Last movie watched

[Death Mage]

Men in Black 3.

It's a toss up for which is better, this or the original. This one had a great story, well paced, good humor, good action, all-around fun ride. Way better than the second one.

In fact, I really wish I could find the TV spot for the original, the MIB involving the Neuralizer (one of the greatest in-joke commercials ever). It would have been fitting here.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Scurra]

Prometheus

Now here's a curious case of a movie that is much better in every possible way if you come into it with a blank slate, knowing nothing about the fictional universe in which it is set or the premise on which it is built.
But since that is nigh-on impossible, especially in these days of viral marketing campaigns and critic-bloggers, it sadly falls considerably short of greatness.

That's not to say that there isn't a lot to praise about this film. Scott has an eye for the grand landscape that even Cameron on a good day would find hard to match - it reminds you of some of the great old Western movies with their vistas, and he can assemble a great cast who can all act.

But the underpinning script and clichéd characters are just too trite to enable the film to elevate itself above mediocrity. The story is predictable and completely unsure of what it is trying to achieve, especially given that part of it is acting as a set-up - not prequel - to a much earlier film. There are few proper moments of character (although Michael Fassbender's role does bring one or two different perspectives to a well-trodden path) and although there are one or two real thrills (especially the "operation") there is nothing that changes the rules in the way that Alien or Bladerunner - or even Aliens - managed. And the ending is, well, a bit meh.

And yet, and yet, and yet, an average Scott is still wildly better than the majority of stuff out there. I found it, for instance, a more interesting film than Avengers Assemble, because it was at least trying to ask some questions about the human condition, and personally I found the retcon exercise a lot more entertaining too. Not to mention that it actually looked like a film.

It's been a good year for "intelligent" blockbusters so far; I hope this doesn't turn out to be a mere blip.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[itisally]

Snow White and the Huntsman

I really enjoyed the movie, the plot was familliar yet interesting. It was duely dark. The only thing I could have done without is the jiggley action camara.
_________________
I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong.

[Scurra]

This is a review by Pete Bradshaw in the UK Guardian newspaper of the current weird Mexican Flash animated version of the Hanna-Barbara semi-classic. It's still making me laugh.



Huge big band intro.
Top Cat! Do you remember it?
Top Cat! Well, they've dismembered it.
Cartoon cats who're breaking the law
— we loved it on TV, but the film version's poor.
Top Cat! The indisputable worst film of the year!
The animation's bad, and the script is just sad,
I think we've all been had by – Top Cat!

Middle instrumental section: a badly animated TC and the gang zoom unfunnily and jerkily around New York, trick Officer Dibble in various ways, go into a club, throw the doorman a dollar bill attached to a piece of string and pull it back etc, while audience wonder what happened to their much-loved childhood TV memories. Instrumental section ends.

Top Cat! It's ineffectual.
Top Cat! It's just incredible.
A decent film is what you desire,
but oh, my, God, this really is dire.
"Top" Cat? Oh Lordy, is the word "top" justified?
It's the bottom of the heap, and it frankly looks cheap,
the disaster of the year is – Top Cat.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[jesternl]

I finally saw Watchmen, nad I was rahter unimpressed.. i expected more of it.. Maybe I'd have enjoyed it more if I had read the comics..

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Death Mage]

Now that you've seen the movie, you might enjoy the comic better.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Scurra]

I thought the ending of the movie made more of a perverse sort of sense than the comic, although I think this was largely due to the inherent ridiculousness of the premise in the original. Also, a lot of the atmosphere of the comic was related to the slow tension engendered by the format*, which is very difficult to reproduce in a two-hour movie, so the ending of the comic had something of a cathartic release when it finally arrived (yes, I was there!) And I think that effect is still maintained in the collected "graphic novel" version - mostly due to the excellence of the supporting material, like the Black Freighter and the book extracts that break up the chapters. By losing those (understandably), a fair amount impact of the comic is lost. (And, in my opinion, the film is diminished by the addition of the Black Freighter material, because it simply doesn't fit with what you are watching,)

*The on-going episodic narrative structure of comics and tv series is somewhat antithetical to film which makes direct adaptation tough, even for a self-contained story like Watchmen. On a related not, I do recommend reading the novels Dickens in his original serialised form - a chapter a week - because I think it greatly enhances the experience.
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Death Mage]

Prometheus (Spoilerific review. Seriously, don't highlight the invisible text if you don't want spoilers.)

Yea, what Scurra said, basically. The film is almost like a modern retelling of the original Alien with better technology. That's... pretty much it. It works on that level, but if you're expecting it to set up the first movie, well, it doesn't. It doesn't even try to. The continuity is ALL out of whack... until you consider that there was more than one ship. Once you realize that The Derelict in Alien is the same class, but not the same ship, as the one in this film, the continuity can hold.

But I do have some major issues with the film. Most notably making "the jockey" be basically human plus. Number 1: That's not how DNA works. Number 2: WHY? For the love of God, WHY make it human, why make it share our DNA (especially to the extent that it does)? Are you that creatively bankrupt? Does Geiger need to design EVERY alien for you? This is such cliche tripe that it pains me to have it included now in the Alien lore. The new xenomorph designs were interesting, and it's good seeing a "different strain" of them. (Edit: Even if one of the designs was basically POTC's Kraken...)

But as bad as those points are, they just don't hold a candle to ZOMBIE. Seriously. Seriously.

If you liked Alien and still want to see a modern take on it, it's worth a watch. But you may want to wait for the home release.

[Edit]: And, unlike Scurra, I recommend avoiding Dickens novels at all cost, and finding something to read by an actual decent author. Great Expectations my ass.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Scurra]

I actually didn't have as much of an issue with your second point - it sort of makes sense that there would be a consistent "design", so therefore using a consistent "designer" is a nice little joke - but it's a fair point.

It did seem to me that maybe the film was intended to annoy everyone equally, which is, perhaps, rather more challenging to achieve than to just be anodyne. Certainly I think that there was sure to be something in the script that would aggravate you whatever your philosophical position was!
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Death Mage]

Ted

I'm honestly not sure what I think about this movie.

You can tell the Family Guy influences. There's some random, out of left field humor. There's some over-the-top raunchiness (more over-the-top since they can get away with more on film). But under all that is still a good, heart-warming - if predictable - story. And the random bits, while being some of the funnier moments, pulled me out of the story. They broke the illusion, which made it harder to stay invested in the characters and the story. But I don't know if the film would have been better without it, played straight, or if they really did need to lampshade the absurdity like that.

The movie's not bad, but I wouldn't say it's theater material. Worth a rent at least.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Gomez]

Gangster No. 1. Oh, man. What. A. Film. Savage, visceral, terrifying. The British gangster epic taken to its logical conclusion. Absolutely barnstorming performances from all, but particularly Paul Bettany (in his break-out role) and the inimitable, intense as fuck, Malcolm McDowell as the titular Gangster. I can't recommend this film highly enough, but be warned, you need a strong stomach.

[The Great Crep'er]

Moonrise Kingdom

Great, great movie. Good heartwarmer. They don't delve much into the personal contents of each character (save the boy and girl in the movie who, really are...the stars of the show) but the actions speak so much volume. There are some instances where you have to suspend your disbelief in what seems like a normal 1960s boyscout setting (Where the main character is struck by lightning and the head scoutmaster's cabin is struck down by lightning and engulfed in flames) but ultimately the piece is a heartfelt scenario with an almost universal nostalgia. The child actors in the film really stretch their boundaries and are almost always the ones with more remarkable actions in the movie. I originally came for Bill Murray and Bruce Willis, who are still play very intriguing characters, but ultimately the movie was stolen away by those captivating kids. I wish my own youth was half as magical.

Side note: (I didn't quite understand the necessity of having McDormand's character (the wife of Murray's character) having an affair with Willis's character. The whole thing just seemed to tangle up and never get fully resolved. It was only focused on in bits and pieces. When I first saw them kiss I thought "Ooh, a bit of complexity to the plot, perhaps an explanation for Suzy's mental state." but then it kind of drifted away without much focus as to a motive or exposition of Murray and McDormand's relationship.)

The only way a sequel would be acceptable is if its main purpose would be to focus in depth on the young lives of Suzy and Sam. Part of me still wants to know in fully detailed how they came to be the acceptable quirks they are. I want to hear so many more of their conversations. A great feel good, relatable film. See it if you get the chance.

[Death Mage]

The Amazing Spider-Man

This review will contain spoilers.

I will not directly compare this movie with the first Sam Rami/Toby Maguire one, but I will have some discussion about the two at the end. I am treating this movie as a stand-alone, which is what it's designed to be. It's a reboot. A different Spider-Man, a different origin story, etc. So how does it work?

It's a mixed bag. Overall, I find this movie more frustrating than anything else. The parts that it does well are done very well, but the parts that are done wrong, well, it's got plot holes you could drive a truck through sideways. The police in this film especially were handled better than I have ever seen police in a comic-book movie... for the most part. But the decisions made at the end were maddening. The police chief absolutely nails Parker on what Spider-man is REALLY doing when Parker tried to claim that Spider-man was just helping innocent people, wonderfully played, but Spider-man is also, very obviously, leaving all these traces of A KNOWN OSCORP CHEMICAL all over the damn place, which the police DO find as "evidence that Spider-man was here", but can't trace it back? Which brings up another point, Oscorp. The entire beginning of the movie was how Peter Parker manages to sneak through, in the most haphazard way possible, a building with security SO tight that they forcibly eject a new intern becuase he couldn't find his name badge... which Parker already took. Great security, care to check IDs perhaps? And that wasn't even CLOSE to the worst offense in that scene. Nothing, NOTHING during that entire fiasco made any sense.

There was some very good "learning his powers/crafting an identity" bits, but some lameness as well. Which you can say for just about every part of the film. There was an overabundance of "look ma, we're in 3D!" shots that served no other purpose. But, it showed the evolution of his character very well, his growth into the hero, and the reasons that he makes the choices he makes. The climax worked, for what it was, the villain had a reason for his plan. The building blocks were there. The writing just wasn't. They either needed someone else to tighten the script up, or fewer people screwing it up. With a Hollywood film, it's hard to tell which was needed more sometimes.

And hence the comparison to the first film. Yea, the Sam Rami film was campy, it was cheesy, and it had some really bad CGI at points (like the video game-esque rooftop bit), but one thing you can't really say about it was that the story wasn't tightly written. Everything in it belonged in it. Everything paid off, usually well. Nothing felt wasted, nothing felt forced. The same cannot be said for this one. Both films handled the origin and development differently, but I liked parts from each. I do much prefer this Spider-man though, better wise-cracking (even if the best line, which was in the earlier trailers, got changed for the later trailers and the film itself).

So, yea.. frustrating. So much lost potential.

Now the real question is.. should I review the 15+ low-budget/independent horror films I've seen in the past few days as well? Or the ones I'm gonna watch in the near future? Or should I just stick to my major viewings?
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[Chuck]

I must have dozed off the first time I watched Total Recall. I'll have to borrow it again.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Saw The Amazing Spider-Man last night. (I live across the street from a theater, and I have a goal to see a movie and be the only one in the theater, so I hit up late night weekday shows fairly often. Almost had it this time but two people walked in just as it was starting and one guy walked in 10 minutes in. Bah)
Anyway, it was definitely the best Spider-Man movie I've seen.
I really like Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy, and am already dreading her dying from whiplash in the next movie. Gruesome.
I did not like Dr. Connors continued use of the serum to transform. I think the character works better when he doesn't want to be the Lizard, a good guy who made one mistake but is still a good guy. I dunno.
I'm interested to see where they go with the stuff about Peter's parents. I just hope that no robot parents show up, because while I love robots, that was super lame.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

Also, I'm kind of glad that they tweaked the "With great power come great responsibility" line, which always struck me as a really weird thing to say to a kid.

[Jedo the Jedi]

[Jedo the Jedi]

I just watched Electric City, an online series created by Tom Hanks. It perhaps wasn't the most original material, but it entertained me for 90 minutes or so. The ending was interesting.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[The Ragin' South Asian]

The Dark Knight Rises (6:30AM real IMAX showing) - Some things felt contrived, other things got telegraphed early, but overall it was a good ending to the series.

[Quailman]

[Scurra]

The Dark Knight Rises (in glorious 2D)

I find Christopher Nolan to be an intensely exasperating director. The only film of his I have truly enjoyed from start to finish was The Prestige - and I am sure that this is down to it being an adaptation of someone else's work. All of his "own" stuff (allowing for much of it being in collaboration with his brother) gets bogged down in trying to do too much with too little, being too self-consciously clever and getting too serious at times.

And this problem is illuminated in spades here. Like James Cameron, I don't think Nolan is able to make a "bad" movie: he just seems to know how to make the camera work, whether its in a character scene or a dramatic action scene, and how to keep the two properly balanced (contrast this with Joss Whedon's work on Avengers Assemble, where the character stuff massively outweighs the pedestrian action.)

But what ought to be a simple story ends up wrapping itself up in knots as he introduces too many elements in an attempt to provide internal resonance. This flaw was apparent in The Dark Knight too, but it is worse here because the antagonist(s) here are nothing like as interesting as the Joker or even Ra's Al Ghul, and there are no sequences that are remotely surprising. Not that Tom Hardy doesn't put in an excellent performance (mumbled through a mask as it is), but he feels too much like a cipher - although nothing like as much of one as [spoiler redacted.]
And the film is, as ever, about half-an-hour too long as a result; I actually got a bit bored in the middle.

But Bale is on absolute top form here - perhaps even better than he was in Batman Begins. You believe the story arc that Bruce Wayne goes on, and the ending is surprisingly satisfying as a result, which is rarely the case with these superhero films. The rest of the cast are a bit blah but I blame that on Nolan's failure to be able to write convincing characters (even though many of them are interesting, they end up feeling flat.) I would dearly love to see Nolan direct a Nolan-Whedon script...

Like Avengers Assemble, this is a very enjoyable film that falls frustratingly short of true greatness. I look forward to seeing it again, but for me Batman Begins is still the best of the trilogy. (Disclosure: But I still think that Tim Burton's 1989 Batman is better than all of them.)
_________________
_{still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon}

[Jedo the Jedi]

A drive-in double feature:

The Amazing Spider-Man

Let's begin with the good points. I though the casting choices as a whole were great. Rhys Ifans does a pretty good job with Connors, Andrew Garfield is a vast improvement from Maguire and he fits the way this Spider-Man was written very well, Emma Stone does a great Stacey, and I really like Sally Fields and Martin Sheen as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. For the story line, I thought the handling of Lizard was pretty well done, and I thought his characterization through the film was something most films could aspire too (minus RSA's point above). I'm very pleased he wasn't killed at the end. The fact that the story was more about redemption than killing "the bad guy" was probably the most important thing I cared about with relation to the comics. Spider-Man's evolution and coming into his powers was decent, but the pivotal and laudable point was when he saved the kid on the bridge and realized just what Uncle Ben had meant about the adapted "great power and responsibility" line--another great change. Finally, how the NYPD come around to supporting Spider-Man was excellent if a little unrealistically handled (see below).

Now to the disappointing things. Yes, there are huge plot holes: all of the ones DM mentioned, why Aunt May seems not to care about Peter being gone all the time, and the turn-around of Officer Stacey's response to Spider-Man. I don't know where the hell Mary Jane was. I understand they were focusing more on Gwen, but at least mention MJ. As far as I know, there is never really Gwen without MJ, especially not in the Ultimate Universe which I understood this to be based upon. The filming wasn't bad, but as DM mentioned, the 3-D stuff is simply annoying. I'm sad the writing wasn't better. In the comics, Spider-Man is so witty and makes wise-cracks all the time, but here they only threw in enough to give you that sense of his demeanor then dropped it. In the end, it also felt very slow. I'll need to rewatch the previous adaptation, but I remember it moving a little more quickly even though it followed the same sequence formula.

Overall, a pretty decent movie, but it kind of fell short of its potential and definitely pales in comparison to the other action blockbusters this summer. Maybe the sequel will be an improvement, though the after-credits sneak peek doesn't give much insight.

Ted

The best line of the movie, "Whether you're Corey Feldman, Frankie Muniz, Justin Beiber, or a talking Teddy, eventually no one gives a shit," said by Patrick Stewart toward the beginning of the movie was the highlight. It went downhill from there. The previews made it seem like a funnier movie and I expected it at least to be similarly funny to Family Guy, but it ultimately wasn't. The saving grace is I got to see Mila Kunis off-and-on for two hours.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Death Mage]

The Dark Knight Rises

Suspension of Disbelief. This movie does not have it. To some, this may mean "it's a comic book story", but therein lies the dilemma of the Chris Nolan Batman movies; They are not "comic book stories". They take the Batman mythos and make it real. And they work. This one though.... has problems. I spent a lot of the movie shaking my head that things simply would NOT work the way they do in the film. When terrorists take over the stock exchange, with access to the terminal, people do not just take for granted that a whole series of trades that just HAPPEN to take place during that time and bankrupt one of the richest men in the world is completely legit. No. And terrorists are NOT reliable people. When one of them, after blowing up many, many parts of the city, and cutting off the island from the main land, and threatening everyone with a giant nuclear bomb, tells you that a hero the city has been worshiping for eight years is a lie, PEOPLE DO NOT BELIEVE HIM. This is beyond stupid. It really took me out of the movie as a whole.

BUT, if you can get past parts like that, and there are SEVERAL other examples I could list, the movie does play out very well. There's lot of action, tons of tension that just continues to ramp up, and some really great pay-offs. But the issues of believability are just too numerous and too great for me to really consider this a good movie. Especially coming off of The Dark Knight, which was magnificent for bringing Batman down to the real world, to a fully plausible - if grandiose - scheme that was frightening in the thought that something like that COULD happen with just the right kind of crazy in charge. At least, it seems plausible. Reality would prevent schemes that large from working (even the largest terrorist attack on the country fell apart before the end, the people on board United Airlines Flight 93 fought back and brought the plane down early), But it felt possible. This one? No. Nearly every step of the way, I was shaking my head about SOME details that just couldn't work.

I will buy the blu-ray. I will watch it happily again then. But this is not going to be on my list of "favorite movies".

[Edit]Did not like Selina Kyle, and Bane was woefully flat vs previous villains (especially the deservingly Oscar winning Heath Ledger performance) - but at least Bane was intelligent and competent this time out, as he should be, but it would have been nice to SEE how he deduced or planned some things.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!]

[The Ragin' South Asian]

[Death Mage]

[Undercover Monk]

Two things addressing The Dark Knight Rises believability

They mention that Wayne will likely get the funds back in time. They just wanted to remove Wayne from the board which was rather easy considering he had become a recluse. he had never been very interested in running the company anyway. and less than 24 hours later he had his back broken by Bane so I didnt really have a problem with that. And the normal citizens of Gotham were not supporting Bane that would be the criminals held without Parole in the Dent prisons. I mean come on scarecrow was holding court and sending anyone he wanted into the river. (brilliant cameo from cillian murphey).

As to my thoughts on the film. I actually like Batman Begins the best of the three but this one was still magnificent. (Not as good as Avengers but a great Trilogy) Some of the characters were wasted particularly Michale Cain but his limited role was planned I think as they needed to bring Batman/Bruce Wayne to the very bottom of despair before he could rise up (get it.) However some secondaries like the rookie cop and Jim Gordan were particulary great. Oldman's performance here outshines his previous stellar portrayals in begins and dark knight. The biggest problem here is it is obviously the end of a trilogy. The other two were self-contained problems. This deals almost entirely with the fall-out from decisions made in the first two films. It was nice to see Gotham in the winter just gave a new look to the series. It definately had a No Man's Land feel to the movie. There is a novel version of that story and I suggest picking it up if you are a Batman fan.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Jedo the Jedi]

The Dark Knight Rises

Probably not much new to add here except to reiterate a couple of points.

I really felt the movie was hopelessly predictable. Very formulaic, and the ending with Talia Al Ghul was seen pretty quickly by me. Maybe it's my comic knowledge, but they really pushed the audience to believe Bane had the detonator too much that I knew there was a missing element. Cue the woman who is brand new to the franchise. However, I did think the overall ending did a decent job of making a nice end to the series, even if it was a bit campy with its references. I knew they wouldn't let him die, but they did a good job of making you feel it for a few minutes. I would agree he became the hero Gotham needed.

As for the characters, as others mentioned, they really did a pretty good job with Alfred and Gordon. Selena Kyle felt incredibly dull though, and I really couldn't discern any motivation for her actions. She was a bit erratic. Bale ultimately does a good job as Wayne. He's actually pretty tops for me in this role. The only thing I didn't like is he was suddenly a very sucky fighter. Seriously, I know Bane was an awesome pit fighter or whatever, but Batman has shit-loads of armor on and he can't do better than that?

After spending time thinking about it, I really did enjoy the movie. Definitely not the best of the series in terms of execution, but probably one of the best stories in terms of depth and attention to Bruce Wayne's struggle. Of course, I think that's really only possible because of its two predecessors.

Now for The Man of Steel...
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Undercover Monk]

I think you mean now for Les Mis and the Hobbit

But I see what you mean. The man of steel trailer looked great but then again they always do....
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Zag]

[Jedo the Jedi]

I'm very apprehensive about The Hobbit. I'm afraid Peter Jackson might have a big head, and they are clearly taking significant liberties by adding in portions of the Silmarillion. I'm just not ready for it.

Les Mis has good potential, but we'll see if the supporting cast lives up to the big names leading the way.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Death Mage]

[Jedo the Jedi]

That's all fine. I'm just saying these are the reasons I'm not highly anticipating its release. Only time will tell how good of an adaptation it is.
_________________
Paragon Tally: 19 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting.

[Talitha]

The Hobbit is being split into at least 2. Jackson is talking about perhaps adding a 3rd! If he does I might give the whole lot a miss.. I'm not that big of a fan.

[Thok]

Tolkein literally skipped over a major battle that could easily be the climax of a second hobbit movie. I wouldn't consider that a good idea (the reason the war was skipped was because Bilbo spent it unconscious), but it's clearly there.

If I had to make two hobbit movies, the escape in barrels strikes me as a natural stopping point for the first movie.

[Undercover Monk]

I would rather Mirkwood be in the second film. May be end part 1 with them walking into the forest or perhaps attacked by the spiders. I dont want to watch a 3 hour movie of lonely mountain that would get way too old.
_________________
The Classic Blunders:
1. never get involved in a land war in Asia
2.Never go in against a Sicilian when DEATH is on the line
3. Never release Peyton Manning

[Zag]

[Undercover Monk]

[Zag]

Excellent points. I take it back. On the other hand, I still think that it would be a good place to end.
_________________

[Dread Pirate Westley]