Random Sunday Thoughts

Random Sunday Thoughts 

I haven't reviewed anything for a while because I'm not particularly interested in seeing most of the latest releases. Monsters University is probably worth my time, and I am curious as to whether Man of Steel is in the same league as The Dark Knight Trilogy, but nothing is jumping out at me as a must-see in theaters. I could pour a couple of hours of effort into reviewing an older movie, but the reality is that most people focus on what's new.

So, this morning, I found myself wondering all kinds of things about what makes a movie good, interesting, successful, or unique. That led to thinking about why bad movies get made, and why some of them are among the most popular in cinema history.

Other random thoughts had me thinking about such things as the IMDB Top 250, the best Denzel Washington movies, and catalogue titles that I haven't got around to seeing, which appeal for one reason or another.

I don't have one topic or title that stands out, so I have decided to write down these musings. Make of them what you will.

Observation 1 - An enormous number of people are entertained by a lot of crap

What falls into this category?

Reality TV
Dumb humor
The vast majority of superhero movies
Almost anything involving Michael Bay
More than 90 percent of sequels
Reality TV (I had to mention it twice)
Celebrities who can't act
Movies relying almost completely on special effects
Pointless remakes
Tired ideas that have been churned out dozens of times before

Observation 2 - I used to like some of the stuff in Observation 1

Twenty or thirty years ago, I used to rent stupid comedies, every superhero movie, and the latest Schwarzenegger movies on VHS. Why exactly? I don't find Schwarzenegger attractive, I don't want to look like him, and he can't act. Why did I watch anything that he was involved with? Did I expect things to suddenly improve, or did I actually like that nonsense? How is there a market for Terminator 5?

Observation 3 - The more we waste our time on things in Observation 1, the more likely that such crap will continue to be made

I've almost completely stopped investing my time in things the above categories, so I have done my part.

I have to wonder whether people actually enjoy the things they pay to see. It's one thing to attract a paying audience, but do people go home after Scary Movie 4 and start counting the days to the release of Scary Movie 5? Are they desperately hoping for another Jackass movie? Will every movie in the Transformers franchise make hundreds of millions at the box office?

Observation 4 - Most movies are made for audiences that I will never be a part of again

Twilight falls into this category. I don't care about vampires or teen romances. That said, I'll watch movies featuring those subjects if they are done well.

Do you ever watch a movie and think that the people on the screen are just saying the words? Someone loaned me a copy of Bad Boys recently. I like Will Smith, so I decided to give it a try, despite thinking that I wouldn't like it. It was tempting to stop watching in the first ten minutes, and I eventually gave up after 27 minutes of torture. There was no acting involved. It was like watching porn without the nudity. Characters appeared briefly, spouted a few unoriginal lines of dialogue, and trotted mercifully out of camera range. 

Observation 5 - People watch movies because of the actors involved, without any other considerations

I'm definitely guilty of this one. Over the years, I have mindlessly watched Schwarzenegger, Eddie Murphy, Michael J. Fox, Bill Murray, Whoopi Goldberg, Robin Williams, and a multitude of others. Some can't act at all, some have nostalgia value, and a few actually have some memorable performances to their name. Williams was superb in Dead Poets Society and Good Will Hunting, and effective in Insomnia, One Hour Photo, and even Good Morning Vietnam. But he's also delivered more than his fair share of complete crap.

The casting is a useful guide when deciding what I might like, but there are no guarantees.

So what does make a good movie? I can't give you a definitive answer, but I can tell you what works for me.

The Director

I think this is a far more reliable guide than relying on the main actors involved. For example, I will be entertained by anything Quentin Tarantino releases. He could choose a genre I dislike, cast actors I either dislike or don't know, and yet still produce something I enjoy watching.

Other directors that I feel that I can rely on are covered in more depth in my Top 10 Directors and An Introduction to Foreign Language Film features.

The Story

If the story is strong enough, it can capture my attention even if I hate the genre. For example, religion doesn't interest me at all, but Doubt is a wonderful film with four strong performances at its heart. Politics also bores me, but I cared about Frost/Nixon and The Queen. I loathe films about ancient Rome, but Gladiator is effective entertainment. Biopics don't do much for me at all, but Control is just about perfect.

The Acting

This may sound obvious, but it's amazing how many movies become popular and make money without good acting. In contrast, a strong performance can sometimes save a weak or unoriginal story. I dread to think what Unstoppable might have been without Denzel Washington's performance, but it's actually something I return to often. Imagine One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest without Jack Nicholson, Dog Day Afternoon without Al Pacino, or even M*A*S*H* (TV version) without Alan Alda. Casting is vitally important to me.

The Setting

Sometimes, I want to escape to a completely different world. Avatar has a terrible script with childish dialogue, but it's watchable because of the setting. Films such as Spirited Away, Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind and My Neighbor Totoro, provide wonderful settings that I am always happy to visit. The Warriors somehow does a similar thing, despite the lack of proven actors and the low budget. David Lynch's worlds are masterful too, and always make me feel as if I am somewhere else.

Clever Humor

This is a tough one to define, and I've always had trouble nailing down exactly why something is funny. I mentioned that I can't tolerate dumb humor, but I do like to laugh. Good writing helps, along with actors capable of delivering lines with proper comic timing. Many of the things which make me laugh involve good actors making witty remarks, even though the general tone of the movie is serious. Nicholson, Eastwood, and Clooney all manage to pull off that delicate balance, although you wouldn't include them in a list of Top 10 comedians. Bill Murray, who appeared regularly in some of the comedies I now despise, has redeemed himself by turning in some of the best work of his career in recent years.

Drama and Emotion

This is the big one for me. I want movies to be serious attempts to tell a story, without looking for cheap laughs every 20 seconds. I want to care about the characters and the outcome of their story. I want to remember the story and feel compelled to revisit the characters and their worlds. I even want those qualities in some measure in genres other than drama. Die Hard works because Bruce Willis is a better actor than most action heroes, and the writing is good enough to pull me into the story. Liam Neeson makes Taken a must-see movie for the same reasons. Christopher Nolan gave us the best superhero trilogy because he chose real actors, and then gave us a reason to care about what was going on. They still have the cool special effects, but it's not an empty story. Ask yourself why you love Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight. Why was it so much better than other entries in the genre? Seriously, why did you care?

I'm not sure what the point of this post is. Maybe there isn't one. I'm just so jaded when I look at release schedules and see a tiny number of movies that I might like. Can we turn this trend around? Is it just me who thinks this way?

One of the most important decisions I ever made was to open up my mind and try foreign language films. There goes 95 percent of anyone who was still reading this post. It's not really that much effort to read subtitles. Do you like Inglourious Basterds? How much of that is in English? The main reason I love foreign film is that there is a chance of seeing something original; something with real ideas that doesn't feel compelled to deliver the expected outcome. The Hollywood machine churns out predictable films. Nolan was allowed to make Inception because of his success with The Dark Knight, but most movies with that level of imagination never come to fruition. Foreign films have their share of predictable crap, but the good ones are worth your time. Amelie is a delight; The Lives of Others is an extremely touching drama; The Three Colors Trilogy looks at life in ways you might not expect; Hayao Miyazaki has produced films with more heart than any other director, and I'm not just talking about animation. You can even see his films without having to read subtitles.

I know people who only buy music that makes the Top 40. I'm convinced that dumb comedies are popular because they are thought of as a safe option, that will surely have something for everyone. I urge you to question your own tastes and the decisions you make. What are your favorite films, and why is that the case? What movies made you feel as if you threw away your money? If you could finance a film, who would you cast, and who would direct it?

I'll leave you with my Top 10 Denzel Washington films (alphabetical order):

Crimson Tide
Flight
The Hurricane
Inside Man
John Q
Man on Fire
Philadelphia
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 
Training Day
Unstoppable

And here's my current Top 50 (alphabetical order):

12 Angry Men
Amelie
American Beauty
As Good as It Gets
The Birds
Blue Velvet
Control
The Dark Knight
The Departed
The Descendants
Dog Day Afternoon
The Double Life of Veronique
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Fargo
Gran Torino
Grave of the Fireflies
The Green Mile
Headhunters
I Am Legend
In Bruges
Inglourious Basterds
Inside Man
Juno
Kill Bill Vol. 1 and 2
The King's Speech
The Lives of Others
Memento
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
Moonrise Kingdom
Mulholland Dr.
My Neighbor Totoro
No Country for Old Men
Once
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
The Prestige
Psycho
Pulp Fiction
The Pursuit of Happyness
The Reader
Rushmore
The Shawshank Redemption
The Shining
The Silence of the Lambs
Silver Linings Playbook
Taxi Driver
The Three Colors Trilogy
Up in the Air
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Return to index of every review on the site.

Philadelphia - Finally available on Blu-ray

Philadelphia (1993)

Drama, 125 minutes
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Starring Tom Hanks, Denzel Washington, Jason Robards, Mary Steenburgen and Antonio Banderas

There are all kinds of reasons why I might watch a certain movie. It may be the director, the actors, the subject matter, or because of a review or recommendation. What first made me want to see Philadelphia was the casting of Tom Hanks. But now, after broadening my film knowledge in recent years, I wanted to pay closer attention to Denzel Washington's performance, and Jonathan Demme's directorial choices.

Demme has been responsible for one of the best thrillers ever made (The Silence of the Lambs), one of the best concert films (Stop Making Sense), as well as quirky comedies like Something Wild. Philadelphia isn't like any of those movies in terms of feel or genre; it's a serious drama, with an important message.

The story begins with lawyers Andrew Beckett (Hanks) and Joe Miller (Washington) battling each other in court. Beckett wins the case, and is promoted by his firm. He is entrusted with the task of representing one of the firm's most important clients. He's young, successful, and appears set to excel in his field. Miller is exposed as a TV celebrity and opportunist, who is more concerned with winning money for his clients than being ethical.

Beckett is homosexual and contracts AIDS. He develops lesions all over his body, and some of them are visible. One of the firm's partners notices and fears that Beckett may have AIDS. Soon after, Beckett is fired.

Do you remember when you first heard about AIDS? I remember it as a time of great panic. Nobody was immune from the disease, and we learned that it could be passed on by having a blood transfusion or unprotected sex. Imagine being a nurse and having a needle accidentally break your skin, and wondering if you would contract the disease. But, despite the fact that everyone was at risk, AIDS was primarily considered a disease which affected the gay community.

Should someone be fired for having a life-threatening disease? Does it matter whether their current performance is exceptional, even though it will almost certainly deteriorate in the future? This story is about Beckett's fight to sue his former firm for wrongful dismissal. After trying to enlist the help of nine other lawyers, he eventual turns to Miller. We discover that Miller is severely homophobic, and his ignorance of AIDS makes him fear Beckett's very presence. The story educates both the audience and Miller during its two-hour journey. Although we know much more about AIDS now, it was important to hear stories like this when the disease was relatively new on the scene.

Miller's initial instinct was to get as far away from Beckett as he could. In fact, some people will never see Philadelphia for similar reasons. Homophobia is not as common as it used to be, but it still exists. Another reason that the film won't have a large audience is the debilitating nature of the disease. It's uncomfortable to see somebody become ill, knowing that they might well die. I understand the decision to avoid that kind of subject matter, but entertainment comes in many forms. The reason I enjoy Philadelphia is the strength of the central performances from Hanks and Washington.

The second half of the film focuses on the courtroom battle between Miller, representing Beckett, and the firm which ultimately fired Beckett. If you enjoy courtroom dramas, Philadelphia does well with that aspect of the story. Demme makes some interesting choices, occasionally making the actors speak directly into the camera. It has the effect of placing us in the position of the judge or the witness giving evidence, and grabs our attention.

Hanks was at his peak in the 90s and early 2000s, and this Oscar-winning performance is one of his best. Washington has been great for 20 years, and his performance should not be missed either.

Philadelphia also won an Oscar for best song (Bruce Springsteen), and closes with another nominee (Neil Young). The music fits the mood perfectly.

If you enjoy good acting, serious drama, or stories that really matter, Philadelphia is worth your time. Some say that it is dated and overly-manipulative, but sometimes it's good to manipulate the audience when the message is important enough to warrant it. This is one of those times.

The North American Blu-ray release is from Twilight Time, and is limited to 3,000 copies. The picture quality is pleasing and the DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 track also does the job. It's available from Amazon, or directly from Screen Archives Entertainment, and comes with a small booklet.

Overall score 4.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Star Trek Into Darkness (Theatrical Review)

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, 132 minutes
Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin and Benedict Cumberbatch

I'm old enough to remember the original Star Trek series, and I have a deep affection for it despite its obvious flaws. I was ready to despise this latest reboot when Star Trek was released in 2009, but some terrific choices were made and I left the theater grinning. I was delighted with the casting choices four years ago, and how this new version of Star Trek gave enough nods to the original without going over the top.

So, I have been anticipating the release of Star Trek Into Darkness ever since the credits rolled on the last entry. I was not disappointed.

What do you want from a Star Trek movie? The world has changed over the past 45 years, and action is an essential element of any science fiction movie. Special effects rule, and the budget can be enormous for proven franchises that simply can't fail at the box office. There is certainly no lack of action in this movie, and it doesn't waste any time in surfacing. Kirk and some of the crew are shown fleeing the inhabitants of a primitive planet, after trying to prevent a volcano from destroying it. The fast cuts look like something out of a Bourne movie, and provide the first adrenaline rush. There are no shortage of similar moments over the remaining two hours.

While I loved Star Trek (2009), it was pretty light on story. It served as a vehicle to introduce the new crew, and did so splendidly, but the actual story wasn't particularly memorable. That's not to say that it wasn't tremendously enjoyable. What Into Darkness does is develop on that strong foundation. We learn more about the characters, and what binds them together, but this time we're also given a story with more depth.

The story is built around the hunt for John Harrison, who is a man that seems out to destroy the Federation. Who is he? What are his motivations? Needless to say, Kirk is given the task of tracking him with the Enterprise and her crew. Expect chase scenes, fights, battles, and all the special effects you could possibly desire. It's what you won't expect that will make you smile most of all. The theme of family is used in various forms, as well as revenge and the lust for power.

The great thing about this reboot is that, thanks to a plot device in the previous movie, anything can happen to the characters we know and love. Part of the fun is recognizing events and people that you know from other versions of the franchise, and seeing where their story deviates from the one you expect. Into Darkness introduces a couple of characters that you'll know, if you remember your Star Trek history. I wouldn't dream of ruining that surprise for you, so I'll leave it at that. You'll also an encounter an alien race that you might be familiar with.

I've mentioned that the movie is action-packed. Its budget also means that the effects are superb. But don't make the mistake of thinking that Into Darkness is all action and no substance. There are several exchanges of dialogue which create genuine emotion. This cast can act. One example takes place in a bar between Pike and Kirk, and it's an excellent example of key characters forming a bond.

My only disappointment with the 2009 movie is that Simon Pegg didn't seem like the best choice to play Scotty, but he won me over this time. My only criticism of the movie is that some of the key characters don't get enough screen time, but I am sure they will all have their moments to shine in future entries in the series. As with the original series, the relationships between Kirk, Spock and McCoy are vital, and I think all three actors do a great job portraying them. However, it's also wonderful to see characters like Uhura with more significant roles.

There's really no way to explain the plot without giving away too much. If you enjoyed the first reboot, and like these actors, there's a strong chance that you will love Star Trek Into Darkness. It seemed to last about an hour, but had enough content for four hours. That's meant as a compliment. You won't see anyone washing dishes for 20 minutes in this movie.

Where will the franchise go next? I hope that it is a long and glorious journey. I would happily watch another five movies with this crew, and can only hope that there won't be a four-year gap between them.

Go and see this movie if you care about Star Trek in any way, because you'll have a lot of fun. Oh, and be prepared to see more lens flares. They are apparently here to stay.

Overall score 4.5/5

This is the first movie I have seen in theaters since Roger Ebert's passing. Normally I would head over to his site to see whether his opinion was close to mine. It seems very strange not having that option. 


Return to index of every review on the site.

Some of my favorite movie clips - Episode 2

Favorite Movie Clips - Part 2

I've compiled several favorite movie lists, and the 100 movies series, outlining notable titles and why I think they are worth watching. But I have never picked my favorite clips. There may be some overlap, and you'll see some of my favorite movies on both lists, but there are other titles which have outstanding scenes without being quite good enough to make a Top 100 or a Top 10 of the year.

I'm also aware that a lot of people prefer visuals to pages of text.

This is Part 2 in the series.

Moneyball - It's a Metaphor

Moneyball is loaded with good scenes, and it was hard to choose just one. I was unable to find a full version of the "trade deadline" clip, so I chose this scene near the end of the film. It puts the previous two hours in perspective. I've seen Moneyball about ten times since picking up the Blu-ray 16 months ago. It makes me want to write my own screenplay. If you have never seen the movie, don't dismiss it because you think it's just about sports. Moneyball is about new ways to look at something, and how original thought can produce the desired result. The acting matches the quality of the writing, and I think it will be remembered as one of the best movies featuring sports of any kind.

Reservoir Dogs - The Tipping Scene

Tarantino, Buscemi, and a logical argument against tipping. It's funny, but it also says a lot about Mr. Pink's character. Tarantino's writing is among the best in the business. He can make his characters talk nonsense, but in an intelligent and realistic way. His sense of humor makes regular comedies appear incredibly weak by comparison.

Mulholland Dr. - The Cowboy

Mulholland Dr. contains more bizarre scenes than logical ones, but it makes a strange kind of sense in the end. The movie will never have mass appeal, but those who do appreciate it often mention it as one of the best pieces of cinema they have ever seen. The scene I have chosen may look pointless and out of place if you haven't seen the movie, but it works perfectly in the context of the whole story. If you are the kind of person that enjoys analysis over mulitple viewings, Mulholland Dr. might be something you will learn to love.

Rounders - What's the Limit?

Why do we find poker so fascinating? Why are the top players considered superstars? There's a mystery and appeal about the game that creates mass appeal. Maybe we think that we can do what they do and change our lives in the process? Rounders manages to capture that mystery and turn it into a compelling story. This scene shows why you should never play cards with strangers, unless you're the one with the hidden ability.

The Secret World of Arrietty - First Borrowing

If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that I worship Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. Arrietty was directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, with Miyazaki adapting Mary Norton's book for the screenplay. This early sequence shows how imaginative the story is, and gives you a good idea of what to expect. Like all Ghibli titles, Arrietty features characters that you will care about.

That's enough for now. I hope that some of you check out one or two of these titles if you haven't already. I'll revisit this idea when I have five more clips to share.

What are some of your own favorites?

See Part 1 of this series here.

Return to index of every review on the site.

Some of my favorite movie clips - Episode 1

Favorite Movie Clips - Part 1

I've compiled several favorite movie lists, and the 100 movies series, outlining notable titles and why I think they are worth watching. But I have never picked my favorite clips. There may be some overlap, and you'll see some of my favorite movies on both lists, but there are other titles which have outstanding scenes without being quite good enough to make a Top 100 or a Top 10 of the year.

I'm also aware that a lot of people prefer visuals to pages of text.

These clips aren't in any particular order. I'll continue this series from time to time as I uncover more examples. Here are the first few which spring to mind:

Margin Call - The Bridge Discussion

Margin Call is a very good story, with a number of strong performances. Eric Dale is the character who sets the events in motion, but he remains something of a mystery for most of the movie. I chose this scene because it illustrates how such a man might have realized that the company was on the verge of ruin. Years of working in the financial world would enable him to rattle off statistics without much trouble, and Stanley Tucci is utterly convincing. It's also a profound piece of thinking to put the lifespan of a bridge into terms that we can all understand. Building it and saving commuters 1,531 years of their lives is a significant achievement. What have you done lately?

As Good as It Gets - The Compliment

Two of my favorite actors appear here in a serious moment from one of the best comedy dramas I own. Nicholson is superb as Melvin Udall, and Helen Hunt was at the top of her game in this 1997 movie. It will make you laugh, cry, and care about the characters. What a fine piece of writing.

Falling Down - I Want Breakfast

This scene works because we all feel something like this on occasion, but most of us have a filter which prevents us from making our views heard. Michael Douglas plays a character that could be almost any of us, so we empathize with his situation until he takes things a step too far.

Up in the Air - How Much?

I love this scene because J. K. Simmons plays his role perfectly, and Clooney's character comes up with such a convincing argument, even though it's insincere. It's such a believable exchange. The movie is full of great scenes, so I urge you to see it if you haven't already.

12 Angry Men - Dealing with Prejudice

One of the best movies ever made is 90 minutes of pure dialogue and takes place in one room for the most part. Here's one of the best scenes. If you have something against old films, or you only watch things in color, this might just change your mind.

That's enough for now. I hope that some of you check out one or two of these titles if you haven't already. I'll revisit this idea when I have five more clips to share.

What are some of your own favorites?

Return to index of every review on the site.

Firefly: The Complete Series

Firefly (2002-3)

Adventure, Drama, Sci-fi
Created by Josh Whedon
Starring Nathan Fillion, Gina Torres, Alan Tudyk, Morena Baccarin, Adam Baldwin, Jewel Staite, Sean Maher, Summer Glau and Ron Glass

I spent most of this week watching the 14 episodes of Firefly for the second time in my life, and I think I appreciated it even more this time around. The TV show was cancelled before all of the Season 1 episodes were shown, although they ultimately aired on The Science Channel.

The series failed for a number of reasons; the main one being that the episodes were not shown in the correct order, which was a stupid decision because the feature-length opening episode introduces all of the characters.

So why do I like it?

Firefly is a mix of action, drama, romance, and adventure. Although it's science fiction, the characters often talk like cowboys. Josh Whedon (Buffy, The Avengers) created the series, as well as directing three episodes and being involved as a writer.

The characters have real depth, but the development isn't rushed. The origin of the relationships and character traits are explained gradually as the series progresses. Many of the characters are mysterious, and will make you question their true motivations. But, through it all, each character always seems real. You'll meet a married couple, war veterans, a preacher, a doctor, a psychologically damaged girl, a genius engineer, an apparently dumb mercenary, and a high-class prostitute. It's fascinating to see the existing bonds between some of the characters, and the development of new bonds.

Episodes often show the crew taking on a task of some kind to earn their living. These assignments are often illegal, but can also become somewhat noble. If you are a fan of Whedon, you'll know that he uses humor regularly, and it's often present in Firefly. It can be pretty campy at times, but the writing is strong and it never comes across as stupid. Jaynestown is probably the funniest episode, and you'll understand why if you watch the episodes in the correct sequence.

I would have to say that I like every character, and that's rare for me with a cast of this size. The biggest mystery in the series surrounds River (Summer Glau), who plays the sister of the ship's doctor, Simon (Sean Maher). Their relationship is arguably the strongest within the group, and there's always a sense that River's story drives the entire series.

The Blu-ray includes all of the episodes, and the picture quality is good for the most part. Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image. The special features include plenty of commentaries, as well as a making of feature, deleted scenes, and other assorted goodies.

If you do become hooked on the series, you'll need to watch Serenity (2005), which was a two-hour movie wrapping up the main story. That's a fantastic science fiction movie, but you'll appreciate it more if you know the characters well. Firefly runs for almost 11 hours, and you'll end up wishing for more. The movie gives the show a proper ending, and won't leave you hanging.

At the time of writing, it's available on Amazon.com for less than $20. Buy it if you like Whedon, science fiction, or well-written characters. Incidentally, the set is housed in a regular Blu-ray case with room for the three discs, so it won't look out of place on your shelf.

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Thanks

 100,000 hits!

When I started this blog on April 25, 2011, I didn't expect many people to be interested in my opinions. Today, the hits finally reached 100,000. I know that many of you get that every month, or more often, but it's more than I ever expected or hoped for.

Thanks to everyone who spent a minute or a few hours reading my posts, and to all those who retweeted them or left comments. I'll try to keep adding new content as time allows.

By sheer coincidence, this also happens to be my 300th post.

For new readers, here's the index to all of my reviews.

If you are interested, here's where the bulk of my traffic has come from over the past two years:

United States 35433
United Kingdom 8152
Canada 5330
Germany 3115
Russia 3026
France 2965
Italy 1940
Brazil 1392
Pakistan 1124
Australia 819