Stream it now All the King's Men Reset Status Want to Watch Already Watched Don't Want to Watch

Based on the 1946 Pulitzer Prize winning novel by Robert Penn Warren (and first adapted for the screen in 1949), All the King's Men features an Academy Award-winning (and nominated) cast in what can be only described a cautionary tale about idealism and political corruption. With Steve Zaillian (Searching for Bobby Fisher, Shindler's List) writing, producing, and directing, plus the aforementioned stellar cast, and a celebrated novel with contemporary relevance, All The King's Men seems primed to rack up nominations (if not awards) come next spring at the Academy Awards. The relevant question, though, is whether All The King's Men holds up as an emotionally and dramatically satisfying film.

Jack Burden (Jude Law), the scion of a fading Louisianan family, turns to journalism as a career. Assigned to profile a minor, rural politician, Willie Stark (Sean Penn), Burden finds himself taken in by Stark's idealism, populism, and na

This is the second adaptation of Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer prize-winning novel and, while Robert Rossen's 1949 version of the book deviated somewhat from Warren's narrative, it was at least faithful to the spirit of the book and its political concerns (essentially, power - even populist power - ultimately corrupts). Zaillian's adaptation almost abandons the political content altogether and the whole thing becomes a turgid and tedious melodrama. The novel was based on the rise of Louisiana senator/governor Huey P. Long, a throwback to the populist movement of the nineteenth century who shot to prominence in the wake of the Great Depression - and a flood that devastated New Orleans - and who so threatened the ruling elite that he had to be assassinated before he could make a run for the presidency. A new adaptation of this material could have been extraordinarily resonant in the new millenium.

Zaillian's screenplay, on the other hand, is a total mess. Like the novel, it is told from the point of view of Jack Burden (Jude Law), a journalist born of the southern ruling class who is apparently seduced by the populism of Willie Stark (the Long character, played by Sean Penn) - not that we ever see the seduction, he's just suddenly part of the entourage. But instead of focussing on Burden's political transformation and the corruption which he both uncovers and tacitly endorses, Zaillian concentrates on his banal relationship with his childhood sweetheart (the underwhelming Kate Winslet) and the kitchen sink family drama that was background material in the novel. Once Stark is elected governor about a quarter of the way into the film, we learn nothing at all of the politics involved. We are given no clue as to why Stark might be impeached or why Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins) may prove to be either his downfall or salvation or what the judge's own pivotal corruption consists of. This is all subjugated to gauzey flashbacks of Winslet taking a moonlit swim as a teeneager - apparently the only memory Burden has of her since we are subjected to it about forty-seven times. Theirs is the least interesting relationship in the entire story - and it's given about 80% of the screentime.

Worse, the story is shifted from the 1930s to the 1950s - for no apparent reason. All this serves to do is make Stark's concerns nonsensical. Louisianna didn't need roads and bridges and schools in the fifties - the New Deal had already built them. There were no recent disasters or depressions that would make the meteoric success of such a candidate even plausible. Then again, the design of the thing is so muddled that it took us half the film to figure out when it was supposed to be set (we had to spot a date on a license plate to realize - to our astonishment - that we were actually in 1954). Of course, most Americans - Steven Zaillian included - are so ignorant of their own history that it's unlikely any of this will make much difference.

My partner and I had slightly different reactions to the script. He was enraged and felt the film was "reactionary bullshit" - and I had to physically restrain him from setting the theater on fire as the credits rolled. He argued that conservative movie-goers would feel Zaillian's screenplay supported their notions that populists are a dangerous breed that squander power on public works while indulging their own petty infidelities and that governance is best left to a privileged elite. That could be read into the film (admittedly fairly easily), but I felt it was too incoherent and inept to inspire any kind of political reaction.

Zaillian's plodding, pedestrian direction, on the other hand, could inspire drowziness in a meth addict. And it does nothing to enhance or clarify a single element of the film. In the Stark sequences, Zaillian doesn't seem to be sure whether he's filming Norma Rae, Triumph of the Will, or Hush, Hush, Sweet Charlotte. The rest of the scenes are either grainily underlit or soft-focus lush, with a palette that never once conjures the humid southern setting. There are inexplicable sequences - like numerous shots of Stark's driver playing with his revolver and unflattering BIG CLOSE-UPS of the hapless cast - that add nothing but confusion. Zaillian's overriding rule of thumb seems to be, "When in doubt, show us something that you've shown us before - then show it to us again." There is also a superabundance of symbols devoid of meaning (the thing has more lingering shots crosses than a biopic of St. Theresa - for no apparent reason). And there is no consistency in tone, character, mood, narrative, setting, or even accent.

Which brings us to the actors. Penn, it must be admitted, is impressive. He embraces and embodies the drive of the populist politician with as much fervor as he is later able to apply to "rising above his principles". Everyone else is either miscast or, simply, not up to the task.

The other leads - Law, Winslet, and Hopkins - are all British and none of them would seem to recognize a Louisiana accent if it bled to death on their veranda. Jude Law is as pretty as he ever was, but his character seems motivated by laziness and boredom (if anything at all), which does not make for a very compelling performance - and his endless voiceover is not only unnecessary, but distracting and, eventually, irritating. "Shut up and shoot the guy already," I heard my partner muttering about three days before the film finally ended. His phoned-in performance is so listless that, ultimately, he appears to be little more than a plot device - as evidenced by the fact that the character is left utterly unresolved at the film's conclusion. As we were driving home, my partner asked what was supposed to have become of Jack Burden. "He grew up," I told him, "to become a narrator."

Anthony Hopkins is one of the few actors I know of (James Mason would be another) who can overact by underplaying. In this instance, he throws caution to the wind and overacts by overacting. One tires of his character ten seconds into his first scene and his single bit of business (playing with a catapult) is trotted out every time he appears, making a relatively complex character seem downright simple-minded. Kate Winslet has never done much for me - and she does even less in this thing. Her character is a virtual cipher and she adds nothing to it. And we all know what zero plus zero equals. Granted, she looks much better by moonlight, but if she started wading into that damned lake one more time, I would have hurled something at the screen. Or maybe just hurled.

Of the American actors, James Gandolfini is passable, though he also has very little to do. Indeed, he seldom seems to know how he ended up in this film in the first place. While I quite like the often underrated Patricia Clarkson, I must admit that I was amazed to discover - halfway through the picture - that she was supposed to be Stark's mistress. There had been not one hint that the characters even had a relationship, let alone an intimate one. To be fair, though, this is largely the fault of the screenplay: Clarkson and Penn have only one scene together - and he sleeps through it. The only other character with more than a few lines is Mark Ruffalo and, to be honest, his buttocks put in a better performance in In the Cut than his entire person does in this. We see him as nondescript boyhood chum, as frustrated idealist, and as murderous malcontent - with nothing in between. Again, though, this is largely Zaillian's fault: his crucial transformation takes place offstage and we are only treated to Kate Winslet talking about it. At least it gives her something to do other than sport the hairdos of Veronica Lake. Ultimately, none of the actors can really be faulted - unless, of course, we should blame them for not resigning from the project after the first reading.

Apart from Steven Zaillian (who deserves to be drummed out of Hollywood forever), the worst person involved in this ghastly undertaking has to be hack composer James Horner. The score is so over the top that one keeps expecting Willie Stark to invade Poland - during an apocalyptic thunder storm. I have never been so moved to hunt down an entire orchestra and break their fingers.

I suppose I wouldn't be quite so hard on this picture if I hadn't had such high hopes for it. Huey Long is a rich historical character, his political concerns as pertinent now as they were in the thirties, the source novel is an excellent study in political power and corruption, the cast looked very promising, and Zaillian is widely held to be an accomplished screenwriter (though I've never been quite convinced), and his two previous directorial outings were, at least, competent. The main problem is that, given the material (and the purported involvement of people like James Carville), it was a real opportunity lost. Disappointed, disappointed, disappointed.

In the late 1920s, the radical populist Huey Long was voted governor of the great state of Louisiana. He fought big oil companies and used his power to force through the state legislature his expensive spending proposals. When his term as governor (governors have always been more like kings in Louisiana anyway) ended, he ran very successfully for the U.S. Senate. There he inexplicably managed to wield much power over politics in his state, while simultaneously being unable to push through any of his bills. Most prominent of his ideas was an ambitious plan which would have capped the amount of money that any individual could possess in an effort to equalize the wealth and protect capitalism from the threat of communism. He was assassinated on September 10, 1935 while visiting the Capitol building in Baton Rouge . This was shortly after announcing his plans to run against FDR in the Democratic primaries.

To what purpose do I cite all of this information? Well, Robert Penn Warren's 1946 novel, All the King's Men (of which both the 1949 Best Picture winner and this version are based) has always been interpreted to be about the larger than life story of Huey Long (who came to be known as "the kingfish"). Such knowledge is a necessary prerequisite for those who are unaware of the details surrounding this controversial man's life and death, of which this movie is based upon. As an added bonus, it allows me to delay by a few moments the tedious process of dealing directly with this dreadful film.



So here goes: what the hell did writer and director Steve Zallian think he was doing? Has he no respect for the massive level of talent that surrounded him? What point is he attempting to convey?

Worse, Zallian, who wrote the script for great films such as Schindler's List and Gangs of New York, doesn't seem to have any insight into what he could do to elevate the fine original. There are no grand points here, no revelations, and certainly no insight. His flatter-than-Holland script takes the position of the original; that is, progressive big government policies can lead to dangerous abuses of power. But Zallian evades the more difficult task of extrapolating on that point all the way through the film.

He's not the only person in trouble either. Sean Penn, easily one of the finest actors working in movies, gives what amounts to a bloated and one-note caricature of a performance. He plays Willie Stark, the larger-than-life Southerner; self-proclaimed hick who became governor. It's not a bad performance, but you get the impression he could have phoned it in. We rightly expect more from him.

I suppose that All The King's Men is, in addition to being a shabby political fable, something of a tragedy. The real tragedy? That would be the fact that Penn joins a spectacular cast of Academy Award winners and nominees. From Penn and Anthony Hopkins, to female stars like Patricia Clarkson and Kate Winslet, this is the one phenomenal ensemble piece.

But even many of the actors are skating on thin ice. This may or may not be their doing (although their differing, wavering, and often incoherent accents are their faults). It would be convenient to blame Zallian's weak hand at commanding actors, but there's no way to be certain.

James Gandolfini, the best actor working in television today, plays Francis Duffy and lays it on so thick (early on he says, "I'm talking about the next governor of Louisiaaa-nn-aaa"). He acts as a political advisor to Stark who pushes him, prods him, and accepts being utterly humiliated in the scene where Stark begins to realize his presence as a speaker.

That scene, in which Stark scraps his prepared speech and instead speaks to the people directly by calling them 'hicks', launches an entire sequence of hammed up drivel. Stark shocks the crowd at first, but they warm up to as he goes on and explains, "The only person that's ever going to get anything done for a hick, is a hick." Playing behind Penn's fiery dialogue is the self-important music that suffuses virtually every scene in the film. I can't recall personally a soundtrack since The Machinist that has sounded so out of sync with what was on the screen. Even more obnoxious, Zalllian can't resent the urge to zero in on the faces of the 'dumb hicks' who populate Stark's audience. They look glum, puzzled, and in at least one instance diseased. The camera cuts around each speech, with many tackling different topics, that the end result is disorienting.

As a complete product, All The King's Men isn't just disorienting, it's frequently underwhelming. The look of the movie is drab and unsatisfying, giving it a vaguely claustrophobic sense that does nothing to enhance the feel. If the act of capturing a scene on film can be thought of as a kin to painting, then a gorgeous film like Before Sunset was painted in rich dabs of gooey paint. The cinematography here appears to be smeared with a rather potent combination of saliva, black coffee, and pencil shavings. Consider the recurring scene in which Anne Stanton (played by a decent Kate Winslet) takes an evening dip in a lake. It doesn't look like she's wading through water though; she looks like she's about to drown in fountain pen ink.

Another factor working against Zallian is his inexplicable decision to set the events in the late 1940s through early 1950s. It should have been set closer to the Great Depression, when someone like Stark would have held the most clout. And let's not slide the occasional anachronism that slips in! I may be wrong, but I'm sure that no one ever uttered the words 'what's up' in 1951 (which two of the characters say at different points).

Willie Stark threatens to become a phantom character as he unleashes all fury when the conservative political establishment resists his proposals. We are repeatedly served half digested glimpses into what makes him tick. There is a brief moment where we see him with his football playing son and the jealousy he incites in Sandie Burke, played by Patricia Clarkson is humorous and on the verge of deeper things. She sleeps with him behind his wife's back, but is madder than ah' hell when he beds a foxy ice skater. Interestingly Clarkson hails from a politically powerful family in Louisiana, which gives her role another layer when you think about it.

I noted earlier in my review that Penn gives a decent, but predictable performance as Stark. That's not completely accurate. There are two scenes of him after becoming governor in which he gives spirited and bitingly angry speeches to a large crowd of everyone from supporters to detractors. "They want to ruin me because they want to ruin you," he yells. As it is night in both scenes, a sizeable spotlight shines behind him and the light creeps through his messy hair, making him look as though he were a mad scientist. Combined with his flapping arms, he looks like a maniacal pastor of socialist reforms. For a brief moment, he's electric.

The only actor to survive the whole ordeal relatively unscathed is Anthony Hopkins, who plays Samuel Irwin. Hopkins is funny, plausible, and calm. He comes to the attention of Stark when he makes public comments supporting the proposed impeachment of the polarizing governor and refuses to budge when Stark tries to intimidate him into retreat. Stark is hampered by the presence of Jack Burden (played by Jude Law). Burden is a news reporter who works for Stark yet also is like a son to Irwin. The mystery of why a cosmopolitan, educated figure in a dirt-poor state would work for a class-war-inciting populist like Stark is a nagging question throughout.

Aggravatingly, Zallian provides no answers (which is the diametric opposite of providing no easy answers). And the closest he gets to thematic intrigue is a split second of dialogue between Burden and his life long love, the aforementioned Anne Stanton. What she says suggests that the poor children who accept the expensive entitlements to a college education might be as complicit as Burden is for doing political work for him. Yet as quickly as we've considered her insinuation, it evaporates a long with everything else that may have been intellectually stimulating.

Zallian litters the film with obvious narration by Law that over explains what's onscreen and has the result of tarnishing and fettering moments that may have had real power. Maybe. But Law is another of the film's low points. While I have liked many movies that he has been in over the years, I haven't generally liked him very much. He has a tendency to smirk in between thoughts, giving the impression that he's superior to the movie he was starring in. Reflecting on All The King's Men, I couldn't stop thinking that everyone in it should have been smirking.

Grade: D+

"All the King's Men" documents a fiery Louisiana politician and his descent into vice, corruption and outrageous accents. Determined not to be upstaged by his hair-do, Sean Penn manages to hypnotize the locals into electing him to public office by bewildering them with a powerful impression of Strother Martin from "Cool Hand Luke"...Hmmm, come to think of it, "What we have here is a failure to communicate" just may be the best campaign slogan of all time.
This movie is the cinematic equivalent of that bizarre Thanksgiving delicacy where they take a turkey, stuff it with a goose, and then stuff the goose with a ham. It is bloated, over-done, vaguely preposterous and yet strangely delicious. Unfortunately, by the end of it every character is so horribly corrupted you can't help but conclude that politics in general is like a loaded pistol, and every politician a drunken teenager, and the less of both of them the better.
For more of this review (including its comic companion piece) please visit www.flickskinny.com

ALL THE KING'S MEN
Directed by Steve Zaillian
Stars Sean Penn, Jude Law, Anthony Hopkins, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandolfini, Kathy Baker
PG-13 - an intense sequence of violence, sexual content and partial nudity

Well crafted (if slightly muddled) adaptation of the Robert Penn Warren novel about an idealistic everyman who runs for governor to fight for Louisiana's poor, only to become just as corrupt as the men he fought against. Finely acted, sharply scripted by director Zaillian, and featuring a virtuoso score by James Horner ("Titanic"), All the King's Men is an engaging experience. It loses points, however, for zipping by some of the story's finer points. Still entertaining filmmaking, and a powerful statement about the corruptive nature of power.

Although the script lacked substantial character development, I enjoyed this movie mostly for the cinematography and for Jude Law's performance. Sean Penn's overacting did not make up for his underdeveloped character. Jude Law, however, did an admirable job with the character he was given. The director obviously concentrated on the camera and neglected the charaters. This could have been a great movie with balanced attention given to both aspects.

:confused: Theatre: Summer 2006



SYNOPSIS:
Based on Robert Penn Warren's 1946 Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, All the King's Men tells the story of an idealist's rise to power in the world of Louisiana politics and the corruption that leads to his downfall. There was an all-star cast (too many, in our opinion): Sean Pennin the lead role, Jude Law, Kate Winslet, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo, Patricia Clarkson, and Anthony Hopkins.

My Review: We saw this movie in Augusta. Going to Augusta is becoming a necessity as many movies are not showing in Aiken, a disappointment as we enjoy the small, empty theatre. We probably would have been better off not knowing this film was loosely based on the life of Huey Long of Louisiana. I think viewing it as just the life of an ambitious politician in the 30's would have been better. I would have to see this movie again to try to pull all the subplots and characters together.

I left the theatre with many questions, notably who the Stanton kids were and how did they come to be sitting at Anthony Hopkins' character table in his house. Then, why did Kate Winslet's character become involved with Sean Penn's character. There really was no explanation of that. And who was Patricia Clarkson's character really and what purpose did her character have? Too many characters who probably weren't need in this story.A little more information on the hospital project would have been nice. And why wasn't the young doctor practicing medicine? The whole explanation of how he got to where he was, in a slum with a priceless piano, was missing. We couldn't quite figure out Jude Law's character either. Based on his upbringing, it didn't seem logical that he would have worked for a person like Willie Stark (Sean Penn's character).

Although the ending(s) were surprises, the movie left us feeling unfulfilled. Something was missing - maybe it was character development. And one more thing - we don't like movies that are dark and this one was really dark. We understood the premise: politics and power corrupts, but I think this story could have been presented in a better way.

The legacy of a populist Southern politician whose lofty ambitions for the future leave him open to corruption and scandal is detailed as author Robert Penn Warren's thinly veiled portrait of Depression-era Louisiana governor Huey Long comes to the screen -- again -- this time courtesy of director and screenwriter Steven Zaillian. Willie Stark (Sean Penn) is a man of the people, and for the people; at least that's what he tells the people. Propelled into a race for governor by opposing forces looking to split the "hick vote," Stark is convinced by handler -- as well as by young journalist Jack Burden (Jude Law) -- to not cow-tow to the powers that be. His rhetoric grows firey, and makes his way into office on a not-so-solid foundation of social-service promises. When idealism gives way to the harsh realities of the time, however, the fast-talking politico is quick to discover just how far one can fall when ambition and power leads to a betrayal of one's original motivations. Kate Winslet, Patricia Clarkson, James Gandolfini, Mark Ruffalo, and Anthony Hopkins round out an all-star cast in this second version of Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning 1947 novel; the first won a parade of Oscars after its release in 1949. This is a film I have been anticipating for over a year now most notably due to the stellar cast. Unfortunately, this film is not only one of the worst films thus far this year, but it is also the most disappointing film I have ever seen. The one major flaw that this film endures is its plot. The film focuses too much on Jude Law, when really the film should be all about Sean Penn. When we reach the resolution (which is the films finest hour, and I do not mean that in a sarcastic way), You have to ask yourself "....Why should I care? Great symbolism...yet what does it mean?" Sean Penn does go over the top with his performance, but that is what a true politician should do to convince people. Jude Law gives his usual good performance, while James Gandolfini gives the wost performance of the bunch. I felt as if Tony Soprano went back in time, and started to talk with a goofy southern accent. Kate Winslet, and Mark Ruffalo seem rather bored in this film, and have no purpose. Patricia Clarkson does a fine job, while Hopkins has nothing to worry about. He doesn't have to pull anything off, because he is simply Anthony Hopkins. The films cast, and superb original score cannot save this films plot, whatever it may be. The film would be better if we actually had a reason to care for this governor, and not so much about his friend that seems to be as bored as I was. The film has inspired me to re-write this script, and send it to Steven Zallian, who literally murdered all of my reasons to enjoy going to the movies. "All The King's Men" has a fantastic film hid under this dry, slow paced piece of cinema. It tries so hard to hit such grand notes, and misses them by a more than a mile. Usually there is one film every year that is suppose to be the best of the year, and ends up being a gigantic disappointment. Unfortunately, this King is holding that crown for the year 2006. A complete, and udder disappointment.

Yay, or nay? Want to cry? Take a nap? See it. Other than that, nay.

Oscar bait? If the voters started smoking weed, then yes. If not, better luck next time to this cast and crew.

FINAL RATING: 3/10

Another break from reviewing Friday the 13th films leads me to m local movie theater, where I decided to watch All the King's Men, a remake of the 1949 film of the same name. Yes, it's a more difficult film to follow than the slasher films I usually watch, so I had a little trouble understanding points that the film made. I think I understood the story, so it's all fine.

Willie Stark (Sean Penn), a small town mayor, wants change in the govenment of his home state, Louisiana. So he runs for governor. But his campaign is being managed by people working under another candidate for office. When Stark finds this out, he stops giving the speeches they write for him, and delivers very riveting ones to farmers and the rest of the lower class in Louisiana. But when he's elected governor, his life starts to change. For the worst.

Yeah, what a great synopsis. But while this film was occasionally entertaining, it's script was also filled with more dull moments than great ones. But the great moments were great. I was really moved by some parts of the film, but the only reason I was getting chills is because of the booming soundtrack.

The performances are all great, notably the one given my Sean Penn. He should be a contender for Best Actor, but he might not get on the ballot. Jude Law gives an almost as great performance as Jack Burden, a journalist who quit his job and then was hired by Stark. Anthony Hopkins is great, as usual, and Kate Winslet gave a great performance and was very attractive in the film.

It is a film that really explores humanity by using the life of Jack Burden, and the reign of Willie Stark. I got to think during the film, and that was welcome, but maybe I was made to think too much. There is some entertainment in the film, and it is a very smart and adult film, but I think that reading the book would help me understand the film a little more.

I'll recommend it for those of us that understand politics. For the rest, it'm more than a bit complicated.

September 22, 2006

After the screening of "All King's Men," I walked away with two burning questions: 1) Whose story was this? and 2) Why should I care? Here is a movie so scrambled, so disjointed and so directionless that I wonder if the filmmakers ever had a brainstorming session during its development. It's obvious with the cast and production values that everybody was hoping to achieve greatness, but they fall amazingly short.

The movie is based on Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize-winning novel, which slightly accounted the real life of Louisiana Governor Huey Long. Sean Penn plays Willie Stark, a humble politician with trustworthy values. His ideals are simple but honest. He's married to a school teacher and cautiously steers clear of alcohol. Instead, he settles for orange pop with two straws.

At the advice of Tiny Duffy (James Gandolfini) and Sadie Burke (Patricia Clarkson), Stark decides to run for governor of Louisiana. Covering his story is journalist Jack Burden (Jude Law), who has his own ties to politics through family and friends.

When Stark discovers he's just a stooge in a scheme to split the hick votes to one of the other two candidates, he decides to play hard ball the only way he knows how: campaign to the hicks. He wins by a landslide, but money, greed and vindictiveness soon corrupt his noble character and he finds himself on the wrong end of impeachment charges. Stark orders Jack to find any evidence that might sully the reputation of the presiding judge on the case, Judge Irwin (Anthony Hopkins), who happens to be Jack's godfather.

It's never made clear why Stark faces impeachment and his metamorphosis from honest politician to greedy despot is nebulous and I never felt like I really got to know his true character. Most of the screen time belongs to Jack, who's merely the straight man and counterpart to Stark's overheated, outspoken and eccentric statesman.

The movie's message, simply, is that power corrupts and that "Time Brings All Things to Light," a statement Stark makes himself that also serves as the movie's tagline. There's nothing overly profound that hasn't been conveyed better in other films about politics. The screenplay is anything but subtle and delivers so many grandiose one-liners that it borders on saturated melodrama. It feels more like a soap opera or polemical Aaron Spelling television drama.

Why was this movie even remade? The award-winning original contained a wonderful human story and an emotional subplot involving Stark's son. That's all but abandoned here, which is a shame since it highlighted Stark's loss of humanity and innocence. The crescendo this time is utterly predictable and over-the-top, accented well by James Horner's score and Pawel Edelman's cinematography.

"All the King's Men" was originally slated for a December 2005 release in hopes of cashing in on Oscar glory, but the executives at Columbia Pictures felt it wasn't quite ready. If they thought it was ready now, I can't imagine what the movie was like 10 months ago.