Random Ramblings about the Oscars

This was supposed to be the young and hip year. In an effort to get bigger ratings, the Academy brought in young hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco. The results were mixed. Despite the young blood, the show still felt like most other Oscar shows. There wasn't really anything new brought to the table, so I'm not sure what the hype was about. In fact, ratings went down!

TV critics are quick to blame Franco and Hathaway. I wouldn't go that far. They weren't great, but they were all right. I think they did the best with the material they were given. Hathaway probably came across better of the two of them. She got a chance to showcase her musical chops in a bitter ode to Hugh Jackman, complain about how she didn't get an Oscar nomination despite going nude in a recent film (Love and Other Drugs), and was easily the best dressed celebrity of the night. Designed by Valentino, all of her dresses were stunners, except for one weird blue number that looked like a metallic, sleeveless Snuggy. But for the most part, she brought a fun energy to the stage. Franco was a bit more hit-or-miss. Showing up in a dress and complaining that Charlie Sheen had just sent him a text was cute. But as the night went on, his energy seemed to flag and it started to look like he was rehearsing for the next Pineapple Express movie. By the end of the ceremony, I'm pretty sure he was asleep.

Their opening bit, where they were inserted into the various scenes from the Best Picture nominees via Alec Baldwin's dreams was a cute idea, that unfortunately only paid off a few times. It really should have been better - The Fighter sequence, dressing Franco in the bear costume and in the ballet tights, and having Morgan Freeman narrate the journey were nice gags. The rest of it, unfortunately, was a nice idea done badly. Overall, the Hathaway-Franco experiment was not a disaster, but I find myself wishing for the return of Hugh Jackman, Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin next year.

There were some improvements this year over the previous years. They finally brought back the clips for the acting honors, which is great. I've always loved being able to see a small snippet of the actors' performances. I also really liked the stage design, which was simply stunning if clumsily used at times.

The highlight of the show for me is easy to pick! With the show writers dropping the ball, Hollywood legend Kirk Douglas showed these kids how it's done by breaking script and proceeding to torture the Supporting Actress by not announcing the winner right away. He also gets props for ogling every actress in the theater and being so open about it! He's a dirty old man, that Kirk. Gotta love him. And even at 93-years old and with his stroke-impaired voice, he showed folks what real Hollywood charisma is!

What else can I ramble on about? The King's Speech won. I am honestly fine with that. It was a superb movie. But I was disappointed that Tom Hooper won Best Director for that film. He did an admirable job, but what Fincher did with The Social Network was nothing short of amazing. I really think that Fincher deserved it this year. The Academy also went for traditional for Best Original Screenplay, when they awarded David Seidler for The King's Speech and not Christopher Nolan for Inception. Seidler's script was really good, but nowhere near as creative as Nolan's. Bummer.

Of course, now that I complain about those two wins, I have to admit that Hooper and Seidler gave two of the better speeches of the night. Seidler's crack about "the Writer's Speech" and being a late bloomer and Hooper taking the time to truly thank his mother were nice and heartfelt moments.

Moving on, I have to say that I hate that the Lifetime Achievement Award wasn't shown as part of the broadcast. For an organization that says they are so proud of their history, why would they cut such an important part out of the broadcast. They said it was save time. I would have loved to have watched Coppola and Wallach's acceptance speeches over the fake banter from the presenters any day. It's the crappy banter that people hate and have hated for years. Cut that crap out. Give us back our Lifetime Achievement awards...clapping for them onstage isn't enough. Let them have their moment. They deserved it!

What else can I complain about? How about for the In Memory part, we actually keep the camera on the names and faces of the people we're honoring instead of cutting back to Celine Dion singing.

Speaking of singing, all four nominated songs were unmemorable this year. I think the only reason they let Randy Newman win was because they knew he would give a good speech (and he did). But wow, all four of these songs are painfully boring.

Best Score - Trent Rezner and Atticus Finch won for The Social Network, which I knew would happen, but I am still bummed by it. The music works in the movie just fine, but I think Inception really deserved this. I have a lot of problems with Hans Zimmer, but Inception's music actually furthered the plot along. As simple as it is musically, it is a remarkably clever score. I also wouldn't have minded if the old school bombast of How to Train your Dragon had won. John Powell put together a robust orchestral sound with some great thematic material. So why did Rezner and Finch win? Maybe voters just thought it would be cool if the dude from Nine Inch Nails won...I don't know...

Best Cinematography - I am cool with Wally Pfister winning for Inception, but am a bit bummed out that Roger Deakins lost for True Grit. The man has nine nominations without a win, and True Grit featured some of his best work. True Grit also got completely shut out the whole night, going 0 for 10. Ouch...

Colin Firth and Natalie Portman gave some of the better speeches of the evening - amusing, humble, and heartfelt. Actually, most of the speeches were not bad this year. I can't think of any that outright peeved me off, anyway...

I guess that's all I got. The ceremony wasn't great. Overall, it was just okay. There were some highlights, Anne Hathaway brought enough energy for both hosts, and I was okay with most of the wins.

That's the ceremony itself. Now as for the movies - wow, this year actually ended up being really good! I am not a fan of the 10 nomination format for Best Picture, but I really liked every one I saw. The King's Speech, Toy Story 3, True Grit, The Fighter, Inception, The Social Network, and Winter's Bone were all excellent choices. In fact, any other year, I easily can see any of them winning the whole thing. This past summer, I was thinking that 2010 kind of sucked for movies. And as a blockbuster year, 2010 did kind of suck. But for quality cinema, it actually ended up being pretty damn good. And the best part is that audiences actually went to see these films. All of them turned a handsome profit in the theater, even the small time Winter's Bone. Does this mean people finally getting tired of the crap Hollywood feeds us? Probably not. But I can dream....

What did you guys think? Let me know!!!

Winter's Bone

Winter's Bone

Winter's Bone can be summed up easily in one word. BLEAK. I can really think of no other word to describe it. Set in an extremely poor area in the Ozark Mountains, Winter's Bone is the story of Ree (Jennifer Lawrence), a 17-year old girl who basically runs her household, caring for her sick mother and acting as parent to her two young siblings. Her father, a drug dealer, has gone missing. The bigger problem is that he was actually out on bail and the family had put the house up for collateral. If he doesn't appear at his hearing in a week, then the family could lose the house - as dilapidated as it is, the house is the only thing the family has. Without it, they literally have nothing and no place to go.

Desperate, Ree visits her neighbors - many of whom are cousins - to find out where her father is. Everywhere she goes, the answer is the same. Mind your own business. Even her uncle Teardrop (John Hawkes) insists that she stay out of it. But she persists. And things get violent - and even more bleak.

I don't mean to make the film sound depressing. On the contrary, Ree is a terrific heroine, resilient, determined and clever, and her struggles are life-affirming and inspirational in a way. Ree is just a child who has been thrust into acting like an adult before her time, and not only accepting the role, but thriving in it. She is the most mature character in the film, including all the so-called adults around her, who are mostly petty and vindictive. It is a career making performance for Jennifer Lawrence who shines on the screen. I hope she has a long career ahead of her.

The other standout performance is John Hawkes as Teardrop. I don't know what I was expecting from this character, but he was constantly full of surprises. Even if the Teardrop's storyline is a familiar one, I was suckered into it. It's an excellent performance, certainly worthy of the Oscar nod, and I really hope I get to see Hawkes in more films and soon.

Winter's Bone is an excellent film. The pace is slow, but your patience will be rewarded. And I don't care how bleak it is, I definitely think it is worth checking out. I really liked it. 

MVP: This is a really tough call for me. Jennifer Lawrence is so good, and carries the entire film on her back. But the MVP is my personal favorite thing about the movie, and I really took to John Hawkes as Teardrop. All too often in other films, characters like Teardrop make certain decisions not because it makes any sense, but because it is convenient for the plot. Everything Teardrop does makes sense and feels real. This is partially thanks to the skillful script, but these scenes may not have worked with a different actor. Hawkes' conviction as Teardrop makes everything work. It's a performance and a role that consistently surprised me. It's a tough call, but Hawkes gets the win.

TRIVIA: Many of the supporting characters and all the extras were residents of the Missouri area where the film is set, and had never acted before.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actress (Jennifer Lawrence), Best Supporting Actor (John Hawkes), Best Adapted Screenplay

BEST LINE: Ree: "I'd be lost without the weight of you two on my back. I ain't going anyhere."

True Grit (2010)

True Grit

The existence of True Grit is a surprise to me. Never in a million years would I have expected filmmakers as creatively fruitful as the Coen Brothers to attempt a remake of a beloved classic. Money-grubbing studios are the ones who focus on sequels and remakes, not auteurs. And yes, I know the Coens insisted that this was an adaptation of the original book and not a remake of the 1969 John Wayne film, but let's be honest here: there is no way to make this movie without comparing the two. So, with that said, how does True Grit hold up?

Following the murder of her father, 14-year old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfield) is determined to set out after the killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). She hires a drunk and mean marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) because he is a man "with true grit" and the two set out into Indian territory after the killer. Along the way, they cross paths with the bragging Texas ranger LeBoeuf (Matt Damon) who is also tracking Chaney for the murders of a Senator and his dog.

I've heard some people complain that the film is dull because not much happens. They are right in that there isn't much to the plot itself, which could have been told in about a hour. But they are wrong about the boring part - the Coens understand that the dynamic of the film is not and should not be the manhunt for Chaney. What the film is really about is the interaction between the Rooster, LeBoeuf, and Mattie. The meat of the film is seeing who displays true grit and who doesn't. If the film is a bit slower paced, fine. It just gives us more time to enjoy the great characters onscreen.

The actors all do a fine job - Jeff Bridges is brilliant in a mumbling, bizarre performance that is distant from Wayne's Rooster, but is just as effective. Hailee Steinfield is a true find, delivering her dialogue with an emotional maturity beyond her years. Watching her negotiate with the respective characters is as exciting as most of the gunfights. The rest of the cast is just as good, from Damon's LeBoeuf to Brolin's Tom Chaney to Barry Pepper's maliciously noble take on the bandit leader Lucky Ned Pepper. Along the board, they all do a great job.

Other elements to applaud: The Coens script is odd, but brilliant. They tried to stay true to the dialogue in the book, which tried to stay true to how people spoke in the 19th century. This leads to a lot of strange biblical references in everyday sentences and a complete lack of contractions. To the modern ear, this could sound stilted, but I think it really adds a layer of authenticity. The Coens' script is backed up by the brothers' usual, terrific direction. The cinematography by Roger Deakins is utterly fantastic; Deakins deserves the Oscar for the opening shot of the movie alone.

With all this praise, I do have to admit that the film is not a home run. As the movie barrels to its climax in the final third, certain elements begin to unravel. At one point, LeBoeuf is severely injured, but they are inconsistent with it afterwards. Sometimes he acts hurt, sometimes he doesn't, and this is distracting. And the final gunfight is edited too quickly and is actually kind of confusing, which is a shame because it should have been the best part of the movie. I mean, one of the combatants literally seems to disappear from the scene altogether! And the less said about the bizarre gang member who has no lines, but just walks around making animal noises, the better.

So all in all, how does it compare to the original? The Coen Brothers certainly have no reason to be ashamed as they have created a film that is equal to the original and is even superior in some respects. I liked the original True Grit, but never loved it. John Wayne was good, but I don't think he deserved the Oscar for this role. He should have won for Red River, The Searchers or The Shootist. I think I actually prefer Bridges' take on the character. Kim Darby was fine as Mattie, but Steinfield is a revelation. And there is no comparing Glenn Campbell and Matt Damon. Campbell was the weak link in the original (of course, as my lovestruck mom said, "Who cares? It's Glenn Campbell!"). The way Damon plays the role, LeBoeuf is certainly a braggart, but there is always a sense that he has the toughness to back up his claims. That actually makes him the equal to his partners, whereas you got the sense that John Wayne could beat up Campbell with one arm tied behind his back (actually I even got the sense that Kim Darby could beat up Campbell with one arm tied behind her back). Where the original True Grit wins is that gunfight in the end. When John Wayne yells, "Fill your hands, you son of a bitch," throws the reins in his mouth, and charges with two guns blazing, we feel the rush of a icon storming into immortality. I miss that awesomeness in the new one. I feel they sort of dropped the ball.

But still, this is what a remake is supposed to be. This isn't just a cash grab, preying on our nostalgia for the original. The Coen Brothers thought that they had something new to bring to the table and they did, creating a fine film. It reminds us that we shouldn't dismiss remakes out-of-hand. When made in the proper spirit, you can end up with damn fine cinema. 

MVP: I have to give it to Jeff Bridges. He had the most difficult role, having to lift his Rooster Cogburn out from under John Wayne's formidable shadow. He succeeds by approaching the role in an almost entirely different way, and succeeds immeasurably because of it. It's a terrific performance.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Steinfield), Best Cinematography, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing.  Wow.  That is 11 nominations without a single win.  That is not fair!

TRIVIA: In the book, Rooster Cogburn is said to be in his 40s. However, in both films, the character was played much older. John Wayne was 62 when he played the role and Jeff Bridges was 60.

BEST LINE: For comedy's sake, nothing competes with "I do not know this man."

The Eagle

The Eagle

When The Eagle was first announced, it seemed like an oddity to me. Now, I love a good ol' Roman adventure. Everyone knows that if a movie has a sword fight in it, I'll make sure to watch it at some point.  But this one was a bit odd. It is an adventure written and directed by the team behind the Oscar-winning, intense drama Last King of Scotland, and starring Channing Tatum - the pretty boy dude from G.I.Joe, Dear John, and the dance flick Step Up. Tatum is about as modern day America as you can get. The very image of him strutting around in legionary armor was offputting. But my skepticism didn't matter. It was a sword movie. I was going to see it.

Based on the popular novel, "The Eagle of the Ninth," The Eagle is about Marcus Aquila, the new commander of a frontier post in Britain. He volunteered to serve in Britain, generally considered the edge of civilization and a bit of a dump by his colleagues. It seems that twenty years before, his father led the Ninth Legion out into the barren northlands (Scotland) and was massacred. But more important to Roman prestige than the casualties is that the legionary eagle, the symbol of the might and honor of Rome, was captured. This is a great shame that stains not only the legion, but its commander's children - Aquila has come to Britain to reclaim his family's honor. Unfortunately, before he gets a chance, Aquila is wounded in battle. So I guess there will be no reclaiming any honor for him...bummer.

Lucky for him, rumors begin to surface that the Ninth's Eagle has been seen in the far north. Aquila, accompanied only by his British slave, Esca (Jamie Bell) travels deep into wild and bleak enemy territory to recover it and his family's honor.

The first surprise is that The Eagle is actually pretty good! It's not amazing, but it is a fun, little adventure film, with good characters, some exciting fight scenes and a neat premise. Director Peter MacDonald seems to be going out of his way to make a western, albeit one that takes place in ancient Britain. All the cliches from the classic Hollywood western are here and used to good effect - the frontier fort in the bleak wilderness, the disciplined, occupying army representing "civilization" and the "unruly" native population, who of course have a really good reasons for not liking the U.S. Cavalry - oops, I mean the Roman Army. For much of the run-time, The Eagle tries to be one of those John Ford cavalry films from the 1940s, especially in its superb use of the natural British landscape. Only in this case, instead of John Wayne, we have Channing Tatum.

And Tatum is actually the film's second surprise. He not only holds his own, he's actually really good. The script lets him down at times, filling him with a few silly lines of bravado, honor and fury that don't quite ring true, but the fault is not Tatum's. For the most part, he is appropriately heroic and looks perfectly at home in the period sets and costumes, even in the legionary armor. In terms of the other actors, Jamie Bell is terrific as the slave Esca, and the other actors are solid enough to get the job done. There are a few exceptions. Donald Sutherland, as Aquila's uncle, just sticks out like a sore thumb, looking out of place and uncomfortable. In terms of the performances, the movie also commits one huge folly - the script manages to take an actor who is effortlessly interesting, Mark Strong (Robin Hood), and make him boring. I blame the script for letting down this great actor in what should have been a cool and empathetic role.

Overall, the movie also gets a bit flaky in the end, with miraculous recoveries and a badly edited climactic battle. But up to that point, this is a solid movie and a lot better than I expected. If you like old school adventure films, sword movies or Westerns, since that really is what The Eagle is, than I definitely suggest you check it out. 

MVP: The dancing kid Billy Elliot is now all grown up and he is pretty badass. Jamie Bell is the easy MVP of The Eagle. He has a difficult role - why would Esca, a British slave whose whole family has been brutally murdered by the Romans so willingly help out his enemy? There is no promise of freedom or reward. He just gives his word that he will help Aquila find the Eagle. I would normally question this, but Bell sells it. His facial expressions magnificently capture his conflicting emotions - both his hatred and respect for the Romans, and both his disdain and admiration for Aquila. Plus, he shares a good chemistry with Tatum. I wouldn't mind seeing the two of them on a further adventure somewhere down the road. Congrats, Jamie Bell, the MVP is yours!

TRIVIA: Aquila is Latin for "eagle."

BEST LINE: Aquila: "The Eagle is not a piece of medal. The Eagle is Rome."

The Fighter

The Fighter

The Fighter is the final fruition of a long held dream for Mark Wahlberg. For years, he had wanted to make this movie, based on the story of boxer Mickey Ward, and has been in training since 2005 just in case the greenlight ever turned on. You even could say Wahlberg has really been preparing for this movie all his life. As a kid, he looked up to Mickey Ward and was inspired by his story.

Mickey Ward (Wahlberg) is a young boxer, quiet and low-key and completely overshadowed by his trainer Dickie Eklund (Christian Bale), whose over-the-top attitude and constant bragging about how he once knocked down Sugar Ray Leonard completely dominate any room he walks into. Mickey isn't going to go anywhere as a fighter because he is managed by his mother (Melissa Leo), who keeps matching him against the wrong (and bigger) boxers, who coddles Dickie, and who is deluded to the point that she thinks her malicious self-importance is actually what is best for her children. Mickey's situation is made even worse by the fact that Dickie, despite being a brilliant trainer, is hopelessly addicted to drugs and not doing his job.

When Mickey meets Charlene (Amy Adams), who gives him some tough love and sound advice, he starts to see that his family might not be the best thing for his career. But they're his family - he loves them and hero worships Dickie. What's he supposed to do, just dump them?

In any other movie, that answer is easy. Yes. Your family is a pack of losers. Ditch them. But that's what the magic of Hollywood would do, not real life. And as directed by David O'Russell, The Fighter certainly feels real in its conflicting emotions. The movie is all the better for it.

Credit goes first and foremost to the actors. Some have complained about Wahlberg being a non-entity, uncharismatic, and completely overshadowed by Bale and Leo's over-the-top performances. To which I say, yeah, clearly that's the point. Mickey is struggling with being an non-entity, has little charisma, and is completely overshadowed by his brother and mother. What Mickey does have is resolve, iron determination and heart. And just because Wahlberg's role is the quieter, less flashy one doesn't make his performance any less effective.  I think he deserved an Oscar nomination.

And as for the Bale and Leo - neither are so over-the-top as to be annoying. They are both superb, and deserving of all the accolades they've received. Bale is especially moving as drug addicted Dickey - his portrayal of a drug addict is disturbingly accurate. I also want to throw a special kudos out to Amy Adams (Enchanted), who drops her cute-as-a-button routine to deliver a gritty and tough-as-nails performance as Charlene. I always knew she was a good actress, but I didn't realize she was this versatile.

Certainly, The Fighter follows a similar routine as many other boxing films, but that shouldn't keep you away. It's a powerful, emotional, and moving film, well-directed and superbly acted. It is easily one of the best films of the year.

MVP: Can there be any doubt? I think Bale has become so famous for his brooding grumpiness in the Batman and Terminator franchises that the general public forgot that he is actually a versatile actor. There is not a single atom of Batman in this performance. Bale absolutely disappears into Dickie Ekland, displaying an uncomfortably realistic portrayal of a drug addict. But what comes across clearly is his love for his brother. And throughout his whole story arc, no matter how bad he gets, you can't bring yourself to hate Dickie because that love rings true. It's a complex and uninhibited performance, one of the best of Bale's career.

TRIVIA: For the HBO documentary and the boxing scenes, O'Russell filmed with the same cameras HBO used during the 1990s. It's a subtle, but brilliant move, as it adds a real authenticity to the boxing matches.

OSCARS: Best Supporting Actor (Christian Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Melissa Leo)

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Amy Adams), Best Editing, Best Original Screenplay

BEST LINE: Mickey Ward, after seeing the size of his supposedly rusty opponent: "That guy did not just get off the couch. If he did, I'm gonna get a couch like that."

Tigerland

Tigerland

Given that he delivered the abominations Batman Forever and Batman and Robin to the world, it is easy to forget that Joel Schumacher is actually not that bad of a director, with a resume that includes some genuinely good films, like Falling Down and The Client. Yes, he also has a lot of junk like Number 23 and Bad Company on that resume, too, but there is no denying the man has some talent. Which brings me to Tigerland. Gritty and harsh, Schumacher's take on Vietnam is the complete opposite of what I've come to expect from a Schumacher film.

In the early 70s, as public opinion turns against Vietnam, a group of young soldiers arrive for basic training in Louisiana, including Bozz (Colin Farrell), straight-laced volunteer Paxton (Matthew Davis), nervous and well-meaning Miter (Clifton Collins, Jr.) and crazy Wilson (Shea Whigham). Bozz is immediately a trouble maker, acting smart-ass to the sergeants, constantly questioning orders, sneaking off the base, and just generally causing problems. He's a bit like Jack Nicholson in One Who Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, only on a military base instead of an insane asylum (though there are some obvious similarities as presented here). The real problem with Bozz, though, is that he is charismatic, an obvious leader, and easily influences other soldiers to also question their superiors. That is something the army cannot abide, especially as they ramp up for a trip to Tigerland, the brutal recreation of Vietnam that the will show the trainees what it is really like during war.

The movie is gritty and realistic in tone, well written by Ross Klavin and Michael McGruther, and directed with a sure hand by Schumacher. The true strength of the film is the performances, and that starts with Colin Farrell. This was his first major role. I have no idea how Schumacher found him or why he was brave enough to give a no-name the lead, but the gambit works. Farrell is excellent, and it is clear now why Hollywood tried so hard to make him a A-list star in the 2000s. That didn't quite work out (did any one like The Recruit and Alexander?), but you can see what Hollywood was salivating about. Quick note - the good thing about Farrell no longer being stuck in huge blockbusters is that he is making more quality movies now, which can only be a good thing, i.e. In Bruges and The Way Back...uh, okay, back to Tigerland.

For the third time in a row, I am reviewing a movie where I am underwhelmed by the ending. In the case of Tigerland, we have building up to a confrontation between Bozz and crazy Private Miller the whole movie. It's gonna be a bad one, we can feel it. But then it just fizzles; the ending of the film basically just rehashing a scene we saw 40 minutes earlier. It's very anticlimactic and a bit of a bummer, considering how good the movie is.

I would still recommend Tigerland, without a doubt, for its strong performances and a reminder that Schumacher can direct a quality project when he wants to. 

MVP: As good as Colin Farrell is, he is not my favorite thing about the movie. That honor would actually have to go to Cole Hauser (Pitch Black) as Cota, a veteran sergeant who trains the platoon once it arrives at Tigerland. He is the only authority figure Bozz respects, maybe because Cota has been to Vietnam already, but I think it is because of the way he treats the platoon. He's still a tough, stubborn son of a bitch, but you can tell he is putting the men through the grinder because he wants them to survive as opposed to any propagandistic, gung ho reasons. Hauser only has maybe three scenes, maybe only ten minutes of screen time, but in that short period he owns the picture, completely taking away everyone else's badass card because well, no one is as badass as he is. Nothing against Farrell, who is superb in the film, but Hauser is Tigerland's MVP.

TRIVIA: The book Bozz is reading in the beginning of the movie is Dalton Trumbo's Johnny Got His Gun, a famous anti-war novel. They never explain it in the movie, but Bozz reading the book definitely makes a bad first impression to his superiors and other, more gung ho members of his platoon.

BEST LINE:

Miter: You know what I am, Bozz? I'm a butcher.

Bozz: Yeah, we all butchers, Miter.

Miter: No, I'm a real butcher.

Bozz: Shit, you haven't killed anyone yet.

Miter: Damn it, Bozz, I mean a real butcher. Back home, I cut meat.