See, I think its actually a cool costume. But not in a fucking Bond movie. Put that in some cyberpunk or other sci-fi, it'd be awesome. But in contemporary spy fiction? Very poor decision.
A ★ review of Die Another Day (2002)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.letterboxd.com
I couldn't include this in the review, but...just look at the get-up for the villain in the climax. They actually thought this looked good.
View attachment 10047
Discuss and Rate the Last Film You Watched
- Thread starter Th3Ch33s3Cak3
- Start date
Tripoli (1950)
Based on the 1805 battle of Derna, which is a town near Tripoli, but was part of Tripoli (the state) at the time. A US marine, backed by mercenaries and dubious allies travels across the desert to attack it.
But then Scarlet O'Hara gets in the way of a decent political/adventure film by adding a rubbish love story. Ah well.
Based on the 1805 battle of Derna, which is a town near Tripoli, but was part of Tripoli (the state) at the time. A US marine, backed by mercenaries and dubious allies travels across the desert to attack it.
But then Scarlet O'Hara gets in the way of a decent political/adventure film by adding a rubbish love story. Ah well.
Killers of the Flower Moon, 8/10
This is Martin Scorsese's latest about a string of murders in the wealthy native Osage county in the 1920s. It's basically a crime-conspiracy drama seen through the eyes of the conspirators: Leonardo DiCaprio plays a man, who I'd say is too stupid to have a conscience, ending up serving his uncle, a local robber baron, who's seeking to hoover up all the wealth of the local native families for himself. He aims to do this by having his relatives marry their daughters, and then having said daughters and family members killed off so he can inherit their fortune. This is not a spoiler, this is all laid out in the first half hour of the film.
As expected of Scorsese, it's very very good. Despite the runtime and slow pace, I was never once bored or uninvested. It's like a bit leather chair of a film you can just sink into and get lost in. It's clearly a deeply personal film for Scorsese due to the massive 200+ min runtime, but also the fact that Scorsese himself turns up as a small, but vital cameo at the very end. It has slow, very deliberate pacing and pulls no punches in showing the horror and sorrow these men put the community through in their greed. It's a movie that's delibrately frustrating the audience by showing these absolute monsters get away with horrible things time and time again, and having DiCaprio's character be one of the most singulary r3tard3d main characters to come along in a while.
Robert DeNiro is the show stealer here, playing basically the ultimate pure evil greedy white man role, and I have a feeling there's bound to be Oscar buzz for his performance. In almost every scene he's in you get a sense that he could shoot anyone in the room in the head in the blink of an eye and not even flinch. Not that the rest are slouches either: DiCaprio is on top form (even if it's still hard to separate the actor from the character), and Lily Gladstone gives a stellar, understated performance as the heart and humanity amidst all the greed and amorality. You really get a sense of her pain and denial as even when horrible things happening all around and to her, she still loves her stupid, stupid husband dearly.
The foremost word I'd use for this movie is "sinister". Almost every scene in the first two thirds of this movie is weighed by an undercurrent of tension, distrust and dread: everyone's hiding something, everyone's got ulterior motives, everyone's trying to fuck someone over. The bass and harmonica -driven, very minimalist soundtrack punctuates the atmosphere perfectly, and the matter of fact-ness of the proceedings only serves to drive home how utterly uncaring these people were. In the last third the movie decidedly switches gears and becomes very different, but I won't spoil in what way. It almost feels like a miniseries where each segment introduces a whole new cast of characters and takes a new direction. But at the heart of it is always DiCaprio and Gladstone's characters' relationship, which is sweet, sad and horrible to watch all at the same time, and those elements weave together seamlessly for one of the most unique and engaging on-screen relationships I've ever seen.
If there's something I'd criticize about the film, it's that it can be repetitive. You hear and see a lot of the same information from the POVs of a lot of different characters. Though this is a deliberate choice (see the point about this being a frustrating film), it can still feel tedious to see people talk how someone was murdered for like the third time in excruciating detail. The slow pace can start to drag towards the end, even when it becomes clear which way the film is headed, and then I started to think "yeah, I get it, wrap it up will you". And while I'm complaining, some stupid b1tch wouldn't turn her phone off despite me loudly telling her twice, causing a mild inconvenience which took me out of the film.
This is Martin Scorsese's latest about a string of murders in the wealthy native Osage county in the 1920s. It's basically a crime-conspiracy drama seen through the eyes of the conspirators: Leonardo DiCaprio plays a man, who I'd say is too stupid to have a conscience, ending up serving his uncle, a local robber baron, who's seeking to hoover up all the wealth of the local native families for himself. He aims to do this by having his relatives marry their daughters, and then having said daughters and family members killed off so he can inherit their fortune. This is not a spoiler, this is all laid out in the first half hour of the film.
As expected of Scorsese, it's very very good. Despite the runtime and slow pace, I was never once bored or uninvested. It's like a bit leather chair of a film you can just sink into and get lost in. It's clearly a deeply personal film for Scorsese due to the massive 200+ min runtime, but also the fact that Scorsese himself turns up as a small, but vital cameo at the very end. It has slow, very deliberate pacing and pulls no punches in showing the horror and sorrow these men put the community through in their greed. It's a movie that's delibrately frustrating the audience by showing these absolute monsters get away with horrible things time and time again, and having DiCaprio's character be one of the most singulary r3tard3d main characters to come along in a while.
Robert DeNiro is the show stealer here, playing basically the ultimate pure evil greedy white man role, and I have a feeling there's bound to be Oscar buzz for his performance. In almost every scene he's in you get a sense that he could shoot anyone in the room in the head in the blink of an eye and not even flinch. Not that the rest are slouches either: DiCaprio is on top form (even if it's still hard to separate the actor from the character), and Lily Gladstone gives a stellar, understated performance as the heart and humanity amidst all the greed and amorality. You really get a sense of her pain and denial as even when horrible things happening all around and to her, she still loves her stupid, stupid husband dearly.
The foremost word I'd use for this movie is "sinister". Almost every scene in the first two thirds of this movie is weighed by an undercurrent of tension, distrust and dread: everyone's hiding something, everyone's got ulterior motives, everyone's trying to fuck someone over. The bass and harmonica -driven, very minimalist soundtrack punctuates the atmosphere perfectly, and the matter of fact-ness of the proceedings only serves to drive home how utterly uncaring these people were. In the last third the movie decidedly switches gears and becomes very different, but I won't spoil in what way. It almost feels like a miniseries where each segment introduces a whole new cast of characters and takes a new direction. But at the heart of it is always DiCaprio and Gladstone's characters' relationship, which is sweet, sad and horrible to watch all at the same time, and those elements weave together seamlessly for one of the most unique and engaging on-screen relationships I've ever seen.
If there's something I'd criticize about the film, it's that it can be repetitive. You hear and see a lot of the same information from the POVs of a lot of different characters. Though this is a deliberate choice (see the point about this being a frustrating film), it can still feel tedious to see people talk how someone was murdered for like the third time in excruciating detail. The slow pace can start to drag towards the end, even when it becomes clear which way the film is headed, and then I started to think "yeah, I get it, wrap it up will you". And while I'm complaining, some stupid b1tch wouldn't turn her phone off despite me loudly telling her twice, causing a mild inconvenience which took me out of the film.
Didn't really read what you wrote and will revisit: I see it tomorrow.
No Hard Feelings
Jennifer Lawrence is an immature fuckup whose car gets towed and is desperate for a replacement (she's an Uber driver and apparently makes "her nut" driving tourists for the Summer in Montauk). She answers a Craigslist ad from a couple who basically ask her to prostitute herself with their 19 year old son in exchange for a Buick. He's shy, he's a virgin and is going away to college soon (and he can't know). So what follows is a series of episodes of J-Law humiliating herself as she desperately tries to hit on this sexless zoomer to no avail. I happen to like comedies with characters suffering indignities to their person (turns out Jennifer Lawrence is hilarious) and this one really does not pull any punches, although the obligatory romcom beats (swapping "tragic" backstories, the inevitable fight 3/4 through) felt especially forced here.
Jennifer Lawrence is an immature fuckup whose car gets towed and is desperate for a replacement (she's an Uber driver and apparently makes "her nut" driving tourists for the Summer in Montauk). She answers a Craigslist ad from a couple who basically ask her to prostitute herself with their 19 year old son in exchange for a Buick. He's shy, he's a virgin and is going away to college soon (and he can't know). So what follows is a series of episodes of J-Law humiliating herself as she desperately tries to hit on this sexless zoomer to no avail. I happen to like comedies with characters suffering indignities to their person (turns out Jennifer Lawrence is hilarious) and this one really does not pull any punches, although the obligatory romcom beats (swapping "tragic" backstories, the inevitable fight 3/4 through) felt especially forced here.
Exorcist 2: The Heretic
Okay. Hear me out. The first Exorcist is a bona fide classic and the third one is at the very least considered a cult classic. The second one is widely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. Now, I thought it was kind of great and I'd like to talk about why.
Exorcist 2: The Heretic was directed by Sir John Boorman, of Excalibur and Deliverance fame. There are two things that are interesting to know about his approach to Exorcist 2: John Boorman doesn like horror movies and John Boorman really doesn't like The Exorcist. I think the title "The Heretic" describes his role in the production of the movie much more than it describes anyone in it.
William Friedkin's original Exorcist is notable for its painstaking dedication to plausibility in staging a supernatural story, going out of its way to exhaust all conceivable medical and psychological explanations for Regan o'Neil's condition and its possible treatments before even bringing up the possibility of demonic possession, or exorcism as the solution to it. Exorcist 2 starts right off with the premise that hypnotism induced telepathy is real and a perfectly regular method used in psychotherapy and just kind of goes from there.
Where Ex1 is a classic horror movie, The Heretic is more of an urban fantasy adventure movie with high budget 70's arthouse direction and... well, I neither begrudge fans of the original, nor it's author William Peter Blatty, for thinking of it as disrespectful. I don't blame Blatty for declaring it non canon. I kinda blame him for thinking he could do better, I did not care for Exorcist 3 / Legion.
Heretic, following a teenage Regan and priest Lamont, sees them investigating the origins of the first movies demon (here identified as Mesopotamian wind demon Pazuzu and associated with Locusts) in settings as odd as a futuristic mental institution and various highly fantastical mythical places in Ethiopia to banish him once and for all, throwing in plot points like telepathy, magical healing powers and group consciousness, along with some of the most fringe christian theology you're ever gonna see in a high budget movie.
Carried by a pair of memorable performances from Richard Burton and Boorman's singular talent for fantastical visuals Exorcist 2 explores religion and metaphysics through a lense of psychedelic mania that stands in sharp contrast to Friedkin's and Blatty's almost noir tinged stoicism. In Boorman's vision of an Exorcist sequel, evil is defeated after a mystical journey around the world in the search for god. In Blatty's it's defeated by a man with a gun. In the end, those two visions are irreconcilable and both creators have gone on record stating that they hate the others approach.
Exorcist 2 is a far cry from the perfectly measured balance of the rational and the eldritch that Friedkin achieved in the original Exorcist, but between it and Legion I find it to be the more watchable production by far. Boorman going all in on inpenetrable metaphysical ideas and depicting them with some of the most grandiose cinematography makes it practically a textbook example of "You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like."
Okay. Hear me out. The first Exorcist is a bona fide classic and the third one is at the very least considered a cult classic. The second one is widely considered to be one of the worst movies ever made. Now, I thought it was kind of great and I'd like to talk about why.
Exorcist 2: The Heretic was directed by Sir John Boorman, of Excalibur and Deliverance fame. There are two things that are interesting to know about his approach to Exorcist 2: John Boorman doesn like horror movies and John Boorman really doesn't like The Exorcist. I think the title "The Heretic" describes his role in the production of the movie much more than it describes anyone in it.
William Friedkin's original Exorcist is notable for its painstaking dedication to plausibility in staging a supernatural story, going out of its way to exhaust all conceivable medical and psychological explanations for Regan o'Neil's condition and its possible treatments before even bringing up the possibility of demonic possession, or exorcism as the solution to it. Exorcist 2 starts right off with the premise that hypnotism induced telepathy is real and a perfectly regular method used in psychotherapy and just kind of goes from there.
Where Ex1 is a classic horror movie, The Heretic is more of an urban fantasy adventure movie with high budget 70's arthouse direction and... well, I neither begrudge fans of the original, nor it's author William Peter Blatty, for thinking of it as disrespectful. I don't blame Blatty for declaring it non canon. I kinda blame him for thinking he could do better, I did not care for Exorcist 3 / Legion.
Heretic, following a teenage Regan and priest Lamont, sees them investigating the origins of the first movies demon (here identified as Mesopotamian wind demon Pazuzu and associated with Locusts) in settings as odd as a futuristic mental institution and various highly fantastical mythical places in Ethiopia to banish him once and for all, throwing in plot points like telepathy, magical healing powers and group consciousness, along with some of the most fringe christian theology you're ever gonna see in a high budget movie.
Carried by a pair of memorable performances from Richard Burton and Boorman's singular talent for fantastical visuals Exorcist 2 explores religion and metaphysics through a lense of psychedelic mania that stands in sharp contrast to Friedkin's and Blatty's almost noir tinged stoicism. In Boorman's vision of an Exorcist sequel, evil is defeated after a mystical journey around the world in the search for god. In Blatty's it's defeated by a man with a gun. In the end, those two visions are irreconcilable and both creators have gone on record stating that they hate the others approach.
Exorcist 2 is a far cry from the perfectly measured balance of the rational and the eldritch that Friedkin achieved in the original Exorcist, but between it and Legion I find it to be the more watchable production by far. Boorman going all in on inpenetrable metaphysical ideas and depicting them with some of the most grandiose cinematography makes it practically a textbook example of "You may not like it, but this is what peak performance looks like."
Killers of the Flower Moon in theater
An odd experience. It is 3.5 hours. It feels super padded yet, I can't write I felt bored watching it. The 3.5 hours passed at a good clip. I heard it should have ended at 2.5 hours and that last hour feels tagged on. I didn't experience that.
Martin Scorsese directs Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro in a non-fiction story of a tribe of Indians that strike oil around 1920 and become the wealthiest per capita people in the USA and a bright person realizes you just need to murder your way to wealth in this scenario.
I can't imagine ever watching this again. Compare that to some of my favorites to rewatch again and again are Good Fellas and Wolf of Wallstreet and not a total win here. But I'm not sorry I watched it once.
6.5/10
An odd experience. It is 3.5 hours. It feels super padded yet, I can't write I felt bored watching it. The 3.5 hours passed at a good clip. I heard it should have ended at 2.5 hours and that last hour feels tagged on. I didn't experience that.
Martin Scorsese directs Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert De Niro in a non-fiction story of a tribe of Indians that strike oil around 1920 and become the wealthiest per capita people in the USA and a bright person realizes you just need to murder your way to wealth in this scenario.
I can't imagine ever watching this again. Compare that to some of my favorites to rewatch again and again are Good Fellas and Wolf of Wallstreet and not a total win here. But I'm not sorry I watched it once.
6.5/10
The Good Witch 2008
From wiki: "The movie had great success on Hallmark Channel on the night of its premiere, making it the second-highest-rated original movie to that date.". Um...were everyone else making rival films distracted by being on fire?
I like that everyone looks at her broom and freaks out, because owning a broom is a sure sign of being a witch.
From wiki: "The movie had great success on Hallmark Channel on the night of its premiere, making it the second-highest-rated original movie to that date.". Um...were everyone else making rival films distracted by being on fire?
I like that everyone looks at her broom and freaks out, because owning a broom is a sure sign of being a witch.
Mutiny 1952
In the war of 1812, a US warship has to run the blockade to get urgently needing money from France. Which is all fine and good, until the crew find out they are carrying a large sum of money and their patriotism runs out.
In the war of 1812, a US warship has to run the blockade to get urgently needing money from France. Which is all fine and good, until the crew find out they are carrying a large sum of money and their patriotism runs out.
55 days at Peking 1965
Epic historical-ish film starring Charlton Heston and David Niven, which looks very impressive, but is rather muddled. But in a better way than the CGI over substance impressive looking muddled affairs we get nowdays.
Epic historical-ish film starring Charlton Heston and David Niven, which looks very impressive, but is rather muddled. But in a better way than the CGI over substance impressive looking muddled affairs we get nowdays.
Captain Ron - 7/10
This is one of those movies they don't make anymore. The movie starts with the husband (Martin Short) getting a boat for free (via inheritance) and comes home super ecstatic and the wife immediately starts raining on the parade and what's to sell it right away. Then the daughter comes home engaged to some jerk guy, and quick cut to the family thousands of miles away in "paradise" to get the boat and have a vacation. With that start, you just know it's gonna be a banger, and Kurt Russell isn't even in the movie yet as the title character. Kurt Russell just has a ball playing a super chill, laid back captain that is just the person the family needs to bring them together. It's all super cliche and all, but it all works and brings a smile to your face the whole time. The movie is a lean 100 minutes with credits and moves fast from place to place and situation to situation.
This is one of those movies they don't make anymore. The movie starts with the husband (Martin Short) getting a boat for free (via inheritance) and comes home super ecstatic and the wife immediately starts raining on the parade and what's to sell it right away. Then the daughter comes home engaged to some jerk guy, and quick cut to the family thousands of miles away in "paradise" to get the boat and have a vacation. With that start, you just know it's gonna be a banger, and Kurt Russell isn't even in the movie yet as the title character. Kurt Russell just has a ball playing a super chill, laid back captain that is just the person the family needs to bring them together. It's all super cliche and all, but it all works and brings a smile to your face the whole time. The movie is a lean 100 minutes with credits and moves fast from place to place and situation to situation.
A ★★★★½ review of Casino Royale (2006)
This review may contain spoilers. Visit the page to bypass this warning and read the review.
letterboxd.com
Finally saw Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken. This is a good movie. It sucks this film didn't do well in theaters due to an overcrowded market, but the critics that saw this weren't kind. The movie is in the style of a teenage superhero going through puberty and answering the call. It's what you expect, but it has a few neat twists. The animation is God-like and something you need to see in motion. Screen shots do not do this film justice. Buy this movie on Amazon, because it is on sale.
The Creator (2023)
Science Fiction actioner by Gareth Edwards. In a future where Artificial Intelligence has achieved sentience, a nuclear bomb is detonated in Los Angeles which is perceived to be an attack by artificial lifeforms on humanity. Following this disaster, the US government decides to purge all robotic life from its territory and goes to war with a united Asian supernation (this is never elaborated upon) who continues to pursue the friendly coexistence between human and robots. John David Washington, Denzel's son, plays an American soldier tasked with assassinating the androids leader and retrieve their secret weapon to decide the war in America's favour.
In this day and age it's very jarring to see a science-fiction movie that's blatantly allegorical for the Vietnam War (after that seemed to broadly describe every other succesful American action movie from the 80's) to the point that Creator actually feels like a breath of fresh air. Edwards finds a unique visual style between the type of futuristic guerilla warfare he staged in Star Wars Rogue One and unapologetic orientalism.
It's all for a plot that has mostly all the beats you expect. There's a child with special property that might end the war that Washington has to protect which turns him against his former comrades in the US army and... well, what I'm saying is, you have seen a version of this story before. Not too long ago either, if you've seen Avatar. Edwards is a skilled visual director but the writing is... okay. I was about to say the movie has Edwards almost verbatimely recycling a joke from Rogue One, but then I realized the exchange I was thinking of was actually from Solo (someone casually asks a robot if they "want something". The robot replies "equal rights".) Which he wasn't involved in, but that's not an excuse.
There has been a sever lack of original high budget science-fiction movies lately, and considering Creators lack of commercial success, that's probably not gonna change any time soon. Maybe, more than anything, it speaks for a general action movie fatigue. After all,this is the first time in a while that the highest grossing production of the year was a musical comedy, rather than an action blockbuster.
Did Creator deserve better? Slightly, I think. It suffers from its predictable plot but it has some visuals and directorial decisions that'll stick in my mind. I thought the buddhist robots were fun and a needledrop of Radioheads Kid A that paid homage to the use of The Door's The End in Apocalypse Now was probably the standout scene for me.
It's hardly a future science-fiction classic, but there's not much reason this should do so much worse than Avatar 2, aside from one being part of an established property and the other one... not. As far as high budget blockbusters go, this one has some standout visuals, direction and it isn't a sequel which is unfortunately, enough to elevate it above most current high budget fare.
Science Fiction actioner by Gareth Edwards. In a future where Artificial Intelligence has achieved sentience, a nuclear bomb is detonated in Los Angeles which is perceived to be an attack by artificial lifeforms on humanity. Following this disaster, the US government decides to purge all robotic life from its territory and goes to war with a united Asian supernation (this is never elaborated upon) who continues to pursue the friendly coexistence between human and robots. John David Washington, Denzel's son, plays an American soldier tasked with assassinating the androids leader and retrieve their secret weapon to decide the war in America's favour.
In this day and age it's very jarring to see a science-fiction movie that's blatantly allegorical for the Vietnam War (after that seemed to broadly describe every other succesful American action movie from the 80's) to the point that Creator actually feels like a breath of fresh air. Edwards finds a unique visual style between the type of futuristic guerilla warfare he staged in Star Wars Rogue One and unapologetic orientalism.
It's all for a plot that has mostly all the beats you expect. There's a child with special property that might end the war that Washington has to protect which turns him against his former comrades in the US army and... well, what I'm saying is, you have seen a version of this story before. Not too long ago either, if you've seen Avatar. Edwards is a skilled visual director but the writing is... okay. I was about to say the movie has Edwards almost verbatimely recycling a joke from Rogue One, but then I realized the exchange I was thinking of was actually from Solo (someone casually asks a robot if they "want something". The robot replies "equal rights".) Which he wasn't involved in, but that's not an excuse.
There has been a sever lack of original high budget science-fiction movies lately, and considering Creators lack of commercial success, that's probably not gonna change any time soon. Maybe, more than anything, it speaks for a general action movie fatigue. After all,this is the first time in a while that the highest grossing production of the year was a musical comedy, rather than an action blockbuster.
Did Creator deserve better? Slightly, I think. It suffers from its predictable plot but it has some visuals and directorial decisions that'll stick in my mind. I thought the buddhist robots were fun and a needledrop of Radioheads Kid A that paid homage to the use of The Door's The End in Apocalypse Now was probably the standout scene for me.
It's hardly a future science-fiction classic, but there's not much reason this should do so much worse than Avatar 2, aside from one being part of an established property and the other one... not. As far as high budget blockbusters go, this one has some standout visuals, direction and it isn't a sequel which is unfortunately, enough to elevate it above most current high budget fare.
Last edited:
Low box office sales or not, I'm sure it'll do better on home video. I enjoyed it for what it is and it's my favorite Sci-Fi movies of the year.
Last edited:
Watched Upgrade again last night, and somehow managed to appreciate it even more. The soundtrack really hit me this time. It's so soul crushing and intense, it just manages to bring the whole thing together with a sense of desperation and agony. My girlfriend doesn't remember watching it, so she enjoyed it like she didn't watch it with me two years ago. The ending blew her mind; her reaction led to this post. "Oh my God, that's terrible!" to quote her. Yes, it was sad and horrific. I'm glad there hasn't been any buzz [that I've heard] about a sequel. This is the perfect type of movie that just leaves you with the implications without teasing a furtherance or grander implication; it just happened, and that world now exists only in your mind, and you can go anywhere with it.
Last edited:
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,483
- 2,971
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Napoleon
Very clearly made by an Englishman. I can see why the French are upset.
It's definitely a well made movie, well acted and directed. It also feels like Ridley Scott went out of his way to make Napoleon as weird, awkward, and unlikable as possible. The whole thing feels like a caricature.
Now given what we know about "great men" it's entirely possible that Napoleon was as completely off-putting in person as Ridley Scott portrays. However, given the lack of historical accuracy in the rest of the movie I highly doubt Scott made even the slightest bit of effort to make Napoleon's personality any more historically accurate than his scene of Napoleon firing upon the Egyptian pyramids.
Very clearly made by an Englishman. I can see why the French are upset.
It's definitely a well made movie, well acted and directed. It also feels like Ridley Scott went out of his way to make Napoleon as weird, awkward, and unlikable as possible. The whole thing feels like a caricature.
Now given what we know about "great men" it's entirely possible that Napoleon was as completely off-putting in person as Ridley Scott portrays. However, given the lack of historical accuracy in the rest of the movie I highly doubt Scott made even the slightest bit of effort to make Napoleon's personality any more historically accurate than his scene of Napoleon firing upon the Egyptian pyramids.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,483
- 2,971
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat