Reviews written by registered user
ShootingShark

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

Page 1 of 77:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
763 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
I Started At The Top And Worked My Way Down, 9 August 2015
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

A documentary on the acclaimed theatre and film director Orson Welles, combining clips from his movies with interview footage and commentaries from many collaborators.

This film, which was shown theatrically at various festivals and I caught at my local arts cinema, is informative, well made and provides real insight into Welles' philosophy. This is achieved partly through the terrific footage of Welles himself but also by devoting time to the circumstances of his career. There are the expected plaudits from filmmakers such as Peter Bogdanovich (who knew him very well), Paul Mazursky, and Steven Spielberg, but also firsthand experiences from Norman Lloyd (one of the original Mercury Theatre players and I believe the last one still living), Charlton Heston (Touch Of Evil), Anthony Perkins and Jeanne Moreau (The Trial), as well as Oja Kodar whom Welles lived with for the last twenty years of his life. There are also key contributions from Welles' biographer Simon Callow, who champions the 1966 Chimes At Midnight (and not Citizen Kane) as his masterpiece, as well as noted sound designer/editor Walter Murch. In my view Welles was clearly a fine actor and a brilliant filmmaker, whose intelligence, innovation and gift for his craft is indisputable, but what's more fascinating for me is the career path he took. Many label him a failure; a prodigious talent who peaked in his twenties and then threw it all away. He suffered many indignities, particularly from studio bosses, the Hearst press, critics and bankers throughout his life (New Yorker writer Pauline Kael did a particularly vicious and unfair hatchet job on him in 1971), and when he died in 1985 aged seventy there was muted recognition of his achievements. Conversely I find his biography heroic and trailblazing. Far from getting stuck in Hollywood making formulaic costume dramas, he lived a far richer and more artistically rewarding life. He might have had regrets, when he ran out of money or had to resort to TV shows to retain his status, but all through his life he did great work, often in difficult circumstances where others would give up, and always pushing, learning, adapting, embracing new ideas. This is the true measure of any artist; not how lucrative their work is or how famous they become, and this is why he is held in such regard by so many people who have experienced the frustrations of trying to be a filmmaker with vision and integrity. The movie also illustrates Welles' inestimable influence on cinema, with clips from films as diverse as Woody Allen's Radio Days and Tim Burton's Ed Wood, and some comic interludes, notably a dead-on impression of the great man by John Candy. It's also a real treat for fans of Welles, with footage from some of his lesser known work (such as 1974's F For Fake), and several unfinished projects like his endless production of Don Quixote (a cursed film if ever there was, which Terry Gilliam also tried and failed for years to make). Was Orson Welles a genius ? A mad egocentric ? A pioneer so far ahead of his time ? A charlatan masquerading as an artist ? I think of him as simply a brilliant film director, who poured his soul and originality into his work. To quote Marlene Dietrich, he was some kind of a man.

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
We Deal In Lead, 27 July 2015
8/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

When bandits threaten to steal the harvest of a poor Mexican village, the farmers resolve to hire gunmen to defend them. But how will they persuade them to help, and can they trust them to honour the agreement ?

I reckon this is probably my favourite American western (though Rio Bravo, made at the same time, is almost as good) - it's just solid rip-roaring fun from start to finish, features the greatest cast of cowboys ever assembled, is a brilliant story filled with terrific themes and fascinating archetypes and is beautifully shot, cut and scored throughout. Every boy looking for heroes, role models, men to aspire to be like, should watch it, but at the same time it's sad, thoughtful, tender, even pessimistic. Unlike many westerns it never glorifies violence, celebrates greed, demonises ethnic groups, or deals in clichés. It's as stylish a movie as you could find, yet the drama plays as powerfully as any highbrow play. The gunslingers all have their own reasons for being there, but few are altruistic or noble, and the villagers tolerate their presence purely for services rendered. When Chico (Buchholz) tries to crow, the others don't spare him their bitter wisdom, and when the kids attempt to lionise O'Reilly (Bronson) at the cost of their fathers, he quickly puts them in their place. The main theme of redemption is almost existential; Calvera's dying words expressing his incomprehension as to why they would risk their lives for such scant reward. And yet it's joyous fun throughout, filled with funny dialogue (Bronson's first line is for my money the best opener in cinema), amusing scenes (McQueen's dinner table face pulling), great shootouts and chases, an absolutely barnstorming score by Elmer Bernstein (arguably his best in a career filled with classics) and gorgeous desert locations in Morelos State. But perhaps its greatest asset is its fantastic cast; everybody is great, right down to the lowest part - they look mythic, they deliver fabulous performances, they feel authentic and when they suffer we are truly moved. Very few actors don't look foolish with wide brimmed hats, gun belts and spurs, yet everyone here is iconic. Brynner is perhaps the greatest man-in-black cowboy in all cinema (ironically he was Russian), Wallach is simply terrific as the shrewd calculating bandito, McQueen is the coolest sidekick in any western ("So far so good !"), Bronson and Coburn are the epitome of tough guys and even Buchholz (who was German) is somehow wrong-but-right as the loudmouthed Chico. The film's writing credits are a little controversial - the original script was by Walter Bernstein, then largely rewritten by Walter Newman (neither of whom were credited for different reasons) and adapted by William Roberts. Newman is acknowledged as the main author, although of course the movie is almost a straight remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1954 classic Shichinin No Samurai / Seven Samurai, with only the setting changed. It's a very rare example of a cross-cultural remake which is every bit as good as the original. Beautifully shot from start to finish by the great cinematographer Charles Lang (The Uninvited, How The West Was Won, Wait Until Dark), originally this was neither popular nor acclaimed in the US but has deservedly become recognised as one of the greatest westerns of all time.

2 out of 7 people found the following review useful:
We Need More Teeth !, 11 July 2015
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Gray and Zach's parents send them on a holiday to dinosaur theme park Jurassic World, where their Aunt Claire is a senior official. Once there however a top secret new exhibit - the Indominus Rex - breaks out of its enclosure and starts wreaking havoc. It's up to Aunt Claire and park ranger Owen to save the kids.

This is the third sequel to Steven Spielberg's classic 1992 monster movie and, like all sequels, covers the same ground as the original, but is likable, well made, well acted, exciting, and has a good balance of action, scares and laughs. Visually, it's beautiful to look at, with fabulous sets by Ed Verreaux and excellent visual effects by Tim Alexander and Glen McIntosh. The genetically modified Indominus Rex is nice and scary but just a T-Rex variant, but for dinosaur fans there are some great creatures on show, such as the huge aquatic Mosasaur, the spiky-armour club-tailed Ankylosaurus, an epic Pteranodon flying attack sequence and those perennial Jurassic film favourites the Velociraptors. The human cast are equally good, with Howard doing a terrific transformation from soulless corporate businesswoman into breathless, ripped-clothes, monster-fighting Sheena Queen Of The Jungle, Pratt a solid square-jawed traditional macho hero, and D'Onofrio stealing the show as the sneaky bad guy with the military agenda and a great cheesy last speech. My only problem with the film is the too-busy script, which has so many threads (the boys' divorcing parents, the brothers bonding theme, Claire and Owen's old romance, Claire's career aspirations, Masrani's misguided philanthropy, the gene-splicing corporate espionage, the raptor training, the military asset angle, the let's-eat-the-tourists threat, the control room takeover, several others); once it settles down into the main rescue the kids and save the day story, it's much more focused and dramatic. The golden rule in most things is keep it simple, and movie scripts are no exception. But all in all a good Saturday afternoon creature feature, with a solid cast and thrills aplenty. Featuring yet another excellent score by the prolific Michael Giacchino - the wordless scene where Owen and Claire come across the dying Apatosaurus is perhaps the best in the movie - this is good blockbuster monster fun.

10 out of 21 people found the following review useful:
There Are Two Wolves Who Are Always Fighting, 29 May 2015
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Casey Newton lives in Cape Canaveral with her Dad and little brother. After a run-in with the law she comes into possession of a mysterious badge, which transports her to a fabulous futureworld. But where did it come from, and why was she chosen to receive it ?

This Disney sci-fi thriller is a beautifully made, highly original, hugely entertaining film which is consistently gorgeous to look at but also a wonderful story with great characters and terrific themes. What I like best about it I think is its driving sense of optimism and its faith that humanity can overcome any problem once we realise that our destiny lies in our hands. Frank and Nix represent opposite sides of this philosophy - one disgruntled but never giving up hope, the other pragmatic and visionary but resigned to humanity's shallow indifference. The film explores these ideas through rich motifs - the story of the two wolves, the contrast of Frank's youth in the sixties with Casey's in the twenty-first century, the whole Paris Edison/Tesla sequence, Frank and Nix's literal clash of interests. It's a story about not giving up, and not accepting the never-ending tide of bad news the media loves to spoon-feed us all, and it's joyous, exciting, scary and terrific. Clooney and Laurie are both excellent, but it's really Robertson and Cassidy as the kids who hold the picture and who the story is really all about. Twelve-year-old Cassidy in particular steals it, continuing the rich tradition of cinematic robot heroes (see also Aliens, A.I. Artificial Intelligence or I, Robot) who encompass humanity's best qualities. I also love MacCaull's brief role as cheesy android villain Dave Clark - his toothy smile alone is worth catching the movie for. There is a fantastic bombastic string score by Michael Giacchino, which surges through the whole picture - he is rapidly becoming the John Williams of modern cinema - upping the dramatic stakes, and adding warmth and tension. Equally wonderful is Scott Chambliss' fabulous production design, which runs a gamut of imagination from the multi-layered swimming pools and gliding transportation hubs of Tomorrowland to the charmingly kitschy cult movie memorabilia shop in which Casey first encounters the enemy agents. A sensational achievement for Bird (the creator of animated classics The Incredibles and Ratatouille), and a fabulous family movie which reminds us that it's okay to have hope, encourage creativity and strive to make the world a better place. Released here in the UK as Tomorrowland: A World Beyond.

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Barrels Out Of Bond, 7 May 2015
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf the wizard and the band of dwarfs continue their quest to find a secret door to the Lonely Mountain and reclaim their gold. But Smaug the Dragon has no intention of giving up his glittering cache …

The second movie in the Hobbit trilogy has the classic The Empire Strikes Back flaw - it doesn't have a beginning or an ending - but despite this, it is fantastic entertainment and arguably even better than its predecessor. It shares some of the first movie's problems, primarily that it's too long, but it is less excessive and feels much closer to the novel, both in narrative and atmosphere. Where it adds new characters, such as the elf warrior Tauriel and the returning Legolas (Bloom reprising his star turn from the Lord Of The Rings movies), for the most part they feel natural and add a richness to Bilbo's quest, although there is an unnecessary subplot to link this story back to the earlier film trilogy. As ever though, the realisation of these environments is simply irresistible, with gorgeous sets, paintings, props, design and music always a feast for the eyes and ears. The creepy, soul-sucking, spider-infested Mirkwood and the tired, ramshackle, built-on-stilts Laketown are highlights in a film filled with visual delights. The whole escape-in-the-barrels sequence - one of the best bits from the book - is brilliantly realised, with an eye-popping ten-minute action sequence as our heroes hurl down the rapids, confronted by perils on all sides; one of the best chase scenes I've seen for years. If I have one minor complaint though, it's in the characterisation of Smaug himself; visually he is wonderful, terrifying and humorous in equal measure, but his scenes drag on too long. In the book he is horror personified - the monster who can smell an invisible burglar a mile away - but in the movie he talks far too much and skitters dangerously close to becoming a buffoon, as for all his powers he constantly misses, fumbles and goes the wrong way. Like The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, my personal view is that this film could be much more fun, action-packed and scarier with a little judicious pruning. This doesn't however detract from what is simply a fabulous adventure movie from beginning to end. Brilliantly photographed throughout by Andrew Lesnie, who sadly passed away recently, and along with fellow Australian Dean Semler created many of the most memorable images of Antipodean cinema. Followed in 2014 by the concluding part of the trilogy, The Battle Of The Five Armies.

Grand Prix (1966)
Overlong But Breathtaking And Beautifully Made Racing Drama, 30 April 2015
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Pete Aron is a Formula One driver who crashes at the Monaco Grand Prix, wrecking his race and nearly killing his teammate. Thrown out of the team, it looks like his motorsport career might be over until he is offered a new contract from an unlikely source ...

Formula One is the sport I follow, and I am attracted to it for the same reasons as most people I guess, primarily the vicarious thrill of seeing someone drive as dizzying speeds. This movie does a good job of exploring why that holds such fascination for both drivers and fans alike, and contrasts it with the bloodthirsty gawkers and the dog-eat-dog tactics of the teams. The racing sequences are simply outstanding, with amazing shots from the cars' points of view and incredible footage of the actors racing at high speed (Garner did a lot of his own driving). Shot in Super Panavision 70 with spherical lenses and a 2.20:1 aspect ratio by Lionel Lindon, and often using multiple images and intricate cut wipes, these scenes burst across the screen and are every bit as thrilling as a real F1 race. Where the movie literally slows down however is in the inter-race intrigue, which, while nicely played by the talented cast, sometimes descends into soap opera - the heel sleeping with another man's wife, the burned-out former champion who doesn't know why he still does it, the injured driver with an axe to grind, the young kid on top of the world. The people are worth caring about but their personal lives are too clichéd and the ending is perhaps telegraphed too clearly. Frankenheimer's attention to detail is excellent, and the cars are wonderful, but the script could use some tuning and the movie some pruning. From an F1 history buff's perspective however, the movie is nirvana - it mixes some actual footage from the 1966 season, substitutes real racing drivers for the actors/stuntmen, (notably the unrelated Phil Hill and Graham Hill) and features such classic circuits as Brands Hatch, Spa (the old ten-mile country circuit), Monaco, Monza, Watkins Glen and Zandvoort. In the end there is a lot to enjoy in this movie - the racing is fabulous, the cast is terrific, the sixties sensibility is fun, the direction is top-notch and the photography is breathtaking. It's also a potent reminder however of how appallingly dangerous motorsport was in this period of almost no safety standards, prior to the work of people like Jackie Stewart, Niki Lauda and Sid Watkins, and even in the modern era the danger in F1 is still terribly real, epitomised by Jules Bianchi's tragic crash at Suzuka in 2014. This is a great old racing flick and one which would make an excellent double bill with the near-plot less 1971 Lee H. Katzin / Steve McQueen film Le Mans.

2 out of 3 people found the following review useful:
Our Private Conversations Have Not Been Such That I Am Anxious To Continue Them, 26 April 2015
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Sam Spade and Miles Archer run a private detective agency in San Francisco, and are hired by a Miss Wonderly to find her sister, who has eloped with a man named Thursby. That night both Miles and Thursby are shot in separate incidents, Wonderly disappears and Sam is the police's chief suspect for both murders. Who killed them, and why ?

Like only a handful of other movies, it's hard to overestimate The Maltese Falcon's huge influence on the crime genre in specific and cinema in general. Of course there are films which preceded it about private eyes, slippery femme fatales, shifty suspects and twisting plot lines. It's not even the original screen adaptation of Dashiel Hammett's classic 1930 novel (Roy Del Ruth first filmed it in 1931, and it was remade again in 1936 as Satan Met A Lady). This version however combines an astonishingly assured performance by Bogart with an outstanding supporting cast, a brilliant head-scratching script by Huston and superb direction to create perhaps the definitive crime picture, and paved the way for many memorable film noir and gangster classics to follow. It's also important to note the small scale of the film - Bogart and Huston were well respected as a supporting actor and writer respectively, but it was Huston's debut as a director (arguably one of the best ever) and it made Bogart a huge star and cemented his reputation as a hard-boiled tough guy. The screenplay is very faithful to Hammett's riveting book, with only minimal abridging for such a deliciously deceiving story, and as with all the best crime fiction it's really all about the people, and what drives their darker personas. Bogart plays a fabulous thin line between good guy, world-weary cynic and dangerous bluffer as he plays off everyone out to chisel him, on both sides of the law. He is aided by one of the most memorable support casts I've ever come across; Astor is sensational as the serial liar/lover who's constructed so many false identities she's not sure of anything anymore, Lorre is superb as the dapper Levantine Mr Joel Cairo, all perfumed accessories and aloof mannerisms, Greenstreet is unforgettable as the corpulently wily Kasper Gutman ("By Gad sir, you are a character."), and arguably best of all is Cook as the psychotic gunsel Wilmer, who seems constantly poised to explode but instead suffers every indignity at the hands of Spade. The players bring Hammett's rich and strange characters to vivid life with such craft and intensity it's almost impossible to imagine anybody else portraying them. The rumpled detective has become such a staple of books and movies it's easy to forget its origins, but Bogart here will always be the definitive private eye. Crisply photographed by Arthur Edeson (who also shot Frankenstein and Casablanca), this is an unmissable forties classic and one of Huston's best movies. It's also a truly amazing book you must read, although in my view two of Hammett's other novels, Red Harvest and The Glass Key, are equally sensational. Trivia - the one-shot-no-lines-die-on-the-sofa scene-stealing character of Captain Jacoby is played by the great Walter Huston, the director's father.

Total Recall (2012/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Enjoyable But Muted Remake Of Sci-Fi Spy Classic, 18 April 2015
5/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In the late twenty-first century, Douglas Quaid works a menial job constructing security robots. Seeking excitement, he goes to Rekall, a company selling fake memory implants. Suddenly he is thrust into an espionage adventure where he holds the key to an invasion; but is this really happening, or just a delusion in his mind ?

This remake of the Verhoeven / Schwarzenegger science-fiction classic has good points and bad points, but overall is pretty enjoyable and deserves respect for trying a different premise from the original, albeit balancing this with the expected big budget action and effects. It has several good ideas, but in my view many of them veer towards the Silly Science category; the Fall concept is interesting but if there's only one tunnel how many people can you realistically transport each day (not to mention the apparent absence of gravitational forces climbing an external ladder on a vehicle travelling about 30000 kmh). Visually it's a lot of fun, especially the production design by Patrick Tatopoulos, which mixes grimy rusty overcrowded slums in the first half with shiny super-duper stuff in the second, and there is a good score by the reliable Harry Gregson-Williams. However, a lot of the elements seem familiar from other, better, science-fiction films; the rain-drenched masses from Blade Runner, the villain's robot army from I, Robot, the hovercars from Minority Report. The biggest liability for me though is the script - the Verhoeven movie is full of fun, goofy ideas and buckets of gore (only he would have a dwarf prostitute with a machine gun), while this one is much more restrained and dogmatic, substituting too much action and visual effects where humour and characterisation are needed more. The cast do their best but haven't much to do except look confused and pant a lot as they rush about (I hope Nighy was paid well because his role is the most thankless I've ever seen). The exception is nutty Beckinsale, who livens things up as the traitorous pseudo-wife and steals the show. I love the way she deftly plays the first half-hour with a standard middle-America accent, then switches to a well-heeled English one (she's from London) after her cover is blown. It must have been interesting for Wiseman (the director of the first two Underworld movies) to cast Beckinsale in this role, since she is his real life wife.

The Raven (2012/I)
0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Tell Me What Thy Lordly Name Is On The Night's Plutonian Shore, 1 March 2015

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In Baltimore in 1849, a series of gruesome murders closely resemble those in the works of macabre writer Edgar Allan Poe. Detective Fields turns to the notorious author for help in discovering who is behind these dastardly deeds ...

The essence of Edgar Allan Poe's masterful poetry and prose is difficult to translate to the screen for many reasons, but prime amongst them is simply the words themselves. In his feverish writing, it is the characters' mental states and the nervous desperation he evokes with such disturbing intensity which drives the reader to shudder with gloom. As soon as you visualise his work it becomes a conflict between adherence to costume drama and the ultra-dark interiors present here, with modern dialogue and horror movie clichés. Having said that, it's a great central idea and an enjoyably gruesome story. Despite the title, the plot doesn't really have much to do with Poe's masterful 1845 poem The Raven; instead it starts with the killings from The Murders In The Rue Morgue, moves on to The Pit And The Pendulum through The Cask of Amontillado and culminates in The Tell-Tale Heart, with references to several other stories and poems. The performances are good, if a little histrionic (and confusingly Gleeson and McNally look almost identical), but the tone is too uneven - one minute Poe is a washed-up egotistical drunk and the next a chivalrous and dashing saviour. The film is at its best in the rare moments where it is slow and quiet, such as the soliloquy Poe gives about his (real life) wife Virginia's tragic protracted death from tuberculosis - "I often thought I could hear the sound of darkness as it stole across the horizon, rushing towards me. But here I was overwhelmed by a sorrow so poignant. Once she finally died I felt in all candour a great release, but it was soon supplanted by the return of that dark and morbid melancholy that has followed me like a black dog all my life ... ". The film is handsomely mounted - shot in Serbia and Hungary - with terrific sets and an elegant masked ball centrepiece - but in the end this is neither a dramatically fulfilling biopic of Poe or an exciting adaption of his work, so for me it falls a little flat. An enjoyable evening's entertainment though, but for better quality Poe fare, you still can't beat the sixties Roger Corman adaptations - my favourite of which is the 1961 The Pit And The Pendulum, but 1963's overtly comic The Raven is very funny/scary, and both were scripted by the brilliant science-fiction/horror author Richard Matheson. The writers of this movie could do well to study his work.

0 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
Over Hill And Under Hill, 30 November 2014
7/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit from the peaceful Shire. One day, twelve dwarfs and a wizard called Gandalf show up at his door and almost before he knows it he's off on a dangerous quest to steal some gold from a dragon who lives under a mountain ...

This beautiful adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic children's adventure story, made by the same team as the epic The Lord Of The Rings movies from eleven years earlier, is just as visually dazzling, lovingly crafted and wildly imaginative as its grand predecessors. It even begins with a prologue set during the opening of the previous films, featuring Holm and Wood as Bilbo and Frodo, which looks as fresh as if it were shot during the originals. Jackson steps back into the world of Middle-earth with a sure hand, maintaining just the right balance of consistency and atmosphere, combined with the telling of a very different and more intimate story. The Hobbit is a simpler, more whimsical tale, with just one plot thread, far fewer characters and more emphasis on humour, and the cast are all excellent. Freeman captures Bilbo's innate fussiness and irritability, and the conflict between this and his desire to go adventuring, while the actors playing the dwarfs manage the tricky task of making their characters distinct and memorable. McKellen is the key link to the previous adventures and steps back into the frame with aplomb, while Serkis as usual steals the movie as Gollum in the classic Riddles In The Dark sequence. By using all the key technicians again - especially composer Howard Shore, cameraman Andrew Lesnie, and effects/makeup/costumes/props designer Richard Taylor - the movie has quality and continuity assured, and is fun, fresh, dramatic and exciting from start to finish. I'm afraid I must however comment on something fundamental which bothers me - the tone. In my view the film tries very hard to be as similar as possible to The Lord Of The Rings, and I'd guess this was at the insistence of the financiers. It does this several ways; by simply being long (the novel of The Hobbit is about a quarter of the length of The Lord Of The Rings), by constructing expansive sequences from nothing (for example, the Rock Giants scene is a lengthy and expensive looking section in the film but a throwaway sentence in the book), by creating deliberate links (such as the meeting with Saruman and Galadriel, which is a fabrication for the movie), and, worst of all, by altering the fabric of the plot in unjustifiable ways. The pale orc antagonist character, Azog, and the revenge plot which accompanies him, is complete invention, most likely to justify lengthy and bloody action sequences which play no part in the novel. This is odd for a movie which does such a good job of faithfully creating Tolkien's world - for example, the opening dinner scene is a near perfect recreation of the book's opening chapter. Bilbo doesn't rescue Thorin at any point in the novel and they don't have any emotional reconciliations either. I'm sure I'm not alone in thinking the story of The Hobbit could easily be told in one solid two-hour movie, and that all of the expensive embellishment is perhaps chiefly to ensure patrons purchase three tickets. I don't want to be cynical or judgemental though - whatever the movie's aims or production history, it is exquisitely made, fantastic entertainment, and a definitive version of one of the most influential adventure stories ever written.


Page 1 of 77:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]