input question: Given the following context:  Matthew Van Helsing, the alleged descendant of the famed 19th century Dutch physician Abraham Van Helsing, owns an antique shop built over the site of Carfax Abbey in London in 2000. One night, with Van Helsing upstairs, his secretary, Solina, allows a group of thieves, led by her boyfriend, Marcus, into the shop. The thieves infiltrate the shop's underground high-security vault and find a sealed silver coffin protected by a deadly defense system. Based on the level of security surrounding the coffin, Solina and Marcus decide that the coffin's contents must be valuable, so they escape with it and flee to New Orleans. When Van Helsing discovers that the coffin has been stolen, he boards a plane to America, telling his apprentice, Simon Sheppard, to remain in London. Simon does not follow these instructions and follows his mentor. Aboard the plane, one of the thieves manages to open the coffin, revealing the dormant body of Count Dracula. Dracula awakens and attacks the thieves, causing the plane to crash in the Louisiana swamps. Dracula survives the crash and travels to New Orleans, where college students Mary Heller and Lucy Westerman are living. Mary is estranged from her family and has recently been plagued by nightmares of a strange, terrifying man.  answer the following question:  What city was the silver coffin located when it was stolen????
output answer: London

input question: Given the following context:  Andy, Trevor, and Billy are childhood friends. As young adults, Billy sells drugs and Andy does deliveries for him. One night, Trevor delivers instead and gets busted by narcs. 5 years later, Trevor is released from jail and learns his girlfriend Laura is now with Billy. Trevor gets back with her and decides to rob a local mobster.  Trevor wants some cash to buy Laura some gifts and Andy was told by some local mobsters that they are investing money with huge profits and he wants some cash to buy in. However, their robbery is very sloppy and the head mobster quickly figures out what happened.  However, he and Andy's grandfather were good friends, so he tells Andy and Trevor that they can work off what they owe by smuggling stolen diamonds. Billy finds out what is going on and is mildly amused by it until he realizes that Trevor has gotten back together with Laura behind his back.  He retaliates by convincing the mobsters that Trevor is a junkie and is stealing the diamonds that he is supposed to be delivering to supply his habit. He also convinces the diamond dealer that Trevor cannot be trusted with real diamonds and he gives him fake diamonds instead.  When he delivers them to the mob, they quickly spot them as fakes and assume Trevor switched them. Billy figured by doing this, the mobsters would send a goon to kill Trevor and with him out of the picture, he could have Laura back with no blood on his hands. However, since he was the one to notify the mobsters, they tell him if he wants Trevor dead he has to do the killing himself. He finds Trevor at Laura's house having just made love and kidnaps him at gunpoint. He takes Trevor to a field to kill him. Even though Trevor begs for his life and Billy struggles with his conscience for the briefest of moments, he pulls the trigger anyway, killing Trevor in cold blood.  answer the following question:  Who was good friend's with Andy's grandfather????
output answer: head mobster

input question: Given the following context:  Given the standings of the two men, the painting was received in both social and political terms. A number of writers mentioned Bertin's eventful career, in tones that were, according to art historian Andrew Carrington Shelton, either "bitingly sarcastic [or] fawningly reverential". There were many satirical reproductions and pointed editorials in the following years. Aware of Bertin's support of the July Monarchy, writers at the La Gazette de France viewed the portrait as the epitome of the "opportunism and cynicism" of the new regime. Their anonymous critic excitedly wondered "what bitter irony it expresses, what hardened skepticism, sarcasm and ... pronounced cynicism".Several critics mentioned Bertin's hands. Twentieth-century art historian Albert Boime described them as "powerful, vulturine ... grasping his thighs in a gesture ... projecting ... enormous strength controlled". Some contemporary critics were not so kind. The photographer and critic Félix Tournachon was harshly critical, and disparaged what he saw as a "fantastical bundle of flesh ... under which, instead of bones and muscles, there can only be intestines – this flatulent hand, the rumbling of which I can hear!" Bertin's hands made a different impression on the critic F. de Lagenevais, who remarked: "A mediocre artist would have modified them, he would have replaced those swollen joints with the cylindrical fingers of the first handy model; but by this single alteration he would have changed the expression of the whole personality ... the energetic and mighty nature".The work's realism attracted a large amount of commentary when it was first exhibited. Some saw it as an affront to Romanticism, others said that its small details not only showed an acute likeness, but built a psychological profile of the sitter. Art historian Geraldine Pelles sees Bertin as "at once intense, suspicious, and aggressive". She notes that there is a certain amount of projection of the artist's personality and recalls Théophile Silvestre's description of Ingres;...  answer the following question:  What was critic Félix Tournachon describing when he said "antastical bundle of flesh ... under which, instead of bones and muscles, there can only be intestines – this flatulent hand, the rumbling of which I can hear!"????
output answer:
Bertin's hands