Revelation (2001) User Reviews

Portentous religious conspiracy thriller

[noir guy · 4/10 · 30 August 2001]

Director/writer Stuart (PREACHING TO THE PERVERTED) Urban's portentous contemporary religious conspiracy thriller marks a return to feature film production for Britain's Romulus Films (THE AFRICAN QUEEN, OLIVER!, THE DAY OF THE JACKAL) for the first time since 1974's THE ODESSA FILE. The story concerns a young couple (he Jake, the computer hacker ex-con son of an enigmatic billionaire akin to Rupert Murdoch, she Mira, a brainy alchemist) searching for a religious relic ('a loculus') purported to possess mythical powers. This sends them spinning around Europe and Asia following alcehmical, astrological and religious clues, all the while stalked by Udo Kier's supremely villainous 'Grand Master' as Urban stirs all these ingredients into a heady brew, cutting back and forth in time and place with no lack of visual style, finally bringing them to the boil in an apocalyptic climax with implications for the future of mankind. Unfortunately the film, ambitious in scope and breadth, has a reach which exceeds its grasp; especially as it ultimately seems to pay off as a two-hour recruitment film for the Catholic church. Dull leads don't help, although there's sterling support from the enigmatic Terence Stamp as Jake's father, Celia Imrie as Mum, Derek Jacobi as a weaselly University librarian and Ron Moody as Sir Isaac Newton (yes, really). Good to see an independent British film aiming high, but difficult to imagine who'll pay to see this generic mishmash (it lacks sufficient impressive horror or action setpieces for a start). After all, if Demi Moore in THE SEVENTH SIGN and Johnny Depp in THE NINTH GATE couldn't bring in the punters, what hope does this similarly themed and thoughtful, if highly-flawed, fantasy have? File under 'Interesting Failure'.

Bad acting, deeply confusing plot, odd camera-work...

[blonde_ambition · 4/10 · 22 May 2005]

As a fan of Udo Kier, if a movie of his comes on the TV, I will watch it. So I watched Revelation, and, not being biased, Udo was a actually the best thing about this movie. Which is odd when you consider that Terence Stamp is in the same movie. But I don't know what happened. Stamp is AWFUL in this movie. Maybe he just couldn't be bothered, but his acting is atrocious. His line delivery is awful! But Revelation isn't that good a movie. And maybe Stamp knew that and so didn't put the effort in.

The movie is about some box called the Loculus which has been around since the crucifixion of Christ, and Stamp's character leaves his son Jake (James D'Arcy), and his female friend, to stop the evil Grand Master (Udo Kier) from getting hold of this box.

From watching the movie, I would imagine director Stuart Urban probably hasn't had much experience as the whole movie seems a little to student-movie-esquire. The acting from everyone (bar Kier) is atrocious, and a director who can't get a good performance out of Terence Stamp is clearly crap. And there is no chemistry between James D'Arcy and whoever plays the girl at all. The only thing worth watching it for is Udo Kier, he's always been good at playing the bad guy, and the only thing remotely creepy in it are the Grand Master's dogs who move freakishly fast.

Overall, unless you are a Kier fan, watching this would be a waste of your time. And it you're a Stamp fan, STEER WELL CLEAR! You'll be completely shocked his acting could stoop so low.

Oh golly, it forms a pentagram!

[Bull-30 · 5/10 · 27 March 2004]

For a film so obviously ripped from the pages of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", and the loathsome-but-funny "Templar Revelation", this film takes itself way too seriously. I guess with the bogus "Da Vinci Code" selling more than the bible nowadays, there's a market for so-called occult themed films, but honestly; even in films, it stretches credulity when "experts" of religious iconography are astonished at the fact that the egyptian ankh and the symbol of venus bears more than a passing resemblance. Or for that matter, when Sir Isaac Newton, in his monologue address himself as "I, Newton...". Oh, the pomposity! And then there's the matter of the phantom-ninja-templar-assassins and the apparently undying Udo Kier, whose strange powers are really never explained (except that they're EVIIIIL). Still, see it with a couple of like-minded friends for a good laugh (preferably with a couple of beers), but if your mind is liable to be "blown away", and you "really start thinking" by some self-important references to knight templars and goddess-worship; do us all a favor and rent Dr.Doolittle instead.

Anyone who thinks this movie is original really doesn't see a lot of movies, or TV, or read books

[jessieswift · 3/10 · 13 May 2005]

This movie resurrects the spectacularly silly, and rather entertaining, conspiracy theories of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail which have propped up conspiracy thrillers that think they're more intelligent than they really are for years, culminating in the inexplicable popularity of the Da Vinci Code. This film has all the requisite elements of such a thriller, Templar Knights and other shady secret orders featuring none other than Sir Isaac Newton, Merovingians, the blood line of Christ. While such theories are undoubtedly of an amusing entertainment value in themselves, they are not enough to sustain a film as badly acted and directed as Dan Brown's book is written, and the idea put forward by other comments here that this film is somehow novel and original is obviously ludicrous. The film's only real idea of its own is the notion that you could clone Christ from the DNA of the nails on the cross (possibly something even less likely to happen than cloning dinosaurs from mosquitoes trapped in amber) which at least creates a little food for thought to sustain you through the non-ending where the film, some might say fortunately, just stops. A couple of interesting images of horror such as skinned and crucified bodies or flaming corpses are enough to occasionally shock you out of your boredom and make you think of the director's potential to make a nasty little horror movie rather than this overblown nonsense. Definitely a movie worth seeing if you enjoy ridiculous conspiracy theories or the ironic pleasure of a badly acted and written spectacle, otherwise steer well clear of it.

a load of old fish

[gordonbrowne13 · 1/10 · 18 April 2002]

One is used to lending one's unstinting support to the brave efforts of our film industry. This however should never be extended to support for crimes against taste and judgement.Where is the plot? Who approved the script? What happened to story structure, respect for the audience's intelligence and simple awareness of characterisation? In the immortal words of Mr G Harrison - "My Dear Lord!" - surely someone could have done better than this!

This diabolical travesty has already been condemned on this site for obvious failings perceived by all who have been stupid enough to pay to see it. That the photography and design are adequate does not raise it above contention for 'worst film in living memory'.

I do not wish to repeat what others have said, to carp about the lack of direction, or indeed to carp about the woeful dialogue or even to carp about the cringeful acting (who is guilty of telling that wooden girl she could act?), but the public have a right to be protected from this.

Be warned this film is a load of old carp.

Untended comedy

[whatsaligger · 1/10 · 29 January 2005]

*** This review contains spoilers. Read at your own risk *** Goodness. I didn't expect to snicker, laugh, and snort quite as much as this. What was I thinking? The lines were cheesy (too many to give examples), the plot ridiculous, and the sex scene is one of the funniest things I've seen in a while. I was in tears with laughter at the most inappropriate scenes, ie. when Jake dies. What a waste of Terence Stamp. As for all the people commenting on similarities between Revelation and The Da Vinci Code. Yes, they both boil down to Christ having descendants, but really, it's all about how much they sucked. Not the most eloquent manner in which to bash it, but I've read the book and I've seen this movie. They are not worth the time. I can't believe I caved into the hype. And I can't believe I watched this all because James D'Archy is a good looking man. The price I pay for being shallow.

As usual I may be in the minority but I liked this film

[ozthegreatat42330 · 7/10 · 25 February 2007]

O.K. I will agree that it is not a great film, but I was taken with the tribute to the esoteric theories of history. Not completely an original story but still interesting. Imagine that you had Christ's DNA to be able to clone him after two thousand years. Now what happens when it falls into the hands of the wrong person. There is still an out when underneath all of the fancy finagling there is a simpler route to the rebirth of the savior. Flavor it with the underplayed performance of James D'Arcy, supported by a cast including Terrance Stamp, the always satanic Udo Keir and Sir Derrick Jacobi. The photography is spectacular, and the haunting music of the film adds to the pleasure I got from it. Of course there are numerous scenes that are ultra violent and one sexual scene that leads to the "R" rating, but this is not a family film, and was never intended to be. Somewhat of a poor man's "Da Vinci Code," it still brings the love of ancient conspiracies out for those who enjoy such things. If this is not your cup of tea, fine. But don't trash it for the rest of us.

An absolutely awful film & a total mess.

[poolandrews · 1/10 · 16 May 2005]

Revelation starts a long time ago, in fact we are informed that it's the year '50 A.D.' & that we are witnessing the crucifixion of Christ & a craftsman (Diran Meghreblian) constructing a small box that will become known as the Loculus. Revelataion then switches to 'South West France 1229' where a Jewish Alchemist (Uri Roodner) tries to unravel the mystery surrounding the Loculus & is killed by a chap called the Grand Master (Udo Kier) who turns up in both of these scenes & is Revelations chief bad guy. Presumeably the Loculus is lost as after these confusing flashbacks Revelation informs us that it's now 'South West France, Present Day'. A dodgy looking guy referred to in the credits as New Age Man (!?) (Heathcote Williams) is trying to find the Loculus for a billionaire named Magnus Martel (Terence Stamp) but has his tongue ripped out & left to die by the Grand Master as he gets close to the Loculus's location. Meanwhile Magnus has assembled Europes finest forensic scientists, archaeologists, astronomers, cell biologists, scholars of ancient history & an Alchemist named Mira (Natasha Wightman) in order to analyse, date, classify & decode the Loculus when it's eventually found. Magnus also enlists the help of his son Jake Martel (James D'Arcy) who has just been released from prison to help on the decoding side of things since, by a pure coincidence, Jake is a computer whizz. The Grand Master wants the Loculus as well so when the New Age Man fails to tell him what he wants to know he goes to Magnus's private island & slaughters everyone, everyone except Jake & the pretty female Alchemist Mira that is, who both manage to escape to mainland England. Once there Jake & Mira enlist the help of one of Jakes friends, who by another strange coincidence just happens to be a priest, named Ray Connolly (Liam Cunningham). As they follow the clues left by Magnus they discover that the Loculus has the potential to unleash great good, but also great evil... It's up to the three to find the Loculus & destroy it before it falls into the wrong hands, but will they succeed?

Written, co-produced & directed by Stuart Urban I thought Revelation was an absolute mess of a film. The script is simply terrible, it's confusing as it switches in both time & location quite frequently. It's as dull as dishwater, the characters spout lots of religious nonsense that just bored me to tears. It's incredibly stupid, the eventual use of the Loculus was revealed as a tool with which to preserve Jesus Christ's DNA so he could be cloned & brought back, since the technology is supposedly available some misguided soul thought it would be a good idea to make a near two hour film out of the idea, hey mate I've got news for you this ain't exactly Jurassic Park (1993) is it? The characters, no one is fleshed out or given a meaningful background & to make matters worse their all very unlikeable & bland. Plot holes I could easily drive a tank through, I mean how come the Grand Master has been around for literally 1000's of years? No explanation was given as far as I could tell or remember, how come two people who have never heard of the Loculus could find it within days when the Grand Master whose been around for all that time can't? What does the Grand Master exactly intend to do with a new born Christ? I'll be damned if the film mentioned it. It's identity, what is Revelation meant to be exactly? Is it an action film with it's race against time & standard army bad guys, or maybe a horror with it's brief supernatural elements & one or two gore scenes, or maybe it's a drama with everyones personal issues coming out & characters predictably falling in love, or maybe more of a political thriller with it's inclusion of the Church & U.S. Government? Revelation & it's makers can't seem to decide what it is & what makes it even worse is that it skips across various genres trying (& failing miserably) to explore various themes & issues. Revelation is just a complete mess from the confusing opening flashbacks to the lame ending which doesn't make a blind bit of sense & resolved virtually nothing, hey guys I've just wasted nearly two hours watching this crap you made & the least you can do is put some effort into a satisfying climax. There's a touch of nudity & a bit of gore with a skinless body & torture by iron which looked very painful. The acting throughout Revelation is awful & at least Terence Stamp had the good sense to be killed off less than half way through the film, Udo Kier is the only cast member I have any time for & is always fun to watch but even he looks bored. Technically Revelation is OK & generally well made, some of the European locations look nice too but I'm clutching at straws now trying to find things to praise in this rubbishy film. Overall I hated Revelation, it's dull, uninteresting, far fetched & too far stuck up it's own backside trying to be clever & thinking that it's succeeding. I'm glad I saw it on TV for free because if I had actually paid money to see this crap I'd be very upset... Definitely one to avoid, you have been warned!

Miss this film at all costs

[unfamous · 25 August 2002]

I rented this on DVD not knowing what it was about, or how good it was. Sometimes I walk away with a surprisingly good film, but not this time. (Maybe it was the image of Terence Stamp on the cover that assured me it couldn't be all bad.) The acting is weak with little or no emotion. You feel no empathy towards the characters who recite their lines like they were reading shopping list. Dead pauses in the script were seemingly immune to the editor's splices. Oh, I could go on, but it's easier to just say, "Miss this film at all costs!"

A Complex and Confused Story

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 8 May 2004]

The millionaire Magnus Martel (Terence Stamp) invites his son Jake (James D'Arcy), the mystic girl Mira (Natasha Wightman) and some scientists to investigate the secret of a treasure called Loculus, where the nails which hold Jesus Christ on the cross would be stored. Magnus indeed belongs to a secret society, and he asks his son to destroy the Loculus. However, another dark secret society, with the leadership of The Grand Master (Udo Kier), tries to retrieve the box with its secrets to develop a child with the DNA of Christ. This movie is a complex story about themes like alchemy, astronomy, mysticism, science, occultism and others. However, maybe due to the running time of only 111 minutes, the story is very confused and the characters are not well developed. I liked it, but I feel that this intriguing story could be better and better. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): `A Revelação' (`The Revelation')

Just awful!

[ajpreece · 1/10 · 5 October 2005]

Difficult to write anything really....have just watched this film on television but gave up shortly before the end. I'm only writing this because I am so angry that the broadcasters saw fit to show this truly dreadful film. The story was impenetrable and the acting made it worse. I don't think that I've seen a film where the lead actor and actress seem in such different worlds to each other. No chemistry or anything else. Terence Stamp looked bored and the others made zero impact, I'm afraid. Were we supposed to be scared, excited, intrigued or what?? Can't write any more constructive or destructive comments, the film really doesn't deserve it. Deadful waste of time....silliest film ever!

Not as bad as they say

[james-commins · 8/10 · 28 February 2008]

Just to point out some errors with the above comments, and to point out things you might have missed.

Actually the loculus is just a red herring, a bunch of packaging, for the actual objects hunted.The nails from the crucifixion, the DNA of Christ, for the purposes of cloning.

The loculus was hidden under two inches of sand in a place with acros up because, well, the acros were there to help support a very old building till it was renovated (you see that all the time in cathedrals) and because the loculus was in the care of Terence Stamp's character, Martel, until some point prior to the beginning of the film. It was hidden later by his associate, the nuts guy who end up nailed to a ceiling with his liver cut out. He hid it in a bit of a rush. The secret everyone was looking for was not where the loculus was, but it fact, how to use it. The loculus is the lock, the container. The nails are the secret remember.No one knew they were there, because everyone was busy trying to solve the box's puzzles and symbols.

Incidentally, the reason the devil guy still wants to take out the witch and Jake is simple enough, their child conceived in the church is the 'natural' messiah, as opposed to the cloned version. Ironically, the cloned version therefore can be seen as the 'Antichrist'.The plot to clone it from original DNA, but in secret, so that the 'controlled' created version matches DNA records. Thereby verifying its credentials. Its actually quite good, and probably would have made a very good trilogy of books rather than a single film.

I suppose you could call it a Pagan/Christian reformation text, but then I would be being too clever by half.

Where this separates from its millennial tensions cousins is that arguably it ends a bit more downbeat. I.E devil cardinal looking after his Vatican sanctioned official 'new-Christ' and the witch-mother cradling the true rebirth. Ambiguous.

interesting mix of story and history

[ksf-2 · 7/10 · 8 April 2021]

The real star of the film is the Loculus, an ancient religious piece with huge historical significance to many. Wikipedia dot com tells us the general definition for loculus is small place or satchel. Over the centuries, various experts and leaders have tried to break down its meaning, without success. Terence Stamp is Lord Martel, the most recent guardian of the ancient object. He asks his nephew Jake (James D'Arcy), an expert code breaker, to find it and destroy it before it falls into the wrong hands. Kind of a Temple of Doom meets DaVinci Code adventure. It's filmed in very low light, so we miss a lot of what's going on. That may account for the low rating, after 1500 votes on imdb. The film also references the discussion of Newton's work in chemistry and the occult. As wiki points out, studying and publishing chemistry and/or magic was forbidden in england during this time, so we may never discover the real extent of Newton's work in this area. Some beautiful filming locations, as Jake and Mira (Natasha Wightman) run around searching. And having awkward sex. It's pretty good. Not as bad as the ratings would have you think. The ending is a little confusing... open to interpretation. Which is probably what the writer intended. Pretty good stuff. Directed by brit director Stuart Urban. Has won a couple BAFTAs. Story by Frank Falco.

The worst garbage I've seen in 42 years.

[mikekelly38 · 1/10 · 9 February 2006]

(Apologies in advance for the use of capitals). I've seen a lot of bad films in my life, but this takes the proverbial mick. I won't add to what the other detractors have said, as they have said it far more eloquently than I ever could, except for this, I watched the DVD once purely because Terence Stamp was in it, then THREW it into the bin in disgust, the only time I've EVER thrown a DVD away. This film is at the bottom of the heap of godawful 'Millennial' films made and released around the same period. Terence Stamp is a superlative actor whose career had spanned nearly forty years by the time this DROSS was released, so why the hell did he agree to appear in it? (if appear is the right word, blink, he's on, blink, he's gone).

120 minutes of disappointed

[gimpytrousers · 15 April 2002]

I was baised towards this film as I know someone in it. I feel so sorry for the producer as he must have had great visions for this film, as did I. There are some shocking moments that leave you wide eyed and disbelieving what you have just seen, but it seems like a decent film spoiled by some terrible acting.

The last line that Jacob says.... had us rolling around in laughter from its pure cheeseyness.

How did such a good story line get made into such a Straight-to-TV quality film?

Could have been so good. Ended up as disappointing.

Could have been better...

[riverliving · 5/10 · 23 July 2005]

I think the story for this movie is a good one and had the potential to be a great flick. Unfortunately it was not very well done, which I think is especially disappointing since the story was really quite thought provoking. I'm a huge James D'Arcy fan, and I think he's a great actor that was cast in a flick that was destined to be mediocre and, OK, cheesy...

***SPOILER*** The sand scene at the end (you'll know it when you see it) had me ROLLING on the floor laughing - it reminded me of something out of a bad '80s TV series - it's SO silly that the movie is worth watching just for that laugh.

Awfullest Film Ever

[RebeccaWolfe85 · 1/10 · 12 June 2002]

This was a waste of my time and money. I didnt understand half of it - probably because after 10 minutes I entered a coma... These are the dullest actors I have ever seen... real people dont talk like that and real films dont bore like that. I mean why bother. If you cant tell your story in an interesting way then get off the stage.

dreadful waste of an idea

[taralkaid · 2/10 · 13 September 2002]

I picked this up from a video shop, attracted by the novel idea and the perceived mark of quality given by Terrence Stamp. What a mistake. The acting is incredibly poor, the dialogue is genuinely embarrassing at times and the initially promising plot quickly descends into 'running around screaming' and off the shelf ideas before collapsing into farce (the final scene with Udo Kier made me cringe - I kept expecting him to grow a moustache and start twirling it!). Add to this the fact that there is no ending, just the set up for a sequel (which must be highly unlikely now) and you have a film with nothing to recommend except an interesting idea. Just watch ANYTHING else - it really is that bad...

interesting thriller but with a bad ending!

[kvlassis · 7/10 · 14 April 2002]

Overall the film was great, up to the point that the embryo seem to be growing outside a woumb... But the ending was not as expected!

Either the director wanted a sequal (which I doubt) or wanted to leave the viewer with the mystery feeling of 'what's next?' and 'why did this happwn?' but I believe all movies should have a clear cut ending, understood by all rather than confuse people who will just say 'never mind' and walk away!

A miraculously bad movie - I love it.

[Dereksdontrun · 1/10 · 13 August 2003]

Saw this at a press screening and thoroughly enjoyed myself. Can't remember ever being in an audience that was laughing as much as this. Brings tears to my eyes now just thinking about poor Celia Imrie's death scene (that squeak!) or Derek Jacobi getting tied up with rubber gloves. How the hell did this get made?

The real puzzle is that director Stuart Urban was behind the greatest British TV series of the 1990's - Our Friends in the North. I guess he just shoots whatever script he's given good or bad.

Honestly, Revelation is soooo very very bad that I might even buy a copy of it to watch when I'm stoned. Hilarious.

New spin old tale, fair to good acting, nice locations

[hellfire-21 · 7/10 · 2 March 2006]

I found the movie to have a nice pace and allowed the viewer to follow along without getting lost. While there was a lot of information and background to set up the story they did a nice job of getting you up to speed without overwhelming you at the beginning as some movies can.The acting could have been better as I have seen all of the main actors before but I don't think it mattered here. The story didn't demand that you fall in love with the performance just that you believed what they were trying to say and I did. I thought the way it was shot (kind of a low budget indie feel) added to the story as it wasn't over produced which can take away from the movie. It kind of looked like a period piece in contemporary times which worked here. I liked the look of the film, the locations shots were very attractive and didn't overpower the atmosphere and draw you away from the story. With bible themed movies popular again I thought they did a good job telling the story without being preachy or two far fetched. No surprise it didn't win any awards but for a nicely paced movie with a great villain and good looking actors worth the price of a rental.

Utter rubbish

[vanceastro43 · 2/10 · 4 April 2002]

Complete rubbish in all departments. Bad acting, story, editing, effects and the 2nd worst (after Saffron Burrows) british actress I've ever seen in Natasha Wightman.

Terence, what were you thinking ?! and who put downers in your coffee ?

Don't waste your money on this. It really is that bad !

I actually enjoyed this film.

[04ashtonc · 9/10 · 13 May 2005]

Well - i don't really see why the guy on this page has said so many bad things about this film.

I saw it was on so i decided to give it a try - and the interesting start got me into this film, and i kept watching to the end despite being rather tired at the time. This film has a real mix of things in it, and it has like "Wow, i don't actually know whats going to happen next" feel to it.

If you like movies and don't notice bad acting or if you are adaptable enough to enjoy films with weird story lines, i recommend you watch this.

Not quite a Revelation...

[kai81 · 7/10 · 20 January 2005]

Despite what you may think, Revelation (2001) is certainly not one of the worst of its kind. It tells the story of an ancient relic known as Loculus which dates back to the time of Jesus Christ. Ever since, the good has battled the evil over the relic. In present day a millionaire, played by Terence Stamp ("The Limey") has got a hold of Loculus, and now wants to unlock the secret of the artifact. Things will not happen as expected, which leads to the trail to doomsday for the mankind (and cheesy finale special effects).

In what seems like a mixture of religious mumbo jumbo and ridiculous storyline development, Revelation manages somehow to pull through as a somewhat winner. The story has got some parallels to Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" (released two years later), but manages never to be as thrilling as it. The Order of the Knights Templar and other intriguing aspects of the story are not dealt enough to lift it above the average level. This leaves instead more time for the main characters to travel all over Europe in search for the key to unlock the mystery. (Anyone who's ever been to Malta will notice that the island will stand in for the Mediterranean countries...) Honestly, some of the clues are not very well made up, considering nobody could find them in almost two thousand years. What saves Revelation is that it can't be taken too seriously and has some nice visual touches that make it entertaining viewing.

The acting is decent, but by no standard excellent. Terence Stamp has not much to do despite first billing, which means that James D'Arcy ("Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World") gets to play the hero, assisted by Natasha Wightman ("Gosford Park") and Liam Cunningham ("Dog Soldiers"). The only one who manages to stand out is Udo Kier ("Blade") who once again makes a good performance, which is exactly what you expect from him.

*** (3 out of 5)

Cool idea but boring

[mary_jokennedy · 1/10 · 18 September 2001]

I didnt get it. At first I thought it was a pastiche - but there arent enough jokes - even allowing for your weird english sense of humor - we dont do irony in a big way back home.

The cinematography is good and the locations are great - Europe and the Middle East. But the dialogue is stilted and the acting isnt great. The lead woman sets feminism back a millenium - her drippy dreary submissiveness is yukky. As a 21st century independent american woman I prefer my Magdalenes to have more pizzaz!

The plot is too complex to follow, and lacks the tension of a whodunit movie or the suspense of a horror movie (my teenage nephew wanted to go after an hour). Are the baddies time travellers or eternal beings - I dont know.I thought the opening scene was a homage to Life of Bryan - until I realized that this was meant to be a serious fantasy horror - It'll maybe work ok in england where you guys get the irony - but I cant see doing so well back home.