The Last Exorcism

I've always been a big fan of Exorcism films. Even though I count myself among the ranks of non-believers, I am keenly aware of the profound dramatic power of a good Vs. evil yarn done right. To get comparisons to the Friedkin classic out of the way up front, I would say stacked up next to each other, The Exorcist and The Last Exorcism might resemble a side by side look at a Bengalese Tiger and a common house cat. That is to say, they share some of the same primordial traits, but aren't really the same species.

The Last Exorcism is competent enough and boasts a couple of truly nerve wracking sequences that make good use of the camcorder verite format, but ultimately, it's that manner of presentation that proves its undoing. There is a visceral thrill that can be captured by this trendy approach to storytelling, but as it is employed again and again and ad nauseum applied to every single sub genre of horror, it's becoming clear how short sighted and gimmicky it truly is. I see how the facebook/youtube generation is seemingly fascinated by it and I understand that. You're talking about a demographic that values immediacy of content delivery over purity of craft. These are kids who are willing to watch Avatar on a 2-inch cellphone screen, so what do they care if minor things like shot composition, visual metaphor and sound design are sacrificed in favor of ready made stinger images to punctuate television advertisements? Of course I'm not suggesting that ALL of today's youth has such a narrow view of film and that all "first person" films are devoid of subtext or lasting relevance, I'm just saying 90% of the kids going to see this are going to be on their phone though most of the movie. Make of that what you will.

The thing I like about Demon possession films is the battle over faith and The Last Exorcism admittedly has a novel approach to the antagonists struggle. He's lost his faith in some respects, but is still a good man who wants to help people. He's not some alcoholic sitting in the dark nurturing a grudge against his absent creator. He's an imminently likable fellow who wants to do right by his family and perhaps do some good within the confines of a profession he's naturally gifted at. The film also strums some unique chords concerning the schism between tolerating backwards, fundamental belief systems and when action must be taken to protect the powerless trapped in that situation. So there's some strong performances and some genuinely interesting theological gristle to chew on and the film definitely needs to be commended for that.

The problem is that it lacks the courage of its convictions. It sets up a host of well developed characters and when it comes time to bring the hammer down on them with all the histrionic terror and tragedy duelling with the Devil entails, it blinks. It steps back from the brink of being a powerful, thought provoking exploration of faith (which is the heart of why Exorcism films are so compelling) with a hard left turn into silliness courtesy of a telegraphed plot twist that not only strains credulity and rips off a film as shitty and forgettable as The Reaping, it ultimately derails all point or purpose the preceding 90 minutes had.

Which brings me to the ending and the fatal flaw of films of this ilk. The jagged cut is not an ending make. I can no longer abide a movie ending with the narrator/protagonist being quickly killed in an jostling of activity, then a static shot of the ground. It's become such a predictable joke since it was first done in the execrable Blair Witch Project. It's ironic that the only thing that worked in that putrid student film was the chilling ending, and it hasn't meant anything or been nearly as successful in the subsequent 10 years of imitation. When you end a film like that, it invalidates all that happened before it and disregards the emotional investment of the audience. In the case of the Last Exorcism, that tawdry conclusion, coupled with the jarring tonal shift of the tacked-on third act makes for a one-two K.O. punch.

I don't outright hate this film or anything, it tried real hard to tell its little story and had honorable intentions toward its intended audience. It just was too underwhelming, too flaccid and too of its time to be anything other than a missed opportunity. Better luck next time Daniel Stamm. Get yourself a tripod and try not to wimp out when its time to focus on the horrific aspects of your horror film.

Source: http://shloggshorrorblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/last-exorcism.html

»»  read more

Moon Dough Barnyard Play Set Giveaway

Jake, 3-years-old, generally wakes up from his nap about a half-an-hour before his younger brother Luke. During that time, I try to do an activity with him that we couldn't do if Luke was awake - like play with toys that aren't age appropriate for Luke. The Moon Dough Barnyard Set was perfect for these instances, and Jake had a blast!

Moon Dough isn't like any type of clay or dough you have ever seen or played with before. It is soft and marshmallow-like and never dries out. You can use it over and over again and it works just like new. The dough came in 3 colors which quickly became 1 color as a 3-year-old has a hard time keeping the colors separate. The suggested age range was for children ages 2-4, however, I can't imagine my 2-year-old being able to work with the Moon Dough properly, especially since he would surely eat it. It is hypo-allergenic and wheat-free so it would be safe should a child happen to decide to have a taste.

How it works: You place the moon dough in the top of the barn into one of 4 different molds (horse, cow, sheep and chicken) turn the crank 2 times and out pops your moon dough in the shape of the animal. The dough is pretty fragile and if you have an easily frustrated child, I'd probably steer clear of Moon Dough until they are older. At first Jake would pick up the animal and it would either break in half or the shape would be unrecognizable from him simply handling it too rough. (In the video he tells you that the animal he just made was a flamingo - clearly he didn't care what he was making - he was just having fun making it.)

Horse, Cow and Chicken - in a mixture of all 3 colors

Moon Dough recommends playing on a vinyl tablecloth and I very quickly found out, that was a great suggestion. The dough is very dusty but does clean up really easily. It simply would have been even easier on a slick surface like that or a table (we played on a blanket & had to wash the blanket afterward because the dust ground into the fabric).

I can hardly wait until Jake gets a little better and understanding how to work with the Moon Dough better - I didn't let him use all the dough so we still have a lot of dough that he didn't mix together. A little goes a long way. Once we played with it a bit, it did hold it's shape a little better and he was able to play with the animals in the farm, though it got a bit crowded in there as you can see in the above picture - Jake didn't care, he just "smooshed" it back into one of the molds and started all over again!

WIN IT!: One of my readers will win a Moon Dough Barnyard Play Set

TO ENTER:  Visit www.moondough.com and tell me another playset/product you think would be fun to play with.

Extra Credit! You may do any or all of the following, just don't forget to leave a separate comment for EACH one you do:

• Follow my blog publicly


• Fan my page on Facebook


• Add my button to your blog


• Enter any other ACTIVE contest & state which contest you entered (any and all active contests)


• Add me to your text blog roll (not button)
  


• Subscribe to my blog via email (see right margin for link)
  


• Follow me on Twitter** and tweet about the contest " WIN! #GIVEAWAY Moon Dough Barnyard Play Set at A Giveaway Addicted Mommy @kariellen http://tinyurl.com/2e3ob97 Ends 9/13 " Leave the link to your tweet in your comment. You can do this once a day! Just come back and leave the link each time you do.


• Publish a post on your blog mentioning the contest with link. Please leave the link to your post in your comment.

Contest ends September 13th at 11:59 PST and a winner will be chosen at random and contacted via email. I will contact the winner on or around September 1th and they will have 48 hours to respond. Open to US Only.

**Twitter account must be public - your tweets must be visible by all, not just by whom you follow/allow

**Entries are Per Person, Per Email Address, Per Household, Per IP Address and/or Per Blog. Failure to follow these rules will lead to disqualification in this contest and all future contests on this blog. In other words, no cheating please.
The only compensation that I received for this post was the item mentioned for review. All opinions and views are mine and were not influenced by any compensation or affiliation.

Source: http://nateandjakeandme.blogspot.com/2010/08/moon-dough-barnyard-play-set.html

Miss Philippines Venus Raj is Miss Universe 2010 4th Runner-up

 (image via: here)

We Filipinos are suckers for getting our proud little country into the limelight of the international stage hopefully for the right reasons (after the numerous road mishaps and the hostage crisis yesterday, we deserve a breather) and beyond Manny Pacquiao. Venus Raj did that today during the 2010 Miss Universe Pageant held in Madalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas despite her "major major blunder" during the question and answer portion. 

I guess I was a bit disappointed because after Miriam Quiambao, she was the only Pinay who came close to clinching the title; and it's been a while for us Filipinos to see one of our own make it as a finalist in one of the world's most prestigious competitions. The sad part is, the crown would have fit her beautifully. In my honest opinion, her exotic looks are a stand out. With a 22-inch waste line, she was exquisitely stunning in her swimwear; and she looked gorgeous, regal and elegant in her evening gown.

While I am no beauty pageant expert, I felt that she gave up after reaching the top five, probably too overwhelmed at the fact that she actually made it that far. The question too (minus the pressure and compared to those asked of the other candidates) was rather easy and personal. She was asked by William Baldwin (whom I remember vividly for his annoying role as Serena van der Woodsen's father on Gossip Girl) what she thought was her biggest mistake in life. I think it's great that she doesn't believe in regrets and have so far done nothing "major" in her 22 years of existence. What irked me in the way she answered though, was the way she continuously referred to Baldwin as a "sir" and why on earth she thanked him for that "(un)wonderful" question. It's a very typical Filipino beauty pageant filler of an answer.

In a way too, her continuous reference to Baldwin as a "sir" reflected our hierarchical society (even when the world is moving towards a system of equality and away from societies where social classes dictate the way of life for most) and and inferiority to other nations. In the Philippines, foreigners especially Americans  are always referred to as "sirs" or "ma'am s" for all the wrong reasons. While I appreciate the fact that Filipinos are (too) respectful, I still think that our use of titles are more of results of our feelings of inferiority towards other developed nations rather than as a genuine sign of respect. This is an awful generalization against my own culture, but it's a fact everywhere in the country. I've worked with Americans and people from other countries, and from my own experience, they would like nothing more than to be treated as equals with the right amount of respect and without the unnecessary attempts at patronizing. 

I think as a country, in order to actually become known throughout the world as a mighty nation, we should start moving forward and join hands with other nations in creating a truly border-less world where anyone can be whoever he/she wants to be. 

Despite all this, I am mighty proud of Venus Raj. I think she represented our country well. Her life story at the same time is really inspiring and I know from this point forward, she would inspire many. Though it's wonderful that she feels that she has done no "major major" (here we go again) blunder in her life, I think mistakes do matter because without them, we wouldn't learn. And lessons learned, make us better persons. But all in all, congratulations Venus!

Source: http://cuppasunshine177.blogspot.com/2010/08/miss-philippines-venus-raj-is-miss.html

»»  read more

Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light Review

I am all for taking established characters and bending their genre a little bit, especially a character that has seen as much abuse as Lara Croft. Her more recent adventures have actually been pretty good, but she went through years and years of terrible games since her PSX debut. I was a little surprised when I found out that her newest outing was going to be an isometric action game and downloadable only. Would her signature game style of running, jumping, climbing and shooting work from a viewpoint more associated with Diablo and Baldurs Gate? In short, no, and Crystal Dynamics was wise to not force a virtual square peg into a round hole. There are still plenty of puzzles to be had, many of which are heavy on physics and momentum, and not a one of them feels hampered by the static camera and viewing distance. It is still a Tomb Raider game, but just barely, and it is a better game for it.

Every since Microsoft lifted the size limit on XBLA games we have been treated to downloadable titles that are right on par with games afforded the extra space of the a physical disc. The Guardian of Light does not disappoint, with varied environments containing more than enough detail to keep graphics mongers happy. Lara herself did not fair as well, and along with her enemies and the oddly named co-hero they lose something when the camera zooms in. This really only happens for cut scenes, and I understand that corners have to be cut to keep the download size down. Even without ultra high res models the game clocks in at a hefty 2 gig. The only real casualty of the de-facto size limit is the soundtrack, which gets repetitive quickly. I could be wrong; it could have nothing to do with bandwidth considerations, but it was certainly the weakest link.

The last two Tomb Raider games were very narrative heavy, focusing on Lara searching for her missing father and all sorts of other things that I don't remember (you can see how much of an impact they had on me). The Guardian of Light is very light on story, with events that just barely manage to string the levels together. This would be unforgivable in the big games, but things are never slow enough here for me to care. Every level jumps from puzzle solving to action that is about as close to Shadowgrounds as we have gotten on a console so quickly that worrying about little things like 'who is that and why is he trying to take over the world' is just not important. Even in long, action heavy sections there is enough variety thanks to a good variety of weapons  and swappable items that I was always left wanting more. What's even better is that the game was kind enough to give it to me.

There is no lack of content here, a rarity for XBLA titles. Yes, I was able to play from beginning to end in around five hours, but unlike the five hours I spend with Limbo it is not the the last time I am going to touch the game. Every level is packed with hidden areas and objectives, many of which I simply walked past the first time through because I was too busy staying alive to notice them. Weapons found near the end of the game solve this, including the comically overpowered golden shotgun, so return trips can be spent exploring instead of fighting for your life. I have yet to try the co-op game, and unlike most online offering this one has a good shot of pulling me back in.

Guardian of Light succeeds by not resting on its main characters laurels. I like Lara Croft as much as the next guy; she is a gaming icon on the level of Mario and Snake. It is good to see her in a different genre that actually makes sense, instead of racing in go karts or stumbling into an odd turn based strategy game. This is not just a good downloadable title, it is a game that blurs the imaginary line between disc based media and everything else, and it really helps that they picked the right ambassador.

Source: http://gamercrank.blogspot.com/2010/08/lara-croft-and-guardian-of-light-review.html

»»  read more

NOT a Webcomic Review #13: Red vs. Blue

Well, a good deal of explanation is in order I suppose.

Everyone under the sun has heard of Red vs. Blue, widely credited as it is for making the art of machinima not only popular, but commercially successful. Rooster Teeth Productions has spread to other games outside the Halo-verse in an effort to find the next smash hit (though many have been funded by developers as promotional material or are simply not as well-conceived and entertaining).

But just as it is true everyone has heard of Red vs. Blue it is equally true not all of us have seen it. A few years ago in college I had a particularly game obsessed friend that was hooked on everything gaming related, including the stupidest parody videos you'd ever seen. We all have at least one friend (or acquaintance) like this, someone who encourages you to check out a different video/site/blog every week and after the first couple you realize they will look at (and presumably enjoy) EVERYTHING no matter how bad it is.

This was why I never watched Red vs. Blue.

It has nothing to do with Halo. I own all three games, I enjoy it because it's simplistically fun and a lot of people at the school had it too, making LAN parties easy to form. (Aside: they weren't fratboys. I hate that broad generalization that all Halo players are fratboys, we didn't even have frats at my school! Simplicity in entertainment does not automatically equal stupidity in the consumer, intelligent people still enjoy Asteroids after all). The games are fun, if not deep, but I never wanted Halo to be anything more than a game. I was dreading what Red vs. Blue could do wrong (so very many things) and that kept me from watching any of it. It couldn't possibly be good, or funny. In my defense there are a few simple facts that supported my theory:

1. Machinima is quite rarely funny and I particularly dislike it, so it was already a form of media I do not gravitate towards.

2. Video game parodies are typically bad, with stupid or unfunny humor. It's as though Uwe Boll produced every video game parody ever made in between his professional B-Movie directorial career.

Based on those two facts please understand why I thought Red vs. Blue was not worth my time. Thankfully, I got bored a few days ago and started aimlessly reading Wikipedia articles for lack of a better activity. I stumbled on the Red vs. Blue page and realized I had time to watch a couple of shorts (too much time, as will become abundantly clear) so I hopped on over to YouTube and started it up.

The Halo graphics immediately gave me a nice tinge of nostalgia (still my favorite game of the series, stuck to the shooter roots with minor adjustments that improved, then later overwhelmed, the genre) and I was sucked in by memories of playing multiplayer enough to watch the first few. I'm glad I did, Red vs. Blue is absolutely worth the time. Within the afternoon I had watched over seventy episodes and only stopped because I had to be somewhere.

It's not terribly difficult to explain what makes Red vs. Blue good, but there are a lot of factors. First and foremost, it really has nothing to do with Halo at all, the whole concept is the ridiculous premise of two teams of different colors fighting a "war" with one another in which a flag is the ultimate prize. For most of the show the major joke is that if this were really how wars were fought, it would be completely ridiculous. It remains funny even as the show continues on and starts to shed the gaming jokes in favor of other humor and a much more developed plot (more on that later). In fact, the evolution of the humor is so well paced you don't even notice when you have transitioned from laughing at the "what if it weren't a game" joke to the "totally incompetent people" joke.

Speaking of which, let's touch on those eccentric members of our cast. Obviously there are two teams, Reds and Blues, who fight perpetually in a box canyon (Blood Gulch) for no other reason than the omnipotent Command says they should. Command's inspiring orders include "try to do better" and "beat the (other color)s." The two teams are represented by several extremely idiotic members (one of the best arguments for Red vs. Blue is which of the morons is the least moronic, not easy to answer) who spend more time debating the particulars of their mission than actually accomplishing anything.

For the Reds there is Sarge, the leader, whose primary trait is his constant determination to defeat the Blues even when other, more pressing matters present themselves. He also likes to find excuses to kill/maim/insult Grif, who tries to do as little as possible while complaining as much as he can. Simmons is the kiss-ass, always backing up Sarge's plans even when they make no sense (at least until later in the series). Finally, Donut is the increasingly effeminate and stupid new recruit, also completely useless.

The Blues consist of Church, the sniper with incredibly horrible aim and perhaps the most competent and honorable (when it is convenient for him) of all the characters. His friend Tucker is the sexist, female obsessed dope who also possesses occasional moments of courage and clarity. They are joined early on by Caboose, the franchise's best character, who is so ridiculous and idiotic that he cannot be described. Caboose only gets funnier as the episodes progress and at times he alone carries the show just by being himself. He's as good a character as you are going to find out there and has so many great one-liners I can't pick just one. That, and many of the jokes require context and set-up lines that seems to be the show's specialty. Really the writing is very very good, even though about midway through the first 100 episodes (which could be called the first complete story arc) the show drags a bit, but it picks up wonderfully after that.

Aside from the two opposing teams we run abreast of the Freelancers (mercenary soldiers that work for cash or favors), one of whom happens to be Church's ex-girlfriend Tex. She becomes a pivotal figure in the story along with her Freelancer brethren and the accompanying AI implants each Freelancer has. It turns out that the Freelancers are much more than they claim to be, and that is where the show takes a sharp turn away from gags to a story-driven comedy-drama... and becomes something truly memorable.

I'll detail more of the plot in a spoiler section later, as promised, but for now I have to touch on a topic that gets frequent mention in my reviews: the Cerebus Syndrome. Simply put, it is the stage where a comic or series moves away from it's one-shot or nonsense humor to a plot that, while still amusing, centers more on drama and climactic events. The Cerebus Syndrome is the creator's attempt to flesh out a character more completely, giving him, her, or them more life and personality in an attempt to become something more than a throwaway gag reel. The syndrome is named for the Cerebus comic that pioneered the transition (according to WebSnark, I take zero credit for the term) and many comics try to pull it off with varying levels of success. Ctrl+Alt+Del is a good example of a failed (or at least poor) transition, but comics like Order of the Stick did a fantastic job with it. Red vs. Blue not only completes the transition successfully, but almost seamlessly. I couldn't pinpoint the exact moment where it had completed the shift, but I realized it had happened. That is the mark of a very good story, when it can hide it's own transition from nonsense to nonsense with a purpose and story to tell.

The only way to really appreciate what Rooster Teeth did with Red vs. Blue is to discuss the plot, so spoilers ahoy!

SPOILERS BEGIN

Alright, so we soon learn about the Freelancer AI program and discover that O'Malley is a malicious AI bent on destroying the world that can possess the suits of the characters. All well and good while still being funny, it didn't need to make sense then because Church had died, come back as a ghost, possessed a robot, and the show just moved forward without even bothering to say, "Oh, well this is why that makes sense." Once that absurdity got tossed in anything else seems like fair game.

But it was the way which Rooster Teeth took all the absurdity, all the goofiness and seemingly inexplicable happenings and somehow made it make sense in a science fiction story to be proud of. It turns out the AIs are all broken parts of the tortured AI "brain" of one intelligence, fragmented so more Freelancers could get the benefit of an AI implant (very cool concept). The problem of course is the moral implications and the fact that some fragments are, well, evil. But then they drop a huge bomb by pointing out, "Hey, ghosts aren't real you know, so how else do you explain Church's existence unless he is that first AI before it was fragmented?"

The reason it works is precisely because of the way the show evolved. We accept Church is a ghost because anything goes in the story, so when a plausible reason for him NOT being a ghost is given and it makes PERFECT sense in the context given... that's just wonderful execution. It also helps that after the original 100 episode story the newer episodes have better production and voice-acting that really allows Rooster Teeth to do much more than they could before.

Now, the whole thing is far from perfect. Sarge apparently meets Church as a ghost too, which hasn't been explained, as does Tex. And you have the issue of time travel and continuity being pretty much mishandled (though probably for humor's sake rather than through incompetence) so it doesn't hang together perfectly even though I said as much before, but it still works. It's very funny, it's very intriguing, and it raises all kinds of speculation about other plots like the aliens and their role in saving their race which haven't been addressed yet. But the overarching lesson here is that not only can you take something ridiculous and make it tell a story, you can make it tell a really good story if you have talented enough writers and compelling enough characters.

SPOILERS END

In the end, like anything else, not everyone is going to find Red vs. Blue funny, but I bet most people will. The writing is good, the voice-acting is generally well done, and if neither of those grab you then the creativity of the show's production will at the very least garner your respect. The earliest episodes are done with one character acting as a "cameraman" with his first-person perspective telling the story. Considering other, equally cool, methods used to manipulate the limitations of the earlier episodes before construction sets were available (think how they made Junior look smaller than everyone else) there has to be at least cursory appreciate for how the show was made. For whatever reason, you have to appreciate how many things Red vs. Blue does so well. It's popular for a good reason and one of the few things I have ever felt lived up to the hype of it's fanbase. Having said all this, and giving the show my heartiest recommendation, I have to address the people who won't like it for one specific reason: because it is Halo.

The gaming community has, with the increasing coverage now given to games in academia and the media, started down a slippery slope. It's a trend similar to the direction which webcomics are taking and it is worth mentioning here. We have become, like the literary critics before us, prone to a level of elitism when it comes to games. In literary studies, students are lectured on the difference between literature and Literature, the capitalized version being the canonized works by the greatest authors in our history. Those who are in the canon are studied by, vaunted by, and support/are supported by the elitist class of those whose very profession is the written word. These men whose works are in the canon serve to represent the pinnacle of our creative literary minds, they are held aloft as the perfection to which all other works must be compared, even though the canon happens to be picked and populated by old white males almost exclusively.

The same thing has happened with webcomics and gaming. Webcomics are still widely disregarded as trivial distractions by comparison to the comic books and funnies that have existed for far longer. That they exist on the internet and not in a print form (but for the collections of the more popular ones) has led to them being disparaged by comic snobs. I called them elitists before, but they exist in every realm and especially in gaming. It has never been more apparent than the recent backlash against the Halo franchise and because of that backlash and the little group of "superior" gamers that won't acknowledge Halo as an important and, indeed, significant moment in game development people won't like Red vs. Blue because of what it uses as a platform.

The absurdity of the argument should be readily apparent. It's entirely one thing to not like something because you don't like the story or characters or jokes (and yes, it's perfectly fine to say you DON'T like Red vs. Blue for those very reasons) but it is a waste of breath and energy to berate something because that which it parodies falls into the category of "simple fun." Halo didn't reinvent the wheel or do anything complex, it was a simplistic shoot-em-up that, because the core mechanics were so polished, succeeded and inherited a rabid (and as annoying and wrong as the detractors) fanbase. Elitism and snobbery has become fashionable, creating the same disgusting clique of followers as the ridiculous console fanboys that have been berated for their blind claim that THEIR console is the best. It has kept the XBox stalwarts from enjoying God of War, the PlayStation followers from giving Fable a chance, to say nothing of the insistence on calling the Wii a baby's toy.

What this digressive rant is trying to say (and I swear I really do have a point) is that we need to open up. We have become culturally so determined to follow a group or product, to belong to a community even if it means shutting out other avenues we might enjoy, that many of us are missing out on some of the best games, videos, comics, and experiences to come along in a while. My point is, don't do what I did. Don't discount Red vs. Blue because it is machinima and you don't like it. You're really going to miss out. And, in the broader scope of things, don't fall into a clique just because you like that hive mind mentality and be aware enough to recognize it when it starts to creep in. It goes beyond our simple pleasures and likes or dislikes, open-mindedness to all things might actually make the world a better place.

*Steps down from soap box*

I apologize if anyone felt I ruined the review with my stream of thought on the topic, but given the medium used to produce Red vs. Blue it seemed like an opportunity I couldn't pass up. In the interest of staying true to this column, go and watch Red vs. Blue. Give it twenty or so episodes and see if you laugh. Don't worry, they are only five to eight minutes long and won't take up too much time. Do be careful though, you might get as sucked in as I was.

You can see the videos officially at www.roosterteeth.com but they can also be found on YouTube (I found they played a bit better for me there too). I hope you find it to your liking and, as always, thanks for reading.

Mega Tokyo is still coming, I promise. And I'll try to limit the off-topic commentary next time.

Source: http://teachtraintype.blogspot.com/2010/08/not-webcomic-review.html

»»  read more