Episode 84: Chronicle

Hello there and welcome to the 84th episode of the Cinema Cafe Podcast, the bi-weekly, twice monthly film podcast by the fans, for the fans. Join us each week as we review new movies releases, look at some dvd's, talk some film news and share our general love for all things cinema. The main goal is to have some fun and hopefully provide the listener with some helpful insight. We are back and the podcasting world is alight once again.

We are finally back with recharged batteries and are ready once again to bring our loyal listeners some brand new bi-weekly content. Thanks for your patience and it feels so good to be back!!

This week we take a look at 4 movie that has been recently released and also of a few that are currently on dvd or in theaters. With that said here's a look at what we discuss on this weeks podcast:

* Chronicle
* The Descendants
* A Cat in Paris
* If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front
* Upcoming movie releases for the weekend of 2.17.12 and 2.24.12

Also, film news and more, only on the Cinema Cafe Podcast. We hope you enjoy and happy movie watching.

Thanks as always to all our loyal listeners for sharing the ride with us as we've once again started producing the show. It's all due to your support that we have kept things going and we hope you continue to share the ride with us in the coming months.

We're also on Itunes so head over there and subscribe to the Cinema Cafe Podcast and don't forget to post a review! Thanks!!

Episode 83: The Artist, The Grey, Tree of Life and Beginners

Hello there and welcome to the 83rd episode of the Cinema Cafe Podcast, the bi-weekly, twice monthly film podcast by the fans, for the fans. Join us each week as we review new movies releases, look at some dvd's, talk some film news and share our general love for all things cinema. The main goal is to have some fun and hopefully provide the listener with some helpful insight. We are back and the podcasting world is alight once again.

We are finally back with recharged batteries and are ready once again to bring our loyal listeners some brand new bi-weekly content. Thanks for your patience and it feels so good to be back!!

This week we take a look at 2 main movie that has been recently released and also of a few that are currently on dvd or in theaters. With that said here's a look at what we discuss on this weeks podcast:

* Beginners
* Tree of Life
* The Artist
* The Grey
* Oscar talk
* Upcoming movie releases for the weekend of 2.03.12 and 2.10.12

Also, film news and more, only on the Cinema Cafe Podcast. We hope you enjoy and happy movie watching.

Thanks as always to all our loyal listeners for sharing the ride with us as we've once again started producing the show. It's all due to your support that we have kept things going and we hope you continue to share the ride with us in the coming months.

We're also on Itunes so head over there and subscribe to the Cinema Cafe Podcast and don't forget to post a review! Thanks!!

Episode 56: From Paris With Love and The Cove

Hello there and welcome to the 56th episode of the Cinema Cafe Podcast, the bi-weekly, twice monthly film podcast by the fans, for the fans. Join us each week as we review new movies releases, look at some dvd's, talk some film news and share our general love for all things cinema. The main goal is to have some fun and hopefully provide the listener with some helpful insight. We are back and the podcasting world is alight once again.

This week we have a treat: it's our 56th episode, which means we've been bringing you "bi-weekly" content for over a year now. This week we take a look at 3 movies that have been recently released or are on dvd. With that said here's a look at what we discuss on this weeks podcast:

* From Paris With Love
* The Cove
* Adventureland
* A look at the 82 Annual Academy Award Nominations
* Upcoming movie releases for the weekend of 2.12.10 and 2.19.10

Also, film news and more, only on the Cinema Cafe Podcast. We hope you enjoy and happy movie watching.

Thanks as always to all our loyal listeners for sharing the ride with us as we've reached this milestone for the show. It's all due to your support that we have kept things going and we hope you continue to share the ride with us in the coming months.

We're now on Itunes so head there and subscribe to the Cinema Cafe Podcast. Thanks!

The International movie review

This 2009 American-German espionage thriller is directed by German filmmaker Tom Tykwer (he of Run Lola Run and Perfume: The story of a murder fame) and follows Clive Owen and Naomi Watts as they investigate a string of murders and corruption all leading back to a banking institution. Basically Owen plays Interpol agent Louis Salinger, who has been trying to bring down the IBBC bank (the International Bank of Business and Credit) for years. He teams up with NY Assistant DA Naomi Watts as they uncover illegal acts committed by the bank such as arms trading, money laundering and assassination. Every step of the way they are hindered by red tape and the extreme corruption that goes even to the highest levels of the government. Is there any way for Salinger to bring down the IBBC bank legally, or will he have to step out, passing the lines of the law for justice?

As absurd as this story sounds, it’s actually inspired by the 1991 BCCI bank scandal which saw the 7^th largest private bank in the world use their 20 billion plus assets to launder money, support terrorism and traffic arms through the sale of nuclear technologies. So yeah the story is all too real, and yet the real story is much more interesting than the movie that was inspired by it. First off, The International is convoluted for convoluted sake. Much of the film makes little sense, as plotlines lead to other plotlines, branching out farther and farther, leaving many threads unanswered or forgotten. Another thing is that I don’t get why Naomi Watts is even in this film. She’s not a love interest and her part as an Assistant DA adds nothing to the story. She’s just there adding no new information to aid Owen, and basically is a character for Owen to talk to so it wouldn’t be weird that he’s talking to himself most of the time.

Also, there’s just way to many talking heads. This is a term used when characters are just sitting around in a room talking, as a type of expository, so the plot can move forward. This is fine and all, but for much of the near 2 hour running time, the whole movie is just a 2 or 3 people in a room talking to each other, and it got boring really fast. While I thought some of the plot was interesting, it’s like watching my college professor’s lecture. The trailers for this movie would have believe that this was an action fest, as ATM’s explode, giving the option for deposit or die, shoot-outs happening at a drop of the hat, and snipers taking out anyone and everyone. This is a flat out lie because besides a very nice 15 minute shootout in NY’s Guggenheim museum, there is simply no action. Not even the action of people running, I mean it, no action. Again, I don’t think anything is wrong with that, but the trailers are misleading. I mean the ATM’s exploding isn’t even in the movie.

Let’s talk a little about the Guggenheim shoot-out. This is by far my favorite part of the movie. I kept remarking how I couldn’t believe they filmed this at the Guggenheim because there’s bullet holes galore in all the art. Obviously, they built a replica set of the famous museum to film the action scene, but it just looks so real, exactly like the museum, that it was nice to watch all the modern art get torn up. Seriously people: showing a video on a 24-hour loop of people walking around in big hats and walking dogs is not art. But yeah, cool scene and Owen was pretty bad assed in it.

How about the acting? I came into this movie thinking of “what if?” For those that don’t know, before Daniel Craig took over for Bronson as the blond Bond, everyone thought Clive Owen would be the next Bond. After seeing Owen here, I think the producers of the Bond franchise made the right choice. While granted Owen is not given much to do here, I just think Craig’s hard and weathered face suits the new Bond character better than Owen’s tired and disheveled face. Anyway, here Clive Owen does his usual Clive Owen role and that’s why I love him. What makes him so great is that regardless if it’s a drama like in Closer, or an action scene like the Guggenheim shootout, his acting, his deadpan face, is always the same. It’s brilliant. Naomi Watts, well like I mentioned before I don’t know why she was in this film, and she just basically floats through the film without doing anything, but she’s not known for being a great actress. It’s just an overall really average group, but you have to wonder if it’s the script fault or the actors, and if I had to guess, I’d say the scripts fault.

One thing I wanted to point out before we wrap up this review is the ending. Now I’m not going to give anything away but I wanted to note that the International tries to set up a conclusion, a denouement, and yet by the end, all the planning bears no fruit, just a bunch of dried out seeds. So I was left baffled, thinking, then what was the whole third act about? What was the whole point of this movie? Nothing happens? It’s like planning for a month long vacation backpacking through Europe, paying for it all in advance, and then when the time comes you’ve forgotten all about it and are eating Chinese take-out in your apartment instead of going on the vacation. There’s all this setup and everything falls flat on its face, making the whole movie unnecessary. I just don’t get it.

Many critics have been pretty harsh on this film, and movie goers have been even harsher as it’s pulled in 17 million domestically in 3 weeks with an estimated 50 million dollar budget. When I first saw the trailers I thought the movie looked boring and uneventful, and I should have stayed true to my initial impression. It’s a shame because German director Tom Tykwer is a fantastic director, he’s just given very little to do here. So yeah, I give this a, “I want my money back/sneak out rating.” It does pose some interesting and thought provoking dilemmas, on how we as a society, as a government, can allow private institutions to get to big and ultimately hurt the very people they are set up to serve, but yeah, The International is just a confusing and boring mess, one that it’s director and cast are wasted on.

Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li movie review

This 2009 martial arts action film is based on the Capcom video game franchise of the same name. It is also the second live-action Street Fighter movie following Jean-Claude Van Damme’s infamous 1994 film and is directed by Andrzej Bartkowiak, the maestro behind such action luminaries as Romeo Must Die, Cradle 2 the Grave, Exit Wounds and Doom. Seriously how does this guy keep getting work? To be fair, no one does generic martial arts movies starring Jet Li, Steven Segal and rapper DMX quite like him. Anyway, Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li stars Smallville’s Kristen Kreuk as Chun-Li, a young girl on a journey of justice for the murder of her father by the hands of the evil M. Bison. From China to Bangkok, along the way she finds a teacher in Gen (played by Mortal Combat’s Liu Kang, Robin Shou), unlikely allies in Charlie Nash (played by Chris Klein) and must strive for inner peace in order to defeat her enemies. The big question here is: will this be as bad as Van Damme’s 1994 film, or will there finally be a good Street Fighter live action movie?

No one’s a bigger Van Damme fan than me, and yet I can fully say that his Street Fighter movie is one of the worst movies ever made. It took all that was great in the Street Fighter universe, crapped on it, and then let it out to rot. So when they announced a new Street Fighter movie, one that didn’t even have the main character of the game in Ryu, I was reticent to say the least. This, while better shot than the Van Damme movie, is still not any good. It straddles the line of being so bad it’s good, however, I’d have to learn more towards just being plain crappy. I just don’t get why they can’t make a decent Street Fighter movie. Make it like Bloodspot, where characters face off and fight. While I can understand how in 1994 it was impossible to do many of the moves, CGI has advanced far enough where we can show believable looking fireballs, yoga noogies, and sonic booms. Why can’t Hollywood get it right? When it comes to Street Fighter, it’s not about the story but about the action. I mean, Japanese animation has made some fantastic Street Fighter movies, in Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter Zero. However, beyond being a fan of the video game, only a fan can get even a semblance of enjoyment from this movie because it is simply craptacular. I mean even the main villain M. Bison, doesn’t do any of his moves in this movie. He’s just a sucky martial artist. How does he control the largest evil organization in the world? He sucks. The movie also takes place in Bangkok, and yet one of the major characters in the game, the only character from Thailand, Sagat, is not even in the movie? Why? I don’t know.

The action in this movie is also baffling. The fighting scenes, for a martial arts movie, feel as if there’s no immediacy, no validity. In one scene, Chun-Li busts out her signature upside down helicopter kicks and it looks like her feet don’t actually touch anyone. It all just looks so fake. Seriously, there’s these long drawn out fight scenes and at the end, it looks like none of the action hurts, none of the moves hit, and for a martial arts movie, that is the greatest sin because if we don’t feel if anyone’s getting hurt then what’s the point. I can understand how Kristen Kreuk cannot actually do martial arts, but neither can Zhang Ziyi or many other actors for that matter, but you can make it believable with good choreography. Let’s just say, choreography is not this movies strong suit.

There’s also this supernatural aspect of how M. Bison channeled all his goodness into his unborn daughter to make him the ultimate underworld leader because he has no conscience. Okay, so no conscience equals ruling the world? They don’t even try to explain why this was important, just that he went to some secret cave to lose the goodness in him. Just shut the hell up Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li.

There is one actor in this film that I want to point out and that is Chris Klein. I’ve always been a Chris Klein fan. I enjoyed what little he did in the American Pie movies and thought the Rollerball remake was pretty good. But here, Chris Klein as Charlie Nash is simply appalling. It’s like he thought he was in a different film, one about people with fake southern accents and Nic Cage mullets. He’s like, and this is an actual line and accent from the movie, “I’m Charlie Nash from Interpol. Charlie Nash.” Just terrible.

This movie does have a few memorable lines as its predecessor did. In one scene M. Bison says about someone he’s about to kill: “he’s like milk and milk has an expiration date.” Oh snap. While the original Van Damme movie was so bad it transcended the meaning and became memorable, this one is just simply bad and will be forgotten quite soon. The projected budget of this movie is around 60 million and I have no idea where that money went to because it ain’t the action. So I give this a, “sneak out, I want my money back rating.” Maybe check it out on dvd if you’re a fan of the video games, but yeah, bad. Thanks again for another winner 20^th Century Fox. What a way to start another year.

Push movie review

This 2009 superpower action thriller is directed by Paul McGuigan (he of Lucky Number Sleven and Wicker Park remake fame) and stars Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camille Belle, and Djimon Hounsou (in a very Haitian from the Heroes tv show kind of role). Basically, it’s the story of a group of psychics who all have varying agrees of abilities. Some are Watchers (they can see the future), some are movers (telekinesis), and so on and so forth. Anyway, taking place entirely in Hong Kong, Nick Grant (played by Evans) is a Mover who is still haunted by the murder of his father by the Division, a US government agency that is sent to track down and capture specials in order to use their abilities. Along the way he meets Cassie Holmes (played by Fanning) who has foreseen the future and the only way to save their kind is to find a young girl who has escaped the division, the only survivor of an experiment with the power to control people’s minds. Can Nick become the hero his father always wanted him to be, or will he just end up being another captured guinea pig?

First off, the visuals are really quite nice here. I really liked how the movie communicates the abilities the characters have. It’s down and dirty, gritty and realistic as any movie dealing with superpowers can be. Like when a villain screams ala X-Men’s Banshee, the surrounding area shakes and vibrates, the camera pulled to an extreme close-up of the character screaming. When a character uses the ability to see into a subjects past, they can only do so by coming into contact with the objects the subject touches, and everything moves in fast rewind from when last the subject used the object. This puts a limit of the abilities and makes things much more believable and acceptable. Because let’s get real, if someone had Magneto’s ability to manipulate metal, he can just kill off humanity and destroy the world with a wave of his hand. But he never does, because well, it’ll all be over in one movie. Anyway, the way Push expresses the superpowers is frankly the best I’ve ever seen.

The actors are all pretty decent. Djimon Honsou is a great actor that loves choosing crappy movies. Evans plays a slight variation of his Human Torch character from the Fantastic Four movies. Camille Belle is hot as usual. However Dakota Fanning, man, is really scary for a 14-year old. I mean it’s like she’s a robot, dead behind the eyes, listless, like she’s lived this long life and is tired of it all. Seriously, the girl freaks the hell out of me. She should play one of the Children of the Corn kid’s, because that’s the role she was born to play.

What I thought was really stupid about this movie is the way some of the scenes and story plot points were shot. For instance, the movie takes place in Hong Kong and everyone’s Chinese except for these few white people who are the superpowers. Anyway, one of the characters I being followed and it’s really obvious who’s following her because, the men following her are all white men in suits that are over 6 feet tall, that tower over all the “tiny” Asians. And when they catch up to her she’s like, “what, I was being followed?” Move your head just a little and you can see the only other white people in the sea of Chinese people. Frankly I thought this was absurd lazy storytelling (there are more than 5 white people in the whole of Hong Kong). Also Djimon Honsou’s character is a major Division agent and he claims that they have 20 of the most powerful Watchers divining the future for him at all times, and yet he never sees anything bad that comes his way? What?

The movie is also really let down by a totally mind boggling third act with plot holes so big you could drive another movie through it and not even notice. I mean the whole third act nearly undermines the first 2 acts by making no sense, leaving the viewers to wonder how any of the characters came up with the conclusions or actions they ended up with. It’s like either the writers didn’t feel like explaining anything (because it feels like there’s 15 minutes of dialogue cut out) or that the writers hoped that viewers wouldn’t care because there would be a lot of explosions. Who knows, but yeah, the whole third act, especially the ending, makes no sense.

With all that said, I actually like this movie. It’s by no means any good (I pointed out a lot of negatives about this movie) but it does create some interestingly new dynamics for a superpower movie with a nice and complex world mythos surrounding it. Like I said before, I really liked the way the filmmakers showed the super powers here, and I really like how they limited the powers. Everything about this movie feels right, besides the last 30 minutes of it. That should be a big deterrent, but I feel the first 2 half’s are strong enough to make this an enjoyable watch. So I give this a matinee/dvd watch. It won’t blow your mind but it’s much better than the Heroes tv show, and I watch every episode of that junk.

Confessions of a Shopaholic movie review

This 2009 romantic comedy about an obsessive spendaholic named Rebecca Bloomwood (played by Isla “Borat’s fiancé” Fisher) is adapted from a hugely successful series of novels by Sophia Kinsella and is directed by P.J. Hogan (he of My Best Friends Wedding, Muriels Wedding, and the live-action Peter Pan movie. Man has anyone seen that 2003 Peter Pan movie?). Anyway this is the story of how recent college graduate Rebecca, moves to Manhattan to get her spending on and to pursue her dream of working at a fashion magazine. Along the way, debt ridden and alone, she somehow ends up with a job as a columnist for a financial magazine. Hilarity and romance ensue. Can she find her true love, get her spending habit in order and live happily ever after? Seriously this is the Pretty Women for shopaholics, and at least prostitutes work hard for their money.

Many people have brought into question the tackiness or outright insensitivity for studios to release a movie about obsessive spending during an economic downturn. While I think critics are missing the point, (the point should be, “why do studios keep pumping out less than stellar chick flicks?”) the point has been made numerous times during this release.

While we aren’t in a great depression as bad as in the 30’s, although it may feel like it is as times, movies have always been recession proof because they’re a cheap form of entertainment. While people might bemoan ticket prices being 11 dollars, 11 dollars looks a lot better than a trip to Europe if you don’t have the money. People need an escape when they’re faced with troubling times, and Hollywood is always there to meet that demand. If you look at movies that came out in the 30’s, some of the greatest movies ever produced came during that time, Little Caesar, King Kong, the great Universal Horror films like Frankenstein and Dracula, the Thin Man series, It Happened One Night and so on. So you can look at it like, since the need to escape is so intense, since people need to feel like they’re somewhere else, even if only for two hours, Hollywood uses that and creates some of the most memorable work to date, or at least that’s how it was before. I mean if people have a limited budget you better make a film good or people won’t see it. I guess what I’m trying to say is, no I don’t think it’s tasteless to release a movie about overspending during a time where almost 5 million Americans are out of work. It’s an escape, and if people can escape to a world where luxuries and endless spending await than more power to them. This is not to say that Confessions of a Shopaholic is any good, just not bad in that context.

So about the film, well, it’s just okay and that might be giving it to much credit. The theater was filled with women who obviously enjoyed it, especially the lady next to me who laughed like crazy as she stuffed her face full of popcorn singing how she’s like Isla Fisher’s character. However for an overall film, this isn’t very good. It has all the benchmarks for being a chick flick except that until the very end it has no heart. Being a guy I can’t understand the mindset of going into 16 thousand dollar worth of debt because you have to have a bunch of clothes you never wear. Also the plot is terribly choreographed, the sight gages extremely cliché, but yeah still, Isla Fisher is cute. Sure she doesn’t deserve a happy ending, and sure she should end up a crack whore, but still she’s cute and this is well, at best a very light romantic comedy. One thing I’ve always loved about Isla Fisher is that she’s one of the rare female comedic actresses that has no problems doing slapstick comedy. Sandra Bullock also does it too, but Isla always pulls it off.

However I have to call foul with the whole basic storyline of this film. Basically it’s about the world of magazines and how the main lead romantic interest, his dream is to start his own financial magazine. I mean really? The whole print world, especially now, is at a crossroads. Many magazine publications, as well as newspapers are filing for bankruptcy. So centering the whole plot on starting a magazine and how everyone still reads magazines and nothing about the internet seems ludicrous to me. I still love reading magazines but I know I’m in the minority here so yeah, the plot just feels incredibly outdated to me already.

It does have a good ending that didn’t pander to its audience. The theater was full of women who laughed and seemed to enjoy themselves, but for a guy? This was hell on screen. I cringed as the characters swooned over all the fantastic clothes and accessories; I clawed my eyes out as girl drama occurred. With all that said, I know I’m not the target audience, but as a film as a whole this is just poor. So I give Confessions of a Shopaholic the “I want my money back/sneak out rating.” There are better movies and chick flicks out now so just watch those. Only for Isla Fisher fans, but yeah even with that this is still a pass.

Two Lovers

This 2009 drama is loosely based on the Dostoevsky short story, White Nights and is directed by James Gunn, reteaming the director with his frequent collaborator, muse I would dare say, Joaquin Phoenix. Out of the four films James has directed, Joaquin has appeared in 3, The Yards, We Own the Night and this film. Anyway, Two Lovers takes place in Brighton Beach, NY and is the story of Leonard Kraditor (played by Phoenix), a lost soul who when not fighting off bouts of depression finds himself torn between two woman, the kind and normal woman his family loves, Sandra (played by Vinessa Shaw) and the volatile and destructive blond neighbor Michelle (played by Gwyneth Paltrow). Will Leonard choose a normal life with Sandra, or will Michelle lead him down the path of destruction?

If I had to say one thing about Two Lovers, I would say that it’s an old-fashioned love story with high melodrama, a film that portrays the reality on the concept of love. I mean unlike how Hollywood wants to condition us, love is not epic, transient and tidy. The person you love doesn’t always reciprocate, and the feeling of love does not move mountains our change the tide of history. Love is chaotic. It’s a game of chance, of regret, of passion. It’s one of the rare feelings that we rarely have any control over, one that leads people down dark paths, and sometimes their own destruction. It’s messy, and frankly, it’s just too real. And that’s how Two Lovers felt to me, a modest film with large and intense feeling, the melodrama was in full swing, and it just felt scary it’s so real.

As I’ve stated, Two Lovers is an old-school drama, and that old school charm is what helps and hurts the film for me. On the one hand, it’s damn refreshing to see a throwback like this. Where love wasn’t just from the heart, but also of the mind, where the concept was about choices rather than destiny. However, on the other hand the movie is pretty slow moving. For a 109 minute film, it felt like 2 and a half hours. I’m not saying this is all bad, but some parts really drag out and when the melodrama hits, my god does it hit. I was half expecting an old sweeping Hollywood score to play along with the escalating emotions and half-truths, but there is no music because this is reality. And while the film did drag on at parts, I have to commend the filmmakers for throwing away expediency for a sense of realism, of authenticity. However, maybe that’s why this film feels a little too sincere with its feelings. It wants everyone to be happy and that sincerity is at the cost of Two Lovers being a better film.

The acting is fantastic in this movie. Phoenix plays the shattered man so well, because if you look at his personal life, it’s like he’s not acting. But yeah, Phoenix does a great job playing a dreamer living in his own world of crushed dreams. However I will say this, now I know this is how the character of Leonard is supposed to be, but when Phoenix mumbles some of his lines, its hard hearing what he says. He doesn’t have a voice that works well with mumbling. And Vinessa Shaw and Gwyneth Paltrow as the two women are picture perfect here. Vinessa is great as the kind Sandra. You can feel the love she has for Leonard, and the quiet beauty that surrounds her. And Paltrow as Michelle is just crazy. She’s an awful human being, that doesn’t realize her own destructiveness because she’s so selfish. Paltrow sells it and you buy the lemonade. Great performances all around, powerful yet restrained.

However the movie does pose the proverbial what came first, the chicken or the egg question. Here the question is one that many if not all have faced at one point, is it better to love or be loved? Do you go after the one who loves you or the one that you love? It’s a tough question with no true answer. Even in this movie, should Leonard go for Sandra, the woman who obviously loves him and would lead him to a better life, or Michelle, the woman he loves but who would rather be chased than be caught? I mean even if he does choose Sandra, will he truly be happy living a lie? And is a lie better than a heartbreaking truth? There are a lot of questions posed during this movie, and what I like so much about Two Lovers is that the questions aren’t easily answered, and for the most part there is no right answer.

Like I said before, Two Lovers is loosely based on the Dostoevsky short story White Nights. It varies at key parts, but the feeling of isolation, the feeling of abandonment permeates that story just as it permeates this film. Seriously, if you like Two Lovers read White Nights, and if you think Phoenix’s Leonard is a mess of a human being, check out Dostoevsky’s nameless narrator. Anyway, yeah I wasn’t too sure what rating to give Two Lovers. It’s refreshing yet the story can feel cumbersome at times. Okay so yeah, I give this a dvd/matinee rating. I won’t go into the ending because I don’t want to spoil it, but I think the ending is just one of the best endings I’ve seen in a long time, picture perfect and one that can be interpreted in so many ways.