Week 85 - The Texas Chain Saw Massacre

Alternate Titles : none. but note that the correct spelling has "Chain Saw" as two words (which is wrong) - the sequils and remake all corrected this.

Year: 1974

Reviews / Author Comments due: 05/01/2013

Reason for Inclusion: After being shown in the UK for 1 year with an 'X' rating, it was then banned by the BBFC for over 20 years. it upset the censors so much that the word "Chainsaw" was banned from use in any movie title in the UK for a while.

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 1999 (reference impossible to find on new look BBFC website)

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Silent Night, Deadly Night - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

I'll be quick this week as we have a house full of lurgy, a migrane ridden husband and a sick child.

I'm torn yet again with what I thought about this weeks movie.  I can definately see the appeal to the masses.  It's a typical 80's slasher movie.  Young boy (Billy) witnesses a tragedy that is the murder of his parents and rape of his mother by a criminal dressed as Santa Claus (who he already has a fear of Santa anyway following a rather sinister conversation with his 'supposedly' catatonic grandfather in a home - who it turns out is far from catatonic).  This leaves him and his brother Ricky as orphans.  This already warped young mind is further twisted by nuns in the orphanage where he is placed.  Evil catholic nuns is a favourite in horrors.

As an adult, for reasons best known to himself, Billy ends up working in a toy store. For a boy/young man who has such a problem with Santa/Christmas its possibly not the best choice of career.  Predictably he ends up having to stand in for the store Santa and spends the day scaring the bejezus out of all the kids.

Here Billys killing spress starts after he witnesses the girl he thinks he is in love with that he works with getting off with someone else.. another horror staple for pushing the guy over the edge.  There is plenty of opportunity for topless women, another staple.... you can see why I'm not jumping up and down about this one....

What follows is Billy killing lots of people in a variety of ways, including impaling on reindeer antlers which I suppose was one original scene in the movie.  We also have a decpaitation, knife stabbing, Axing.

We also have a little twist at the end, which is a must have in this kind of movie.  I found it hard to let this one pull me in as it was full of so many cliches and I felt like I'd watched it many times before, even though I know I haven't.  I'm not saying it's a terrible movie by any means, I know it will appeal to many people who are fans of this kind of movie.  It just didn't do it for me.  I don't feel I have completely wasted my time by watching it, yet I don't feel its one I would recommend anyone rush out to see either.  It is a typical 80's slasher movie.  I suppose there is the additional draw of the seasonal aspect, but I can't see any reason to watch this outside of December.

If you want a no-brainer seasonal horror, by all means, you could do much worse than this one.  If you want something good to watch, probably best not bother.

Silent Night, Deadly Night - Will's Review

I've been threatening to watch this one for about 10 years, but never got around to it until a (self imposed) rule on a blog told me I 'Had' to... I don't know what that says about me, but "I'll watch one day..." it is one of the reasons I decided to start blogging the Video Nasties in the first place, and it great that not only did it work, but it's now continuing to work with non DPP movies!

The premise is simple: Age 5, Ricky sees his parents murdered (and his mother molested) by a man in a Santa suit (an armed robber on the run as it happens, but that's by-the-by). 13 years later, having grown up with a hatred of Christmas, and a dread fear of Santa Clause, he is roped into playing Santa  when the grotto-santa at the shop he works at calls in sick; This is enough to push Ricky over the edge and (still suited up) goes on a killing spree.



It's a compliantly made, low budget, post FT13th, 80's slasher, with all that entails; Most of the effects are good enough, though none are great, there are a handful (if you'll pardon the expression  of gratuitous scenes of topless young ladies, and the "plot" serves mostly to put victims in the path of Ricky and whatever improvised weapon comes to hand (This may be the only movie, and is almost certainly the first movie, where a killer runs someone through with a pair of antlers).

Characters are often introduced and killed in the same scene; a real pet hate of mine in modern movies (if I don't know the characters, why would I care when they are killed) but that somehow works in 80's slashers (where we care more about the killer and the method they are killed).

Dark humor highlights include Ricky (while still working as a grotto-Santa) quietly threatening a child into sitting quietly, while a group of parents look on admiring how great he is with kids, and the moment where he gives a young girl a bloody knife, after checking that she has been good.

My only real gripe with the movie is Ricky's Grandpa; The movie opens with Ricky and his parents visiting Grandpa in a (very empty) care home. While Mum and Dad are out of the room, Grandpa reveals to Ricky that he is only pretending to be catatonic; then he goes on to (deliberately) scare his grandson by telling him that Santa 'punishes' children if they have done anything naughty all year. This is never mentioned again; I don't know about you, but when I find out that a catatonic person in a movie is faking it, I expext some kind of payoff down the line...

Oh, and Ricky has a younger brother, who literally has no job in the movie until a sequel setup is needed at the end.

So, Grandpa and Little brother aside, I straight up loved this movie; A killer Santa Clause is every bit as much fun as it sounds, and is done here much better than in 1980's Christmas Evil (which, to be fair, didn't have the benefit of coming after the Friday sequels, and therefore had no template to steal).

If you are a fan of 80's slashers, I strongly recommend that you put this one on your letter to Santa for next year, and be good, for goodness sake.

WEEK 84: Silent Night, Deadly Night

Year: 1984

Reviews / Author Comments due: 29/12/2012

Reason for Inclusion: Refused classification in 1987 when the distributors refused to make the required cuts, banned until 2010. 

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2010

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB

DVD: Here

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Antichrist - Lisa's Review

*** BIG FAT SPOILERS ***

I start this review still a bit gaping mouthed and hope I make more sense to you than I do to myself in this review.  To be honest, I still haven't decided whether or not I liked the movie.  One thing I do know for sure, is that it is not most peoples cup of tea.  I think I got about three quarters of the way through and was on the 'not liking it' camp, but as it reached its climax, I began to appreciate a lot of aspects of the movie.

As the movie starts, it is very clear we're dealing with an arty one.  Now I'm far from a fan of this kind of movie, so I don't expect to make much in the way of sense of the storyline.  I do like how the movie is filmed though, I like the use of black and white.  I like the separation of the movie into several different titled chapters.  In places, I loved the almost musical flow of the script and the beauty of the location.  Alongside the beauty we witness, there is incomprehensible violence and nastiness, which is very difficult to understand.  It is shocking definately and had my eyebrows raised on a number of occasions, which I will go into later in the review.

As for whats going on in the movie.  As we start, the couple who we follow through the movie (they are never named) are making love (all real sex apparently.. we can see why Willem Dafoe has been cast).  As this is happening, their toddler son has climbed out of his cot, opened his baby gate and wandered to an open window.  He climbs up and falls to the ground below.  This opening scene is heartbreaking.  As a mother, I probably found it the most difficult part of the movie as its a constant fear of mine and the sheer thought of anything happening to my son, almost drives me insane.  This made me better understand the mothers actions as the movie progressed.  The way the scene is shot, in black and white and slow motion, with a beautiful piece of music in the background adds to the tragic nature of what's happening.  Its snowing outside and we can better visually see the toddler hit the ground below (although this isn't portrayed in a graphic or bloody way thankfully), we also see his stuffed toy bounce off the snow beside him.  I had a tear in my eye and a lump in my throat.

So, things start to get more than a little odd from here.  We don't ever see the couple discover their son, we immediately move to the first 'chapter' (the opening was the prologue) which is just after their sons funeral.  The wife collapses with grief.   We follow attempted treated in hospital, which her husband is not very happy with as she is not improving, so they decide to go to a cabin in the woods to try to get her better themselves as her husband is a shrink of sorts and thinks he can sure her by exposing her to what has happened.

So they take themselves to the cabin in the woods (called Eden) and what follows is some scary-assed sh*t. There is lots of sex.  She seems to get increasingly more mad (I could understand this aspect as I said earlier as I don't think I'd cope at all with the death of my son, never mind if my carelessness caused it).... however... she moves from a bit f*cked up wanting her husband to be violent towards her during sex as she seems to believe following some studying she was doing before this all happened, that women are fundamentally bad and deserve punishment.

We see all sorts of weird scenes with animals, including a deer with a dead baby hanging out of her (obviously symbolising the mother who has lost her baby), a talking fox who is clearly badly injured and a crow who just won't die no matter how many times its bashed over the head).  Just when I am starting to understand the woman and her grief, the husband finds out that she had been putting their sons shoes on the wrong feet causing him to have deformed feet.  What kind of mother does that?  This woman has obviously not been well in the head for some years, even prior to the death of her child.

As the husband makes this discovery, things begin to get eye-brow raising.  How can I describe this.... she climbs astride her husband, shouting at him the whole time that she doesn't believe he loves her, makes sure he has an erection, then wallops him in the genitals with a plank of wood!!  The pain renders him unconscious and as she lies beside him she looks over and notices he still has a raging erection!! WTF???  I'm sure that's not right??  Not only that, but an erect penis on screen???  This probably shocked me more than any other part of the movie.  I've always been told, you're not allowed to show this on screen.  She then proceeds to masturbate him and he ejaculates blood..  This raises many questions... erect penis?  ability to ejaculate?  blood?  It is a real hand job too!  Nothing prosthetic here.  I did notice, the man is blessed amidst all this confusion.

So just as we're getting over that one, she drills through his shin with one of those hand drills and puts a massive weight through his leg so he can't move.  She leaves him and goes into the forest, throwing a spanner for his leg weight under the cabin so he has no hope of getting the damn thing off. We then see him come to and manage to drag himself out of the cabin.  He hears her screaming for him and hides in a hole (which is where the weird crow thing happens).  She finds him and not content with what she has already done, she proceeds to batter him with a shovel and leave him basically buried alive!  I thought that was it for him, but apparently not.  Overcome with guilt, she drags him out and back to the cabin.

If we were cringing before, it's the ladies turn now.  For reasons best known to herself.. probably guilt, she cuts her own clitoris off with a pair of scissors???  For a woman that seems to enjoy sex and masturbation as much as she does, this was a bit of a wierd move for me.

The weird animals make another appearance, leaving me head scratching again.  He manages to find the location of the spanner, as the crow is trapped beneath the floorboards where he is lay in the cabin and he breaks through to free it.  He retrieves the spanner and frees himself (not before she has tried to kill him with the clit snipping scissors!).

At last, he's had enough and we end the movie with him strangling her (very well shot and convincing) and he burns her body outside and cabin.  As he walks away (with his injuries, i'm not sure how that was possible) and the movie , he is surrounded by loads of faceless women.  I didn't quite get what they were inferring here, but hey, I didn't understand loads of this movie.

In conclusion, I can't say 'avoid' as it is interesting in places, beautiful in others and downright cringeworthy in others, so worth a check out I would say.  Would I watch it again?  Possibly... maybe to see if i could make more sense of it second time around.  I can't quite bring myself to give it a 'Lisa Recommends' but it had its own appeal.

Antichrist - Will's Review

When the BBFC let unsimulated sex pass uncut without giving it an 18R (porn) rating; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.

When a continental European sounding name precedes a movie title; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.

If a film made this side of 1965 is filmed (or partly filmed)  in black and white; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.

If a movie opens with a slow motion prologue; There's a good chance you're dealing with an art film.

I'm not a fan of art films, so the fist three minuets of "Lars von Trier's: Antichrist" were enough for me to know I was in trouble...

Now, I don't mind when a film leaves something to the imagination, and I don't mind so much when an ending is a little ambiguous, letting different people take away different things from it. What I do not like is when the entire script is seemingly designed to let the viewer decide what the film is actually about.

God damn you movie; your ONE JOB is to tell me a story!

Now, I know that the story is about a couple who lost their child (a toddler, who escapes his crib, opens a baby gate, then jumps out of a window while his parents are engaged in the aforementioned slo-mo monochrome sex), and I know that She (I will refer to the mother as "Her" or "She" as she is unnamed through the movie) was at some point writing a theses about Gynocide (Anti-women stuff basically) but (we find out) gave up on it when her research suggested to her that women deserve to be underdogs. I also know that she is not dealing well with the death off her son, so He (again, her husband is without moniker), being a therapist  takes it upon himself to counsel her, so off they go to Eden (which is a woods, in which they have a summer cabin) to analyse her fears.

You might think that her "realization" (the film does seem to imply that shes wrong about this) that women are evil might have something to do with her grief issues, and you'd be right; we also find out later in the film that she has much more specific feelings of guilt.All of this, however, is pretty much an aside, to an hour and a half of interestingly shot (mostly with hand-held cameras) nonsensical pretentious bollocks... with great sound design.

Most of what follows could probably be accounted for by saying that grief had driven Her mad; but for the fact that He is prone to hearing animals speak too...

Is nature evil? is nature punishing Her for the death of her son? is there some supernatural force in the woods feeding on her guilt? We never find out.

Instead we have endless scenes of Her being (alternately) scared, violent and horny. climaxing when she knocks Him out and fastens a grindstone through his leg, having decided that he is going to leave her.

Then she mutilates herself in, one of the most graphic, nasty, realistic methods I have ever seen on film.

Which brings us to the point of this review, and indeed, the reason we chose this film; How on earth did the BBFC pass this uncut? More to the point having passed it, how can they ever justify cutting anything simulated, ever again?

There are 2 scenes in particular in this movie; one where She does something to Him, and one where She mutilates herself, which are (respectively) as bad as, and worse than ANYTHING in any of the video nastiest, some of which are still banned or cut to this day.

SPOILERS FOLLOW - BY NOW YOU HAVE THE GIST; HERE I GET SPECIFIC:

1. Having hit Him in the genitals with a plank so hard that he passes out with pain, she then Proceeds to masturbates Him (its a real had-job on a real cock) until he ejaculates blood. - the biology of this aside (for one thing, you planked my junk hard enough top knock me out, I'm guessing I'd probably loose my erection)  that's some fucked up shit.

2. (this is the kicker) In extreme close up, she spreads her vagina (which looks real enough to me) and (again, close up and looking real) cuts off her clitoris with a large pair of scissors!!!!

WHAT. THE. ACTUAL. FUCK.

Don't get me wrong... I think passing it 18 was the right move; it's simulated, no-one got hurt, let adults watch what they want, buy surely this sets some kind of precedent for what we are now allowed to see in an 18 rated movie?

You'd think so, but the same people who passed this, made them removed a shot of a barbed wire wrapped penis and some poop splatters from Human Centipede 2.

This movie was selected to show how far the BBFC had come - instead, it has reminded me how uneven and imperfect the system still is.

I have marked this "Avoid" - but not because of the "gross factor", simply because it was a dull movie.

Week 83: Antichrist

Year: 2009

Reviews / Author Comments due: 22/12/2012

Reason for Inclusion: Violance, Misogyny, rape, unsimulated sex... and passed uncut by the BBFC.

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2009

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB, Official site

DVD: LINK, Blu-Ray

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Freaks - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

Here we are on the first week of our 'Beyond Nasty' launch.  Fresh from the accomplishment of completing the 72 'Nasties' List, we're pushing on to other movies in a similar vein.

This weeks offering is 'Freaks'.  I knew nothing of this movie when I started to watch it, so was surprised that it was made in 1932!!  That probably makes it the oldest movie I've ever seen.  From a bit of background reading I find out it was made with actual real-life circus performers who had deformations or where seen as 'freaks' at the time.  It was commonplace to use makeup and costumes to achieve this look, so the use of real people caused a bit of a furore at the time, consequently leading to its banning for 30 years.  I don't see the problem.  Surely if you want to see these people as equal to us (which they are), then they should be able to make a bit of money from the situation, rather than a role go to a much less suited actor?  Anyways...

I loved the style of this movie.  It was indeed very odd, but captivating at the same time.  I found the story pulled me right in and kept me transfixed all the way through.  It didn't feel like I was watching out of any sort of morbid curiosity, but because the characters were real, the story interesting and I simply wanted to see how it all panned out.  Another aspect I loved was the musical score in the movie.  It reminded me of really old cartoons.

Our storyline here focuses around Hans, a midget from the circus the movie is set around.  He is engaged to an absolutely adorable woman (also a midget) called Frieda.  We learn that Hans seems to have a bit of a crush on a normal sized trapeze artist Cleopatra (a nasty cow).  For some unknown reason he wants to be with Cleopatra and leaves Frieda for her.   Baaaaaaad move for every reason possible.  Why you would want to leave a woman like Frieda is anyones guess.   Frieda, even after losing her Hans, begs Cleopatra to leave him alone and accidentally lets slip about an inheritance he is coming into.  This plants an idea in Cleopatras head and she marries him planning to poison him, pocket his money and live happilly ever after with her boyfriend Hercules, the circus strongman.

The Wedding reception is definately the oddest you would have ever seen.  Cleopatra gets rather inebriated and is rude and obnoxious to all the other performers.  She openly snogs her boyfriend Hercules at her wedding reception and mocks Hans for getting jealous.  The guests however seem to accept her and chant 'One of us, One of us' in a rather menacing way.. along with some gobble  gobbling???

What follows is the discovery that Cleopatra is slowly poisoning her husband.  She does it for the first time at the reception and proceeds to continue administering poison as she supposedly cares for him and gives him medicine.  However another circus performer overhears Cleopatra and Hercules discussing the plot and tells Hans and all the other freaks.  They plan revenge!  The film culminates in the freaks attacking them, this isn't shown in any real graphic nature, but still manages to be frightening and ominous.  I loved the scene of all the 'freaks' closing in one Hercules.  Fantastic stuff!

We end the movie going back to a scene that was briefly shown at the start where a circus master is showing a group of punters into a pen where a previously beautiful trapeze artist has been horribly disfigured.  We finally get a peek into the pen and see Cleopatra squalking like a bird.  She seems to be without legs and has feathers all over her torso.  Her face is also disfigured.

The movie ends sadly with Hans in his newly aquired mansion.  Frieda comes to see him with 2 of her friends from the circus.  He is angry at them for coming to see him and he is still grieving for his situation with Cleopatra.  After everything that's happened, the movie ends with Frieda holding Hans as he cries.  He doesn't deserve that woman!

I enjoyed this movie.  It was poignant, odd, quirky, interesting, moving and different to anything I have ever watched before.  I would definately recommend it.

Thumbs up from me.

Freaks - Will's Review

Sadly, the directors cut of Freaks no longer exists; 30 mins or so were cut after a disastrous test screaming... One woman even threatens to sue MGM claiming that the movie caused her to miscarry!

Whether that's why the version that exists today seems a little oddly passed in the middle is hard to say; many films from that era seem to be missing a middle segment (how did they get King Kong back to New York anyway?) so the jump from flirtation to wedding may possibly have always existed.

What we do know that we are missing is an extended 'revenge' sequence, which originally included a castration!

In any case, Freaks, in it 63 min version was STILL banned in the UK for 30 years!

The most striking thing about the movie, is where it's sympathies lay: dislike it's sensationalist title and tag line ("Can a full sized woman ever truly love a MIDGET?") from the opening crawl the film sides firmly with the eponymous sideshow workers.

***Spoilers for an 80 year old movie follow***
The moment when the freaks descend upon Cleopatra remains suspenseful to this day, and it's easy to see why it would have disturbed an audience back when movies were still so young (this was one of the very early 'talkies' remember).

The revenge of turning a woman into a chicken-beast feels slightly at odds with the rest of the movie to me, implying some supernatural ability on the part of the carnies.

Brownings direction is superb, possibly his best (it's a shame then, that this movie all but ended his carrier), the cinematography is superb (although there was no such thing as a DP back then, so browning gets the credit for that too).

The only real problem is the sound; but again, sound design wasn't a thing in 1931 either, so the sound problem is just one if those things that you have to put up with when you watch movies as older than your grandparents.

An excellent and quirky little film, that deserves a watch.

WEEK 82: Freaks

Alternate Titles : Forbidden Love, Natures Mistakes, Tod Browning's Freaks

Year: 1932

Reviews / Author Comments due: 15/12/2012

Reason for Inclusion: Banned for over 30 years.

BBFC Status: Most recently, passed uncut rated 12 in 2001.

More Info: Wikipedia, IMDB, BBFC Case Study, Origional Short Story "Spurs"

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Zombie Flesh Eaters - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

So the last on our Nasties List.  Taaaaaaaa Daaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Another Fulci offering.  I've enjoyed his other offerings on the list and this is one of the hubbys favourite zombie movies, so I looked forward to watching this one.  He even sat through one with me for a change!!

Zombie Flesh Eaters - Will's Review

What to say about our last movie?

Well, its a Fulci, with all that entails; multiple plot threads, hyper-realism, gore and an eyeball getting graphically damaged.

It also contains what is probably Fulci's most famous scene - the underwater fight between a shark (2 sharks actually, but probably both 'played' by the same shark) and a Zombie!

Week 81: Zombie Flesh Eaters

Alternate Titles : Zombie, Zombie 2: The Dead are Among Us, Zombi, Zombi 2, Island of the Living Dead

Year: 1979

Reviews / Author Comments due: 08/12/2012

DPP Status: Successfully prosecuted 

BBFC Status: Passed uncut in 2005

IMDB: LINK

Wikipedia: LINK

DVD: LINK

---

Feel free to use the comments section of this post to add your own reviews and thoughts about this movie.

Zombie Creeping Flesh - Will's Review

Whenever I find a film borderline incomprehensible, I tend to have a quick read around to make sure that what little I did understand is correct, before coming here and making an ass of myself by describing totally the wrong film.

This week, while it turned out i was right about the plot, it seems there are some bloody good reasons for my confusion.

It seems that, having already been fleashed out by one writer from another writers treatment, the director then decided it needed further changes; but rather than having them written, he just haphazardly filmed stuff that he thought might be useful, then tried to turn it into a cohesive movie in editing, THEN had a second unit film some more sequences (mostly gore shots) and edit them in, AND threw in some documentary footage from a previously released mondo to boot.

SPOILERS FOLLOW



This checkered history probably goes some way to explaining the go-nowhere terrorist sub-plot; following a chemical plant leek at the begging of the movie, a terrorist group pops up demanding the closure of the so-called "Hope-centers" (the chemical plants), only to be massacred 2 minutes later by a team of military types  and never mentioned again.

The aforementioned chemical leak is responsible for a  horde of oddly colored zombies; Mostly purple and brown, although they settle down to a consistent pale blue after about half way through the movie.

Come to think of it; odd skin hues are a bit of a theme; this guy is still alive and well (not even infected):

So, With the Zombie origin explained, We meet due of documentary film makers in the Jungle who, before long, form an uneasy alliance with the military types who took out the terrorists.

Wait a minute... Documentary film makers... Jungle... This is starting to sound like a cannibal movie!

Yup, almost the entire center third of the film has the look and feel of a standard cannibal flick; right down to the mixed moral messages - being preachy about sensationalism one minute, and using prolonged gross-out scenes and exploitative documentary footage the next, we see a tribal funeral. The female journalist at this point demonstrates the only reason (or rather, the only two reasons) shes in the film, as she strips down and dons body paint to gain the trust of one of the tribes.

Thanks to the "borrowed" nature of the footage, the look of the tribe switches from shot to shot, so we get everything from lip-disks, to intricate make-up, to Frank Sidebottom, all in a single 60 second stretch, supposedly featuring the same tribe.

The whole point of the (real)  tribal funeral, is to tell us that the tribe doesn't bury or burn its dead; which handily brings us back to zombie movie territory, just in time for our heroes to reach a (formally) populated area.

More attempts at social commentary are made, as we drop in on a UN meating which has been called to address the Zombie problem currently affecting Africa's tribal populations, and the African delegates are virtually the only attendees.

The whole thing is, as I have mentioned, a confused mess; on top of that the acting is so over the top that I'm not 100% certain that they wern't going for parody!

You know you have problems when your 

zombie extras cant keep a straight face...

The film's one saving grace was the stolen Goblin soundtrack, which lifts tracks from Contaminated and Dawn of the Dead (the latter being literally stolen - the rights were never cleared, and Goblin almost sued)

---

Please use the comments bellow only to comment on this post - to write your own review, please comment on the main post for this movie.

Zombie Creeping Flesh - Lisa's Review

*** SPOILERS ***

So where to start this week?  I'm not at all sure.  When I started watching this movie, I realised I have actually watched it before when Darren delighted myself, Kelly and Dave by making us watch it on one of our get-togethers and its no better now than it was then.