Change Your Image
3s2m
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Disneyland: The Mouseketeer Reunion (1980)
Whither Tommy Kirk?
While it's wonderful that Walt Disney Productions was able to invite as many of the original Mouseketeers as they could, this otherwise charming, nostalgic special was inarguably marred by the absence of one of the studio's biggest stars of the late Walt-era: Tommy Kirk.
According to the book "Tinker Belles and Evil Queens: The Walt Disney Company from the Inside Out," by Sean Griffin, Kirk had already kicked drugs and retired from show business, now working in a cleaning and upholstery firm. Though the book implies he was in the special, it isn't true. But the reason for that, along with an inaccurate statement that all this happened in 1984, was that a member of the studio's publicity department said to him, "If I had my way, all you people would be buried in the same grave." The "you people" he was talking about: gay people.
It is therefore ironic that out gays and gay allies would play a major part in the studio's return to prominence just a few years later. But Kirk's absence still cast an unhappy shadow over the reunion.
7/10: Three points off for the sin of omission. However, the aforementioned book is also guilty of the sin of omission: it fails to mention the presence of Dennis Day, the other (known) gay male Mouseketeer from the original MICKEY MOUSE CLUB, in this reunion.
The Simpsons (1989)
A tale of two series...
Judging TV shows is nothing like judging movies. The longer they go on, the more they change.
When "The Simpsons" premiered in early 1990, there had been no animation in prime time since 1966. It was a huge pop culture phenomenon, but whether it would last or peter out in a few years remained to be seen. Nearly 20 years later, it is an institution. But it isn't the same show it was in 1990, 1995, or even in 2000. Because in those years it had a right to call itself the greatest show of all time. Now the show is like an old man trying to recapture the glory of his youth, and he just won't die.
"The Simpsons" of the 20th century was smart, witty, sophisticated, satirical, unconventional, and populated with memorable characters, laugh-out-loud situations and dialog, and a family dynamic that was neither idealized or vilified. Not even the best live-action sitcoms could beat it. Homer Simpson was a character like no other, a classic clown who tried hard to please his family but either screwed up or lost his temper. With the saint-like patience of his wife Marge, the moral center of the family, his arch, scheming, trouble-making son Bart, his sweet, gifted, and inquisitive daughter Lisa, and his baby daughter Maggie, and a cast of thousands (literally), the weekly trip to 742 Evergreen Terrace in Springfield, USA was an event, as if one was watching Babe Ruth hit one home run after another. But then something happened. "The Simpsons" of the 21st century is an embarrassing travesty.
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact moment "The Simpsons" began its downhill slide, but Lisa's increasingly strident preaching manifested as early as season 4 but kept in check for a little while certainly didn't help. While Mike Scully allowed the episodes to become broader and allowed the tightness of the plots to slack, he was able to keep it consistently funny for awhile. But by season 11, you could see the show at its best one week and at its worst the next. Season 12 was even worse. By season 13, Al Jean, who had been with the show since day one, took over from Scully, and things have gotten even worse. Many gags are no longer funny in and of themselves. The plots are forgettable affairs that tend to evoke memories of older, better episodes. The show has sacrificed nonpartisan satire for leftist advocacy. The characters are stereotypes of stereotypes. Some recent episodes even stray into "so-bad- they're-hilarious" territory. What is worse is that not only do the writers seem to care, but they have responded to the increasing complaints by fans with unsubtle attacks on them. Yet they keep on with this horrific betrayal because it's still a healthy paycheck.
Perhaps the show is a victim of its own success. They're far from the only game in town now. They have to compete with "King of the Hill," "South Park," "Family Guy" (the object of a silly and pointless feud), and now the return of "Futurama", not to mention dozens of other animated shows supposedly for adults, all of which exist because of this show's early success. The movie was the exception, though. It had real emotional pull, its jokes were mostly funny, and it made the characters seem interesting once again.
When other hit shows go bad, they get canceled. If you truly love "The Simpsons," you will write to Fox and ask them to put the show out of its misery so that it can die with dignity.
I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry (2007)
The 700 Club couldn't come up with a better piece of gay-bashing
Is it possible to claim to support marriage rights for same-sex couples and still be homophobic? After seeing "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" the answer is yes. Two heterosexual Brooklyn firemen (Kevin James and Adam Sandler) file a domestic partnership claim so that one of the men can protect his children in case of his death, him being a widower. In spite of the specious setup, the opportunities for a charming farce were all there, but Sandler (and director Dennis "as an actor I was who they got when they couldn't get Bruce Dern so I now direct bad comedies instead" Dugan) mucked it up with a bunch of lame jokes and condescending stereotypes of gays.
The woman (Jessica Biel) who advises Chuck and Larry to beware of a fraud investigation is a heterosexual woman with a flaming queen for a brother. Everyone at the AIDS benefit is a voguing, prancing flamer dressed in costumes that would make Elton John squirm, and when anti-gay protesters crowd the outside of the building where the event is held, only Adam Sandler and Jessica Biel's characters have the courage to stand up to them at all. In another scene, the mailman hits on one of them. What's worse is Kevin James' character's effeminate son. Apparently because he wants to try out for the school musical and can dance, he must be gay.
This is not an issue of political correctness, which I abhor. In fact, I don't mind gay jokes that are funny. But there's a line between jokes about homosexuality and making fun of gays, which this movie crosses like it was the finish line of the 100 yard dash. This film's message is apparently that "gays are sick freaks, but let them get married anyway." That is a profoundly anti-gay message. SInce GLAAD approved this film just as they also approved the patronizing BS of "Will and Grace" and "Queer as Folk", they ought to change their name to the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Intellectual Honesty. Adding insult to that injury, the film's funny moments are too few and far between.
What's perplexing is how Barry Fanaro, a former writer for "The Golden Girls," a classic 1980s sitcom which had a few episodes about non-stereotyped gays, got into this mess. I guess Lifetime Network's been stiffing him on residuals and he's sick of Ramen Noodles. There is also an embarrassingly bad performance by Rob Schneider as an Asian justice of the peace. In fact, I'm more offended by this than Mickey Rooney's character in "Breakfast at Tiffany's;" at least that film could use the excuse that it was 1961, but there's no excuse here. That the untalented Schneider is half-Filipino does not make it better. And how did Dan Aykroyd or the obnoxious David Spade get involved in this bigoted debacle? With all the SNL alumni in this vomit-inducing garbage, I guess I'll be watching MAD TV from now on.
All That Jazz (1979)
Fosse's magnum opus, truly the best picture of 1979
Of all the supposedly great 1970s films that critics love to gush over, one they should be gushing over is this brilliant and sensational pastiche of razzamatazz, artistic ambition, obvious roman à clef and a starkly unsentimental view of show business. "All That Jazz" is all that and more.
The late Roy Scheider shows the strength, depth, and range of his abilities as Joe Gideon, the hard-drinking, hard-living, hard-loving director of Broadway musicals and Hollywood films. It is largely because of his performance that the film is a success. For all the horrible, irresponsible things he does, Scheider makes Joe an extremely sympathetic character. It is easy to see why the women in his life, and his daughter Michelle, keep coming back to him in spite of everything; they want to love him. Underneath his cynical exterior is a burning desire to live, love, and be loved. The pathos in his life is handled beautifully and without a trace of sentimentality. The supporting cast works well, too, notably Jessica Lange as the angel of death, Ann Reinking ("Annie") as Joe's girlfriend Katie, Max Wright ("ALF") as the harried producer of Joe's film "The Standup," and Cliff Gorman ("The Boys in the Band") as the lead actor in that troubled film.
Technically the film is a marvel. Fosse is at the peak of his directorial ability, and every scene shows a master touch. His musical numbers are some of the most exciting ever conceived for film; they are sensual, rhythmic, dynamic, and remain fresh after all this time. Fosse wannabes who have co-opted his unique style only serve to prove their own derivativeness (I'm talking to you, Rob Marshall). The editing fits the directorial style like a glove.
This was truly the best picture of 1979; not "Kramer Vs. Kramer," and not "Apocalypse Now" (nothing against those two films, though). It truly deserved the Oscars it did get, and the Palm D'Or at Cannes. It's certainly a lot more fun than 8 ½. Too bad when Fox did the special edition DVD they screwed with the colors and made everyone look like smurfs.
Friends (1994)
The show that made Full House look like I Love Lucy
How do I hate "Friends"? Let me count the ways:
Firstly, it rated an "F" with the test audience (don't believe me, check The Smoking Gun).
Secondly, it ran 10 years without being remotely funny ONCE (beating the record held by the completely laugh-free 8 year run of Full House, which, like this crap, was produced by a division of the Time Warner media empire, had three males and three females in a completely unrealistic version of a major American city, bland-looking guy of Mediterranean descent trying to get into show business, and a dumb guy named Joey).
Third, that horrible theme makes NSync sound like The Beatles.
Fourth, the cast couldn't act its way out of a paper bag (I thank one of the other posters for pointing out that Jennifer "I'm not a star, I just sleep with them" Aniston is Telly Savalas's goddaughter. Her father is also on Days of Our Lives. Can you say nepotism, boys and girls?).
Fifth, the writers would eat up clichés like that last one I wrote as if they were brand new. And not only did they steal from the superior-by-default Seinfeld, they stole from Mr. Bean and even Punky Brewster! When Soleil Moon Frye, who really must have needed the money by that point, punched Chandler in the face, even that felt like a retread of a Punky episode where she punched Chad Allen in the face!
Sixth, how can they afford an apartment like that in New York? They hold menial jobs yet they look like they could be living at Southfork. On other, superior, actually FUNNY roommate shows like The Odd Couple, Three's Company, Kate & Allie, and the grand dame of them all, The Golden Girls, they seem to look they are either living with their means or cutting back to afford to pay rent. I've seen fewer logical leaps on Gilligan's Island.
What's worse is all the Emmies it got. Truly great shows like Bob Newhart's two classic sitcoms never won a single thing, yet this wins "Best" Comedy series. This show and Seinfeld (not a terrible show but an extremely overrated one as well) are the reason sitcoms are dead right now and will probably remain dead (the last time sitcoms were declared "dead" in the early 1980s was a golden age in comparison to today). As long as there continue to be reruns and DVD releases of classic, pre-1990s sitcoms such as I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Bewitched, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, All in the Family, The Jeffersons, Soap, Cheers, Family Ties, Newhart, The Cosby Show, The Golden Girls, Married With Children, Roseanne, pre-2000 Simpsons, and countless others like it then I say let it die.
This is truly the most vile, trite, unfunny, obnoxious television series of all time. I jumped for joy the day it was canceled, and I hope that future generations will see it for the garbage it truly is, because this one has been taken in by the snow job perpetrated by these hacks.
Curious George (2006)
Great for kids, good for adults, Will Ferrell aside. Why Disney gave up traditional animation is beyond me
Universal Studios and Imagine Entertainment have, in the past, co-conspired to produce two truly offensive cinematic travesties of iconic children's books: "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" and "The Cat and the Hat". With "Curious George" I am delighted and relieved to say that in this instance tragedies do not come in threes. Simple, charming, attractively animated (by hand, with some 3D effects which blend in well), appropriate for kids, with no Seinfeldian self- consciousness or Adam Sandler-style gross-out humor, this film is near perfect.
I say near perfect because of Will Ferrell's vocal performance as The Man in the Yellow Hat (now named Ted) is a misfire. If he talked about 35% as much as he does in the film he would be just right. He's still better than in the god-awful "Bewitched" pseudo-remake. But that's a small price to pay for one of the few genuinely appropriate-for-children children's movies since the Jim Henson-era Muppet movies.
"George" succeeds where every post-Lilo and Stitch, non-Pixar Disney film has failed. Yet the finger-licking' bad, sub-Dreamworks "Chicken Little" made more money.
The Day of the Locust (1975)
An unqualified disaster, and a piece of nihilistic trash
Except for perhaps the 1930s, the 1970s was America's darkest decade. Difference is, the thirties turned out one great movie after another; even the bad movies at least have more style than anything out of the "Me Decade."
This film is as phony and cold as the system it tries to mock; a nihilistic mess, the actors are miscast, the running time is 45 minutes too long, the ending makes no sense, the whole film is an anti-movie. In fact, it's anti-everything. The production design is nice, though, but Conrad "Prince of Darkness" Hall undermines it with his typically washed-out cinematography. I couldn't even get more than a little amusement from the coincidental names of Donald Sutherland's character and a certain TV cartoon character who wouldn't exist for more than another decade.
Rent "The Bad and the Beautiful" or "Sunset Boulevard" or even "S.O.B." instead. Run screaming for the hills from this train wreck at all costs.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000)
The 3 words that best describe this film are, and I quote, "Stink! Stank! Stunk!"
(possible spoilers)
Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.
The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are undermined
somewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much better
use of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger
(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).
The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensively
hypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandising
campaign.
The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). She
seems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.
Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in their
stockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,
manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!
Annie (1999)
Faithful or not, a profound disappointment (possible spoilers)
***possible spoilers***
The phenomenally successful Charles Strouse/Martin Charnin stage musical Annie was made into a film once before in 1982. The $40,000,000 film, the first and only movie musical directed by John Huston, was criticized by many critics for its extravagant production, for not being faithful enough to the original text, and for what they felt to be a peculiar choice of director (Huston did, after all, direct The Maltese Falcon). It was not a success at the box office.
More than a decade and a half after the Huston film's release, TV producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron, who had produced a fantastic TV production of Gypsy, decided to give this musical a second filming. With the support of Ray Stark (producer of the previous film) and Disney, the Zadan/Meron production was to stay as closely to the original stage musical as possible. Unfortunately, some stumbling blocks came to trip this ambitious new production.
This $12,000,000 telefilm of the stage musical has some skillfully crafted sets and fine orchestrations of the song score. However, that's about all that this new adaptation has to offer. As Miss Hannigan, the mean-spirited orphanage manager, Kathy Bates tries too hard to `play it up,' and her forced performance ends up coming off disturbingly like a bad Rosie O'Donnell impression at times. Alan Cumming plays Rooster, Miss Hannigan's no-good brother, like a two-dimensional caricature. Victor Garber's performance is terribly unconvincing; as Oliver Warbucks, supposedly a cold, powerful billionaire, he comes off as weak, ineffectual, and far from intimidating. It is therefore unbelievable that anyone could be intimidated by him. As the title character, nine-year-old newcomer Alicia Morton is a good singer, but her performance is nothing special. Only Kristen Chenoweth, as Rooster's bimbo girlfriend Lily St. Regis, is particularly memorable.
The production has a few effective moments (a cameo by Andrea McArdle, the originator of the title role on the stage, comes to mind), but the dull direction by Rob Marshall (who also choreographed) brings much of it down (interesting how the vitality and exuberance present in this team's film of Chicago is missing here). The staging is fairly static and seldom takes advantage of the liberties allowed by the medium. The Huston film did this.
To accommodate the two-hour running time that the film was alloted in its original ABC-TV airing, the actual film itself is 90 minutes. As a result, Irene Mecchi's teleplay, allegedly closer to Thomas Meehan's original book, eliminates four of the songs from the original score (but retains two that were not in the Huston film), strips all of the political content away, and leaves a major flaw in the flow of the film. One scene becomes another without much time passing (basically day two of Annie's stay at the Warbucks mansion), and Warbucks changes from someone merely giving an orphan a home for two weeks as a publicity gimmick to someone who wants to adopt the little girl. The film needed time to demonstrate how this happened (the Huston film did this), but Who Wants to be a Millionaire simply couldn't get pre-empted or it could have caused a disaster!
Also, why are there only a handful of orphans at the orphanage? In a stage production of Annie there could have been that many due to casting or set restraints imposed by that medium, but for a film it could help to show where all the other ones are.
Then there's the multiracial cast, most likely suggested by Disney. The concept of a multiracial cast is not a bad idea in itself, but doing it just for its own sake it's nothing but pandering. In a musical set in a time not defined by racial pluralism, it stands out like wearing culottes on a construction site. Grace Ferrell (Audra McDonald, who isn't all that bad), Warbucks' personal assistant, is African- American here, and eventually a romance between the two of them develops! Are viewers to believe that a prominent white public figure, and a conservative one at that, would openly romance a black woman at this period in history? There's no chemistry between them at all, but the main problem is that in this setting it's about as believable as doing The Sound of Music with hispanics playing Nazis or The Music Man with an Asian bisexual Marian the Librarian. It is also worth mentioning that Punjab, a supporting character from Harold Gray's original strip, who was dropped from the play but resurrected for the earlier film, is gone again. I'm sure if he had been kept the Disney suits would have made him Warbucks' business manager and not a mere bodyguard.
This film's only advantage over the first one comes by restoring a crucial song from the stage show, `Something Was Missing,' which was not in the first film. Also, the ubiquitous theme song `Tomorrow' is put back in its original place in the story herein. But that alone cannot excuse the mistakes made in this version.
I should mention that I am in a small minority that considers the 1982 Huston film to be the better of the two. Though some parts of the production seemed a little over the top, and it did deviate a bit from the stage musical, it had better acting (including a much more endearing Annie), better characterization, retained some of the political elements (this remake has absolutely nothing here of Warbucks' involvement in the formation of the New Deal; therefore FDR's appearance at the end of this production seems pointless and tacked on), and no implausible 1930s interracial romances. Huston and Stark's $40,000,000 clearly went farther than Disney's $12,000,000, and produced a more engaging, more heartwarming Annie.
This telefilm, though I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt, is a disappointing, artless adaptation of a charming musical. No pontificating against the earlier film can change the realization that in this one, poor Annie has been reduced to a pale ghost of her former self. Leapin' lizards!
Eight Crazy Nights (2002)
Adam Sandler sings while Judah Maccabee spins in his grave!
I went to this film with an open mind and I came out with an empty stomach. It is simply the worst movie musical ever made and the worst animated film ever made.
The first problem is the star, Adam Sandler. His comic talents are make him slightly funnier than the loathsome Carrot Top. Then there's the main character of Davey Stone. He is a complete reprobate, yet he is supposed to evoke the sympathies of the audience because of his unfortunate circumstances. Also, the songs are forgettable at best and absolutely grating at worst.
The character of Whitey Duvall, a deformed basketball coach who befriends the degenerate Davey, is an object of ridicule in this film. His voice is done, very annoyingly, by Sandler.
Finally, the three biggest problems with this film are the dearth of funny jokes, the excessive scatology (I don't mind that kind of humor if it's done right, which it isn't here), and the utterly dishonest and forced sentimentality. Sandler tries to make a holiday film with the heart that Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" had and Bob Clark's "A Christmas Story" had, but about Hanukkah, and he falls flat on his face.
Avoid this movie at all costs. If you want a musical, rent "My Fair Lady." If you want a raunchy comedy, rent "Blazing Saddles." If you want a horrific film that ranks with "Armageddon" and "Ishtar" in its awfulness, then by all means rent "Eight Crazy Nights." Just don't say I didn't warn you.
Annie (1982)
Better than its reputation
Though this film of the musical "Annie" has often been criticized for a number of reasons, it is hardly the worst screen adaptation of a stage musical (the utterly grotesque 1974 film of "Mame" takes that dishonor). This film is not nearly as bad as people have said. Though not necessarily a great film, it is a good film with a number of strengths.
The film's strongest asset is definitely its cast, the highlight of which being Carol Burnett, a treat to watch as Miss Hannigan. Newcomer Aileen Quinn plays a charming Annie, Albert Finney makes a wholly convincing Daddy Warbucks, and Ann Reinking gives a winning performance as his assistant, Grace Farrell.
At the film's core is a heartwarming, if somewhat sentimental, story set in the Depression, backed by most of Charles Strouse and Martin Charnin's unforgettable score. Six of the play's songs are dropped, and five new ones have been written. The best of them is the humorous `Sign,' between Burnett and Finney.
The large-scale, Busby Berkeley-esque `Let's Go to the Movies,' though it's a nice song and a spectacular number, it threatens to slow down the picture, and is thus a bit of a weak spot. It is a forgivable one, though.
A song called `Dumb Dog,' whose melody is taken from the one-night wonder "A Broadway Musical," replaces `Tomorrow' in its proper place in the story, which is a loss. The reprise of the song, `Sandy' works better.
The fifth new song, a swinger called `We Got Annie,' is a highly listenable reworking of a song cut from the stage play.
Director John Huston, a choice that confounded many in Hollywood, directs the film with competence, though it's not a personal film for him. Most of the credit for putting the production together goes to producer Ray Stark. He assembles a production crew that works together to create a visually splendid film with beautiful period sets. The film's production is indeed extravagant, even by Hollywood standards, but only once or twice does it go over the top (as in the end of the picture).
The film as a whole is an engagingly old-fashioned musical spectacle with enough wit, charm and genuine warmth to offset its core sentimentality and occasional excess. Though it doesn't follow the stage version to the letter, it still works pretty well.
Score: 7/10
Super Troopers (2001)
One of the most horrible "comedies" I've ever seen
This movie is nowhere near as funny as it thinks it is. It compares itself to the comedy greats of the past but it is even lower than the badly-written TV sitcoms that have come about since the 1990s.
The film consists of 103 minutes of tiresome, forced gags strung together by a hackneyed plot built around these shopworn gags, played poorly (albeit with enthusiasm) by forgettable actors. The film's inability to generate laughter at any point in the film soon degenerates into irritated boredom. In fact, I booed the film all through the closing credits.
Consider yourself warned.