Reviews

An awful photo direction, like many movies of the digital era : nowadays the lazy cinematographers are relying a cold white balance, or a blue hue, or pale color, to create a depressed impression, or a day for night (aka. Nuit américaine). Not very creative for a creator movie.

What about the story? Well, it seems the director tried to instill a sense of wonder, or fantastic horror. But damn, everything is soo washy, it creates no interest at all.

The cast does not help, nobody seems to believe in their role.

It always seemed to me that Taxi Driver is illustrating how class struggle is not limited to the economics, but it also extends to human relations and love. The difference in education, in cultural background, makes it nearly impossible for people of different social classes to meet and have an accomplished relation.

Martin Scorcese gathers Robert de Niro, Cybill Sheperd, Harvey Keitel and Jodie Foster in this New Story's backstreet fable.

Travis (De Niro) is a Vietnam veteran, with a very limited education who finds a job as a taxi driver with night shifts. On his nightly ride though the streets of 1970's New York, his mind continuous clashes on the crude reality of lower life. One day, Travis is ravished by the beauty of Betsy (Sheperd), who acts as a campaign agent for a senator in the presidential race. Travis will attempt to prove the sincerity of is feelings, with mixed success ...

As I watch this movie again, I realize that this movie also has a political statement. The plot seems to imply that the fate of the People will not be improved by politics, that political personel is only interested in their agenda while the "real" individuals have to deal with the difficulties of the "real" life, which is an idea which is also conveyed by the movies of Clint Eastwood.

This movie is like the brain of a weed addict, who think that is thinking soo fast, and he can understand his surroundings so sharply. Whereas in reality he is lying on a couch for endless hours, saying nonsense, and moving so slowww.

54 minutes of movies. 55 still to go, and nothing much has happened. What is wrong with this movie?? It was starting surprisingly better than expected. I mean... Cinematography is OK - of course, photography is not on par with "Lawrence of Arabia", but it still much better than "Fast and Furious" or the kind. Acting - you feel that Seth and Franco knows how to impersonate a drug smoker, so no actor studio or improvisation class was needed.

But the script is so slow and unproductive, it is amazing that it did not even try to fill the holes by mild funniness. If you want to watch a stoner comedy (before the term exists), I would suggest to go back 2000's "Dude's where's my car?".

"-Peter, I can't survive without you

-MJ, you should not be here"

The final dialog of Spiderman 2 is illustrating my feeling on the whole film. Not once, did I believe that MJ could love a character so undefined and uninteresting as Peter Parker. And yet, she is running away from her wedding to come back to Spiderman.

I had the same (lack of) feeling during the entire film. I could not connect with Spiderman, and I did not feel empathy for his aunt when she is in danger, or have to leave her house. Or when Octopus is robbing the bank. Honestly, who cared?? So why is Spiderman running after him? Who cares, I'd rather have an ice-cream.

Clearly, I don't think if it is a lack of focus from me. Rather, I believe this is the diagnostic on these commercial products. Hollywood movies are so artificial, so disconnected from the daily reality of real people, that I did feel its creators cared about the viewers, and in return I did not care about those characters at all.

Technically, this film is still in good fit shape, despite its 10 years of age. SFX are still alright, and Sam Raimi had a good selection of camera angles, and scene rhythms.

The acting is globally very bad, from Tobey Maguire (At the end of the day, not such a long filmography) to Kirsten Durst (much better interpretation under the direction of Lars von Trier in "Melancholia"). James Franco is at is usual quality level (I have to admit I have not watch "127 hours" yet).

Globally, the script and storyline are lacking. A director has yet to come, who will inject some human truth in the Spiderman brand, like Nolan did with Batman. But the even harder challenge will be to avoid copying "The Dark Knight".

First, I would suggest everyone of you to go online and watch "Vivian Maier: Who Took Nanny's Pictures?" produced by the BBC, and please come back to read the rest of this review.

The BBC documentary being released a few months before John Maloof's film, I was interested to learn what Maloof had more to show or tell about Vivian Maier, and risk a unflattering comparison with professional journalists.

Technically, I have to say that "Finding Vivian Maier" is not impressive.

A documentary about a photographer would be asking for voice-over narration, to give full screen-time to the photos, videos and belongings of Vivian Maier. Contrarily, John Maloof (or his hands, or his reflection in a mirror) is in front of the camera for a long part of his video. Especially disappointing for a theatre release.

The content of the film is also disappointing, and a bit sad.

Most of the information are already known from news articles, or from "Who took Nanny's pictures?". Moreover, despite owning 100000 negatives of Maier, Maloof is not showing a single piece of exclusive material in his documentary. Not once did the documentary attempt to define her art, or try to identify the artistic influences of Vivian Maier. Maloof depicts her like a kind of "idiot savant", an autistic genius totally disconnected from the arts of her time (BBC's documentary shows that Maier was influenced by Henri-Cartier Bresson and the surrealists - she even crossed Salvador Dali's path).

More worrying to me were 2 ideas conveyed by John Maloof in his video : - Maloof does not need journalists, he can write himself documentary about Vivian Maier himself. I think it is quite troubling that Maloof (the documentary maker) does not even try being unbiased and factual about Maloof (the businessman). For example, I would love to hear Maloof about his past real-estate activities in Chicago, why he bought so many belongings of Vivan Maier, and how he is earning his life today.

• Maloof does need museum curators. Showing his MoMA letter, Maloof seems to state "museums refused Vivian's art initially, so I am (at least) as competent to manage the artistic heritage of Vivian Maier".

It is frightening that most photographs of Maier are under the control of a single person, who do not have much of an art diploma, but acts as a "chief curator" ("curator", noun 1. the person in charge of a museum 2. A MANAGER, superintendent ... what an irony).

So dear John (if I may), what about transferring every ownership and reproduction rights to a non-profit "Vivian Maier" foundation ?

70's rock music like in a Tarantino, wants to show junkie cops like in a Tarantino, and cool pimp/dealers/bookmakers like in a Tarantino, or introduce characters with big-text sequences.

Like "Faster" or "2 Guns", there are thousands of movies that try hard to be cool and violent, violent and cool, and all the flavors in between. Guns, race cars, car stunts, and the usual sh##.

What's interest of this one, compared to other ones? None. The director just tries to compensate the bad acting and exhausted plot (Dwain wants a revenge for the death of his brother... what a shock!), with some more explicit violence.

Thruth is that for most of the film, the script is flat and boring.

RIPD (2013) is the undisputed proof than Hollywood industry is already dead, and is trying too hard to look like it has still some capacity of innovation.

This movie is a rip(D)-off of some ideas in "Men in Black", with a pinch of "Hellboy", brought to you by Robert Schwentke ("RED").

MiB was already showing a young fearless cop, who is forced to enroll in a parallel investigation bureau, with underground HQs. Will Smith had to deal with an old eccentric team-mate (Tommy L. Jones) to learn the job, and a authoritarian boss.

RIPD's writers have basically replaced extra-terrestrial smugglers with undead criminals, and less maestria.

Like in "Hellboy" is trying to open a tunnel in the sky, which will lead to apocalypse on Earth, thank to some golden ruins, etc. Strange as every Hollywood movies are opening tunnels in the sky those days : "Avengers", "Transformers 3", and all the rest.

RIPD's sole funny idea is that, because there are undeads too, the 2 heroes have a different appearance to the normal people. It is funny once, but the joke falls flat on its 4th occurrence.

The rest is just boring. The investigations, the romance, the action scenes, the acting. I did not expect much from Ryan Reynolds, but Jeff Bridges was only a self-caricature of its marshal role in "True Grit" (from Cohen brothers). Kevin Bacon's impersonations are in a continuous free-fall since Mystic River (2003).

Reportedly, Hellboy's budget was 66M$, which has to be compared with RIPD's frightening 130M$. For this amount, the SFX and make-up are really devastating, and one has to wonder this money was spent.

For the anecdote : the old Chinese guy (actor James Hong) had a part in Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982). Look, THAT's hell of a good scien-fiction movie!

20ish-year-old Katie (Julianne Hough) takes an interstate bus and runs away from big city to escape a police inspector. Her runaway leads Katie to a perfect little town on the shores of North Carolina, where she find a waitress job, and try to forget her mysterious past actions.

The encounter of single-father Alex (Josh Duhamel) and his 2 perfect and lovely young children is changing Katie's plans...

Let us be clear : this film is not your typical thriller movie. Here the references to Katie's crime is just a far-fetched explanation for Katie's arrival on the littoral, as well as her long hesitations to have a love affair with Alex.

The plot progresses extremely slowly, and the cop finally comes back in the action to justify a conclusion to the script. Do not expect a tremendous apex, as Cobie Smulders reappears to add a twist to a movie conclusion which would be too flat without.

I can understand people may be looking for movies with some sort of romance, but don't expect anything as touching as "Love Story" or ambitious as "Paris Texas" or "True Romance".

Visually, the art direction is rather transparent, it reminds me of how "Dawson's Creek" used to look. It is definitely not Spielberg or Fincher behind the camera (sorry). The flashback of the crime (no spoiler here) do not convey much fear or stress to the viewers.

A noticeable visual idea is that most stressful scenes are taking place at night, whereas the romance pieces are during the day. Of course, the final relief happens during a magnificent sunset over the shores of North Carolina.

The acting of the 2 leading roles is about what it needs for a romance TV series, but are lacking of depth for a cinema movie. The supporting actors, such as the cop, are a bit behind, but you may argue that David Lyons (Tierney) was not given enough to screen time to shine.

Kick-Ass 2 is the typical movie sequel, where the evil guy of episode 1 is not really dead, and wants its revenge in episode 2. The second effort is usually the opportunity for the film-makers to optimize their gross margin by cutting on advertising (great)... as well as on preproduction (script), production (cinematography) and post-production (SFX) costs. Not so great.

Kick-Ass 1 had gain some popularity because it was notoriously for its pointless violence, and the famous "12-year-old girl" mini-scandal.

Kick-Ass 2 does not picture the ambition to be more violent, or more sexual, or more controversial in any way. No, the sole purpose of its writer-director seems to grab more money from the younger white-trash audience :

-The scenario is flat and predictable ("shark" final scene).

-The cinematography is terrible, with no clear directorial choice in composition or scene cuts. I felt lucky enough that color balance was preserved though the film.

-The actors pretend to impersonate excessive characters, but are just acting poorly (as illustrated by Jim Carrey or Aaron Taylor).

-The SFX are questionable, and even the "chroma key" effects are better executed in TV series.

-The fight choreography is terribly boring (the "truck roof" scene) and predictable (front kick, anyone?).

Hopefully, the final credits scene will not open the doors to a 3rd occurrence of infamous Kick-Ass.

• the crime-scene cop, the one who is supposed to convey the horror of what he just found ... is the doctor of "Scrub". - the romance between 2 criminal investigators, in love since they're 12... - "Our killer thinks he is a Picasso". says the police team-mate... - "We are all formers from the German police" say the bodyguards...

At this point in the film, I had HUGE doubts regarding the potential of film. And then I saw skinny Matthew Fox swimming in a decorative water pipe, and I totally lost hope.

I will try to stick to plans, and produce a serious review :

• the plot is stupid. Main character Alex Cross (Tyler Perry) investigates the crimes of a contract killer, who gives out transparent clues on his next target by drawing Picasso-inspired fusains (just because he is crazy). The uninspired writers had several reminiscence of David Fincher's seVen (pregnant wife, self-punishment, etc).

• the cinematography is worse than most TV series.

• the music score by John Debney (several Marvel soundtracks, "Hanna Montana") is transparent. The crying violins are repeatedly boring. The moments of emotional tension are highlighted by digital percussions.

• the actors? ...ah ah. AH AH AH!

Howards is one of the last director which cares about story telling. His last movie "Rush" shines the light on the competition between James Blunt and Niki Lauda, both on the F1 circuit, and off the tracks.

Howards manages to draw the interest of viewers, even of those who thinks that Formula 1 is a remain of the past, like safari, fur-coats and tobacco.

The main actors are really good, and never once did I question their impersonations. Niki is described as a sensible, reflexive person ; whereas James Hunt is shown as childish, self-centered and sometimes toxic for his entourage.

My only dislike is related to the direction of photography. The balance of colors, the composition, the choices of focal lengths, the vibration of the image to convey emotion (trembling hands, engine vibration, etc) ... I like none of those.

But the story and acting saves it all.

What would you do if you knew the apocalypse was going to happen in a month from now?

I would certainly go do some mountain climbing and hiking, travel, enjoy the most remarkable places in the world. I would disconnect with the material world, and leave useless things (job, vinyl collections, etc) behind. Would not you?

This movie just shows the exact opposite : 40ish-year-old Dodge (Steve Carrell) whines about his poor life, keeps on working at an insurance company, run after his ex-girlfriend, and spends his last 30 days trying to reconnect with his sad past. No surprise his wife just left him.

Under those circumstances, how surprising is it for the viewer to try escaping the movie theater before the end of the flick? That is what any mentally sane person would do.

Astonishingly, 28-year-old Penny (Keira Knightley) decides to spend most of her time left with this depressing guy.

Don't be mislead by the movie poster or the cast, this movie is certainly not a laugh-out-loud comedy.

Art direction is alright, Knightley is a good actress, but it does not save the movie with this awful scenario.

Of course, I feel sorry to give a bad note to this movie, which is certainly much better than Transformer franchise. But what is better between a bad scenario and no scenario at all?

If you are looking for a better movie about Apocalypse and how people may react to it, I suggest you to watch "Melancholia" by Lars von Trier.

In the harbor city of Le Havre, France, a woman is stabbed during the night, just below the windows of her neighborhood. Pierre (Yvan Attal) has witnessed the murder, and heard the wails of the women crying for help. So have the neighbors, certainly. But at the end, nobody called the police. Nevertheless, sorrows are too heavy for Pierre, who feels the need to tell everything to his wife (Sophie Quinton), and to the police. During the investigation, it appears that 38 people witnessed the murdering, and none reacted...

I was really appealed by the premises of this plot. That is also why I was really disappointed with the resulting film. Let me enumerate the main caveats I was annoyed with :

• scripts and acting. The dialogs often sound awkward, unnatural and sometimes I was wondering if I was looking at theater rather than cinema. The acting is not good (especially with the main roles), but I am not sure if actors or director have to be blamed.

• Le Havre. This city and its harbor is constantly in the picture, but the director does not really use it. Is it metaphor of dehumanization of modern urban life? Is it because the city center was rebuilt with bare concrete after 1945? The effect is wasted.

• the end. The scenario introduces many story elements which could have be explored and resolved into a powerful conclusion. Contrarily, the actual movie end is coming out of nowhere, unimpressive, and I felt, stupid.

The artistic choices of the director (a mix bag of 70's Bullit and Glam ) are yelling at the viewers' face, but it is still not enough to forget the lack of a scenario.

Scena WHAT? like in real life, violence is the favorite mean of those who can not treat well with words or ideas. An hold-up going out of control, dangerous girl, impossible love. Every most basic cliché is included.

The actor Gosling (driver) is bad at playing desire, or fear, or anger. In fact, being dead, he still acts awfully bad. Mulligan is a better actress, but the ancients Brooks and Perlman are the ones saving the casting.

What will remain from this movie ? that crime does not pay. Or only maybe for film producers.

Mickael Bay is coming back with his new season of the "Transformers" road show.

Let me start with an anecdote : do you know how Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were created in the 80's ? The target audience were kids, so the marketers came with a list of what kids used to adore : comics, reptiles, kung-fu films and pizza! For the exact same reason, Mickael Bay and Paramount marketing dept are coming back with robots, race cars, heavy weaponry ... and centerfold girls! And that is why Sam (Shia LaBeouf) is an adulescent, a teenager who depends on his girlfriend and his parents for a living. Anyway...

The introduction of the film (linking the Apollo program with fictional events) is appealing, but the rest of the script makes absolutely no sense. The motivations of Sentinel Prime are absurd, and nothing is really logical in this movie.

The cinematography is awful. The action scenes have no rhythm, and Bay constantly relies on camera shaking and slow-motion. The SFX are awful, robot 3D models are difficult to visualize.

Acting is terrible. Of course, LaBeouf does not how to play, but I would expect something better from Malkovitch and 'Torturo'! This is really a film you should avoid.

This film is the fourth movie based on Marvel's comics X-Men, and it is certainly the best episode.

'First Class' is a prequel to the other 3 films, and it feels like a reboot of the storyline to clear the previous shortcomings. The obvious benefit is that this is the first X-men film which is self-contained and can be evaluated like a movie rather than the live adaptation for the comics readers. Unfortunately, this film also illustrates how thin and old the plot of the X-Men is : a basic metaphor of a world divided by the cold war, obsoleted by the complexity of more recent series like the Watchmen.

The cinematography of 'First Class' looks like the typical superhero movie from Hollywood's factory lines. Surprisingly, the special effects are lagging behind, they are jumping to the eyes (the castle 3d model, the missiles, the blues skin and fur effects). The split-screen scene during the X-Men training is one of the strange cinematographic choices which really fall flat, and cut the film in a patchwork of disarticulated pieces. The film introduction is astonishingly good, but the acting is then getting immediately awful, until the end credits. Except Magneto, the characters have no sign of personality, and the 'actor studio' method seems to be unknown to the whole casting.

As a conclusion, this film is one of the fist fine superhero movie ever, but it will only be reminded as a film de genre.

In Hollywood industry, science-fiction often means E.T., robots and laser sabers.

"Source Code" reaches a higher standard, and achieves to blend the paranoid matters of Philip K. Dick (altered consciousness, parallel realities) with the sensible depiction of human emotions.

"Moon", Duncan Jones' previous movie was already illustrating the interest of the director for 'hard' science-fiction, as well as the reflections around self-consciousness, death, reincarnation, free will, love. In his second film, Duncan Jones gives his characters a new dimension : the characters really stands, with more profound personalities. There is a better balance between the science-fiction plot and the emotional plot. To support this idea of a 2-axis film, it is interesting to observe that "Source Code" has two endings : the climax of the human emotions (son-father relation, and love), followed by the termination of science-fiction machine.

Technically, "Source Code" is very good. The special effects are not overly present, and are serving the film purpose well. Nevertheless, the art direction is rather impersonal and it would be difficult to identify the film by its photography only. Jake Gyllenhaal is acting well (much better than in Brokeback Montain) and the supporting actresses (Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga) are convincing.

This was a very enjoyable movie, and I am looking forward for Jones' next movie. Will it be a new SF film? Will it be possible to find new dickian themes to explore? I sincerely hope so.

A meteorite from outer space collides with a human space station called Hyperion, killing immediately 12 astronauts from the NASA. More meteors are falling on Earth, causing terrible damages in the cities. A scientist is investigating why the warnings regarding the dangerous trajectory of the meteorites were hidden, causing the accident to happen.

The plot of this film could be the basis for a good 70's-like disaster movie, or a post-2001 conspiracy film. Unfortunately, the acting is awful, the script is horrible, and the art direction is terrible. Did I mention the extremely bad acting?

It looks like a TV drama, but it worst than that. Stay away from this film.

'Tree of Life' is an ambitious movie, where Malick presents his view on the meaning of life. From Malick's point of view, since the ancient times of dinosaurs, love and goodness are what gives a reason to life.

Aesthetically, this movie has a very high grade. There are magnificent shots of nebulae, of the depths of sea, or the sun protuberances. The actors are good-looking and they play well.

Regarding the story-telling, I am much more concerned. The film is long, too long (138min), with many aesthetic but pointless sequences of rising suns, suns between the tree branches, sun rising behind planets, dancing woman, woman under the watering pipe, woman drinking at the pipe, and many speechless scenes scored with classical music.

More troubling is the influence of religion and creationism in this movie. To me, Love and goodness can exist without any God. I was disturbed that Malick is placing (Christians') God at the center of this movie, with many references to the Bible (Noah, Job), to Creationism (dinosaurs, creation of Earth and stars), to imagery of Paradize.

The largest caveat is the lack of constructed storyline. All the spasmodic references to religion can not replace a well-developed storyline. The characters are nearly identical after 2hours of film, their relations and their personality are congealed. Sean Penn's character is rather emblematic : from his appearance till the film end, we do not learn anything about him or his actions.

As a conclusion, picture and music were very pleasant. But lack of scenario, duration and too many religious trinkets make this movie an anxiety test for the viewer.

This film is taking action a few seconds after "Aliens Vs Predator" (2004) directed by Paul W.S. Anderson.

But the comparison with the first episode ends there. In AVP Requiem, art direction, SFX, suspense, acting have been much improved compared to its prequel.

I think the fierce critics have been frustrated because they expected any film with 'Alien' in its title to be a dark huis-clos with Sigourney Weaver in a spaceship. Unfortunately for them, Alien versus Predator is a different topic. The action takes place on Earth, in present time.

If you can deal with this fact, you will find AVP Requiem a very enjoyable action movie, a coherent script, with characters you can connect with, and with some real moments of thrill.

And if you are still worried about the depth of the scenario, I can assure you the script is better written than 'Inglorious Bastards' or some recent over-estimated movie.

As I have not watched the original "Paranormal Activity", I feel my review is not biased by expectation based on the prequel success.

Dan and Christi is a very common couple, living happily in the residential suburb of an unnamed city. But as they have a baby, strange phenomena. As always in such movies, the Latina housekeeper has some ancient knowledge and is getting aware of the presence of Evil in the house. But as always too, nobody wants to believe her visions, and she finally get fired... that is when the Evil is getting into action...

As you can read, the plot is very thin, but horror movies are rarely very deep and complex. Unfortunately, the script is very unpolished. In a good horror movie, the atmosphere will get tenser and tenser, until the final climax. In this film, frightening scenes are very rare, and the tension is dropping immediately.

Artistically, the show is also disappointing. The actors are all terribly bad, as they never looks really afraid or concerned. This is million miles away from the fear induced by the good acting in "Blair Witch Project", for example.

The direction is really boring: - The shot direction does not exist : the scene is viewed from surveillance cameras, installed in every room in the house. There is no camera move, this causes the screenplay to be extremely static. - The camera position (room corner, ceiling) causes the viewer to feel outside of any action during the film. - The film is segmented into days of a diary. At the beginning of every new day, the film zaps between each surveillance camera, displaying an empty room, then an empty alley, then an empty swimming-pool ... every day, the same. Did the director wanted to artificially increase the film duration?

Finally, as the recent "Rec" (2007), this film recycles the ideas created by "Blair witch project" (1999). Unfortunately, PA2 can not match the formers in any way, and proves that filming an horror movie still require some skills.

This 'film choral' describes the relations in a group of friends in their 30-40s.

Like every summer, Max is inviting his friends to stay at his house by the sea. Unfortunately, a few days before the departure, Ludovic is heavily injured in a motorbike accident. This event is impacting the relations in the rest of the group...

This movie is pleasing thanks to the comedy scenes, such as the running references to the homosexual appeal of one the friend for another, which is very conservative and close-minded. Or the running gag about the love affair by SMS.

On the other hand, the emotional scenes were weak, and it was difficult to feel sympathy, sorrow or sadness. I think this is mostly due to the acting, which was not as good as required to express these very deep feelings. But it could also be a problem of film construction, as I really felt the emotional strings was overused, as a justification for the whole movie. Another point is that the large number of characters weaken the depiction of each's state of mind.

Finally, "Les Petits Mouchoirs" felt like a movie with some interesting ideas, but which were not selected and matured enough. The final cut is a too long movie, with a taste of unpolished scenario.

Dave Levinsky is one of those lame teenagers who spend 99% of their times jerking off, and the rest of time reading comic books. He soon starts fantasizing about becoming a superhero vigilante under the pseudonym "Kick Ass". Unfortunately his high expectations are not supported by superpowers or extraordinary capabilities.

After an appearance on TV, David "Kick Ass" is contacted by 2 hyper-violent vigilantes, which are of much higher level, and are doing real harm to the local drug mafia. Indeed, those 2 characters do not hesitate to use the most deadly weapons, or to even sell drugs, to fight the crime their own way...

This movie is very disappointing. It is marketed as a teenage movie, with a blend of American Pie, Superbad and Spiderman. Sadly, "Kick-Ass" ends up being not so funny, and becomes a tribute to heavy gun violence and self-justice and broken ethics. For example, the 2 superheros resell drugs to fund their armory, which is not what you would expect from "good" guys. Did I mention, those 2 superheroes are father and daughter, the later (11-year old girl) skipping school to practice guns and kung-fu?

The film production is also deeply disappointing, the screenplay is minimal, the special effects being very visible and exaggerated. The acting is very poor, you can hear laughs in the auditory when Nicolas Cage is narrating the death of his beloved pregnant wife. The "bad" guys have absolutely no presence.

Finally like many recent blockbuster movies, the director makes sure to keep one the bad guy alive, in order to leave the door opened for a very profitable sequel (Kick-Ass 2 is already scheduled for 2012).

To be avoided. 3/10