the very first scene, in fact, the President is shown rehearsing and going over the words of a big political speech, mulling over their effectiveness while the camera editorally intercuts with images of violence and bloodshed on the nation's streets outside. The empathetic disconnect between the ambitions of people in power and the consequences of their actions and policies is thus made obvious right from the jump. And ultimately, it's the issue of empathy that Civil War is primarily concerned with, not politics. There's also a great scene where our group stops into an idyllic small town that seemingly hasn't been touched by the conflict. They ask a clerk in a clothing store if she is aware of what's going on in the world outside. She replies that she feels like it would be the best thing to just keep one's head down and not get involved. And although the trailer makes a humorous moment out of this line, making the young woman seem insensitive and clueless, it plays much differently in the actual movie. We actually find ourselves sympathizing with her, probably feeling like, yeah, if the s*** really hit the fan and under similar circumstances, most of us would probably want to keep our heads down and wait for the storm to pass.
Like I said, I won't give any spoilers, but the ending of the movie - although upbeat to a certain extent - is quite disquieting in the extreme. By the end of the film, the young Jessie has definitely gotten into the swing of things and is throwing herself into her role as junior war photographer. And the very last shot of the film is a still image of one of her photographs. In a sense, she has become the older Lee at this point, or at least is well on her way. And that very last image - while representing a victory of sorts - raises a lot of disturbing questions and potentially makes us feel slightly complicit in what's gone on before. Does this represent the ultimate failure of empathy? I'm not sure, but it's definitely not your usual "happy ending." It will certainly linger on in the viewer's mind long after the film has ended, and to me that is the ultimate acid test of any work of cinema that hopes to make a long-term impact.
Good soundtrack, too. Very effective use is made of the music of '70s alt-rock legends Suicide, in particular Rocket U.S.A. and Dream Baby Dream.
Recommendations? Certainly for Monkey Man and definitely for Civil War.
And as far as Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire and The First Omen are concerned? Well... If you absolutely, positively must see every single entry within those franchises, then yeah, sure! But I certainly wouldn't consider them the best of those particular series.
__________________
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid." - Clint Eastwood as The Stranger, High Plains Drifter (1973)
"It's what people know about themselves inside that makes 'em afraid." - Clint Eastwood as The Stranger, High Plains Drifter (1973)
X
Favorite Movies
Not a movie but a series on netflix.
Baby Reindeer
One of the best things I have ever watched.
It is so much but biggest themes I may take away are of empathy, mental illness, sexuality and it is so masterfully done I am in awe. A deeply resonating human story that will have you wanting to laugh at times if you jaw were not on the floor
Incredibly written, produced and starred in by Richard Gadd based on his real life experience of being stalked
I damn near broke down on the final episode. I didn't so much watch this, it watched me.
Baby Reindeer
One of the best things I have ever watched.
It is so much but biggest themes I may take away are of empathy, mental illness, sexuality and it is so masterfully done I am in awe. A deeply resonating human story that will have you wanting to laugh at times if you jaw were not on the floor
Incredibly written, produced and starred in by Richard Gadd based on his real life experience of being stalked
I damn near broke down on the final episode. I didn't so much watch this, it watched me.
X
Favorite Movies
|
|