Max Payne (UK - DVD R2)
Marcus thinks that all game movies are the same and nothing's changed here.
Editor's Note: It has come to my attention that this disc may not represent the disc that will be on sale in the UK, due to the shorter running time and lack of bonus material.
Feature
Based on the video game, (does anyone even say ‘video’ game anymore?) Max Payne stars Marky Ma—sorry—Mark Wahlberg, as depressed cop Max, who since the murder of his wife and child has been obsessed with finding their killer.
As his investigation leads him further into the dark underbelly of New York’s crime scene, Max begins to come up against a whole new kind of criminal and a new drug fuelled conspiracy that may be the key to finding the man that he’s been after for so long.
Max Payne joins the ever growing pantheon of game movies, a new(ish) sub genre that in all honesty doesn’t seem to be evolving into anything of worth. Each using ever so slightly different ingredients, all of these adaptations, no matter what the storyline, just seem to create the same cookie-cutter results and frankly it’s all getting a little tiresome.
The main problem with the game to movie conversions is that no matter how blurry the line between the two is becoming, they are drastically different entertainment experiences. Bar a few exceptions (the Metal Gear Solid series, a Few Final Fantasy instalments amongst others) games generally have paper thin plots for players to fill the gaps in with their gaming imaginations. The hokey acting, over the top characters and wild events laid out in most games' cut away sequences, are essentially only there to lay the seeds for your unique experience whilst playing and as proven with many a game movie, this just doesn’t hold up on film, even if it excels within the games. I mean, I love all the Grand Theft Auto games, storylines and all, but put this in a movie and it’s just gonna suck... or be like Crank, which while fun isn’t exactly inspiring.
I’ll admit upfront, I have no history with Max Payne. I know the title and some of the artwork from the game, but if you presented me with a multiple choice of screen shots from it, I’d struggle to pull one out of the line up. The story presented in Max Payne the movie (which I’d hope is the same as the game) isn’t that bad of an idea, even if it has been done a thousand times before (and better) in movies and the X-Files. Drug fuelled almost indestructible soldiers is not a new thing and military cover ups for the failed experiments is far from unique, but Max Payne comes with its own angle and it’s this element I liked. Sort of.
The idea that this drug ‘Valkyr’ gives the users the feeling of invincibility is tired, but the visuals of the dark winged demons/angels/gods that encompass them and how the world seems to distort around them were pretty damn good, if it wasn’t for one thing: it is literally only in the users' heads. No matter how dark and brooding the movie plays, hinting that there may be more to these killing that we are led to believe, the let down comes when all of the flashy visuals are literally just hallucinations rather than physical manifestations. I don’t know, this might just be me, but I was pretty much on board with all of this until I realized the movie is essentially just drug addled terrible characters getting shot and if you want to keep the descriptions in the gaming world, it’s like the bad guys are bouncing on an invincibility TV set from the Sonic series and they are surrounded by stars but no one else can see them. It just made it all feel a bit hollow and tacked on for me.
As for the cast, there’s little of note. Marky Ma—sorry—Mark Wahlberg does his usual performance of looking slightly baffled, like he’s working out a really hard sum in his head, mixed with the odd angry snarl pretty much sums it up but to give him his due, he still manages to carry a movie with ease (even if it’s another not too good one). Olga Kurylenko does we she does best and looks amazing all of the time and Mila Kunis plays the sidekick well enough, but there’s no denying the awkwardness of her overall look whilst holding a gun. Beyond that there’s a super clichéd performance from Beau Bridges and as this is a game movie, the cool MTV kids are kept happy with the inclusion of Ludacris and Nelly Furtado.
Max Payne could be good if the same story hadn’t been told so many times before. It would have a chance if any of it didn’t feel so throw-away and uncared for. Some of its action is passable, many of its visuals are well executed and Olga looks bloody great but all in all, this is just another game movie; another glossy, pretty looking, effects driven, slightly impressive stunt work, paper thin and sloppily written take on its playable counterpart. It’s watchable, in places it’s even engaging but once you're done, I highly doubt you’d feel the need to go back.
Video
Despite my overall dismissal of the movie itself there’s no denying that Max Payne looks pretty good overall, if not a little nineties with its big use of sets. The stylistic choice to have falling snow and burning ember against a city's darkened streets and some pretty impressive slow motion demon and stunt shots is really what saves the movie from relying completely on its recycled plot.
The transfer holds up exceptionally well in all areas with its clean image and use of warm and cool hues. This being standard definition means it’s never quite as sharp as it should be but despite its limitations I was still pretty impressed overall. The use of lighting is a key factor to why this works so well and even though the majority of the movie is quite muted, colours are used well when they are called for and skin tones and textures all stand up really well.
I haven’t really been watching a lot of movies in standard definition for a while due to being 95% Blu-ray with my purchases of late, but I’ve got to say, watching Max Payne proves there’s life in the ol’ DVD format yet (even though I’d wager that this will be one hell of a pretty looking Blu-ray transfer).
Audio
Once again, Max Payne manages to impress with a satisfying sound mix that feels balanced and strong. The movie uses the rear speakers very effectively with loads of atmospheric sounds, such as falling ember, splintering wood, breaking windows and gun shots but it all manages to feel part of the overall sound design and never just a thrown in sound effect.
It’s a mix that fits the style of the movie well, without too many overbearing loud blasts to pull your attention in when you drift off (though there are a few). There’s plenty going on from kooky to action sound effects and all in all Max Payne does its job very well in the sound department.
Extras
None. Unless you count the trailer for Notorious. The US release seems to have a slightly better splattering but this review copy and the UK release in general seems to have gotten a little left out in the cold in the extras department.
Overall
20th Century Fox had a pretty lacklustre 2008 when it came to big box office draws and Max Payne is a prime example of where the studio is going wrong. Taking a franchise and merely putting it on screen with a handful of action shots and some pretty cast members just doesn’t cut it.
On the surface Max Payne looked like it could have had some potential, even if Mark Wahlberg isn’t a screaming sign of quality. Unfortunately the movie just ends up slipping into the ever growing trash pile of game-to-movie translations that clog up late night TV and feature in the three for £15 deals on the high street. Resident Evil, Hitman and Doom for £15—what a night in that would be! Urgh. Maybe fans of the game see something in this that I missed but I’ll remember this as the one where Olga Kurylenko looked great in that red slip dress because everything else was just plain forgettable.
Review by Marcus Doidge
Advertisements
Existing Posts
I didn't mind the Resident Evil movies - try them when you are slightly drunk with your mates and you will see what I mean...
Casting whispering b***h from Smallville wasn't the brightest move.
Have you seen that new Street Fighter trailer? It really doesn't bode well does it.
I understand there is a second Streetfighter & also a Tekken movie being planned. Can't say I'm excited.
This film wasn't faithful to the game's plot at all. The game was written and unfolded like a film, but ironically, the film ignored the game and went it's own direction. The game was an ode to 40s film noir, with Max even referencing Sam Spade in the stylish narration (which, of course, is absent from the film.) I firmly believe video game adaptations can be good, if the filmmakers truly care about the source material like Nolan cared about Batman or Jackson cared about LOTR.
aphexbr wrote: I don't have to read this when a short story, novel, comic book or even song lyrics are the inspiration for a movie. I'm tired of reading this for video game movie reviews.
Trust me - I'm far more critical with comic book to movie conversions.
Plus i think with Game movies, you read this stuff because the majority of game movies are treated the same way as Max Payne was. i.e not very well and reviewers/viewers want the film to be good. I know that when and if they ever do a Metal Gear movie that it had better be perfect.
Trust me - I'm far more critical with comic book to movie conversions.
Plus i think with Game movies, you read this stuff because the majority of game movies are treated the same way as Max Payne was. i.e not very well and reviewers/viewers want the film to be good. I know that when and if they ever do a Metal Gear movie that it had better be perfect.
There's nothing wrong with reviewing a film without knowing previous entries in the franchise or even alternative media that it was based upon. As James Cameron has said about sequels he's made (and he'd know because he rocks at them), you should be able to watch any film in a series in isolation without having to trawl through hours of backstory.
Obviously there's certain films that DEMAND you to know previous releases (Godfather, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars) but having none/little prior knowledge of a film series makes for a fresh and objective perspective on the film being considered.
Also, plenty of critics have played both Max Payne games and reviewed the film and it still tanked critically.
Obviously there's certain films that DEMAND you to know previous releases (Godfather, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars) but having none/little prior knowledge of a film series makes for a fresh and objective perspective on the film being considered.
Also, plenty of critics have played both Max Payne games and reviewed the film and it still tanked critically.
Chris Gould wrote: Marcus is reviewing the film - he doesn't need to have any knowledge of the games to do this. The film should stand on its own without the need to know the back-story.
That's not the point though. I wasn't criticising Marcus because he reviewed the game without knowledge of the backstory. I did so because he seems to blame the bad elements of the storyline on the game, then admits he doesn't know what the game is about. Do one or the other - criticise the storyline of the film (in which case, who cares where it came from) or criticise the adaptation. Don't trash the videogame plot then turn round and say that you've never played the game. That would be like trashing elements of Benjamin Button that you don't like, then turning round and saying that proves that
I'm a fan of the Max Payne games, and I wasn't insulted at all, probably because I can separate a film review from of a game review (and also because I don't get worked up about someone's subjective opinion on something I had no creative involvement with).
Quote: Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Quote: In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games.
Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games? I've just read the review again and nowhere does he bash the games. He simply stakes his opinion about the film and game-to-film adaptations in general. Seriously, I think you're reading way too much into this and seeing criticism of one medium as criticism of the franchise as a whole.
Chris Gould wrote: Marcus is reviewing the film - he doesn't need to have any knowledge of the games to do this. The film should stand on its own without the need to know the back-story.
That's not the point though. I wasn't criticising Marcus because he reviewed the game without knowledge of the backstory. I did so because he seemed to blame the bad elements of the storyline on the game, then admits he doesn't know what the game is about. Do one or the other - criticise the storyline of the film (in which case, who cares where it came from) or criticise the adaptation. If you're disappointed because you're a fan of the game, say that. Don't start a review with a 2 paragraph rant about how video game plots don't work on film and then admit you've never played the games in this series. Nobody feels the need to start off their Die Hard 2 or Benjamin Button review with a critique of their original sources, so why does this happen with video game movies?
Quote: How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Yeah, exactly. I meant that it was a great example of a poor adaptation of a game. It's also an example of how studios tend to change movies to something completely different to what the game actually was (turning a zomibe/horror game into a dumb action movie with some sci-fi elements). Blaming the faults of the Resident Evil movie series on the games is like blaming the games for the shortcoming of Max Payne. So why does this review seem to place the blame squarely on the game's shoulders? I haven't seen the uncut version of Max Payne, but most of the failings have little, if anything to do with the game, so why start with a trashing of the damn medium?
Quote: Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games?
I interpreted it differently on first read, I admit. but there's a thread of disdain throughout - he even compares some sequences he doesn't like to Sonic - so maybe I read more into it on first read.
Maybe I over-reacted, maybe not. It's just getting very tiresome to keep having to read trashing of games every time I read such a review - even reviews which have a lot of positive feedback seem to have to start with some kind of a disclaimer about video games. I don't have to read this when a short story, novel, comic book or even song lyrics are the inspiration for a movie. I'm tired of reading this for video game movie reviews.
(Excuse the above entry - I have no idea how a half-written draft ended up there please delete if you can...)
That's not the point though. I wasn't criticising Marcus because he reviewed the game without knowledge of the backstory. I did so because he seems to blame the bad elements of the storyline on the game, then admits he doesn't know what the game is about. Do one or the other - criticise the storyline of the film (in which case, who cares where it came from) or criticise the adaptation. Don't trash the videogame plot then turn round and say that you've never played the game. That would be like trashing elements of Benjamin Button that you don't like, then turning round and saying that proves that
I'm a fan of the Max Payne games, and I wasn't insulted at all, probably because I can separate a film review from of a game review (and also because I don't get worked up about someone's subjective opinion on something I had no creative involvement with).
Quote: Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Quote: In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games.
Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games? I've just read the review again and nowhere does he bash the games. He simply stakes his opinion about the film and game-to-film adaptations in general. Seriously, I think you're reading way too much into this and seeing criticism of one medium as criticism of the franchise as a whole.
Chris Gould wrote: Marcus is reviewing the film - he doesn't need to have any knowledge of the games to do this. The film should stand on its own without the need to know the back-story.
That's not the point though. I wasn't criticising Marcus because he reviewed the game without knowledge of the backstory. I did so because he seemed to blame the bad elements of the storyline on the game, then admits he doesn't know what the game is about. Do one or the other - criticise the storyline of the film (in which case, who cares where it came from) or criticise the adaptation. If you're disappointed because you're a fan of the game, say that. Don't start a review with a 2 paragraph rant about how video game plots don't work on film and then admit you've never played the games in this series. Nobody feels the need to start off their Die Hard 2 or Benjamin Button review with a critique of their original sources, so why does this happen with video game movies?
Quote: How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Yeah, exactly. I meant that it was a great example of a poor adaptation of a game. It's also an example of how studios tend to change movies to something completely different to what the game actually was (turning a zomibe/horror game into a dumb action movie with some sci-fi elements). Blaming the faults of the Resident Evil movie series on the games is like blaming the games for the shortcoming of Max Payne. So why does this review seem to place the blame squarely on the game's shoulders? I haven't seen the uncut version of Max Payne, but most of the failings have little, if anything to do with the game, so why start with a trashing of the damn medium?
Quote: Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games?
I interpreted it differently on first read, I admit. but there's a thread of disdain throughout - he even compares some sequences he doesn't like to Sonic - so maybe I read more into it on first read.
Maybe I over-reacted, maybe not. It's just getting very tiresome to keep having to read trashing of games every time I read such a review - even reviews which have a lot of positive feedback seem to have to start with some kind of a disclaimer about video games. I don't have to read this when a short story, novel, comic book or even song lyrics are the inspiration for a movie. I'm tired of reading this for video game movie reviews.
(Excuse the above entry - I have no idea how a half-written draft ended up there please delete if you can...)
aphexbr wrote: No offence, Marcus, but I really wish that people would stop reviewing video game movies by first trashing video game plots as a whole, then go on to admit they have no experience with the game this particular movie was based on. It's lazy, dishonest and insulting to the fans of the games, especially when you get movies like Hitman, Alone In the Dark and - yes - Max Payne, where the game's plot and characterisation were much, much better than (and often totally different to) the movie's.
Gotta love posts that begin with 'no offence' and then go on to be offensive. Marcus is reviewing the film - he doesn't need to have any knowledge of the games to do this. The film should stand on its own without the need to know the back-story. I'm a fan of the Max Payne games, and I wasn't insulted at all, probably because I can separate a film review from of a game review (and also because I don't get worked up about someone's subjective opinion on something I had no creative involvement with).
Quote: Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Quote: In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games.
Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games? I've just read the review again and nowhere does he bash the games. He simply stakes his opinion about the film and game-to-film adaptations in general. Seriously, I think you're reading way too much into this and seeing criticism of one medium as criticism of the franchise as a whole.
Gotta love posts that begin with 'no offence' and then go on to be offensive. Marcus is reviewing the film - he doesn't need to have any knowledge of the games to do this. The film should stand on its own without the need to know the back-story. I'm a fan of the Max Payne games, and I wasn't insulted at all, probably because I can separate a film review from of a game review (and also because I don't get worked up about someone's subjective opinion on something I had no creative involvement with).
Quote: Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
How is that a great example? He mentions Resident Evil as an example of a bad game to film adaptation. How is that disparaging the games? The Resident Evil films are poor. It doesn't matter that Romero might have written an hypothetically amazing script if it isn't the film that was actually made. Also, the games weren't blamed for Resident Evil's shortcomings, Paul W. S. Anderson was (at least by everyone I've ever discussed it with).
Quote: In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games.
Where did he do that? I can't see that he's written anything negative about the games. He expressly says that he hasn't played them, so how can he be targeting the games? I've just read the review again and nowhere does he bash the games. He simply stakes his opinion about the film and game-to-film adaptations in general. Seriously, I think you're reading way too much into this and seeing criticism of one medium as criticism of the franchise as a whole.
If the impression in my review is that I trash game plots, it was not intended.
All I was saying was, bar a few exceptions, many games are constructed to allow the player to fill in many of the plot points with their gaming experience, whereas movies lay it out for you. Playing through a plot in a game is a far different experience to following one in a movie and aren't the easy conversion that studios seem to think they are. For example, I swallow a lot more 'out there' stuff in a game than I do in a movie, just because I'm taking part in the events rather than being forced to accept them as a hokey movie plot point.
I have zero issue with most game plots - My target was the lack of understanding/care that goes into the movie adaptation, not the games themselves.
All I was saying was, bar a few exceptions, many games are constructed to allow the player to fill in many of the plot points with their gaming experience, whereas movies lay it out for you. Playing through a plot in a game is a far different experience to following one in a movie and aren't the easy conversion that studios seem to think they are. For example, I swallow a lot more 'out there' stuff in a game than I do in a movie, just because I'm taking part in the events rather than being forced to accept them as a hokey movie plot point.
I have zero issue with most game plots - My target was the lack of understanding/care that goes into the movie adaptation, not the games themselves.
No offence, Marcus, but I really wish that people would stop reviewing video game movies by first trashing video game plots as a whole, then go on to admit they have no experience with the game this particular movie was based on. It's lazy, dishonest and insulting to the fans of the games, especially when you get movies like Hitman, Alone In the Dark and - yes - Max Payne, where the game's plot and characterisation were much, much better than (and often totally different to) the movie's.
Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games. I agree that the movie wouldn't really be remarkable in any way except for its star and "source material", but I do wish people would stop using those as the only attack point.
Another great example - you mention Resident Evil, a series of games featuring lots of Romero-inspired zombies (and related mutant creatures) as the main threats. Romero himself put together the original script - apparently excellent - which was turned down because the studio didn't want to make a zombie movie... yet the games were blamed for any shortcomings those movies had. Sigh...
In this case, the hallucinations and angels/demons are a complete fabrication of the movie's plot - they weren't in the games at all, so this plot point shouldn't be used as a way to target the games. I agree that the movie wouldn't really be remarkable in any way except for its star and "source material", but I do wish people would stop using those as the only attack point.
Olga Kurylenko(I agree she is stunning in a red dress and even better with it off), the soundtrack and the badass Valkaries were the only appealing parts to me. Definitely another film to go into the library of pathetic video game films.
Kurylenko definitely looks better with the red dress off. This was actually a reasonably faithful adaptation of the game, but it was nowhere near as entertaining. The Max Payne games are really good, but this was just another exercise in meh.
Suitable only for persons of 15 years and over
Disc Details
Release Date:
13th April 2009
Discs:
1
Disc Type:
Single side, dual layer
RCE:
No
Video:
PAL
Aspect:
2.35:1
Anamorphic:
No
Colour:
Yes
Audio:
Dolby Digital 5.1 English, Descriptive Dolby Digital 5.1 English, Dolby Digital 5.1 French, Dolby Digital 5.1 Dutch, Dolby Digital 5.1 Italian
Subtitles:
Hard of Hearing English, French, German, Italian
Extras:
Trailer
Easter Egg:
No
Feature Details
Director:
John Moore
Cast:
Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Olga Kurylenko
Genre:
Action, Crime, Drama, Film-Noir, Mystery and Thriller
Length:
95 minutes
Ratings
Amazon.com
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Hot Interviews
Doug Naylor
DVD
Ricky Gervais Part One
DVD
Simon Heller
DVD
David Prior: Part Two
DVD
Vince Colosimo
DVD
Released Soon
Gangster Squad
UK - DVD R2 | BD
The Last Stand
UK - DVD R2 | BD RB
Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn
UK - DVD R2 | BD RB
Finding Nemo
UK - BD RB
Nailbiter
US - DVD R1
Hot Reviews
Fire and Ice: Limited Edition
US - DVD
Dragonball Evolution: Z Edition
US - BD RA
OC: The Complete Third Season,The
UK - DVD R2
Pinky and The Brain: Volume 1
US - DVD R1
All Ladies Do It
UK - BD RB
Most Talked About
More Scream Factory News
US - BD RA
Texas Chainsaw (2013, 2D)
US - BD RA
Spring Breakers
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Prince of Darkness
US - BD RA
Host, The
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
