Looking up a few details about this film made me aware of a few things. First, I could have sworn that this was the second Muppet film. Lo and behold I am wrong. For someone who likes watching film series in chronological order I was shocked to learn that The Great Muppet Caper was released prior to this film. Secondly, I was further dismayed to discover that, despite owning it and having seen it within the last five years, I never posted an official rating or review for The Muppet Movie. This will be corrected in time but I am lucky in that the Muppet movies aren’t really a chronologically linked saga to begin with.
The film begins with the Muppet gang graduating from college, where they created a hit musical show called Manhattan Melodies. They make their way to New York, eager to find a producer willing to back their show. The closest they get to success is nearly being swindled by a con artist. The gang runs out of cash, morale hits the floor, and they all set off on their own disparate paths.
Kermit stays behind, continuing his search for a producer while working at a diner. Just when Kermit finds a willing producer, he is hit by a car and suffers total amnesia. It’s up to Miss Piggy and the rest of the Muppet gang (who come flocking to New York with the news that their show is a go) to find Kermit and restore his memory, thereby saving their friend and the show.
I really don’t have a lot to say about this film. Any movie involving the Muppets should tell you that good-natured fun is about to be had. This is the Muppets after all. They stand for wholesome, cheeky humor and zany fantasy-like antics. The fact that they are infiltrating the ‘real world’ only adds to the wonder, beauty and magic that befalls your eyes.
The Muppet Movie was a landmark film, so it’s hard for any follow-up to match the standard it set. Still, I may be short-changing Manhattan because, from a technical standpoint, any Muppet film presents a daunting task for both cinematographers and editors. Setting up shots just right to keep the Muppeteers out of view is one things- rigging up and blocking scenes where the Muppets are actually moving presents a litany of logistical challenges for the whole crew.
Technical wizardry aside, Manhattan doesn’t quite grab you the whole way through. Highlights do include Rizzo the Rat and his friends, as well as a hilarious scene where Kermit tries to pass himself off as a big shot producer in Sardi's restaurant (betrayed only by unknowingly taking down Liza Minnelli’s portrait), but not much else will stick in your mind. Each member of the core gang gets time to shine when Kermit is reading letters about what they’re doing while he’s still trying to sell the show, but the Muppets function best as a team. Human help is nice but nothing can replace the chemistry and on-screen magic of having the gang interact and feed off each other’s energy.
Of the 10 songs listed on the film’s soundtrack, I can remember only one of them and vaguely at that. Perhaps this is why I’m not as fond of Manhattan. The Muppets are every bit as much about music as they are about their antics. To fall short in either is going to reduce the fun. It’s a tall task to ask lightning to strike twice. This being the third Muppet film makes it quite an uphill battle to keep audiences fully enamored by the Muppets' magic still.
It may not be as memorable as other Muppet films but it is by no means a substandard product. The Muppets Take Manhattan continues the technical mastery of Jim Henson and his devoted team; no question there. The creative department may have run out of gas or simply couldn’t come up with enough new ideas after two films and five seasons on TV. Despite this, Manhattan is an adorable underdog tale about Kermit the Frog taking on New York City and winning. As I said before, just about any time you’re watching the Muppets is time well spent.
Seeing really is believing. Prior to this film I would have doubted very much that a story about older women stripping down could be something enjoyable. Sure enough, Helen Mirren leads a pack of seasoned British actresses to success in a risqué tale with a lot of heart.
After her husband dies of leukemia, Annie Clarke (Julie Walters) receives an outpouring of support from her friends. After spending many a day sitting in the hospital waiting room, Annie decides she wants to raise money to donate a more comfortable sofa to the hospital. Her friends in the social organization Women’s Institute come up with the idea of selling a calendar to raise funds for the donation. Annie’s bold friend Chris Harper (Mirren) sees the need to make the calendar something more exciting than the standard WI fundraiser. Her proposition is to have some of their club members strip down for tasteful, discreet nude pictures while engaged in typical WI activities.
Chris and Annie have a hard time convincing their friends to take part in what seems like a lewd gimmick and an even harder time convincing the WI organization to approve of their controversial fundraiser. Once it becomes a hit, the bonds of friendship are tested as Chris takes center stage in publicizing the calendar. Annie believes she has lost sight of their original mission in awe of her newfound celebrity status.
Even if you’re not a part of the film’s target demographic (I know I sure wasn’t), good comedy almost always prevails. Calendar Girls possesses a lot of witty but dry British humor but it doesn’t over-Brit the comedy. American audiences will be able to snicker, giggle and laugh at all the right moments. Older viewers may find more humor in the subtleties of post-middle age life but the film does its best to stay fresh and accessible to everyone.
Much like the ladies in the calendar, the film is not interested in being an explicit skin parade. Very little nudity is on display and occurs briefly while the women are getting into position for their tastefully risqué poses. While some ultra-prudes may object to even this minimal amount of nudity, a little exposure comes with the territory and it's carried out as tastefully as possible.
The film does get a little bogged down towards the end as Chris’s ego inflates and gets challenged but it would seem a little too conveniently perfect otherwise. This is a conundrum faced by most comedies these days. Do you go all out goofy, forsaking any possibility that the events of the film could actually occur and turn off cynics? Or, is it better to say ‘tough luck’ to the total escapism seekers and add that dose of reality in order to keep the film grounded? Calendar Girls makes the right decision and stays true to its ‘based on a true story’ roots and shows the bumpy road the girls face.
In the end, Calendar Girls will get a few laughs out of you. Just don’t expect it to last in your memory beyond being ‘the one where the old ladies make a nude calendar.’ So like Mirren’s character, even audiences will be hard pressed to remember the original purpose of the titular calendar. That’s not such a big deal though because that will be enough to remind you that it was a sweet and charming little movie.
Let me preface this review by stating that I plan on watching this documentary again in order to give it a more accurate rating. Oftentimes documentaries are tricky things. Anymore, they almost always promote some kind of viewpoint or stance on a certain issue. Very few documentaries since the Michael Moore era began have been truly objective. This makes it very difficult to review the artistic merits of a documentary because the subject matter can present a major barrier. If you happen to be opposed to its subject matter, you risk dismissing the entire product outright. If you agree with the subject matter, you may gloss over its shortcomings in the name of supporting the subject.
No bones about it, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is not a truly objective documentary. It supports the idea of intelligent design- a controversial concept that means different things to different people depending on their viewpoint. For supporters, it is a way of acknowledging that science is limited in explaining some things through straight evolutionary theory and that an intelligent, supernatural designer may or must be involved. For skeptics, it’s merely a thinly-veiled front for Christian fundamentalists to push a new breed of creationism onto the masses. There’s actually an immense grey area between the two, but this is a review of a documentary, not a treatise on intelligent design.
Expelled does not address intelligent design on a scientific level. Instead, Ben Stein leads a series of interviews with adherents and skeptics alike into the stigmatization of the concept that has developed within the scientific community. Stein makes the observation that there are scientists who believe in God and intelligent design concepts, but these people often times have to cover up their beliefs out of fear of reprisal from their academic and institutional peers.
Stein highlights the cases of five individuals who feel that they lost their positions, were rejected tenure, or were passed over for promotional opportunities due to their belief in intelligent design theory. These stories require a little extra research because the filmmakers only convey how these highly-credentialed scholars and researchers suddenly found themselves barely capable of finding work or subject to intense harassment once their beliefs came to light in one fashion or another. Few if any responses from the offending institutions accepted the filmmakers’ invitation to rebut the claims. Rather, most provided written accounts for what they claim happened in each situation before or after the film’s release.
This, along with several of the skeptics interviewed, provides Stein ample opportunity to use his trademark dry sarcasm while ‘exposing’ the scientific community’s unwillingness to be ‘truly scientific’ and explore all avenues in regards to the origins and development of life on earth. While it is true that some hardcore atheists cling to evolution in an attempt to refute religion, Stein does a disservice by painting opposition to intelligent design as an institutional plot by the scientific community to do the very same thing. By referring to the elite, string-pulling members of the scientific community and ardent atheists almost interchangeably, Stein & company themselves become guilty of engaging in smear tactics.
The last third or so of the film changes direction and goes into the history of what has happened when Darwin’s concept of natural selection is taken out of the realm of natural science and applied socially. When placed on the pedestal of societal progressivism, you get the eugenics movement and genetic engineering. When abused in conjunction with hyper-nationalism, you get dangerous political parties such as the Nazis. Stein fails to fully connect all the relevant dots in these cases, so this tangential segment may strike some lesser-educated folks as implying that the theory evolution led directly to Nazism.
It is this last portion of the documentary that leaves me with uncertain feelings about Expelled. It’s such a radical departure from the earlier focus and takes up a serious chunk of time. This leaves the documentary feeling a bit scattered. Interesting points and observations are made in each part but both sections feel as if they belong as subjects for two different stand-alone films. I don’t know of anyone who would actually argue in favor of social Darwinism, so the latter segment serves mostly as an effective and spooky cautionary tale.
While this review may seem mostly negative, I actually enjoyed watching Expelled. The filmmakers made a terrific choice in selecting Stein as their narrator. Just about everyone remembers him from his supporting film and TV work, and his sense of humor is delightful. He may be a bit too dry for some people to understand but his intelligent wit and subtle sarcasm are employed to maximum effectiveness here. Those who disagree with the film’s subject will likely think he’s just being a smart aleck but isn’t that what detractors usually say of Michael Moore as well?
In fact, Expelled owes its craftiness and structure to the success of Moore’s infotainment documentary style. Like Moore, Stein and the filmmakers plays loosey-goosey with facts and cherry pick the best sound bites from those both for and against their argument. Stein comes off as more reserved and intelligent than Moore but he has his tongue placed very dryly in his cheek nearly the whole way through. As with Moore’s work, the end result is a murky mix of fact, opinion and flat-out exaggeration.
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed tries to do too much in 97 minutes. It showcases what it believes is a not-so-secret conspiracy to marginalize scientists who don’t hide their religious beliefs while also providing a lengthy public service announcement regarding the past evils of social Darwinism. The former doesn’t provide enough detail to satisfy their claims and the latter is oversimplified. Split these two up and give them the full treatment and a more compelling argument may indeed rise to the surface. Until then, Stein smirks his way through a truly entertaining although incomplete documentary.
There have been plenty of movies made about instances when ‘worlds collide,’ but I don’t recall ever seeing a film that weaves two true stories together like Julie & Julia. Unique as its dual biopic approach may be, this split biography becomes unbalanced both in time allotment and level of interest. While it may not exactly be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen, Julie & Julia isn’t quite as delicious as advertised.
The main component of the film focuses on Julie Powell (Amy Adams), a call center worker for the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. The year is 2002, not long after the September 11 attacks. Looking for some stress relief, Julie decides to cook every single recipe in Julia Child’s Mastering the Art of French Cooking within one year’s time. To help hold herself accountable, she starts a blog about her journey, which develops an unexpected following. The self-inflicted pressure of reaching her goal, along with the assumed pressure of her readers’ expectations, leads to some tense moments in her marriage.
The other component of the film focuses on Powell’s muse- Julia Child. These scenes are set in the 1950s when the Child’s were living in France. Julia (Meryl Streep), bored with day-to-day life enrolls in the famous Le Cordon Bleu to learn French cooking. The experience leads her to collaborate on said cookbook targeted at American housewives. She struggles to earn respect for both herself in the male-dominated profession of cooking as well as the validity and marketability of her book in the eyes of publishers.
The main focus of the film is on Powell and her journey through Child’s book. It’s current, features a popular young star in Adams, and there is love and drama that everyday people can relate to. The only problem is that the average person couldn’t give a crap about Julie Powell. You may have heard of her book by chance but she is little more than someone who found success and landed a book deal thanks to a blog. Sure, the struggles she endured in cooking and saving her marriage are her own, but the only reason anyone would be drawn into her story is because everyone (okay, maybe not those in Generation Z) has heard of Julia Child. Powell may not have intended to use Julia Child’s work to become famous but she certainly owes much of her success to the association with Child.
Therein lies the downfall of the film. If you don’t find Powell interesting, you’ll only have roughly half of a film to enjoy. The film’s target demographic is women, who are usually much less cynical and will probably enjoy watching Powell’s struggle to keep herself together as a working woman and wife. But our culture as a whole has grown more cynical towards faux celebrities who pop up online or on TV despite having little or no actual talent to speak of. Powell was fortunate that her success came before the onslaught of relative nobodies blogging about specific issues or topics and making a killing off of it. This movie, however, came after that wave and is thus open to such criticism.
If you are able to keep Powell’s setting in context, though, you probably won’t have that difficult a time taking it for what it is- a puff piece with a little drama mixed in. After her blog becomes a hit, she develops a bit of a responsibility complex in that she feels a somewhat imagined amount of pressure from her readers to stay on target with her one-year plan. She begins to devote a little too much time to her blog, which understandably irks her husband. Having been involved with a minor web phenomenon myself for a few years, I can understand where Powell is coming from with her need to fulfill audience expectations. But she commits a cardinal sin by letting this perceived pressure control her. Frustrating as it is to watch, it was nice to see they didn’t gloss over this issue.
The Julia Child scenes definitely steal the show. Meryl Streep nails her character’s mannerisms and eccentric voice. Her performance is so spot-on that I don’t think anyone will be able to produce a satisfactory, full-length biopic of Child. It’s a shame that she wasn’t cast for a full biopic of Child but the parts of her life that Julie & Julia focuses on are the key points. We see her struggle in two very significant arenas but, since her name has become legendary, we don’t require much more than what made the final cut.
More of the film focuses on Powell, which is fine (the title is Julie & Julia after all). It’s just ironic that, try as they might to play up the modern success tale, the combined weight of the legendary Julia Child and the stellar Meryl Streep completely overpower the up-and-comer Powell and the then relatively new Adams. If anything, you would want it to be the other way around- get a big name leading lady to make Powell significant and important while perhaps finding a solid, pedigreed supporting actress to create a star-making performance out of the Child role.
Inventive in its approach, Julie & Julia falters in the execution. The Julia Child sequences are rich with Hollywood biopic glory while the Julie Powell segments occasionally border on Lifetime movie of the week territory. The end result is a cinematic confection that’s sweet enough to get a recommendation.
First and foremost, I must say that I find it weirdly amusing that I am posting a review for a divorce-comedy on my third wedding anniversary. That might actually be a pretty good preface to this film, actually. Funny as it is in some places, It’s Complicated is a film made for a specific audience in mind. I am not part of that audience, which probably explains why I didn’t enjoy this film as much as some may.
After being divorced for ten years, Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin) are brought together by their son’s college graduation. Old flames are rekindled, even though Jake is now married to a much younger woman, and an affair is born. Jake loves it and pursues spur-of-the-moment flings with Jane whenever possible but Jane knows inside that, even though they loved each other at one time, their current actions just aren’t right.
Amidst the affair, Jane is also falling for Adam (Steve Martin), an architect hired to remodel her home. Despite recently getting divorced, Adam opens himself up to Jane and mutual attraction develops. Jake and Jane try their best to keep their affair a secret but fail to do so in amusing ways. The fallout is unexpected and forces the two to grow up and think about their actions like rational, mature adults.
When the stars of a comedy are Meryl Streep and Alec Baldwin, you know the film is geared towards an older audience. Add to this the film’s subject matter, divorce, and you’ve all but completely alienated me from any target demographic. Fortunately, comedy has no boundaries and good comedy can be appreciated by anyone, no matter how disconnected they may be from the material and characters.
There are plenty of laughs to be had with It’s Complicated but I can’t help but feel that the film is funnier and more meaningful for those who have experienced a divorce. Most, if not all, of the subtleties that divorcees will pick up on may be lost on the rest of us. This explains why the film seemed too stop-and-go for my liking. Divorce isn’t a funny subject, so the film does a lot of bouncing back and forth between the hilarious antics of the unfaithful Jake and the concern and contemplation of Jane.
For some, myself included, Jack’s behavior is a little over-the-top. It’s clear that Alec Baldwin is having a blast with his character but his mid-life crisis-driven shenanigans fail to be age-appropriate at times. No matter how passionate they may be, most 50-somethings don’t throw themselves around like he does. Then again, we are in movie land here and comedy wouldn’t be comedy if there weren’t at least a few outrageous moments that aren’t likely to happen in real life.
The supporting players of It’s Complicated are adequate but forgettable. Steve Martin plays a straight-laced character for a change. This is refreshing because, let’s face it, he’s no spring chicken and most of his films in the past decade have proven that audiences aren’t buying any more of his physical shtick. For the younger crowd, The Office’s John Krasinski is thrown in as Jake and Jane’s son-in-law. He has a witty sense of humor and is also the first to discover his in-laws’ canoodling.
Aside from these two, the film is devoid of any other widely known stars. This is good, because it leaves plenty of screen time and space for its leads. It could be bad though, if you aren’t a big fan of Baldwin or Streep. The lack of multiple stars also helps feed the duo the lion’s share of the best lines and scenes. The filmmakers are just banking on moviegoers’ familiarity of divorce and the appeal of Baldwin and Streep. It’s a gamble that pays off pretty well, because even if you don’t care for Alec Baldwin, just about everyone admires Meryl Streep on some level.
On the whole, It’s Complicated is par for the course. It makes you laugh, it makes you squirm, and it has plenty of those awe-shucks family moments. It tries a little too hard sometimes to be funny but it never really tries to break away from predictable, formulaic humor. It might be worth a look but it will depend entirely on your taste in comedy and actors.
When a film doesn’t set out to be entertaining can it still be good? The short answer is yes. Each film falling into this classification has its own unique long answer though. Such is the case with the bleak, moody French biopic Coco avant Chanel, which translates to Coco Before Chanel. While the first and third words in the title are the ones that will catch your eye and draw you in, it’s that second word that is most important. Forget about glamour and celebrity, this film is less about fashion and more about a distasteful and unpleasant life endured before its subject hit the high life.
After living in an orphanage for her teenage years, Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel makes ends meet as a bar maiden and cabaret singer. Having gained seamstress skills at the orphanage, she designs sharp outfits for her singing partner and herself. Her clothing and good looks catch the eye of a wealthy patron, Étienne Balsan, who takes her as his mistress.
Elevated from the squalor of lower class living, Coco is showered with luxuries by Balsan but is essentially unable to live a life of her own. She is little more than a “kept” woman. Over the years, Coco uses her time to dabble in creative hat designs. Her creations catch the eye of several of Balsan’s elite guests and she begins taking a few orders. Meanwhile, she begins an affair with one of Balsan’s friends, Arthur Edward “Boy” Capel, who helps Coco open a shop of her own.
As I mentioned earlier, it’s the ‘avant’ or ‘Before’ in the title that is emphasized. Unlike American biopics, Coco focuses solely on the most unpleasant time period of the fashion icon’s life and that makes for a very uncomfortable viewing experience. Most of the film’s 110 minute runtime is devoted to Coco sneering, scowling, smoking and sassing her way through a loveless relationship with Balsan. Coco clearly isn’t happy with her situation but she also knows that it’s better than going back to cabaret singing. It’s an archaic arrangement that is unthinkable by modern standards.
The period details are immaculate and those who are familiar with Chanel’s history and style will probably be able to spot early influences that helped shape her fashion sense. Not being a fashionista myself, most of these details were probably lost on me. The cold, brooding nature of the film is very European. Had this been an American production, there would be more focus on influences and less time spent on the squirm-inducing details what amounts to a wretched but pampered existence under Balsan.
The film certainly delivers on all of the ‘before’ aspects of Chanel’s life but it ends in an unsatisfying way. Her lover dies in a car crash and then we fast forward to the end of one of her runway shows later in life. It’s not even a satisfying segue because there is no sign of determination in Coco to soldier on after Boy’s death. It just jumps right to an awkward happy-esque ending. Frankly, that tiny little glimpse of her success isn’t enough to make up for nearly two hours of bleak, depressing material.
If you’re big into fashion, this film might be for you. Just be prepared for European moodiness and a complete lack of satisfactory resolution. This isn’t the kind of biopic that leaves you in awe of its subject nor does it end with a wonderful crescendo. If you’re not big into fashion or foreign films, you may want to pass on this because you will probably just come away with it thinking Coco Chanel was a skanky peasant who got ridiculously lucky in life.
Coco avant Chanel does what it sets out to do. It gives you the ugly details of a ‘beautiful’ person and probably highlights some of her influences (if you know what you’re looking for). In this regard, Coco is a success, but this is not likely a film you’ll want to watch a second time.
There have been several attempts to rejuvenate the characters and comedy of the original Get Smart series starring Don Adams but none of the small-screen efforts ever worked out. Given Hollywood’s track record of butchering adaptations of classic TV shows, it came as little surprise that plenty of eyes rolled when this film was announced. Fortunately, the result isn’t the disastrous abomination fans of the show had feared.
After years of working as an information analyst for CONTROL, Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) is denied an agent position because he is too valuable behind a desk to risk in the field. When terrorist organization KAOS attacks CONTROL’s secret base, agent identities are exposed, thrusting Max into full agent activation overnight. He gets a new codename (Agent 86) and partners up with the lovely Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), while the former hotshot Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson) is forced into deskwork now that he is among the exposed.
Smart’s clumsiness generates plenty of chagrin for the no-nonsense 99 as they travel across the globe in an attempt to prevent KAOS from carrying out a nuclear attack on American soil. His attempts to be a suave secret agent blow up in his face but he proves himself a worthwhile addition to the force in the end. Along the way he and 99 face a number of physical and mental challenges that bring them closer as professional partners and then some.
Recently I have altered my approach to judging movies based on other materials. It’s my opinion that it is unfair to judge a film as an adaptation because that kind of comparison is usually loaded with bias. Sometimes you can’t help but compare films with their source material but it’s wise to do so only as a reference point. Get Smart retools a lot of its source material out of necessity. With a modern setting, there are fewer cute gadgets because most useful spy technology already exists in miniature form thanks to technological advancements. While this may not have hurt the rebooted James Bond films, it does take away from the humor of Get Smart because the show was always a spoof of TV spy dramas and the Bond flicks. Without all the silly gadgets, the film loses a little bit of ground to stand on.
The only other comparison I care to make is about the relationship between Smart and 99. On the show, 99 thought her partner was dreamy and they were already a couple. Then again, they were both also seasoned agents. The film is an origin story, so it makes sense for the pair to have to grow to like each other. Fans of the show might not like it but then again, if they tried to make it too much like the show, fans would complain about a lack of originality.
Given Get Smart’s roots as a spoof of the 60s spy craze, it’s a little jarring to see how serious the film gets at times. Agent 99’s stern outlook tends to neutralize Steve Carell’s goofiness early on, sucking some of the fun out of it. Carell hits his stride around halfway through the film and it makes sense for him not to eschew the cocky swagger of Don Adams. In retrospect, it’s refreshing to see Smart as an unconfident new agent. It seems to me, though, that Carell puts a little too much Michael Scott and 40 Year Old Virgin into this new incarnation of Maxwell Smart.
Despite her character’s killjoy attitude through much of the film, major props go out to Anne Hathaway for her performance. She produces a solid blend of sex appeal and toughness befitting of a modern female special agent. While stunt performers were certainly involved, Hathaway looks like she belongs in all of her action scenes. She nails all of her hand-to-hand combat moves and, most importantly, looks like she is willing to kill the bad guys. She’s not just a pretty face maneuvered through blocky choreography. If nothing else, this should give moviegoers a little more confidence in her ability to play Catwoman in next year’s The Dark Knight Rises.
Despite solid performances by its leads, Get Smart does suffer one fatal flaw: its resolution is far too predictable. Even if they weren’t trying to keep it a secret, the identity of the mole can be reasoned out even before the film’s midway point. If you take the mystery out of a spy comedy, you’re only left with the comedy, which is too often stifled here.
There’s a reason why Get Smart worked as a TV show in the 60s. It was a time when audiences sought escapist entertainment to take their minds off of the gloomy world they lived in. That kind of escapism isn’t in vogue anymore and much of it seems silly when we look back on it now. That is why the Austin Powers films were so successful- they were a tongue-in-cheek spoof and homage to 60s spy entertainment that went beyond Get Smart’s clean humor. Had Austin Powers not made it to the big screen, a Get Smart movie might have been more warmly welcomed. Instead, it feels like a last-minute responder to an already full party.
Looking up a few details about this film made me aware of a few things. First, I could have sworn that this was the second Muppet film. Lo and behold I am wrong. For someone who likes watching film series in chronological order I was shocked to learn that The Great Muppet Caper was released prior to this film. Secondly, I was further dismayed to discover that, despite owning it and having seen it within the last five years, I never posted an official rating or review for The Muppet Movie. This will be corrected in time but I am lucky in that the Muppet movies aren’t really a chronologically linked saga to begin with.
