I just watched "Too Late the Hero" a WWII movie made in 1970 by Robert Aldrich. It starred Cliff Robertson and Michael Caine.
A major disappointment. I had seen about 15 minutes of it a decade ago on TBS and it seemed interesting. Seeing the whole thing from beginning to end showed that the movie was a mix of "Bridge on the River Kwai" with "Objective Burma," almost to the point where one could say: "This scene is from 'Kwai'" and then "Now they're copying 'Objective Burma,' except that plot details and motivations were clearer in 'Objective Burma.'"
To make things worse, several of the supporting actors were from "Flight of the Phoenix," and seeing them kept reminding me that Aldrich could make much better films than this one.
WHAT FILMS HAVE YOU SEEN LATELY?
As i'm want to do from time to time I watched an animated movie. This time I watched OVER THE HEDGE. I had no idea it was based on a comic strip but alas it was. It was a fairly funny little movie. It had a message of family and togetherness that wasn't shoved down the viewer's throat so that's always good. It's essentially about a raccoon who exploits a bunch of foraging animals into helping him steal food from a community so he can deliver said food to a bear that he pissed off.
A lot of good laughs along the way and the squirrel character was by far the funniest with the skunk Stella being just as funny especially the scene where she's distracting the landowner's cat.
a 3 out of 5
A lot of good laughs along the way and the squirrel character was by far the funniest with the skunk Stella being just as funny especially the scene where she's distracting the landowner's cat.
a 3 out of 5
I took my son to see "Nim's Island" this weekend, and we had a great time. It is a very cleverly made children's adventure film that adults can also enjoy. In some ways, the adult part of the film is a shrewd reworking of "Romancing the Stone," and it is a treat to see Jodie Foster play a comic role for once.
As for DVD action, I just watched "Beach Red," the Cornell Wilde movie from 1967. Interesting, but I find that old war movies always disappoint when I catch up with them because they have been ripped off so many times. For example, the big emotional climax of "Beach Red" came as utterly predictable to me because I had seen something very similar in Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun."
On its own terms, "Beach Red" is certainly different and well-done, except for its theme song which comes close to crippling the movie.
As for DVD action, I just watched "Beach Red," the Cornell Wilde movie from 1967. Interesting, but I find that old war movies always disappoint when I catch up with them because they have been ripped off so many times. For example, the big emotional climax of "Beach Red" came as utterly predictable to me because I had seen something very similar in Spielberg's "Empire of the Sun."
On its own terms, "Beach Red" is certainly different and well-done, except for its theme song which comes close to crippling the movie.
-
jdb1
Saw Catch-22 yesterday in its entirety, for the first time in many, many years.
The first time I saw the whole thing I didn't like it at all. But that was almost 40 years ago; what did I know then? Not much. This time, I hope I know a lot more about life, generally, and I absolutely loved the movie; or as much as one can love something as simultaneously horrendous, disturbing, and funny. I am thinking now that since I spent some time as a military wife, I understand the "underside" of military thinking much better, and I am able to appreciate the absurdities Joseph Heller describes.
Alan Arkin was perfect casting as Yossarian; and everyone else in the cast was pretty terrific, too. Bob Newhart was very funny as the beleaguered Maj. Major, promoted to group commander just because his name was Major. He didn't want to see anyone in his office, unless he wasn't there. Such things really happen in the military, you know; not much embellishment was needed.
I especially liked Tony Perkins as Chaplain Tapman. Here Perkins used his nervousness in a different way. This Chaplain was not neurotic, only genuinely overwhelmed, and unsure of his role, but trying to do only good things. A side of Perkins we didn't see much of in his later films.
I liked this much better than I liked (or still don't really like) M*A*S*H, the movie.
The first time I saw the whole thing I didn't like it at all. But that was almost 40 years ago; what did I know then? Not much. This time, I hope I know a lot more about life, generally, and I absolutely loved the movie; or as much as one can love something as simultaneously horrendous, disturbing, and funny. I am thinking now that since I spent some time as a military wife, I understand the "underside" of military thinking much better, and I am able to appreciate the absurdities Joseph Heller describes.
Alan Arkin was perfect casting as Yossarian; and everyone else in the cast was pretty terrific, too. Bob Newhart was very funny as the beleaguered Maj. Major, promoted to group commander just because his name was Major. He didn't want to see anyone in his office, unless he wasn't there. Such things really happen in the military, you know; not much embellishment was needed.
I especially liked Tony Perkins as Chaplain Tapman. Here Perkins used his nervousness in a different way. This Chaplain was not neurotic, only genuinely overwhelmed, and unsure of his role, but trying to do only good things. A side of Perkins we didn't see much of in his later films.
I liked this much better than I liked (or still don't really like) M*A*S*H, the movie.
Last edited by jdb1 on April 16th, 2008, 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Good afternoon,
I just watched "Dogma" again and found it even more entertaining than I did the first time I saw it. Seems that each viewing brings to light something I hadn't picked up on before. I think it's a brilliant film, both in its' concept and its' execution. Question - If I were a Catholic, would I see it in a different light? Or even find it blasphemous? If I could choose a religion to be brought up in (if one were mandated) I think I'd be a Rastafarian. One love, one heart, one spirit. What flows through one flows through all.
As always,
Hollis
I just watched "Dogma" again and found it even more entertaining than I did the first time I saw it. Seems that each viewing brings to light something I hadn't picked up on before. I think it's a brilliant film, both in its' concept and its' execution. Question - If I were a Catholic, would I see it in a different light? Or even find it blasphemous? If I could choose a religion to be brought up in (if one were mandated) I think I'd be a Rastafarian. One love, one heart, one spirit. What flows through one flows through all.
As always,
Hollis
jdb1 said:
I saw M*A*S*H when it was released and thought it was OK. The hullabaloo over it seemed just too, too much. Then later that year I saw CATCH-22 and loved it, and saw it three more times that summer. But it seemed like everyone else said, "It's OK, but it's not as good as the book" (which opens a topic that can really get me going).
The first DVD I bought: CATCH-22.
And here I thought I was the only person in the club. Now we know there are at least two of us. Secret password: Balaban.I liked this much better than I liked (or still don't really like) M*A*S*H, the movie.
I saw M*A*S*H when it was released and thought it was OK. The hullabaloo over it seemed just too, too much. Then later that year I saw CATCH-22 and loved it, and saw it three more times that summer. But it seemed like everyone else said, "It's OK, but it's not as good as the book" (which opens a topic that can really get me going).
The first DVD I bought: CATCH-22.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
-
jdb1
I agree about M*A*S*H -- I found the whole thing rather beside the point dramatically. I really didn't find it very funny, either. Altman's style of cinema was new, but to what end?ChiO wrote:jdb1 said:And here I thought I was the only person in the club. Now we know there are at least two of us. Secret password: Balaban.I liked this much better than I liked (or still don't really like) M*A*S*H, the movie.
I saw M*A*S*H when it was released and thought it was OK. The hullabaloo over it seemed just too, too much. Then later that year I saw CATCH-22 and loved it, and saw it three more times that summer. But it seemed like everyone else said, "It's OK, but it's not as good as the book" (which opens a topic that can really get me going).
The first DVD I bought: CATCH-22.
I don't mean to get you revved up, ChiO, but I agree about the book, Catch-22. It was funnier and meatier than the movie. So much of the very funny dialog was left out. The movie concentrated on only one side of the story -- the nightmarish one. I suppose it was a product of its time (1970). If the movie had been made at the same time the book came out - early 60s, it would have been very different, I imagine, even if Mike Nichols had done it then. The crux of Yossarian's nihilist philosophy, that in wartime, everyone is your enemy, even your colleagues, wouldn't have played very well in 1960.
Question: Is COMING APART (Ginsberg, 1969) (a) a pretentious, self-conscious attempt at an important "arty" movie, or (b) a raw, frank dissection of the duplicity consuming a man's soul?
Answer: Yes.
I loved it.
Milton Moses Ginsberg's first movie as a director (he made only three more) is a product of the late-'60s (the drugs, sex and clothing are dead giveaways), with Cassavetes as the most obvious stylistic point of reference. A psychiatrist, Joe (Rip Torn) has an apartment where he meets young female patients, young female neighbors, and young female pick-ups (see a trend?)...and his wife. Joe films the encounters -- or, at least some or portions of them. His profession is, naturally, known to his patients and wife, but may be unknown or hidden to others. Those women who want him cause him to pull away; those who spurn him results in him wanting them.
Joe's duplicity: He acts as if he cares about each of them when, in fact, it appears that he cares about nothing.
The entire movie takes place in the living room of Joe's apartment. The camera is static with long takes. The lower third of the frame is the back of a white sofa; the top two-thirds is a mirror. Most of the "action" is a two-shot of people on the sofa, with them, the rest of the room and the NYC skyline reflected in the mirror. When people are not on the sofa, usually their reflection is seen, but sometimes nothing but the sofa and mirror (and the reflection of objects) are visible.
The filming is surreptious. The camera is hidden in, what he tells one woman, a piece of kinetic art. The camera angle changes occasionally when he moves the "art." Takes end when either Joe turns the camera off or when it runs out of film.
Joe films the encounters so he can study or relive them, purportedly for a book. When he turns a camera back on or puts in more film, however, it is often unclear how much time has elapsed. A few seconds, 24 hours, a month? Are the gaps purely coincidental, intentional attempts not to re-experience an emotion (and is that emotion pleasurable or not), or merely to hide something from the viewer who is truly a voyeur? The one time Joe expresses rage is when a recurring young female ex-patient visitor has a camera with her and acts as if she's going to take pictures.
Rip Torn's performance is phenomenal -- forcing one to care about someone who appears to care about nothing. Ginsberg's construct of making the audience watch a character who is later going to watch what the viewer is watching implicates the audience in the character's duplicity.
Seldom has a movie on a single viewing moved me -- emotionally and intellectually -- as COMING APART has. It does what many great movies do -- forces you to love it or hate it. Disinterest is not possible.
Answer: Yes.
I loved it.
Milton Moses Ginsberg's first movie as a director (he made only three more) is a product of the late-'60s (the drugs, sex and clothing are dead giveaways), with Cassavetes as the most obvious stylistic point of reference. A psychiatrist, Joe (Rip Torn) has an apartment where he meets young female patients, young female neighbors, and young female pick-ups (see a trend?)...and his wife. Joe films the encounters -- or, at least some or portions of them. His profession is, naturally, known to his patients and wife, but may be unknown or hidden to others. Those women who want him cause him to pull away; those who spurn him results in him wanting them.
Joe's duplicity: He acts as if he cares about each of them when, in fact, it appears that he cares about nothing.
The entire movie takes place in the living room of Joe's apartment. The camera is static with long takes. The lower third of the frame is the back of a white sofa; the top two-thirds is a mirror. Most of the "action" is a two-shot of people on the sofa, with them, the rest of the room and the NYC skyline reflected in the mirror. When people are not on the sofa, usually their reflection is seen, but sometimes nothing but the sofa and mirror (and the reflection of objects) are visible.
The filming is surreptious. The camera is hidden in, what he tells one woman, a piece of kinetic art. The camera angle changes occasionally when he moves the "art." Takes end when either Joe turns the camera off or when it runs out of film.
Joe films the encounters so he can study or relive them, purportedly for a book. When he turns a camera back on or puts in more film, however, it is often unclear how much time has elapsed. A few seconds, 24 hours, a month? Are the gaps purely coincidental, intentional attempts not to re-experience an emotion (and is that emotion pleasurable or not), or merely to hide something from the viewer who is truly a voyeur? The one time Joe expresses rage is when a recurring young female ex-patient visitor has a camera with her and acts as if she's going to take pictures.
Rip Torn's performance is phenomenal -- forcing one to care about someone who appears to care about nothing. Ginsberg's construct of making the audience watch a character who is later going to watch what the viewer is watching implicates the audience in the character's duplicity.
Seldom has a movie on a single viewing moved me -- emotionally and intellectually -- as COMING APART has. It does what many great movies do -- forces you to love it or hate it. Disinterest is not possible.
Everyday people...that's what's wrong with the world. -- Morgan Morgan
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I love movies. But don't get me wrong. I hate Hollywood. -- Orson Welles
Movies can only go forward in spite of the motion picture industry. -- Orson Welles
I just watched "The Wild Child," Francois Truffaut's film about a feral child in France around 1800.
I really enjoyed this one. The black-and-white photography really was a smart choice, and the opening scene in which the wild child is hunted down was quite gripping. For a while, I thought the movie would become something like "The Elephant Man," but it is unsentimental and ended up being a very interesting film about education and how we become "civilized."
I really enjoyed this one. The black-and-white photography really was a smart choice, and the opening scene in which the wild child is hunted down was quite gripping. For a while, I thought the movie would become something like "The Elephant Man," but it is unsentimental and ended up being a very interesting film about education and how we become "civilized."
-
jdb1
Last weekend I saw The House on Telegraph Hill (1951) on Fox. I'd never seen this one before, and I can recommend it. Directed by Robert Wise, it stars Richard Basehart and Valentina Cortese (who were married at the time).
Cortese is a concentration camp survivor who assumes the identity of a dead friend in order to get into the US. The friend had a son, who she had sent when he was an infant to the US to live with an aunt in San Fransico. Cortese goes along with the fiction that she is the boy's mother (he is about 8 or 9). Basehart is a cousin who is the boy's guardian after the aunt (very rich, of course) passes away. Cortese gets Basehart to marry her, to insure her immigration status (although she never mentions this to him), and goes with him to San Francisco to set up housekeeping in the aunt's Telegraph Hill mansion.
The interesting elements of the story are that Cortese is not a bad character; she acts only as a matter of self-preservation, but finds that she is willing to try to be happy with her handsome husband and the little boy, who is a very cute one, very happy to have his "mother" back at last. Added to the mix is a rather sultry and spooky governess, and the increasingly suspicious behavior of her husband.
Cortese suspects that husband and nanny are plotting to do away with both her and the boy, in order to keep the dead aunt's fortune for themselves. But how to do anything about this without blowing her own cover? William Lundigan is her husband's friend, who doesn't really think much of him, and who is beginning to fall for Cortese. He helps her, although he doesn't quite believe in her suspicions.
Cortese and Basehart are excellent in this, and the rest of the cast is good as well. The movie has the stark urban exteriors and dark interiors of a good noir, the action is tight, and the plot keeps you interested. This is an overlooked goodie.
Cortese is a concentration camp survivor who assumes the identity of a dead friend in order to get into the US. The friend had a son, who she had sent when he was an infant to the US to live with an aunt in San Fransico. Cortese goes along with the fiction that she is the boy's mother (he is about 8 or 9). Basehart is a cousin who is the boy's guardian after the aunt (very rich, of course) passes away. Cortese gets Basehart to marry her, to insure her immigration status (although she never mentions this to him), and goes with him to San Francisco to set up housekeeping in the aunt's Telegraph Hill mansion.
The interesting elements of the story are that Cortese is not a bad character; she acts only as a matter of self-preservation, but finds that she is willing to try to be happy with her handsome husband and the little boy, who is a very cute one, very happy to have his "mother" back at last. Added to the mix is a rather sultry and spooky governess, and the increasingly suspicious behavior of her husband.
Cortese suspects that husband and nanny are plotting to do away with both her and the boy, in order to keep the dead aunt's fortune for themselves. But how to do anything about this without blowing her own cover? William Lundigan is her husband's friend, who doesn't really think much of him, and who is beginning to fall for Cortese. He helps her, although he doesn't quite believe in her suspicions.
Cortese and Basehart are excellent in this, and the rest of the cast is good as well. The movie has the stark urban exteriors and dark interiors of a good noir, the action is tight, and the plot keeps you interested. This is an overlooked goodie.
Last edited by jdb1 on April 18th, 2008, 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
) So i'm sure i'll have something to report on by the end of the weekend.Good morning,
"Starz" just showed a film I caught quite by accident, but I'm glad I did. Directed by Mel Gibson, it's called "Apocalypto" and follows one young Mayan warrior's (mis)adventures at the hands of some not so friendly fellow Indians. It reminded me just a bit of "The Naked Prey" with Cornell Wilde with very little, if any, dialogue. Subtitles were used, but kept to a minimum. I'm certainly not the most sophisticated film viewer under the sun, but this movie was absolutely riveting. Has anyone else seen it?
As always,
Hollis
"Starz" just showed a film I caught quite by accident, but I'm glad I did. Directed by Mel Gibson, it's called "Apocalypto" and follows one young Mayan warrior's (mis)adventures at the hands of some not so friendly fellow Indians. It reminded me just a bit of "The Naked Prey" with Cornell Wilde with very little, if any, dialogue. Subtitles were used, but kept to a minimum. I'm certainly not the most sophisticated film viewer under the sun, but this movie was absolutely riveting. Has anyone else seen it?
As always,
Hollis
I have to agree about M.A.S.H. the movie. I wasn't all that crazy about it, but I will fight to the death anyone who disagrees that the TV show wasn't one of the very best every produced and shown. The TV characters were softened up a little, but just enough to make them good for TV.
Back around the Christmas holidays, I decided to take a break from TCM for a while. I found myself becoming angry with much of the programming. I still checked everyday to see if something was coming on, and I did DVD a few movies around St. Patricks Day, and Easter. But TCM has continued to disappoint me. I've only seen about 10 movies that were completely new to the station (I'm excluding foreign language and silent, those are not my thing). Early a.m. (2:00/3:00 a.m.) I have seen a couple and an occasional afternoon delight, but primetime has definitely been dull, dull, dull, dull, with repeats up the yazoo night after night. How many times can they show films like the Producers, And Now Tomorrow (which I love, but even so!), and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?
So, I continue my self imposed exile until I see some new stuff on primetime which is NOT post 1975.
Anne
Back around the Christmas holidays, I decided to take a break from TCM for a while. I found myself becoming angry with much of the programming. I still checked everyday to see if something was coming on, and I did DVD a few movies around St. Patricks Day, and Easter. But TCM has continued to disappoint me. I've only seen about 10 movies that were completely new to the station (I'm excluding foreign language and silent, those are not my thing). Early a.m. (2:00/3:00 a.m.) I have seen a couple and an occasional afternoon delight, but primetime has definitely been dull, dull, dull, dull, with repeats up the yazoo night after night. How many times can they show films like the Producers, And Now Tomorrow (which I love, but even so!), and Cat on a Hot Tin Roof?
So, I continue my self imposed exile until I see some new stuff on primetime which is NOT post 1975.
Anne
Anne
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
* * * * * * * * What is past is prologue. * * * * * * * *
]***********************************************************************
Well I watched two movies. One from the Golden Age and one from the late '70s.
The first was the Gable-Loy-Harlow film WIFE VS. SECRETARY. I found it to be interesting but it wasn't nearly as "big" a picture as I thought it would be seeing who the stars were. There were some nice scenes though. I especially liked the beginning when one butler wakes up the other butler who then gets Gable's character up and at em LOL! Myrna Loy really didn't have much to do in this movie and to be honest some of the misunderstandings and her behavior was quite contrived. I actually liked the subdued Jean Harlow. She was seductive and sweet without being too brassy or conventional in terms of jumping all over Gable. I think it was a wise decision to cast her in a more subdued role.
It was also neat to see a very young Jimmy Stewart. Man that guy barely aged! It seemed like he kept the jist of his looks for 90% of his movie career. At least he worked on his voice though as he sounded terrible in this movie. So while I wouldn't call it an A grade Gable picture i'd say it fits in nicely into his B level films.
The 2nd film I saw was 1978's F.I.S.T. This was a surprisingly good movie! Although I think it could've been at least an hour longer but that'd make the movie 3 hrs+ so maybe it was best that they cut it down to 2 1/2. Sly Stallone plays a fictionalized Jimmy Hoffa and you see his rise as the power behind the Federation of Inter-State Truckers. He's actually pretty convincing in the role as you really get the sense that he's truly just a joe palooka trying to get better conditions for his fellow co-workers. Of course he gets mixed up in the mob and the union ends up being tied closely to the underworld.
The movie shows his rise to the top and then flashes forward 20 years to show his downfall. The last part of the movie was very interesting and I think that area of the movie could've been expanded a bit. Rod Steiger (who looked completely different to me) was excellent as the crusading senator investigating the rackets. He eventually puts the screwed to Sly's union and more or less hounds all the major players. The scene near the end of the movie where he has Sly in for the hearing was FANTASTIC.
I'm starting to seriously think that Norman Jewison never directed a bad movie in his life. I mean he took a movie that could've been full of cliches and bad acting by the main star and turned it into a minor masterpiece. I give it high marks and if you should ever run into it please watch it.
The first was the Gable-Loy-Harlow film WIFE VS. SECRETARY. I found it to be interesting but it wasn't nearly as "big" a picture as I thought it would be seeing who the stars were. There were some nice scenes though. I especially liked the beginning when one butler wakes up the other butler who then gets Gable's character up and at em LOL! Myrna Loy really didn't have much to do in this movie and to be honest some of the misunderstandings and her behavior was quite contrived. I actually liked the subdued Jean Harlow. She was seductive and sweet without being too brassy or conventional in terms of jumping all over Gable. I think it was a wise decision to cast her in a more subdued role.
It was also neat to see a very young Jimmy Stewart. Man that guy barely aged! It seemed like he kept the jist of his looks for 90% of his movie career. At least he worked on his voice though as he sounded terrible in this movie. So while I wouldn't call it an A grade Gable picture i'd say it fits in nicely into his B level films.
The 2nd film I saw was 1978's F.I.S.T. This was a surprisingly good movie! Although I think it could've been at least an hour longer but that'd make the movie 3 hrs+ so maybe it was best that they cut it down to 2 1/2. Sly Stallone plays a fictionalized Jimmy Hoffa and you see his rise as the power behind the Federation of Inter-State Truckers. He's actually pretty convincing in the role as you really get the sense that he's truly just a joe palooka trying to get better conditions for his fellow co-workers. Of course he gets mixed up in the mob and the union ends up being tied closely to the underworld.
The movie shows his rise to the top and then flashes forward 20 years to show his downfall. The last part of the movie was very interesting and I think that area of the movie could've been expanded a bit. Rod Steiger (who looked completely different to me) was excellent as the crusading senator investigating the rackets. He eventually puts the screwed to Sly's union and more or less hounds all the major players. The scene near the end of the movie where he has Sly in for the hearing was FANTASTIC.
I'm starting to seriously think that Norman Jewison never directed a bad movie in his life. I mean he took a movie that could've been full of cliches and bad acting by the main star and turned it into a minor masterpiece. I give it high marks and if you should ever run into it please watch it.
-
movieman1957
- Administrator
- Posts: 5522
- Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
- Location: MD
"As Young As You Feel" starring Monty Woolley and Constance Bennett.
Early Paddy Chayevsky (and quite short at about 78 minutes) follows 65 year old Woolley who is retired by the company because of his age. He feels it quite unfair and in attempt to get his job back passes himself off as the conglomerate's president to his division to rescind the forced retirement.
In one day he tours the plant he worked, gives a speech at the Chamber of Commerce and in doing so causes quite a sensation for the country and an uncomfortable predicament for the company president.
Jovial Woolley is good fun who will, with good nature, take the consequences of his actions. Constance Bennett plays an unhappy wife who falls for Woolley because he can dance and throws a great compliment. Thelma Ritter is fun as she was a former singer (really.)
Plenty of Chayevsky pontificating but not too long. Manages to make his point with a bit of fun. Not at all heavy handed. Pleasant enough way to spend some time.
Early Paddy Chayevsky (and quite short at about 78 minutes) follows 65 year old Woolley who is retired by the company because of his age. He feels it quite unfair and in attempt to get his job back passes himself off as the conglomerate's president to his division to rescind the forced retirement.
In one day he tours the plant he worked, gives a speech at the Chamber of Commerce and in doing so causes quite a sensation for the country and an uncomfortable predicament for the company president.
Jovial Woolley is good fun who will, with good nature, take the consequences of his actions. Constance Bennett plays an unhappy wife who falls for Woolley because he can dance and throws a great compliment. Thelma Ritter is fun as she was a former singer (really.)
Plenty of Chayevsky pontificating but not too long. Manages to make his point with a bit of fun. Not at all heavy handed. Pleasant enough way to spend some time.
Chris
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."