Reviews

Was I the only one that was expecting Ethan to check for a mask when he found Ilsa laying dead? I'm not really sure where to begin except I will admit I probably have only watched Mission Impossible one, two and three until now. So I don't know what the last few prior were or how many there are all together. I'm much more of a Terminator fan, so I could tell you all of that franchise - or Rambo. In the final Terminator installment they did us the favor of admitting freely that it was more of a spoof and just for the fun of having one final hurrah without trying to be taken too seriously.

Terminator is also one of those franchises where most of us wouldn't show up if someone else we're trying to play Schwarzenegger's part. On the other hand we have Bond being played by now four different actors - which I can appreciate, if I'm honest. There's no reason not to put a new actor in the same role when the story is the franchise - like Batman, Alien, or Reacher. Now if the actor is the franchise, then it's a different story - for instance Breaking Bad, The Mask, & Mrs Doubtfire.

What I'm trying to get at is I think it's time for Tom to retire and let someone else take the reins, someone younger. Because when I watch a film like Mission Impossible or Raiders of the Lost Ark or even another Bond film, I'm not there to see old actors trying to act young and being surrounded by more old actors to make themselves look less old. I want to see younger actors who can match the energy of the script.

Cruise is actually my age so I have to admit he looks great for being in his early 60s when this was made.

Contrary to one review who tries to excuse the film by claiming they created it during the masking and sanitizing phase, I beg to differ because this film was made in about a year and that would mean that it was made in mid 22 to the early 23 when most intelligent humans had already done away with the masking and social distancing.

My biggest disappointments with this film are that I could see it was done on a green screen in many of the dialogue settings; I didn't feel that the action sequences were that impressive; I thought the CGI was overused. It was ridiculous to have them escape in a tiny yellow electric car and turn that whole scene into some sort of Laurel and Hardy farce. I also don't believe that an AI known as The Entity would be controlled by an old fashioned key, one which is reminiscent of Tomb Raiders or The DaVinci Code.

When the film first started, I was reminded very strongly of the new series called Fallout , which in my opinion is a little too artistic instead of delivering content. That's what it reminded me of when this first began and I think that that's the problem with this film considering that most Mission Impossible films strive to feel authentic. But here what we get is a lot of CGI and silly artificial intelligence that can make submarines appear and missiles come back at you and make you appear in a mirror like a vampire but not in plain sight. The fact is, some of those things can actually be done with technology but to try to cram it all into this film without any real congruity just felt trivial and thoughtless.

I will definitely not be watching part 2; part one was overly long with confusing situations and dialogue and too many older actors with no real appeal. The most interesting part of this film for me was when the bomb was deactivated and they had to go through some puzzle solutions to deactivate it.

I think if Mission Impossible wants to keep using Cruise they need to clone him into a younger version and, unfortunately, cloning humans is currently illegal all over the globe.

I will also agree with the review that states we are tired of hearing Jesus and God thrown around as if some sort of benign exclamation. In the Christian world, hearing OMG and Jesus over and over is not dissimilar to hearing the N word; it's worse than the f bomb. It makes us feel we are being singled out as inconsequential. You wouldn't dream of saying, "oh my Allah" or "Buddha" in the same frequent, careless way. Something to think about. It's gotten to the point where it's one of the most common phrases among foriegners who speak a nomonal amount of English.

I will also agree with the review that noted the dialogue was too quiet - we can turn up our volume except that when the action sequences suddenly come on there is this thunderous music that is 12 decibels higher than any of the dialogue. It's actually comical tbh.

I initially thought this is going to be along the lines of Person of Interest where there was an AI that was being sought by all world criminals and leaders in order to control the world. But there was not even much discussion of what the Entity was at all. This is already happening through social media to a degree much larger than most people will admit or, perhaps, understand. But there was no other mention in this part one - it was just all the key the key the key the key, which transferred between pockets like a persistent tick after a hunting expedition.

I fast forwarded a bit once I was more than a quarter through the film, and then a bit more and then once I hit around the 2/3 area I did turn it off. I am one of those people who knows when to cut my losses. I'm happy for Tom, that he's still a viable Entertainer and can get a nice big paycheck. And I'm thankful to Prime for offering it to me for free with my membership. I'm especially glad I didn't spend money in a theater to watch this garbage.

First, I don't recall the original Magnificent Seven and probably haven't seen the Samurai Seven. I enjoyed this film for the acting and the action. I can see why some younger people might feel the story was not that solid, though. As someone who remembers when westerns were popular on black and white tvs, this film doesn't have the transparency that many from my generation are afforded by filling in the blanks from our knowledge of the old west themes, such as why a power hungry industrislist would need to shut down the town in order to mine the gold quickly or why old outlaws would be willing to die for one last shoot-out together against a man that did something violent to them in the past althougj , to me, it seemed obvious.

Also, having lived through many cultural changes, I don't see the cast as being PC whatsoever. These actors are all A-level talent who were chosen for their abilty first and foremost. The complaints that the film should follow the original in that sense is a bit silly considering the 1960 cast was culturally diverse for it's time.

I really enjoyed every character and I only wish the reviews acknowledged Bryan Lee (Byung-hun Lee) as much as the other stars. As one of Korea's most famous (and sexiest) actors, he's successfully made the leap into American film. Washington, Pratt, Hawk, et al all did fantastic with their characters. I wouldn't have chosen Bennet as Emma but she did an acceptable job. However the unnatural ruby hair should have been everyone's first hint that the film was not planning to be realistic.

I was hoping the survivors would now go claim the money of Bogue's but maybe they already knew where to find it and that wasn't clear too me.

I'm a big fan of stand up but so many comedians are disappointing. I'm not a prude and can stand some very offensive "humor" when other better material surrounds it. Morril is one of these, for the most part. The warning at the front says Course Language, but that's not really true; there's not a bunch of f-bombs or conventional course language. What he has is a lot of very offensive material about abortion and miscarriage, which the audience responds well to - and I'm just thinking wtf is wrong with our culture? There's also lots of the standard relationship fodder and sexual situations. He then spends the last 10-15 min reading text from an old flame who is stalking him, which while amusing and disturbing didn't belong in a stand up routine.

Morril actually had decent delivery and a few chuckle-worthy anecdotal one liners - most of which we've all heard or thought at some point. So there's nothing new here. It wasn't a complete waste of time but I wouldn't watch anything from him again.

In some ways, this show might remind you of any number of procedural crime-fighting shows yet I can't really say it is similar to any one specifically. It has elements from shows like Travelers, with the low-key vibe but also a little Batman energy with the wealthy guy who wants to fight crime anonymously (& the low voice, although that can get a bit annoying), and Fringe because of the unique way crimes are discovered.

I would not have thought these actors would work well together but Michael Emerson as Finch is a great character and Caviezel as Reese seems to fit the part - creates the character - perfectly. I really enjoy Detective Carter and Lionel is a great character - a down to earth guy who holds the show's comedic relief.

I also like a lot of the music they use on here like Live With Me by Massive Attack ft. Terry Callier

Now midway through S2 I have to remove one star because the intriguing premise has become too cookie-cutter with too much focus on these Joker & Riddler nemesis who turn up in every other episode. Instead of helping people, our dynamic duo are constantly being pursued by people who want to either aquire the machine, learn the identity of Finch, or kill John. It's getting really old. And the people they help invariably distrust them and think they can handle things on their own. As well, the characters are extremely one dimensional.

The worse development is that John has aquired a trained Malinois which they call a Malenoise (it's pronounced Ma-luhn-waa) who they keep in the apartment all day and never use on jobs! A trained Malinois like high level military use! What's the point of it being in the show?

I initially thought this was a great show. I can see why there's so many 9 & 10 star reviews. But those people didn't come change their review after getting further into the series, maybe.

I'll watch a bit more but I'm tempted to skip ahead and see if later seasons pick back up on the original premise.

Some reviews say we're near that level of being observed now. Perhaps. But if so, the social media platforms are certainly the matrix of the real life machine. All the 3-letter government agencies track people through them.

Update: so I did go ahead and watch more. It was quite difficult getting through the rest of season 2 and most of season 3. However in the later part of season 3 it does get a bit more interesting if only because the plot line becomes more tangible. They still never really tell us why Finch believed Root was in fact in touch with the machine so that for me is a sticking point, that we are just supposed to trust her now and not wait for the other shoe to drop. Finch changes personality quite significantly from someone who is a quiet diabolical genius with a goal to a mousey fearful doormat. In one episode around season 4 or early in season 5, they actually have transported the machine in a small briefcase and set it up in basically a basement where she then wakes up and thinks Finch and Root are threats because they have committed killings on her behalf. It's just so ridiculous. I can see why this series slowly fell off and didn't get picked back up.

But one of the most interesting things about Person of Interest is that we see into what the government is currently doing in 2024 through the media and social media. You really get the sense of having a secret lens into what is happening in our government and other governments and how the media controls people. So you have to wonder is this art imitating life or life imitating art? I can only surmise that it is art imitating life for the mere fact that the series Star Trek was art imitating life based on Gene roddenberry's extensive research on science and the paranormal before writing his script.

At this point, my two favorite characters are missing: Carter and Shaw. So I'm really just clicking Next out of habit. I think it's just gotten so ridiculous and I wish they had had a better writing crew because this could have been just an absolute cult classic in the right hands.

I've discovered I like Jason Statham and so I decided to watch The Beekeeper after seeing his Mechanic Revenge. I thoroughly enjoyed this film - it is pretty much non-stop action and intrigue. I felt that Emmy Raven Lamppost did a fine job as the special agent, I'm not really sure why so many people felt she was bad in the role. I think her character was very stoic and people didn't feel she emitted the correct emotion for being someone who just lost her mother. But you wouldn't find someone who's a special agent unable to compartmentalize their emotions. But one of the plot holes is that it's a conflict of interest for an agent to work on a case that involves one of their loved ones. But we'll put that aside because it's an important point for the end of the movie that she be the last person looking out the window.

I also note that several reviewers failed to see the potential realism in the plot and thought that Clay was just out for pure revenge. What they missed was that once Adam started looking into the scam artists on a larger scale, he realized that they were funding crooked politics kind of like what's happening right now with our installed administration. God only knows where they get their funding. But these huge scams are absolutely real and many times they do fund not only crooked politics but human trafficking, drug cartels, and foreign wars. So this is a very realistic part of this film.

As far as the theme of the beekeepers being this elite group, I think that is just a sign of the times - in other words there's so much out there in cyberspace right now about secret cults and special forces who do this or that and for good or for bad. So I think that's just something they decided to go with instead of saying that he was from the Navy SEALS or some other Elite unknown military force. Which I appreciated, to be honest, because we've all seen so many ba ddass characters that have a military background.

The other part that people aren't getting is that much of the film is tongue in cheek - at least the characters who come up against our beekeeper. Of course, it's not meant to be realistic so I'm not sure why any review would bother to make a statement about it not being realistic. I mean it's not a documentary, it's not on the History Channel.

I couldn't figure out who played the part of the new beekeeper in the pink opalescent coat who tried to take out Adam at the gas station, but I thought that was a strange character for being someone supposedly in this Elite Force who is allegedly in place to keep the hive on the straight and narrow. But this film obviously wants to throw in some interesting characters including Adam's final foe with the false leg who didn't really seem like a bigger threat to me than a full SWAT team who Adam easily made his way through.

The other big plot hole of course is the the president's son having the protection of an ex CIA operative who technically works for the mother but who failed to inform the mother of what her son was involved in. The fact that the son is such a twit is just part of the tongue and cheek aspect. I'm not really sure why the film decided to pretend this youngster with his limited computer brilliance was some kingpin or decided to make the mother the president of the United States - I know there's got to be some sort of humor or message in there somewhere.

I'm choosing to see the whole takeaway as yes we can truly drain the swamp even if it's just one Elite mf on the right side.

But as another review pointed out, it's not hard to just dismiss the various political inserts because there's no direct message one way or the other. It's just using the highest forces possible to show us what a incredible soldier The Beekeeper is, even taking out his own replacement.

I also thought it was a bit odd that they had someone so out of touch with reality managing an account with over $2 million dollars who was apparently so weak that rather than try to get it back she took her own life . But if I never see Priscilla Rashad in another film or TV show, she won't be missed. There are other older black actresses in the world.

This film has a lot of action and a lot of Statham wreaking havoc. If you just want a entertaining unrealistic action packed film, then I say go for it. I wish I could be part of the 99% who compare it to John Wick but I've never seen any John Wick films. If I have to compare Statham to anyone it would be maybe a James Bond meets Chuck Norris.

I've scoured over my submission three times for the alleged profanity IMDb is warning me could violate policy & apparently tanker with a W is profane while twit is not. Seriously?

Honestly I almost turned this film off because it does start slow in an apparent attempt to justify Bishop's relationship with Gina. That actually fails to solidify, in my opinion. But as others have pointed out there are a lot of plotholes here. The action is very good and Jason is an incredible action star. I wouldn't go so far as to say hero and that's why I said is he the new Bruce Willis. Because if I would have said is he the new Stallone or Schwarzenegger I would have had to use the word hero. But he's very good. I think that he would have been better in the most recent James Bond films then the clown who was actually in them.

I wasn't that impressed with Jessica Alba, which disappointed me. I've heard her name so many times and I just assumed there was something special about her. But what I see is your standard blonde with teenage body doing a passable job on her few lines. I've seen models who were thrust into 1970s James Bond films do a better job at acting.

A lot of reviews don't delve into the plot holes - apparently we all know what they are? But I'm going to just point out that after he beat up the first woman who came after him to force him into the contracts, he then went out to this boat to help a woman who the entire audience knew was a setup - how come he didn't know it was a setup? And why was she treated so differently from the first woman? They were both just doing their job. So for me that was like an enormous plot hole. We don't really have any information about the woman who greets him on the island or what their background is or why he wouldn't just say to her "look their gas lighting us; they're really just after me".

The second big plot hole - or maybe it's the third cuz the second plot hole is him having feelings for the woman who tried to kill him - so the third big plot hole is why did he stay on the island once his location had been identified? Obviously Gina didn't find out where he was on her own. And then he even knows that he's being watched so he pretends to have feelings for Gina to gaslight the villains into thinking she's doing her job. Then all the sudden the feelings become real? Okay so let's get past that plot hole but now he's created another situation where if the villains think they like each other they might kidnap Gina. Okay so moving on... The action is fine and most the dialogue is okay except for that 15 minute section where they're showing Alba frolicking on the beach and giving Jason googly eyes. Their love scene in the bed was silly because Alba obviously didn't do her own love scene and the actress who did do it had to keep hiding her head.

The scenery and venues are all fantastic.

I haven't seen Statham in the Mechanic, but I saw Charles Bronson and Jan-Michael Vincent in 1972, which was really good I don't think you can beat that. But at this point I'll probably go back and see Statham's version.

I'm really on the fence about how to review this show. After seeing the ending, I did a little search to see if the original Israeli version, Kvodo, was just as sloppy and insulting. Many are saying Kvodo was more tidy due to the fact Your Honor was expecting to pull this out into a longer series while Kvodo had a beginning, middle, and ending. They also mention having to alter the story to conform to the US legal system. I read that Kvodo was so popular that 5 other countries are doing their own versions. I find that hard to believe after watching this train wreck.

Many reviews claim the son is a terrible character but I would suggest watching with an eye for what the film is telling you. Doohan does an excellent job portraying Adam, a deeply emoted and vulnerable teen who needs to make sense of the world he finds himself in while inadvertently wreaking havoc.

The worst character is Gina Baxter and I'm not absolutely sure it's all the fault of the character. I mean, try to imagine Jennifer Connelly or Rachel Weisz in that role and you can start to see how daring and perverse the character is supposed to be. But Hope Davis was so boring. Her mouth was constantly agape and she appeared more mentally challenged than menacing. Her side view looks like a Adam's Family comedy character from a sketch book. They had Davis in monotone drab colors with colorless makeup and long straggly hair. Someone so malicious, manipulative and wealthy would have put some effort into her appearance. Gina was not just your average antagonist; she was truly detestable. Her appearance in a scene gives you palpable disgust.

I initially thought Lilli Kay was a poor choice for the role of Baxter's daughter - with the long shapeless physique and masculine face. But in S2 they soften her up a lot and the sense that it's a male playing the part is forgotten. She turns out to be a pretty good actress here but Fia's final act in the series is completely unbelievable. We are shown this young woman who seems to take to motherhood easily, who is the only Baxter with a moral compass and yet she would not exhaust every option to try and keep her child? Complete bull. Way out of character and thoughtlessly contrived.

Now, I admit, the series seemed fairly well-acted and there was a handful of seasoned players. But the emotion was so tamped down it was frustrating at times - probably for the actors, too. While the series punches us in the face with what should be shocking developments, I felt I was watching people just going through the motions. It seemed the director intentionally dialed it back to, theoretically perhaps, make it more hard hitting - like a jalapeno that at first seems tame. For me, that backfired. Especially when you consider what made Breaking Bad a cult classic was the over the top emotion in the characters' expressions, it seemed strange to see Cranston holding back - almost gliding, like a ghost through his parts; like a wallflower at a prom. He's almost unrecognizable compared to the characters he exploded onto the screen in Malcolm in the Middle and Breaking Bad.

My biggest disappointment is that Your Honor is so stereotypical in the design of the characters and circumstances that it borders on (insert any number of offensive descriptive adjectives). In S1, we are presented with a typical media narrative of the haves and the have nots, essentially. While dramatized for your enjoyment, much of the circumstances are based in real life - cops on the take; gangs sacrificing members; judges throwing convictions; gangs taking revenge on each other. In Your Honor we are faced with the corruption every liberal loves to whine about - corruption in the police; corruption in courts; corruption in white collar jobs; oppression and desperation in black ghettos; and unrelenting fear imposed by Russian mobs.

Season 1 turned out to be watchable and entertaining. Season 2 took 4 episodes to get started and then ended by flipping through a ViewMaster with hints in photos, pausing just for a moment before the wheel spins to the next entry. Clearly, the producers did hope for a third season but season 2 probably lost a lot of viewers.

I'm checking out comedies on YouTube and this looked interesting. Like a lot of people pointed out, it's a rip off of Dirty Rotten Scoundrels but not nearly as entertaining. Scoundrels is from a time when production companies were falling over each other trying to get Steve Martin on their payroll. Melanie aka Rebel is not nearly in such demand. I don't like nor dislike Jane Hathaway but the name makes me think of only one person - the banker's assistant on Beverly Hillbillies.

I haven't seen Scoundrels for years but I do know Martin's character does not kiss anyone at the end. This was added by some fat-is-beautiful liberal to pad the fabricated narrative that it's ok to be morbidly obese and expect healthy attractive people to desire you for "who you are." One's physique is the fruit of who a person is. Accepting people who are out of shape is different from changing the narrative. We need to be kind and understanding but obesity is a serious medical condition, not a lifestyle choice or orientation.

I actually saw Rebel one other time and turned the film off within 10 minutes. This time there was not the over use of foul language and trailer park wit, but the film just wasn't that entertaining. It actually got boring. Jane wasn't able to pull off the stoic intellect of her predecessor and Rebel may as well have been playing a different role, she is so far away from being the comedic genius of Steve Martin. Anyone would have been better in that part, even Brooke Elliot. But more specifically, it would have been better with someone like Megan Mullally, Amy Poehler or Ali Wong. This was just someone trying to find a slot to fit Rebel in and it just didn't work.

There were some clever scenes but few laughs.

I read a handful of reviews, both recent and past, and I feel like the low star reviews totally missed the point of the exam. Some were downright angry that it was such a simple sort of trick. The high star reviews didn't seem to really grasp it, either, though; however they enjoyed the stress and chaos. Or maybe they just didn't verbally dissect it the way I'm about to.

Someone said the film has been done number times. I would wholeheartedly disagree - unless they're talking about just being in one location needing to figure a way out, which doesn't count, if you ask me.

But one might wonder if it isn't the very film watched by the inventors of a certain pandemic virus in recent years - imagine them clanking Champaign flutes, laughing and chatting about how they will become billionaires off the backs of the easily persuaded social media world 60% of us live in when they rush in with their anti venom, as it were. But I'll leave that to the history books.

The film itself was decently acted for a low budget film - the characters all managed to get across the point of their persona and the setting was perfect for the play. I do think this might be the film that erroneously offered the idea that a sociopath is actually a narcissist; White was a sociopath and narcissist is not interchangeable with the term. I can understand the confusion because both demonstrate huge egos and ability to manipulate, however a narcissist is not a cold blooded killer.

For those who are puzzled or think it was poorly researched or simplistic amid the grand pretense, I'll explain: When you have a room full of geniuses and need to find out who they are at their core, the thing most of them lack is the ability to keep a perspective of the common things, the little stuff. These over-educated high IQ applicants were being evaluated to see if they could still take into consideration how the common mind works; what common people think or say without rushing to a conclusion that their intellect is the only solution. When the Instructor said "Listen carefully because there will be no repetition", most of the room thought they were too smart to need to listen carefully. But some of us heard the question right away: "Are there any questions?" I noticed right away that this was a question normally heard in high school or blue collar training arenas, not in high IQ situations where the candidate would be expected to speak up if they had a question or, more commonly, to figure it out after having been told the rules already.

The answer was not about whether the room asked additional questions at the point, but if anyone of them had thought it was and wrote "No," they would have been correct. The question was about whether there were any questions on the sheet, which a kindergartner would have quickly pointed out, there were not. These mental giants were too full of themselves to see the forest for the trees. There was no trick, just a super simple direction injected into a room of people who thought they were taking an exam based on their IQ and expertise.

The film did try to confuse us with the odd Frenchman and the overly knowledgeable scientist -- which one was the plant? But a true genius would have understood there was a plant in the room who had the answer. The Frenchman had the answer, even leaving his glasses behind to give someone a chance to discover their usefulness.

Overall, I enjoyed the film but wouldn't watch it again. I liked the point it made and that aspect has created an almost cultish following of the film not represented in the low stars on this platform.

With films like this, there's a part of me that wishes a requirement of writing a review was to add credentials, so to speak. And I'll just start by saying I'm from a mixed family - which traditionally identifies people who have both black and white family of equal importance. I've never seen so many pretentious, verbose, and maudlin reviews for another film in my 19 years as a member of this database. Review after review goes on and on about how this film is about (insert long winded cut and paste similar to previous review, complete with actors and directors first and last names) and how the media likes to impose its narrative. People call it blatantly funny but meandering. More than one person even said the 'side story' detracted from the interesting story they were promised.

I have not read Erasure, nor is that a requirement, although NPR d o t org recommends you do before seeing this film. I can't comment on the book but the period it was written in defines the explosion of rap music and rap culture into a world where the most notable news anchors predicted such music would never become mainstream. It became a living breathing organism. I know my own nephew, whose name I won't reveal, went into the genre singing about things he really had no first hand experience with.

Since things are difficult to research online for authentic results today - let me explain that the term Rap is from the idea of having a conversation; speaking to your friends. It's short for rapport, which means to connect in mind with words; to express yourself freely among others who understand or respect you. When young people started speaking inside of music, they referred to it as a rap session - someone telling a story about themselves or something important. The term is meaningful and positive, at least in theory.

I like this film but I felt it could have been better. I felt it held back in some ways. But it was well-acted and all aspects of the film were important. But this isn't a film about the media forcing black opprezion onto us; it's a film about the higher aspects of the race taking issue with the focus on the lower aspects of poverty and desperation, as if that defines them. It's mainly satire, as shown in the sarcastic and dramatic ways the non blacks spoke and thought juxtaposed with the normal family life of a man who is just a man like any other.

The idea is more profound today than 23 years ago with the installed administration imposing division and strife in order to gaslight an audience against his opponent. I've live many years and I've never experienced the kind of blatant ism I have in the last 4 years. It absolutely is life mimicking art (more specifically, people reacting to a narrative they're being fed via media and film). Yes, we have many more hills to climb but we are all equal.

In fairness, whitez do like a good sob story and it isn't only the blague struggle they are so fond of. But like Denzel likes to say, if you see color YOU are the race ist.

Should we think like others expect us to just so we can understand their perspective? I think this film is about not doing so. In the end, we find that the most important thing for Monk is his family and throughout the film he tries to stay true to his art regardless of the financial situation it affords him. I think that is the take away, along with the message to not just consume things without knowing more about the big picture. Perhaps not only to remove the stereotype from the non blaque perspective but to prevent it from infiltrating the tender minds of young people who deserve to see themselves as neither better than nor lesser than. We don't have to understand each other we just have to respect each other.

People say the ending was disappointing, they wanted more of the stereotypical vio lance and drama. But when Monk talks about the ending of his film (once his book is going to be a movie) he wants to go up and admit he is the author. We were divided in that moment when some of us thought he would say his piece, the audience would laugh or gasp and his publisher would confirm his story; juxtaposed to the other scenario that many saw in their mind before it played out -- the eF Be eye rushes the room and ends up taking him out right there on the stage. Which ending did you see in your mind? Cuz that defines you. Food for thought!

I can't seem to get thru the trig g e r checkers without altering certain words. Apologies.

Thanks for reading.