The Great Race

Directed by: Blake Edwards

Written by: Arthur A. Ross (story, screenplay); Blake Edwards (story)










"The Great Race" is a classic slapstick and absurd comedy about a long-distance car race.  (Basically, the premise of any race film.)

The movie is a bit long for its own good, though it does have some great scenes floating around often enough to keep it interesting enough to watch. Apparently, the pie fight sequence is one of the largest ever in film (though I'm not sure exactly how that would be measured), and it is worth catching at some point.

Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon do their usual comedy thing. I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter Falk in the almost-silent part of the bumbling evil-doer sidekick.

Shadows

Written and Directed by: John Cassavetes












I watched this movie back in the spring, and I've spent a long time mulling over exactly what I thought about it.

It's a good movie, plain and simple.

The improvised style is a little rough at points, demanding a little more attention and focus from the audience.

That's about it. I admit - a few months later, it's hard for me to remember much detail.

My Left Foot

Directed by: Jim Sheridan

Written by: Shane Connaughton, Jim Sheridan (screenplay); Christy Brown (book)








"My Left Foot" tells the story of Christy Brown, a young man from Ireland born with cerebral paulsy. His left foot, from which the title is derived, is the only part of his body which he can control. He is smart and creative, but is often written off because he is trapped within his body's limitations.

Daniel Day-Lewis once again brings his "A game" and brings Christy to life for the film. It's well worth watching the film for his performance.

Beyond him, though, it's a really compelling and interesting story.

Glengarry Glen Ross

Directed by: James Foley

Written by: David Mamet (play and screenplay)










This movie is, ostensibly, about the pressures of real estate sales.

David Mamet's script is fantastic. The screenplay holds a little too closely to the original play format (most of the scenes taking place in one room, lots of talking), but the dialogue is sharp and the story is compelling enough to allow the audience to overlook that limitation.

The acting consists of some of the finest performances ever put in the same film ever. Alec Baldwin's part is small and he only appears in one scene, but he is hard to forget. Jack Lemmon manages to make his character absolutely pathetic. Ed Harris makes his character's desperation real and tangible.

I'd have never thought that the world of real estate sales could be so emotionally powerful. But "Glengarry Glen Ross" changed all that.

Watchmen (Director's Cut)

Directed by: Zach Snyder

Written by: Alan Moore, Dave Gibbons (graphic novel - writer and illustrator, respectively); David Hayter, Alex Tse (screenplay)









To start, I'm a huge fan of the original "Watchmen" graphic novel, and was very excited when I heard a movie was in production. I struggled to wrap my mind how they were going to adapt the complex narrative structure and visual dynamics into a linear film.

The truth was, they didn't. They distilled the story down to the core plot, removing most of the flashbacks and the "Tales of the Black Freighter" story-in-a-story. Still, what was left was still a pretty decent adaptation, though it was a very loose adaptation. Some elements are almost shot-for-shot reproductions, while others were changed significantly.  (The most noticeable item that was removed was the fake giant alien squid invasion at the end, and I was rather bummed that it was changed.)

The acting in "Watchmen" is mostly not great. Most of the characters come off as cardboard. This is a major hinderance to the enjoyment of the film because it drags it down too often. At points, it felt like some of the actors were reading their lines without understanding why they were saying what they were saying. In retrospect, though, they were not given the greatest script to work with, focused too much on visuals and recreating dialogue that was written to be said by characters on a page.

This movie has grown on me more, as I've reflected on it. But the director's cut is far too long to enjoy, and it has too many flaws to ignore without much running in its favor. It is not, by any means, a comic book / superhero movie acceptable for children. And I wouldn't recommend watching it without any familiarity with the original source material.

Superman II (The Richard Donner Cut)

Directed by: Richard Donner, Richard Lester

Written by: Mario Puzo (story and screenplay), David Newman (screenplay), Leslie Newman (screenplay)


There's a lot of history and controversy  regarding the multiple versions of "Superman II." The version I watched for this review is the "Richard Donner Cut," which more closely aligns with the original vision for the film. The original theatrical release had two directors due to some conflict between Donner (who directed the first movie) and the producers.

Overall, it's a pretty straight forward superhero flick. Very enjoyable. I've never seen the "theatrical" cut of the film, so I can't make a direct comparison.

I was surprised by the amount of emotional turmoil that Superman experiences in this film. He's torn between his love for Lois Lane and the powers he was given. This tension gives Superman a much deeper and more complex personality, often missing from most superhero stories.

Guarding Tess

Directed by: Hugh Wilson

Written by: Hugh Wilson, Pj Torokvei










I remember my parents watching this movie, and at some point it made its way on to my DVD lists and crawled its way to the top of the pile.

Nicholas Cage performs well as Agent Chesnic, who has been assigned to protect former first lady Tess Carlisle (MacLaine) because he is one of the few people who can tolerate her. He manages to put up with her fussy, formal manner, while ostensibly keeping her safe. Not everyone is as honorable as Agent Chesnic, though.

The two main stars - Cage and MacLaine - do very well in their parts. Cage is charming and awkward, but genuine and heartfelt. MacLaine is believable in her part, bringing the fictional first lady to life. The supporting cast also does a great job, though they are slightly hindered by a script which limits their roles.

Despite the actors charms, the plot is relatively thin, focusing mainly on character interactions (and the antics that ensue) for the first half of the film, and the dramatic action developing only near the end. That action, though, is quite memorable. In fact, it was a vague recollection of the big twist which stood out in my mind and made me want to watch the movie at all.

Overall, a charming movie, but not necessarily essential viewing.

Field of Dreams

Directed by: Phil Alden Robinson

Written by: W.P. Kinsella (book); Phil Alden Robinson (screenplay)










"Field of Dreams" is a film about baseball and yet not about baseball. It is, instead, about the things that tie one generation of Americans to the previous and the next. Baseball is merely the medium the film uses to discuss this theme.

Kevin Costner shines in this film (which, I hate to say, he rarely does). He brings the confusion and anguish of Ray Kinsella to life. His supporting cast does a great job, too. James Earl Jones as Terrence Mann steals every scene he is in and plays well off Costner. (And, as a brief side note, the Mann character was modeled after J.D. Salinger, but he threatened to sue, and so the character was altered enough to avoid litigation.) Burt Lancaster plays one of the most memorable characters and manages to navigate the emotional climax of the film.

Baseball serves as the backdrop to the story, but runs like a red seam through the entire film. I wouldn't categorize this as a sports film, though. It's a story, more, about family. It's about the search for history and the resolution of dreams left unfulfilled.

This is, by far, one of my favorite movies, and the end nearly brings me to tears every time I see it.

The Maltese Falcon

Directed by: John Huston

Written by: John Huston (screenplay); Dashiell Hammett (novel)










"The Maltese Falcon" stands as one of the essential and archetypal P.I. films. When parodies of private detectives arise in pop culture - the Prairie Home Companion segment "Guy Noir" comes to mind - it is usually based on this (and a bit of Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe as well).

Beyond it's place as a cultural touchstone, "The Maltese Falcon" is still a pretty good film as well.

The story surrounds every character doing whatever they can - including murder - to acquire the priceless statue named in the title. Detective Sam Spade (Bogart) gets drawn into drama when his partner is killed. From there it is a game of cat and mouse, lies and half-truths until the location and possession of the statue is resolved (with one final twist I won't give away here).

The plot development is a bit rough at points, as characters lie and mislead each other as well as the audience. This can be frustrating, but ultimately everything is resolved and explained. It's a fun ride, though, and well worth watching.

Casablanca

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Screenplay written by: Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein, Howard Koch

Play written by: Murray Burnett, Joan Alison








Where do I even start with this movie? If I were forced to make a list of all-time great movies, this one would have to lead the list. It is nearly perfect in every way, and I can't say how many times I've watched it. No matter how many times I watch it, though, I'm still surprised by little details here and there. I've seen it on TV, VHS, DVD, and in multiple theaters (and I'm working on convincing myself that I need the Blu-Ray edition, as well). It is as entrenched in my heart as it is in the culture.

This film is the essential performance by Humphrey Bogart. His presence dominates the movie from beginning to end. He is at times brash, witty, quiet, bossy, contemplative, humorous, romantic, and heartless - all over the course of an hour and forty-two minutes. It is impossible for me to imagine this film with anyone else in the lead, despite stories that he was not the first choice.

The rest of the cast is just as great as Bogart. Ingrid Bergman exposes her character's tortured heart through her eyes and a the pitch of her voice. Claude Rains establishes his Captain Renault as one of the slimiest, most corrupt police officials ever. Even Peter Lorre's brief lines are enough for him to make his character powerful and sympathetic.

With repeat viewings, some of the subtlety of Michael Curtiz's direction has revealed itself as just as important as the performances. For example, when we first meet our protagonist, the audience sees his hands first - holding a cigarette, playing chess, and signing a check. This first moment, before we ever see his face or hear his voice, establishes Rick as a man in control of many things at once - which will play out over the course of the film.  Later, the tension between the characters is drawn out until a flashback sequence (which I usually despise) fills in some of the gaps, while also leaving enough unexplained to keep the audience paying attention.

See this movie.  See it now.

Charly

Directed by: Ralph Nelson

Written by: Daniel Keyes (novel); Stirling Silliphant (screenplay)









I was channel surfing a while back when I stumbled across this film adaptation of "Flowers for Algernon" about to begin. I wasn't aware that there had ever been a movie made, and for whatever reason, I was drawn to watch it from beginning to end.

It's a mostly-faithful adaptation of the novel (at least, as far as I remember the novel), with a little more focus on the romantic element (again, from what I remember).

Cliff Robertson's performance is outstanding, handling a complex character very delicately and respectfully. It would have been very easy to over-play the part or become a ham, but he did not fall into those traps. This would be the main reason to watch the film.

The Bad News Bears

Directed by: Michael Ritchie

Written by: Bill Lancaster










I was channel surfing a while back when I stumbled upon this movie airing on the MLB Network channel.  I'd seen the re-make several times, but hadn't stopped to watch the original since I was a kid.

The film is remarkably still very strong, and manages to avoid dating itself.  Matthau plays the lovable loser coaching a whole team of lovable losers.  The kids, led by Tatum O'Neal, give the film its weight and momentum and feeling.

What gives the film such standing, I feel, is that it manages to have heart, without resorting to the standard Hollywood corn or cheese.  You care about the kids, but not because they prey upon your sympathies.  Instead, they feel like real human beings.  By the end of the movie, you're rooting for them without necessarily being told to.  It's fascinating the way that was handled.

I'd love to watch the original and the re-make back-to-back.  For now, though, I highly recommend the original.

The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens (screenplay)









When it comes to telling a massive story, adding up to over nine hours (or more) total, your payoff better be huge.  "Return of the King" pays off for all the waiting and wandering of the characters and the audience.

All of the pieces that were set in motion in the first movie (several, several hours ago in film time) move toward their final resolution.  This is no easy task, considering the long list of major and semi-major characters that have been built up.  The "extended edition" I watched had even more scenes added to the climax and resolution.

As a quick side note: the "Mouth of Sauron" scene that was included in this version of the film was exactly as I imagined it when I read the book.  I was originally disappointed that it did not make the final cut in the theatrical version, but is well worth watching if you can get a copy of this cut.

The biggest complain I've heard about this movie is about all the fake-out ending moments - scenes where it seems like everything is wrapped-up and done and the screen fades away, only to fade-in a few moments later with another scene.  I'll admit, these scenes were not handled as well as they could have been, made  more complicated by the seemingly-final transitions.  As a counter-point, I'd say that if you were willing to sit through the entire series up to this point, you should understand that the film or the series is not going to end with a simple fade-out.  It's an epic, and it needs resolution.  We've journeyed with these characters so far, we need to find out what happens to them all, or the story will remain incomplete.

On the whole, "Return of the King" had the grandest scale of the series, giving it a greater sense of "epic" than the previous two.  ("Fellowship" was more of a simple quest. "Two Towers" did not gain any real scale until the final battle sequence.)  The massive battle sequence will be tough to match in future fantasy films, and should rightly be the standard to which all others are compared.

This film, and the rest of the series, are well worth watching.

Harold and Maude (Revisited)

I've seen this movie many, many times.  I'm pretty sure I've already written about it at least twice.

Rather than add any more here, I'll just recommend you see it.

Psycho

Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock

Written by: Joseph Stefano (screenplay); Robert Bloch (novel)










If there is an iconic horror/slasher film, this is it.  I'm glad my local theater decided to run it as part of their "Classic Film Wednesday" series.

I hadn't seen the movie since high school, so some of the shocks and twists still felt new.

That's the key for this film: It still seems new.  The styles and effects may have changed since it was made, but the tension and mood is still top-notch.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who says they "like movies."

Pulp Fiction

Directed by: Quentin Tarantino

Written by: Quentin Tarantino (screenplay, story), Roger Avary (story)










"Pulp Fiction" is a film that stands in a class of its own.  It's bloody.  It's violent.  It's crude.  And it's great.

What's most surprising to me is that "Pulp Fiction" only represents Tarantino's sophomore effort.  By his second film, he's already showing an incredible ability to synthesize influences to create an entirely new piece.  (He will repeat this process with martial arts films in "Kill Bill" and war films in "Inglorious Basterds.)

The complexity of the story sequencing is something that stands out no matter how many times I've seen it.  Each of the stories could theoretically stand alone, but is also critically connected to the other parts.  Almost like a house of cards, each part leans on the others to stand up, and it works incredibly well.  Other movies have been made since with a similar structure, but none with nearly as much finesse and artistry as "Pulp Fiction."

Man in the Sand

Directed by: Kim Hopkins

Woody Gurthrie died long before any artist with an instrument could become a recording artist in their own living room.  As a result, many of his songs went unrecorded; the only record, a few lyrics scribbled or typed on random paper.  Billy Bragg and the band Wilco were granted access to these previously unpublished and unrecorded songs.

"Man in the Sand" documents the development and recording of the "Mermaid Avenue"album, including following Billy Bragg as he traces the footsteps of the different phases of Guthrie's life.  It also shows the different priorities of the artists, and the tensions that arose between them as the album moved toward its final form.

It's a neat little film, but not worth watching if you haven't heard the album.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Stephen Sinclair (screenplay)









Being the second part of "The Lord of the Rings"...

When we left off, Frodo and Sam were headed off towards the dark land of Mordor while the rest of the fellowship had been battling orcs and heading to Gondor.  This film picks up almost exactly where the first part left off.

This nature of the story requires that the film follow two distinct stories: that of Frodo and Sam, and that of the rest of the group.  Although the balance is not perfect, the two stories alternate often enough to keep either story from slowing down the pace.

"The Two Towers" does not take great advantage of its sequel status to take on new ground.  Instead, it feels as if it begins and ends rather arbitrarily.  (Compared to, say, "The Empire Strikes Back," which takes advantage of previously established characters to trampoline into a more complex story.)

What does stand out about "The Two Towers" is the epic scene encompassing the battle of Helms Deep, which makes the entire movie worth watching from beginning to end.  The battles of the first movie were rather small in scale.  The Helms Deep sequence is large and loud and chaotic, as all great fantasy battles should be.

The only character who really grows or develops in this segment is Aragorn (Mortensen), and his arc is clear.  Most of the other folks are pretty static to the point of their development being nearly irrelevant.  This lack of development may be a part of why this movie does not stand out from the rest of the series.

You can't watch "The Two Towers" without seeing "The Fellowship of the Ring" first, or following it up with "The Return of the King."  It is more of an episode than a separate film.

I can't remember anything specific standing out in the "Extended Edition" which was not part of the original theatrical cut, so I'll refrain from commenting on anything like that.

Skyfall

Directed by: Sam Mendes

Written by: Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, John Logan







Is this it?  Is this the film that finally elevates James Bond from mere genre flick to, perhaps, maybe, actual film?  My conclusion: maybe.

The third installment in the Daniel Craig iteration as 007 separates itself from the first two (2006's "Casino Royale" and 2008's "Quantum of Solace") while simultaneously establishing more connections to the earlier Bond worlds (the introduction and modernization of Q, for example).

Let's get straight to my point, though.  This film has a lot more depth to it than most of the other Bond films.  The characters actually have flaws!  And backgrounds! Oh my!  One of the hallmarks of everything Bond before "Skyfall"was the lack of background - as if nothing really existed before the moment the film began.  Even one of Bond's most significant moments - the death of his wife in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" - is all but ignored in every other movie in the series.  This is the first movie (beyond a few casual references in "Casino Royale") that James Bond was once a little boy.

Suddenly, Bond is grounded in reality!  Not only that, but he's actually lost a step or two (because of a minor plot point I'd rather not spoil here), and maybe isn't quite the agent he once was.  He makes mistakes - major ones - which have ramifications throughout the whole movie.  He's much more human than usual - almost weak - though he still kicks butt.

Mendes and the writers build into the story some recurring themes which help lift this film beyond the drudge of mere genre action.  For example, every character is dealing with some major setback in their past - Bond, M, Eve, Silva (the villain) - which has thrust itself into their present lives.  To overcome the drama of the present, though, they must confront and explore their pasts.  This element leads to one of the most significant revelations about Bond's past - a visit to his childhood home named... Well... You'll have to see that for yourself.

There is also the recurring element of betrayal. Or, at least, actions which could easily be interpreted as betrayal.  A significant portion of the film is spent with characters betraying each other, apologizing for betrayal, justifying betrayal, or recovering from betrayal.  And all of it is rich and subtle and deep, except for the blatant symbolism at the climax of the film - a literal knife in the back - but I'll forgive them that.

So, the usual question that follows all this is "Where does 'Skyfall' land in the pantheon of Bond?"  A lot of critics (especially the type quoted in advertisements) claim it's the best Bond film ever.  Personally, I'm not a huge fan of "ranking" things, but much prefer categorization.  Anyway, I would definitely list it in the same category as the other elite Bond movies.  Well done!

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended Edition)

Directed by: Peter Jackson

Written by: J.R.R. Tolkien (book); Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens (screenplay)









Being the first part of "The Lord of the Rings"...

Peter Jackson was ambitious enough to take on Tolkien's much-loved epic "The Lord of the Rings," and darned if he didn't get it right.  He was so ambitious, in fact, that he had to shorten the film for theatrical and release the "Extended Edition" later.

Middle-Earth comes to life in this first part of the trilogy.  We are quickly, but thoroughly, introduced to a brief history of the ring, and then set about on our journey.  The great design in the way Jackson presents "The Fellowship of the Ring" is that we are essentially bound to Frodo Baggins.  Both Frodo and the audience have little experience in the world of Middle-Earth, and so as he goes forth on his adventure, we go with him.  We learn and experience the world as he learns and experiences the world.  There are only a handful of scenes that do not center on Frodo.

For those looking for loyalty to the text of the book - word-for-word - you will not find it here.  But Jackson does a good job of axing out some of the unnecessary sequences, morphing some characters and sequences for cinematic effect, all while staying true to the spirit of Tolkien's book.  (My only regret is that Tom Bombadil never made an appearance, even as a passing reference, in any of the versions.)

There are a million summaries out on the internet, as well as the source book which, ideally, should always be read before viewing the film, so I will not waste your time with all that here.

I do want to make a quick comment on Howard Shore's amazing score.  After the casting (which I may touch on in a later post), I firmly believe that the background score is what made the film so memorable.  It is, when it needs to be, large and epic.  It is, when it needs to be, mysterious and dark.  It is, when it needs to be, folksy and simple.  The recurring musical motifs help to tie together this film to the others in the trilogy, while never stopping to become anthemic or cliche.

Lastly, the Blu-Ray transfer is pretty fantastic, and so I highly recommend it.

Craigslist Joe

Directed by: Joseph Garner












The central question of the documentary "Craigslist Joe" is simple: Can a person survive an entire month using only the kindness of strangers via Craigslist?  Starting from that point, Joseph Garner sets out to discover what "community" means in 21st century America.  Leaving behind his entire life, he hits the road with whoever will drive him and stays where anyone has an extra room available.

"Craigslist Joe" was interesting, though I'm afraid I'm not sure it made a point.  (Perhaps I wasn't paying enough attention?)  Ostensibly, the filmmaker is attempting to find "community," but rather than providing an answer, the film meanders around the country, providing brief glimpses into the lives of those who are generous enough to post on Craigslist.

I found the movie interesting, but flawed.  It didn't seem to have a point, and felt more like a video diary than a real documentary.  (So, maybe that's where I'm missing the bigger picture?)  Still, it's a interesting look into modern life and the many paths that are opened through the internet.

American Gods

Written by: Neil Gaiman












I went into this book with pretty high expectations ("The Graveyard Book" is one of my all-time favorite books), and these expectations may have actually gotten in the way of my enjoyment of the book.  I'm not saying "American Gods" is bad - it's quite good - but it doesn't live up to my ultra-high expectations for a Neil Gaiman book.  It felt, at points, like a one-trick-pony, or a novella that became a bit bloated out of control.  (Ironically, I just found out there is apparently an expanded "Author's Preferred Text" with some significant additions.  Perhaps these are the missing pieces which bring the whole novel together?)

Hitchcock

Directed by: Sacha Gervasi

Written by: John J. McLaughlin (screenplay); Stephen Rebello (book)










I'm not sure how accurate this film is, in terms of historical veracity.  It is at least entertaining, as it tells the story of how Alfred Hitchcock came to make his landmark movie "Psycho."  The storytelling is a bit clunky at points, and it could have probably used a little more editing focus (a few subplots disappear or fall flat), but it definitely has its charms.  There are a lot of interesting shots of someone looking in on someone else, which obviously references the element in "Psycho," but also raises a lot of questions about the nature of making a film (not to mention suggesting something important about those of us who watch them).

Sleepwalk With Me

Directed by: Mike Birbiglia, Seth Barrish

Written by: Mike Birbiglia, Joe Birbiglia, Ira Glass, Seth Barrish












I've heard this story once or twice on "This American Life," and it's a very interesting story. Essentially, a sleepwalking disorder and a quest to become a comedian help Mike learn some important life lessons. Unfortunately, aside from a few funny scenes, it didn't really translate into the film medium as much as I had hoped.  It may be worth watching if the story is new to you, but there isn't much added in the film that isn't already available elsewhere.

Darth Paper Strikes Back

Written by: Tom Angleberger












In this second book of the "Origami Yoda" series, a villainous Darth Paper shows up to wreak havoc with the Origami Yoda universe.  Not quite as charming as the first book, but at least a fitting sequel.

Lincoln

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Tony Kushner (screenplay); Doris Kearns Goodwin (book - "Team of Rivals)









Abraham Lincoln is such a massive figure in American history, that it's hard to believe that any one movie could reasonably define him.  Of course, only Steven Spielberg could even reasonably attempt a movie of this scale.  And, for the most part, he was pretty successful.

Part of the film's success lies in its relativey limited scope.  "Lincoln" only shows the president at the peak of his leadership, nearing the end of the Civil War while he is trying to have the 14th Amendment passed and ratified.

Daniel Day-Lewis somehow becomes Lincoln (or, at least, how I always imagined him to be), but great performances are pretty much expected from him.

The Strange Case of Origami Yoda

Written by: Tom Angleberger












"The Strange Case of the Origami Yoda" compiles a "case file" proving the wisdom of a paper Yoda.  (And that makes even less sense than when I planned it in my head, but bear with me.)  It's a fun young-adult book, well worth reading and crammed with enough Star Wars references to choke a wookie.

The Game

Directed by: David Fincher

Written by: John D. Brancato, Michael Ferris










This film is a plot twist within a plot twist, a reveal within a reveal.  Its a bit clunky at a few points, close to stalling on itself, but picks back up again a few beats later.  The acting isn't terribly remarkable, but the film is carried mostly by its story.  The last twenty minutes of the movie make some of the earlier sluggish scenes worth the slogging.

Quick Note

I'm using the New Year's Day holiday to catch up a bit and start the year off fresh.

Anything posted today (from "The Crucible" to anything else I can get through) may be shorter and shallower than usual.  I simply don't have the time for reflection on these that I usually do.  Please keep that in mind.

The Grapes of Wrath

Written by: John Steinbeck












Easily one of the greatest and most important novels ever written.  If you haven't read it yet, there's not much I can add hear that would be meaningful.  You need to experience if yourself.