Results: The Jasper’s Take Awards 2012

The least coveted awards in the film business. The ones about which Matt Damon might have said “which ones?” The ones that even Kate Winslet is not interested in. They’re here. They’re now. The Jasper’s Take Awards 2012 (not Winslet and Damon, though that’d have been very cool). So, I hear you thinking, who are the ignorant winners?

The Michael Bay Award for loudest action film

In the absence of Michael Bay himself this year, and with the knowledge that I did not go and see the reportedly deafening Battleship, this award goes to – drum raffle and big bang – The Avengers. A film so loud that my review was literally unhearable in the mayhem…

The Adam Sandler Award for least funny comedy

Adam Sandler himself churned out two hugely unlikable ‘comedies’ this year (That’s My Boy and Jack & Jill), but to let him take part in this awards race would be unfair to the other contenders. So which movie was the least funny funny-film in 2012? Don’t laugh! It was The Watch. The only good thing about this film is that it reminded me of The IT-Crowd…

The Intelligent Design Award for worst case of history rewritten

There is actually some fun to be had with the idea of moon-nazis. And there is something charming about a British bloke making up an affair he had with Marilyn Monroe. Hugo sweetened the history of early cinema a bit too much, but had a good heart. But real toe-curling history-twitching this year concerned the painful subjects of slavery and racism. The award is shared between Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (this year’s worst film in general) and the painful The Help (aka White People Solve Racism).

The Iron Man 2 Award for least inspired sequel/prequel/spin-off

Next year this award can be properly awarded to Iron Man 3 of course, but for now we’ll have to make due. What was the least-inspired, most blindly-cash-grabbing sequel, threequel, spin-off, prequel or reboot of the year? Of course! It was the entirely unwanted The Amazing Spider-Man. A film that was only made so that Sony could keep the rights to the world’s most boring super hero.

The Martin McFly Award for best use of time travelling 

Quite some time-travelling going on this year. Or going to be in the history of thirty years from now. Looper had me wondering too often ‘what? And ‘how?’ Men in Black III was simply caught up in its own inconsistencies. Total Recall went back to the eighties and stole the set of Blade Runner, so that rules it out of competition. Which made me choose between Goldfinger‘s Aston Martin turning up in Skyfall and the eventual winner: The Muppets! Yes! Now that Einsteinian physics is re-established, surely the travel-by-map option constitutes bending the rules of light and time?

The Mind Heist Award for most enthusiasticating trailer

The most difficult choice. Argo‘s use of Dream On? The mysterious moodiness of Bir Zamanlar Anadolu’da? Skyfall‘s breath-take-away-er? Fiveandahalf (!) minutes of Cloud Atlas? All worthy contenders, but the award for the best trailer goes to….

Thursday Movie News Flash Update Blog-message

Things we’ve learned this week:

Scarlett Johansson not in Iron Man 3, but Guy Pearce and Jessica Chastain join RDJ, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle and Ben Kingsley

So Iron Man 3 makes the same mistake as Iron Man 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The new Anchorman film will be set in 1978, and deal with racial issues

Pixar will wake the Mexican dead

More than one hour of IMAX footage in The Dark Knight Rises

and

London Bridge is falling down (in GI: Joe: Retaliation [approx at 2:00] at least)

Preview: The Dark Knight Rises

Last week Warner Bros. released the teaser poster for Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises, and yesterday they also put an HD version of the first teaser online. A shoddy low-quality version had already been leaked to the internet, but its quality was so bad that hardly anything could be seen or heard in it.

The new teaser still tells us little about the plot: there are some images from Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, and a voice-over by Liam Neeson that comes from the first film. Then: an image of Gary Oldman’s commissioner Gordon on a hospital bed: hurt, weak. He insists that Batman must come back, that they were “in this together”. An unseen Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) doubt whether Batman still exists. Then there are shots of someone climbing out of a hole and of Bane (Tom Hardy). One of his face and one of him approaching a stumbling Batman in an underground location.

And that is it. I am thrilled. I am very much looking forward to the film, yet I am afraid as well. Mostly because of the cast list. The Dark Knight Rises sees Bale returning as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) and Michael Caine (Alfred) return as well.

Tom Hardy will be Bane, who in the comics is a genetically engineered super-soldier or villain. Anne Hathaway is cast as Selina Kyle, and may transform into Catwoman. Hathaway is new to Nolan, but Marion Cotillard and Joseph Gorden-Levitt are not: they worked with him on Inception. Gorden-Levitt will be police officer John Blake, and Cotillard will play Miranda Tate, in the comics also known as Talia Al Ghul, the estranged daughter of Ra’s Al Ghul, Batman’s enemy from Begins. Josh Pence is cast as a young Ra’s, and Liam Neeson is rumoured to return as the old version of the character.

Such long cast lists lead to problems; see last years Iron Man 2. All these well-known actors and characters can hardly all be given the screen time they need to develop their characters properly and play a major role in what still should be the story of Batman. At worst, we could get a mess of a film. However, considering Nolan’s disciplined style of filmmaking that is not likely. More likely is that the film will show an extreme version of the template of The Dark Knight and Inception, in which supporting characters’ emotional or personal development are sidelined in order for them to schematically inhabit the various political, moral or mythological points Nolan wants make.

Something else I fear is that Nolan might move away from the realistic tone of his previous Batman films, and indulge in the more metaphysical themes and plotlines some of the comics (for instance Frank Millar’s “The Dark Knight Returns”) offer. That is something I would not be fond of.

But I had similar fears back in 2007, when I first learned that Heath Ledger, whom I, at the time, only remembered as the teenage heart-throb from 10 Things I Hate About You and A Knight’s Tale, would play The Joker, a role made iconic by Jack Nicholson. And I had my doubts about the pitch for Inception as well: A thriller set within the architecture of the mind? And in both cases my doubts and fears were met by great films. Let’s hope Nolan can do it again.

Camp Comedy but Disappointing Action – the Thor review

Let’s just say that my expectations were not high, for the latest Marvel action hero film franchise. Thor is about the Nordic thunder God. God. As in, mighty-super powerful. I mean, I already think Superman is a bore with a convoluted weakness. How are you going to give the God of Thunder a proper challenge?

Well, by having Natalie Portman knocking him over with a car for instance. Or, if you’re at it, twice. When the trailer hit the internet it appeared, or seemed to appear, that the filmmakers had the same reservations I had. So they strip poor Thor of his powers and chuck him down to Earth, where he is not known as the sun of the Allfather Odin, but rather as a good-looking creepy guy with a mental disorder. Comedy ensues.

Good, funny comedy even. There is an absolute chemistry between Australian soapie Chris Helmsworth (über-blond and über-beef), scientist and love interest Portman and supporting scientists Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings. Especially the latter is hilarious, complaining that secret government agency SHIELD took her Ipod as well as all their research material.

Okay, so the plot is bonkers. Thor is tricked by his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) into starting a war between his realm Asgard and the frost giants (really). He is then punished by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins with an eye-patch) and banished to earth, bereft of his powers and his magical hammer Mjolnir. In other words: impotent. He then has to seek the help of a couple of scientist in retrieving Mjolnir, evade the agents of SHIELD and get back in time to Asgard to prevent Loki and the Frost Giants from killing Odin.
Pfff. And he has to fall in love with Natalie Portman. But the latter is of course the easy bit.

Bonkers. But fun. At least, while Thor is impotent and tries to adjust to earth life. A killer joke is his smashing of a coffee cup in appreciation of the drink. Once the powers are back and there are robots and frost giants to be fought everything becomes dull and boring. On sight of the robot SHIELD agent Coulson actually says: “Is that one of Stark’s?” And the action indeed imitates the loud and boring mayhem of Iron Man 2.

‘Cause this is a Marvel film, and Marvel films have lately been nothing but advertisements for future attractions. Captain America, a spin-off involving Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and next year’s The Avengers.

However on a positive note it should be said that at times Thor manages to strike an original tone (much like the first Iron Man film). This is especially true for the Asgard based scenes. Here the brilliant stroke of the producers in picking their director becomes clear. In every other man’s hands the pompous dialogues of the Norse Gods would become ridiculous, but Kenneth Branagh – who previously hadn’t seen an action scene in his life – has the experience of having directed almost every single line Shakespeare ever wrote. In his direction the camp comedy of Anthony Hopkins with an eye-patch is kept under tight control. There is even the resemblance of a proper Elizabethean tragedy in the relation between Helmsworth, Hiddlestone and Hopkins.

Asgard furthermore looks gorgeous, and the 3D did not give me as much headaches as previously. But it didn’t really add anything either.

Super Hero: The Abominable Onslaught

I previously wrote that 2011 would be the Year of the Alien. As there were so many films coming out that were, well, about aliens. But there is another trend this year, especially in the blockbuster season: the summer of 2011 is the summer of the uninteresting b-grade super hero. The source of all this mayhem? Characters have become ‘properties’, commodities owned by studios to wrench out as much cheap money as possible. And if your movie studio is, owns or cooperates with a comic book publisher, you have a lot of  ’properties’.

Marvel, for instance, is pillaging its back catalogue so that we can be given an ‘Avengers’ film next year or in 2013. But before that can happen The Hulk and Iron Man must be joined by Thor and Captain America. Who? A Norse God who has fallen to earth to combat stupid super-robots and a pumped up White Anglo Saxon Protestant in a spandex suit made out of the United States flag. Who’s going to take on a red-skulled Nazi by the name of, you guessed it, Red Skull. Disgusting. The little appearance of Tony Stark (Iron Man) in The Incredible Hulk was a nice joke, but the way Iron Man 2 was a mere commercial for the other Marvel films was sickening.

But let’s not just blame Marvel alone. DC Comics have wonderful ‘property’ in Superman and Batman, although Superman to me has always been something of a bore. But can someone explain to me what the appeal is of ‘Green Lantern’, an inter-alien cosmic police force who can just about summon anything they like using a red ring?

And what are all these good directors doing making these films? Martin Campbell (Goldeneye, Casino Royale) doing Green Lantern, Kenneth Branagh directing Thor? Are these guys deliberately torpedoing their own careers? Like Michel Gondry did with The Green Hornet earlier this year?

And it’s getting worse: the Superman reboot, directed by Zach Snyder and produced and written by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan sounds really cool. But with The Dark Knight Rises just about to start shooting, Warner Bros. and DC are already thinking of another Batman reboot. I hope it’s not going to be as dreadful as the idea of making new Spiderman movies, in which Spiderman is a teenage high school kid. It will please the main demographic for these films perhaps, but it is a bad omen. High school kids can’t be superheroes. Look at Kick-Ass. (Although it must be noted here that the casting of Andrew Garfield was a strong move by the producers of The Amazing Spiderman.)

Other ‘properties’ that DC is now considering for the big screen: Wonder Woman (and you thought Superman is a bad name) and The Flash, whose superpower is that he can run really fast.

Run really fast, yeah, away from your multiplexes when this hits the screen in inevitably eye-blinding 3D.

End of the year round-up: The Worst Films of 2010* **

*Dutch release dates

** As I am no professional critic I have not seen everything. Films such as The Social Network, Scott Pilgrim and Sex and the City 2 have so far managed to elude me.

10        The American                                                              

Anton Corbijn plays Sergio Leone. He gets the visuals and the pace right, but the film is far too self-conscious and overdosed on religious metaphors.

 

9          The Town                                                                    

Good action scenes and Jeremy Renner don’t make up for a bunch of clichés, terrible dialogue and way too much Ben Affleck.

 

8          Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time                             

Pretty entertaining in its own league, but earns its place in this list to that terrible plot device that makes you feel “cheated” out of the game.

 

7          Iron Man 2                                                                  

Overloaded, overloud and a mere commercial for future Marvel films. Its obsolete director has left the franchise by now.

 

6          The Expendables                                                         

Could have been a funny, high-profile JCVD. Ended up with Jason Statham reading poetry.

 

5          Green Zone                                                                 

Outdated politics are more important in this film than character and emotion, and an overdose of  shaky camera ruins the last act.

 

4          Fair Game                                                                   

A film so dull that I could easily take a toilet break. Unprecedented.

 

3          Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps                                

Shia Leboeuf compares the stock exchange bubble of 2008 to the Cambrian explosion, but the film is a massive implosion of wasted talent and opportunity.

 

2          Shrek Forever After                                                    

Disgraceful, uninspired money grabbing with not a single original idea and the worst excuse for 3D conversion of the year.

 

1          Clash of the Titans                                                       

Quote from my review: “An incoherent, ramshackle waste of celluloid”. With plenty of fierce competition Clash of the Titans manages to have been the number one contender for my worst picture of the year ever since April. Last week’s news that a sequel is planned gave me a nasty rash.

Blockbuster Season 2010: The Round-up

Okay. So that’s it. It is the first of September, and although some big loud action movies are still to premiere on Dutch screens, I call it a day for the blockbuster season of 2010. September is the month in which we’ll get to see Machete and Piranha 3D, but it is also the month of the Venice Film Festival and, interesting for the locals here, The dutch Film Festival in Utrecht.

And what a weird blockbuster season it has been. Whereas other years were actually good (2008 saw The Dark Knight, Iron Man and only had The Incredible Hulk to cry about) or very bad (2009, if only for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and GI: Joe) 2010’s summer saw its major titles sink, but saw other, unexpected, films deliver.

Tent pole pictures such as Green Zone, Iron Man 2, Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time and The Expendables all disappointed, some to the degree of outright awfulness. Robin Hood was okay, as were Predators, Knight and Day and From Paris With Love. And these four films actually belonged to the B-list to be honest.

Of course, Inception was great. If my review seemed critical, it was only because I set the bar higher for that film. Three other films that I really enjoyed were Centurion, Kick-Ass and Salt. Big pictures of course, but not the movie events that dominated the summer. The A-Team was a delightful guilty pleasure, but it disappointed at the (U.S.) box office, so unfortunately there will probably not be  a sequel.

So, apart from Inception, what was the blockbuster season of 2010 about? Well, to be honest, it was not really about big loud action movies. Of course Inception was big and loud, and an action film, but it does not belong to the same league as Armageddon or Transformers. The other films that drew large crowds this summer were, well, kids movies.

Toy Story 3 was amazing; the only film in 3D that was worth the extra bucks so far. It deserved to be as successful as it was. Shrek Forever After (also in 3D) was a disgrace, but it was a popular success. Let’s just hope that Dreamworks will leave Shrek alone now, and in time I may forgive them. Finally, there was the remake of The Karate Kid, which was far from faultless, but was carried by great performances and had a sincere heart.

The big debates now will focus on two questions: is 2010 an exception, or are family films the future of the blockbuster season? Harry Potter will of course finish with two big bangs, but what’s next? The other question: what to think of 3D? Is it the future of the business? The savior of cinema? Some studies suggest otherwise. I think it will only work as an added attraction for films that were from the first moment thought of as 3D pictures. Avatar for instance, or Toy Story 3. Turning ‘normal’ 2D films into 3D, sometimes with the help of inadequate conversion processes, only helps to kill of the hype and the audience willingness to pay extra.

So this was it: the blockbuster season. One film I’ve yet to mention is Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which has had its American and UK release, but will only hit Dutch screens this autumn. I don’t expect too much of it. It seems immature fatiguing nonsense, with an unlikable hero who thinks the L-word refers to lesbians. Geek stuff I guess. Must be, with Michael Cera doing that Michael Cera thing that some people seem to like.

 

(This trailer is so annoying that I want to see and then hate this film)

So, let’s ease into the autumn, towards the Holiday season films and the first contenders for awards season 2011. Just a few titles you may already want to look up: The American, 127 hours, Four Lions, Tamara Drew and Terence Malick’s The Tree of Life. Terence Malick? Yes. Terence Malick. Also, there is the ‘new Slumdog Millionaire’ with Africa United. I’m looking forward already.

A passionate plea to stop grading films!

A-, four stars, C+? Both professional (read: published on paper) and online film critics seem to be unable to not grade films. As a quick indication of whether or not they are any good I gues. But quickly argued: this is utter nonsense. As in: it makes no sense. There is simply no point in arguing whether Inception, for instance, is a five star film (Empire), or only deserves a B+ (Tom Shone). I was asked why I don’t give grades or stars to the films I review. This is my answer.

Two arguments against grading films:

One. Because a film is not a math problem. Within the reasonably established and limited universe of mathematics, with its onw rules and regulations, 1 + 1 equals 2. But you can not break films down into elements such as acting, writing, directing, sound, cinematography or art direction. All these elements co-exist and work together in an infinite number of possible ways. Let alone that you can set up scales to judge each element’s value and award points through accumulation. Well you could, but if you’d write a review based on that methodology no-one will take you serious, and more important, no-one will enjoy reading it.

Two. Movies do not exist in a reasonably established or limited universe. They exist in each person’s own imagination from the moment they’ve been seen (or made, or promoted, depending on your perspective). Some appeal more than others to one person or another, purely based on their subject matter, genre or that person’s state of mind at the moment of watching. Professional, or professionally inclined reviewers try to take a neutral or objective stance, claiming to judge a film on its own terrain, to its own standards or in relation to its pretentions. They thereby fail to acknowledge that this terrain, these standards and these pretentions do not exist. Who should establish them? The director? Mostly he is hired by a studio or distributor to make the film. He is also highly depending on his co-workers. The studio marketing department? They merely sell a product that has been created by other people… What I am left with is the critic himself. He sees a film, perhaps having read about it previously, or having seen a trailer. And then it is up to him (or her) to determine a film’s terrain, it’s neighbours in that terrain (or at least the ones the critic has seen) and its aspirations, which when seen from this perspective are merely the critic’s hopes or expectations. However, still believing in the possibility of reviewing a film objectively, the film critic does not engage his own aesthetic sensibilities.

In this critic’s universe, giving Toy Story 3 five stars and Knight and Day only three, tells us nothing about the actual films, neither about the critic himself. It is by definition impossible to make a sensible claim regarding these films internal value expressed in discrete numbers or grades (see argument one). Also, the critic, by convincing himself to be objective while not actually being so, makes it impossible for the reader to extract from the grade attributed to the film the critic’s personal sensibility. Because the genre differs we don’t know whether the critic actually thought Toy Story 3 was the better film, or that he just prefers family films over action spectacles.

So I do not grade.

Rather I describe the film, and try to express my experience of the film, as I sat in the cinema. I do not judge, but compare my experience of films to the expectations I had of them. I do not claim to be able to tell you whether or not one film is better than another (except, in the rare incident of for instance Clash of the Titans, which I though was so bad that it infuriated me). I compare or make links where I think it to be appropriate. I can tell you, in 700 words, only very little about any actual film. But taken together, these reviews tell you something about me, about how I experience movies. And compared to your own experiences, you may take my reviews as recommendations or warning signs. But you would not learn anything by reading that I gave Iron Man 2 only two stars.

Mindless fun has never been this much fun – The A-team review

“Hello, my name is Jasper and I am an A-Team addict”. “Hello Jasper”. It could very well be a scene in the biographical movie someone is someday going to make about me. And it is set in the first act of this film, when I am approximately nine years old. You could not drag me away from the television when that camp little series was on. Well, you could, and my mom regularly had to, but I wish you couldn’t.

Looking back on a rerun, years later, I did not quite understand what was so cool about it. Being used now to 24 and Prison Break, the A-Team plots were ridiculously slow. There was a lack of real suspense and the characters were one-dimensional. But I still treasured it as a beautiful memory from my youth. So I was not too happy to hear that some pitty fool had decided to make a movie version. I was, actually, rather pissed off. Film had already spoiled my favorite childhood book (the Dutch book De Brief voor de Koning was adapted to a abominable wreck of a film) and now they were going to do the same to my favorite television series.

I was a little relieved when I heard that Ridley and Tony Scott were producing. At least the aren’t total hacks or studio suits. I was pleasantly surprised when I learned about the casting. Liam Neeson as Hannibal, Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) as Face, Ultimate Fighting Champion Quintus ‘Rampage’ Jackson (what’s in a name?) as B.A. Baracus, and, best of all, District 9’s South-African star Sharlto Copley as Murdock. Hell, this could actually work.

And when the trailer blew my mind when I saw it before Kick-Ass, I was convinced. This was going to be THE BEST MOVIE EVER™.

Exploding planes, parachuting tanks, escape scenes, the theme tune and those four guys having a great time doing it all. Magnificent! Of course there is always the grave danger that a trailer presents all the best moments in a film (see Iron Man 2), and that usually means the film sucks. But not this time

Sure, the trailer does present the best moments. But only moments of these moments. The parachuting tank scene takes a couple of minutes (at least, that’s what it felt like) and its comic pay-off line is a surprise and a great tribute to old WW2 films. There is also a brilliant parody by Copley of an unnamed Mel Gibson film (hint: it involves blue paint), and lots more moments of outright fun. Actually, there is as much fun as there is action.

The plot is actually one that forces you to stay with the film and stay concentrated, as the conspiracy that puts the A-Team in military prison ‘for a crime they did not commit’ is an encompassing one, involving paramilitary mercenaries, CIA spooks and army generals. There is a smart critique of the ‘blaming it on the Arab terrorist’ plot as well. The pay-off of the film is brilliant: the A-Team have cleared their name, but are still on the run. So if you have a problem, and if no-one else can help you, and if you can find them… As the best of this decades’ action movies, The A-team sets up the heroes’ background before their real adventures start (see also: Batman Begins, Iron Man, Robin Hood).

Summarized: Brilliant casting, fantastic acting, very funny, very spectacular and absolutely not mindless. Flawed slightly by a chaotic last act, but resolved very well. The A-Team is one of the absolute highlights of this blockbuster summer!

My name is Jasper and I am an A-Team addict. Seriously, I’m going out now to buy the box set of the old series.

Stop casting ridiculously good looking people as regular Joe’s!

I read Empire’s review of 4.3.2.1 yesterday, a new British film about four ‘normal’ women who get up caught up in a diamond theft/heist situation-kinda-like thing. Empire was very positive about the film, and perhaps it is indeed a good film. However, I disliked it from the start. Because of this picture. These are the protagonists of 4.3.2.1. These are the actresses that are supposed to be ‘normal women’.

These are not regular normal women. They are of the almost-alien super model type of girls. They look like sleazy street prostitues. Now this can mean two things:

For me personally it is point 1: The film suddenly loses a lot of its credibility. No way that I’m going to suspend my disbelief so far that I am going to believe that these girls are the ones that I might come across in my grocery store or on a Saturday night at the pub. No matter how good the story is and how well the dialogue is written, and how three-dimensional the characters may be.

Point 2 is much more serious, and is the direct reason for the title of this post. Point 2: Are we supposed to believe or start believing that these women represent normal people? Are we (or the women amongst us normal folks) supposed to start looking like that? If so, shame on the film makers.

While in the modeling world the adagium ‘beautiful is healthy is not ridiculously thin’ slowly makes headway, and the beauty ideals that we are presented with in fashion magazines are slowly becoming more normal, the film industry appears to keep lingering in the 90s.

I understand that the looks of a film star or an actress are amongst the most important of her assets. I understand that commercial companies like to exploit these assets. But what kind of image, what kind of world view do you want to present to young audiences? Children and teenagers? How insecure do we want 13 year old girls to be about there appearance? Just insecure enough to plunge them into anorexia? Just insecure enough to make them buy clothes and make-up that make them look like the victims of human traffickers?

I accept that in film princesses, femmes fatales, hookers and female super heroes can be ridiculously good looking. I guess they must be. But normal people, the regular Joe’s and girls-next-door with whom we (the audience) are supposed to identify in a film, should look normal. Shame on you, Michael Bay, for casting Megan Fox, who looks like a thirty year old pole dancer, as a teenage girl. Shame on you for filming her bending over a motorcycle as if Transformers is a late night advert for phone sex companies.

Perhaps, if we (the generalized we that is, but of course I mean you: film makers) start casting normal people, beautiful good-looking REAL people, especially for the female roles, if we can cast away that pornographic, voyeuristic sensibility, we get better written female parts. We might get good leading roles for actresses who are older than forty (and who do not happen to be Meryl Streep). We will not have to bring in Scarlett Johansson for Iron Man 2 because Gwyneth Paltrow is getting too old. And we will not have to put fake, ugly noses on Nicole Kidman and Charlize Theron anymore for the Academy to take them ‘Oscar serious’. 

For now, just as a symbolic gesture, I boycott 4.3.2.1.