:00:25. > :00:27.Hello, you're watching Film 2017, a programme all about things that
:00:28. > :00:30.I'm Charlie Brooker and I'm sorry about that.
:00:31. > :00:33.It may be late but assuming you're still conscious and capable
:00:34. > :00:36.of using at least one finger, you can tweet us and say hello.
:00:37. > :00:38.Details for that are on the screen now..
:00:39. > :01:02.is up to? For 20 years? Choose a midlife crisis, Sick Boy, Christophe
:01:03. > :01:06.Lourdelet, Renton and Spud return for 78 macro. Harrowing scenes as
:01:07. > :01:14.innocent creatures are forced to sing and dance for undeserving
:01:15. > :01:20.offspring in Sing. I am fine, thank you. Just keep things light, Rebecca
:01:21. > :01:26.Hall enters the downward spiral as the journalist in tragedy Christine.
:01:27. > :01:28.Or each... Also Rachel Weisz and Timothy
:01:29. > :01:33.Spall go head to head in the courtroom drama,
:01:34. > :01:34.Denial. So joining me to give the thumbs up,
:01:35. > :01:37.thumbs down or preferably actually form sounds and words
:01:38. > :01:40.with their mouths are critics are critics Ellen E Jones
:01:41. > :01:49.and Danny Leigh... At this point it said awkward hellos
:01:50. > :01:51.on the autocue. That is pretty awkward. I just did a weird one.
:01:52. > :01:54.We start with the long-awaited sequel to the heart pumping,
:01:55. > :01:55.drug-fuelled, era-defining 1996 classic, Trainspotting.
:01:56. > :01:58.Twenty one years down the line and director Danny Boyle,
:01:59. > :02:00.double-Ewans McGregor and Bremner, Johnny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle
:02:01. > :02:03.are all back to reveal what happened next to this loveable bunch
:02:04. > :02:25.Well it begins with Renton returning to Edinburgh, which kind of
:02:26. > :02:27.reactivates the friendship of the four characters you saw on the
:02:28. > :02:34.poster and you remember from the first film. What have you been up
:02:35. > :02:38.to? For 20 years? They have always been there, these characters. They
:02:39. > :02:46.never went away. There hasn't been a single week in the last 20 years
:02:47. > :02:49.that someone has not said to me, hate, Begbie? It is that alchemy as
:02:50. > :02:57.they come back together again. I missed you, Spud. Their friendship
:02:58. > :03:03.imploded and this film finds them falling back together. And the
:03:04. > :03:10.trajectory of their struggles for the last 20 years binds them in a
:03:11. > :03:21.kind of dangerous, on a dangerous mission. That was brilliant. It was
:03:22. > :03:27.thought about ten years ago, the script was not right. It is the
:03:28. > :03:35.right time, but you're still fairly terrified. The prospect of coming
:03:36. > :03:41.back to you guys was too great. You think this is an opportunity that
:03:42. > :03:45.will never return. If anyone could pull it off, Danny could. I think
:03:46. > :03:51.the only person who could pull it off was Danny. Action! Danny is
:03:52. > :03:54.always pulling things out of the hat, all things that were not in the
:03:55. > :04:04.script, he is throwing into the film. It is his own vision. It is
:04:05. > :04:10.his own movie, really, it is not harking back to the original film.
:04:11. > :04:16.It is what Trainspotting was in the 1990s, we have never seen before. It
:04:17. > :04:20.is still a poppy style, it is quite a heightened world. There are
:04:21. > :04:24.similarities in the style, but I hope it is not a pastiche or copying
:04:25. > :04:30.of a style, it has tried to find a new one that suits this particular
:04:31. > :04:33.story. And some of the sadness that is in the story. It is not getting
:04:34. > :04:37.out of your body that is the problem, it is getting it out of
:04:38. > :04:42.your mind. You are an addict. It is about boyhood and now it is about
:04:43. > :04:46.manhood, when you realise, it is time that does not care about you.
:04:47. > :04:55.You have got to channel it, control it. People try all sorts. What did
:04:56. > :04:58.you channel into? Getting away. Obviously there is a lot riding on
:04:59. > :05:03.this film and I was nervous when I went into the cinema to watch it. I
:05:04. > :05:10.really enjoyed the first half of this film, would you say Danny Boyle
:05:11. > :05:13.was wise to revisit the past which is what the film is all about?
:05:14. > :05:18.Possibly very unwise. I have been dreading it and I think lots of
:05:19. > :05:21.people whether they were fans or not, it was dreading it, who needs a
:05:22. > :05:27.reminder of what the passing of 20 years will do to you. I think it is
:05:28. > :05:31.very funny and has all the cute and strap bombs as you would expect but
:05:32. > :05:41.it is also very blunt and bleak about the reality of not being young
:05:42. > :05:44.any more. Why do you expect strap-ons? The wreckage, the
:05:45. > :05:50.disappointment in yourself that settles over you into your 40s. All
:05:51. > :05:53.that stuff is there and it is very upfront about it. I felt like the
:05:54. > :05:58.movie was speaking to me in a way that not a lot of movies do. I would
:05:59. > :06:06.be interested in the opinion of someone who is not specifically a
:06:07. > :06:12.44-year-old man. I had a very strong coffee before watching this which I
:06:13. > :06:18.think is quite a T2 thing to do. Then took heroin! My heart was
:06:19. > :06:26.pounding and it did not stop. I was totally satisfied. With the coffee.
:06:27. > :06:29.Just completely satisfied. Very soon it washes over you, the sense of
:06:30. > :06:33.relief that Danny Boyle is back and making a film and you are in safe
:06:34. > :06:38.hands and that opening sequence where they get introduced was just
:06:39. > :06:42.as good as the first film. There is a doubt this time around. More
:06:43. > :06:47.characterisation, the relationships are moving. I have to give credit to
:06:48. > :06:52.Robert Carlyle for being genuinely scary. I felt all of these things
:06:53. > :06:55.for the first 45 minute. I was relieved and enjoying it and I felt
:06:56. > :06:59.I have not seen something like this in the cinema for ages and then, for
:07:00. > :07:05.me, the problem was that the story then devolves into kind of a caper
:07:06. > :07:07.and I was less convinced and I was not believing in it any more and
:07:08. > :07:13.there is a character Veronica who hardly seems to feature in a lot of
:07:14. > :07:17.the promo staff... She's a young glamorous woman who is hanging
:07:18. > :07:21.around but these guys. Unless she is a fan of the first film, there is no
:07:22. > :07:26.reason. It was always a bit of a caper. I think so. The first film
:07:27. > :07:31.people think of as filthy and dark but I think for all of that, there
:07:32. > :07:35.was a sense of summer holiday. It was part of this mood in 1996, of
:07:36. > :07:41.celebration and optimism and now I think this film at heart is much
:07:42. > :07:46.darker and bleaker. There are moments in this film, I have been a
:07:47. > :07:51.bit lonely about the storyline and I think it would have worked better as
:07:52. > :07:56.a miniseries. That is a good idea. There are moments that are
:07:57. > :07:59.hilarious, a scene in a pub which is one of the things that are the
:08:00. > :08:11.funniest things I have ever seen and moments of visual flair. The actors
:08:12. > :08:13.are all 20 years better. When you look at challenge macro, he has been
:08:14. > :08:16.in America and looks great and my theory about the physical
:08:17. > :08:21.dilapidation is, fall down a bit. They do not look like 45-year-old
:08:22. > :08:32.former heroin addict is -- 44 macro -- Jonny Lee Miller. There is a
:08:33. > :08:41.pathos there. The acting has got a lot better. Ewen Bremner. He is not
:08:42. > :08:47.given enough to do. I want to see more from these characters. The use
:08:48. > :08:49.of video game analogy left a little to be desired. I don't understand
:08:50. > :08:50.that. Slight change of tone now
:08:51. > :08:53.so adjust your mental filter because next we're looking at Sing -
:08:54. > :08:55.the ultra-realistic story of a theatre-owning koala
:08:56. > :08:57.who launches an X Factor-style A sort of Vermin's Got
:08:58. > :09:22.Talent if you will. Sing is set in a world like ours.
:09:23. > :09:28.All the characters have regular lives and at the centre of the story
:09:29. > :09:31.is a koala called Buster Moon played by Matthew McConaughey and his
:09:32. > :09:34.theatre is losing money and it will be taken away from him and he tries
:09:35. > :09:41.to stage something popular, a singing competition. A singing
:09:42. > :09:50.competition! You follow five characters who are competing, an
:09:51. > :09:59.elephant... There is a porcupine, played by Scarlett Johansson. A pig
:10:00. > :10:07.played by Reese Witherspoon. As by self -- says McFarland and a gorilla
:10:08. > :10:13.played by myself. # I would say the things I want to
:10:14. > :10:24.say... Most of our principal cast have to sing their own songs. There
:10:25. > :10:29.you go! You are a natural. That was both a challenge and a trait for a
:10:30. > :10:34.lot of them. I am not thinking this. Johnny, you were supposed to be
:10:35. > :10:39.keeping a lookout. Sorry, dad. But then animated film, the world is so
:10:40. > :10:45.much larger-than-life and you have to really be muscular in the way you
:10:46. > :10:50.deliver lines. This stage is about to explode with PB Power. I am so
:10:51. > :10:55.sorry, I have no control. Even though the film starts with the
:10:56. > :10:57.premise of a singing competition. It is never about recreating what we
:10:58. > :11:01.see on television, it is about getting to the heart of stuff that I
:11:02. > :11:05.love the most which is ordinary folks, having a shot at the big
:11:06. > :11:09.time. Having a shot to chase their dream and the drama that comes with
:11:10. > :11:17.trying to do that. You think you can sing like that? In front of a real
:11:18. > :11:20.audience? I don't know. But I want to try. Now, I am someone who is
:11:21. > :11:27.predisposed to despise that bet that happens at every CGI cartoon and at
:11:28. > :11:31.the end of the film, the animals saying low Bamber as the end credits
:11:32. > :11:36.roll and this is basically that bit of the movie and yet, I really
:11:37. > :11:40.rather enjoyed it. I am very surprised to hear that. This really
:11:41. > :11:44.fits in with my theory that some children's films are designed to
:11:45. > :11:48.amaze children and others are designed to torment their parents
:11:49. > :11:54.and this really felt like that to me. You hated it. It won me back a
:11:55. > :11:59.bit towards the end, but it is relentless pop music and often quite
:12:00. > :12:04.short snatches and you feel like you are being assaulted by pop songs and
:12:05. > :12:08.it is very colourful... All these things people like! Like toe-tapping
:12:09. > :12:13.music and colour is! What is wrong with you? They could have had a
:12:14. > :12:17.thought for the parents. It is nice that it is all structured around a
:12:18. > :12:21.singing competition because that is a very normal thing, we do not get
:12:22. > :12:24.enough of those. We want to have more of those but it feels like a
:12:25. > :12:30.singing competition because it feels like a lot of talented well-meaning
:12:31. > :12:35.people frantically trying to inject some idiosyncrasy into a very
:12:36. > :12:39.familiar old format. Koalas... Can we talk about the fact that I
:12:40. > :12:42.watched this film with my children and I was watching it with a
:12:43. > :12:46.two-year-old who frankly you could put in front of a poster and he
:12:47. > :12:49.would stare at it and a four-year-old and they enjoyed it,
:12:50. > :12:57.they laughed and all the right places... Where they morally
:12:58. > :13:09.improved by it? I don't care! I was just about to say... You're sitting
:13:10. > :13:17.online, doing the big shop... I think koalas are a terrible role
:13:18. > :13:29.model. Buffalo gets treated shabbily. Boo-hoo! It's not real.
:13:30. > :13:34.What I want from a kids film... To get me wrong, I would not watch this
:13:35. > :13:41.as an adult, but as a kids film, my kids loved it. Yes, it was extremely
:13:42. > :13:47.predictable, it was a very simple story, but my eldest is four years
:13:48. > :13:52.old, he wants predictable. Sue troublous set the bar high. He has
:13:53. > :13:56.not seen that. Did you not find it weird with Matthew McConaughey?
:13:57. > :14:02.Sometimes with these cars, you have no idea who the people are. They
:14:03. > :14:06.have got nice voices. Matthew McConaughey is very much heaven, he
:14:07. > :14:13.is the terrible koala from the word go and I found it very difficult not
:14:14. > :14:16.to see Matthew McConaughey from the wolf of Wall Street. My
:14:17. > :14:23.four-year-old has not seen the wolf of Wall Street. I was jealous about
:14:24. > :14:27.the music. There was an amazing number of what must have been
:14:28. > :14:33.incredibly expensive songs, starting with the Beatles, that is showing
:14:34. > :14:37.off. They paid for it. If you can get Katy Perry and toss it away on
:14:38. > :14:41.the scene of a pig doom washing-up... I want something that
:14:42. > :14:51.will distract kids and not absolutely appalled me and this did
:14:52. > :14:54.the job. The last time I went to the cinema to see a kids film it was the
:14:55. > :14:57.secret life of pets and lots of people were sitting there on
:14:58. > :14:59.Facebook looking at fake news and I think that this it is entertaining
:15:00. > :15:05.enough that you would get up and watch it.
:15:06. > :15:07.Right another tonal gear shift now because next up,
:15:08. > :15:09.Rebecca Hall stars as local US TV reporter, Christine Chubbuck,
:15:10. > :15:11.who shot herself live on air in 1974.
:15:12. > :15:21.Her final days is the subject of the dark drama Christine.
:15:22. > :15:27.I am a reporter and I'm always on the lookout for a positive human
:15:28. > :15:35.interest story. This is my first of the season. The film takes place
:15:36. > :15:42.over about ten days prior to this act that Christine Chubbuck did,
:15:43. > :15:50.which is that she took her life on live television. I had a huge
:15:51. > :15:54.responsibility to her, to her memory, to make her a human being
:15:55. > :16:05.that you empathised with. Are you OK? Yes, just... Summer allergies.
:16:06. > :16:08.I had 15 minutes of footage, which I watched religiously, it took me
:16:09. > :16:12.about three months to prepare for this role, and what started as an
:16:13. > :16:17.impression had to turn into something different if I was to have
:16:18. > :16:23.a chance of doing it well. Don't lose sight of what you have here. So
:16:24. > :16:28.as much as I was finding a voice and physicality, was trying to work out
:16:29. > :16:32.what it is like to be in that level of pain, what happens to my body, my
:16:33. > :16:36.voice, when I am that uncomfortable in my own skin, so in that case, it
:16:37. > :16:40.came from me. These flowers are fake, it sums up
:16:41. > :16:47.the whole operation! Esteem, go home! These people are ruining me.
:16:48. > :16:54.These people... Why will no one listen to me?
:16:55. > :16:59.She is a woman who symbolises a transformative moment in cultural
:17:00. > :17:03.history. It is a simple concept, if it bleeds, it bleeds. This movement
:17:04. > :17:10.from ethical journalism to if it bleeds, it leads reporting. This
:17:11. > :17:15.idea that you don't exist unless it is seen by a camera. TV 30 presents
:17:16. > :17:23.what is believed to be a television first.
:17:24. > :17:31.Now, I have to say, I wasn't entirely sure what to make of this
:17:32. > :17:35.film. I found Rebecca Hall mesmerising and fascinating from
:17:36. > :17:39.beginning to end. And I wasn't sure if the film itself knew what it was,
:17:40. > :17:44.because there are elements of dark comedy, moments where it is a really
:17:45. > :17:51.depressing character study of a very lost soul, and also elements of
:17:52. > :17:55.satire to do with the newsroom and politics in the 1970s, so I didn't
:17:56. > :18:00.know what to make of it at all. I think it is all of the above. The
:18:01. > :18:04.thing about Christine is it is the film you expected to be, because you
:18:05. > :18:08.reduce it down to this one idea of what happened to her, and that is
:18:09. > :18:13.the film, you will catch up with it at some point, but it isn't quite
:18:14. > :18:17.the day, but this isn't that film. It is human and hypnotic and
:18:18. > :18:21.reminded me of almost like a Paul Thomas Anderson movie, it has that
:18:22. > :18:27.American 70s back drop, it has Michael C Hall who is 70% Philip
:18:28. > :18:33.Seymour Hoffman. And in the middle this sad character who ends up in TV
:18:34. > :18:37.trying to do good important work and clearly TV is no place for a human
:18:38. > :18:40.being anyway, so you know how the movie is going to end, but what is a
:18:41. > :18:47.tribute to it is that by the time you get to that scene, you don't
:18:48. > :19:01.want it to happen. Christine, I feel invested in it, it is my cat maxing.
:19:02. > :19:09.The central performance. -- it is my Saying. I think there is so much
:19:10. > :19:16.focus on Christine, everything else is sketched hazily, the bosses just
:19:17. > :19:22.literally shouting the subtext at them. What did you make of it? I did
:19:23. > :19:25.think that her performance was so good it overshadowed the rest, but I
:19:26. > :19:30.also left it confused about what I was supposed to take from it,
:19:31. > :19:34.because it focuses on the last months of her life, it can't help
:19:35. > :19:39.but be about her death, so it gives us something that is leading in
:19:40. > :19:44.extra towards the end even though it gives us hope human side. There is
:19:45. > :19:48.also stuff about how news became entertainment, although maybe you
:19:49. > :19:53.should be watching Network or Spotlight if that is your take, and
:19:54. > :19:56.it is good on the way Patriarca takes its toll on within in the
:19:57. > :19:59.myriad ways that it does, but a lot of that still hasn't changed enough
:20:00. > :20:04.for this to be an interesting period piece for me. There is a whole
:20:05. > :20:08.industry of films and TV shows about tormented male antiheroes, and it is
:20:09. > :20:15.refreshing to see Rebecca Hall playing a part. Christine is often
:20:16. > :20:18.not even likeable or good at her job, she does human interest stories
:20:19. > :20:22.and doesn't seem to be able to connect with people, so that is
:20:23. > :20:27.fascinating. And it is a hard not to play, because it isn't an issue
:20:28. > :20:30.movie, you can't explain why what the problem is, so she is playing a
:20:31. > :20:34.character who was dissolving, but for reasons we don't quite know and
:20:35. > :20:41.in ways that we don't often quite notice. And you can't tell where her
:20:42. > :20:44.personal mental illness ends on the social situation she is in begins.
:20:45. > :20:50.But having said all of that, I don't know if I would recommend it to
:20:51. > :20:53.someone as an entertaining film. I would recommend it to anyone who
:20:54. > :20:58.works in journalism to say, this is what the future holds. I like the
:20:59. > :21:03.way it treats journalism, because we speak of that time, the 70s,
:21:04. > :21:10.Watergate, the watershed investigative journalism, you can
:21:11. > :21:12.see this line from there to click bait, and you can see that mapped
:21:13. > :21:15.out. We have to move on. Our last film is Denial,
:21:16. > :21:17.released on Friday, which just happens to be Holocaust Memorial
:21:18. > :21:19.Day. Rachel Weisz stars as US professor
:21:20. > :21:27.Deborah Lipstadt who was sued for libel by disgraced historian
:21:28. > :21:29.David Irving and found herself in the momentous
:21:30. > :21:32.position of having to prove, in court, that the holocaust did
:21:33. > :21:44.indeed actually happen. The Holocaust happened. That isn't
:21:45. > :21:53.opinion, that is fact, and I were debate fact. Denial is about Deborah
:21:54. > :21:58.Lipp stat who has written many books, one of them is called denying
:21:59. > :22:04.the Holocaust, and she did a few paragraphs about David Irving who is
:22:05. > :22:11.a Holocaust denier. According to the evidence I have seen, there were no
:22:12. > :22:19.gas chambers anywhere. Lipstadt accused David Irving of being a
:22:20. > :22:22.Holocaust and I, so he takes to court. So she has to prove in court
:22:23. > :22:29.that it did happen, almost impossible to do. Here is one of the
:22:30. > :22:34.largest killing machines in human history. It is how we prove what it
:22:35. > :22:38.is. The Holocaust happened, every body knows it, but once you have to
:22:39. > :22:45.prove it, it is harder than you think. There are no holes in the
:22:46. > :22:49.roof, there were no gas chambers. When we were making it, it was
:22:50. > :22:54.before Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, so it couldn't be more
:22:55. > :22:59.timely. In an age that has never been so riddled with information and
:23:00. > :23:07.so difficult to find the truth in that information, information,
:23:08. > :23:12.opinion and fact I different things. He's not a racist. He is a liar and
:23:13. > :23:17.a falsify of history. This is about the fight for truth
:23:18. > :23:21.and justice around this trial. The Earth is round, the ice caps are
:23:22. > :23:27.melting and Elvis is not alive! At the end of the court case, there
:23:28. > :23:30.might be a piece of paper, if she loses, that says the Holocaust did
:23:31. > :23:33.not happen. It suddenly becomes respectable to set the Holocaust
:23:34. > :23:43.didn't happen? ! Timothy Spall was alluding to that,
:23:44. > :23:49.we live in an increasingly worrisome post-truth alternative fact era with
:23:50. > :23:53.a resurgence of the far right. So in many ways, this feels like a very
:23:54. > :23:59.timely film, even though it is about a trial that ended in the year 2000.
:24:00. > :24:03.It asks a Topical Questions, which is how do you debate with madmen and
:24:04. > :24:07.liars and people who believe the alternative fact of a thing, but it
:24:08. > :24:18.is also weirdly out of step, because there is a lot to admire. Howdy
:24:19. > :24:24.mean? A lot of people want escapism, the musical is doing very well, Lala
:24:25. > :24:30.land, but it is also how do you go to a civilised court room, and it
:24:31. > :24:35.was justified, and it got to the end, and it feels very 1990s. It is
:24:36. > :24:40.a very good performance by Timothy Spall. He manages to do something
:24:41. > :24:46.that communicates a real deadness of his soul in his eyes. You see him
:24:47. > :24:55.come to life in front of the camera, David Irving, and then you see the
:24:56. > :24:58.shark eyes. His costume is this jovial English chap in Tweed who is
:24:59. > :25:01.ready with a funny sound bite for the cameras but obviously has this
:25:02. > :25:09.deeply sinister agenda, I don't know if that would remind anyone of
:25:10. > :25:13.anyone, but somebody does! I think there is a problem structurally with
:25:14. > :25:18.the film which is that because it is about truth and a very sensitive
:25:19. > :25:22.subject, and David Hare, all the dialogue you see in the courtroom
:25:23. > :25:25.scenes is lifted verbatim from the court transcript, the problem with
:25:26. > :25:28.that in a way is that what happened in the trial was that Deborah
:25:29. > :25:33.Lipstadt was sidelined, she was denied the right to speak, the
:25:34. > :25:40.opportunity to speak in court, and the problem, I don't think that
:25:41. > :25:43.leads to good drama, because... It does make an interesting point,
:25:44. > :25:47.there is a great line in it about how England is a club and David
:25:48. > :25:50.Irving just wants to belong to it, and it makes a nice point about how
:25:51. > :25:56.there might be other people who are excluded, and maybe Geber Lipstadt
:25:57. > :26:02.is one of them. But it doesn't lead to drama. There is brilliant
:26:03. > :26:05.writing, but maybe because Deborah Lipstadt is over from America has to
:26:06. > :26:10.have the English legal system explain to her a lot, there are also
:26:11. > :26:13.a lot of moments where the film is explaining itself, and David Hare is
:26:14. > :26:20.a great writer, but it can feel a little bit like your slightly deaf
:26:21. > :26:24.relative, and it is tapping you money, and saying, have you
:26:25. > :26:29.understood this bit? He feels like every legal person you have ever
:26:30. > :26:34.met, which is quite fascinating. It isn't the film's fault, but
:26:35. > :26:42.because it takes at the end of the 1990s, I couldn't help thinking
:26:43. > :26:47.about This Life. There was a secret in Auschwitz -- a sequence in
:26:48. > :26:58.Auschwitz, and a sequence where Rachel Weisz, and we saw an
:26:59. > :27:02.impressionist scene of people herding down the steps, but to me it
:27:03. > :27:07.was more powerful to feel what she was imagining and experiencing. I
:27:08. > :27:13.think that is right. I think if you film in Auschwitz, you just film.
:27:14. > :27:20.Now I have to do a total shift and ask you what your film of the week
:27:21. > :27:32.was. It has to be T2. I am going to say Christine. Not Sing? Mine would
:27:33. > :27:35.be Trainspotting again, because although there were moments in it
:27:36. > :27:44.that I felt were incredible, the final shot... It is not a spoiler.
:27:45. > :27:49.Right, that's almost it, your ordeal's virtually over.
:27:50. > :27:51.Lauren Laverne will be here next week, and she's
:27:52. > :27:54.But we'll leave you with a whiff of Hacksaw Ridge
:27:55. > :27:57.directed by Mel Gibson - there's a man who should
:27:58. > :28:00.His film Hacksaw Ridge stars Andrew Garfield as an American GI
:28:01. > :28:02.who distinguished himself in World War II despite
:28:03. > :28:15.This is a personal gift from the United States government designed to
:28:16. > :28:27.bring doubt to the enemy. I can't touch a gun, Sergeant. You don't
:28:28. > :28:30.kill? No, sir. Do not look to him to help you on the battlefield. It
:28:31. > :28:35.doesn't seem like a bad thing to me to want to put part of the world
:28:36. > :28:36.back together. You are free to run into the hellfire of battle without
:28:37. > :28:46.a single weapon to protect yourself. Help me. You will have to trust me.
:28:47. > :29:07.You had better come home to me. It's something that drags you in
:29:08. > :29:18.and crushes you to nothing.