In time, will SP be more or less appreciated?

1282931333451

Comments

  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    Thank you!
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
  • ClarkDevlinClarkDevlin Martinis, Girls and Guns
    Posts: 15,423
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    I'm also one of the few who champions Feirstein. He always gets the bad rap.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and puerile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and purile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    So you're saying TWINE is P+W's fault?

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and purile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    So you're saying TWINE is P+W's fault?
    TWINE is where I started to see things getting out of hand, and it got much worse with DAD. Whether that's on account of P&W, I don't know, but it's certainly a coincidence if it wasn't them. I was concerned for CR, but it looked like Haggis's polish greatly helped that film. This is why I suggested that someone needs to come in to clean up their tripe in the future. The opposite of what they did on SP. Let them do the first draft and then get someone else to finesse the dialogue.
  • BondAficionadoBondAficionado Former IMDBer
    Posts: 1,889
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and purile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    So you're saying TWINE is P+W's fault?
    TWINE is where I started to see things getting out of hand, and it got much worse with DAD. Whether that's on account of P&W, I don't know, but it's certainly a coincidence if it wasn't them. I was concerned for CR, but it looked like Haggis's polish greatly helped that film. This is why I suggested that someone needs to come in to clean up their tripe in the future. The opposite of what they did on SP. Let them do the first draft and then get someone else to finesse the dialogue.

    Yes, the writing in DAD is quite difficult to digest.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    A little bit of trivia that I didn't know about P&W until fairly recently was that "Christmas Jones" was inspired Christmas Humphreys, a prosecutor in the infamous Derek Bentley case.

    This case was made into a 1991 film Let Him Have It with a script written by P&W.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102288/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

    Past comments on these boards have suggested P&W are given a hard time by fans and that their scripts were often compromised by other parties. I've heard Apted misguidedly allowed his wife to chip in with script ideas in TWINE and Lee Tamahori "added" several moments that weren't in the original drafts (including the Tsunami sequence.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Thanks for posting. That's news to me. I always thought she was inspired (sarcastically) by Indiana, right down to her outfit when we first meet her.

    Dr. Jones, if you will.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 11,189
    bondjames wrote: »
    Thanks for posting. That's news to me. I always thought she was inspired (sarcastically) by Indiana, right down to her outfit when we first meet her.

    Dr. Jones, if you will.

    The character is probably inspired by the likes of Lara Croft but the name was a nod to their earlier film.

    However I presume someone said: "we have to have a silly pun in there somewhere if we are going with a character called Christmas"
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 142
    Bonds decent into the underworld, beginning with SF and culminating in SP, was a nice twist to the old standard Bond. Like Cocteau’s Orpheus, or Wagner’s Siegfried, Bond transcends his persona of the white knight we are familiar with as created by Fleming and later Young with Connery, to confront his exact opposite in Blofeld. The opening scenes of SP is so metaphorical with the” Day of the Dead” parade, and Bond’s first appearance in a death mask, that it’s hard to miss this story line and where it is leading. Understandably many Bond fans don’t enjoy this depiction of 007. Mendes has removed the good guy, white hat, and plunged Bond into the role of Dark Knight. A risky move by EON, but it’s a pleasant twist to the Bond story. A death like Mr. White saying “…the word of an assassin”, to Bond’s plea for help is classic, and funny at the same time. Even Dr. Swann (that metaphorical name is too much), the daughter of Mr. White, saving Bond from his funeral pyre (his loss of his spiritual self) at the hands of Blofeld, and betraying Spectre’s real existence earlier to Q and Bond is Wagner’s Valkyrie, except that in the end, because Bond is Bond, they win. Bond’s white hat is restored (he refuses to kill Blofeld just for the sake of killing him, though disappointing to his bloodthirsty fans). This is definitely not the old Terrance Young, or Ian Fleming Bond, suave, and debonair, but a good addition to the 007 story, and a fun way to move the plot along from the previous Bond movies.





  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    I somewhat agree with you, @Legionnaire.

    It is now been 16 months since I first saw SP. It's grown on me considerably since then, and I think it will be more appreciated in the future. How much will depend on Bond 25. DC and CW need to return. Spectre's role as a pseudo-Illuminati organization needs to be flushed out some more.

    But aside from some of the flaws in plot and a third act that still seems rushed, Spectre is warming itself to me. I realized this the last time I watched it, and I took great delight in the Morocco scenes, from the arrival at L'Americain to when Bond and Madeleine spot the Rolls Royce. The music, the art direction, the costume design...all "marvelous."

    Mendes takes a bad rap on these boards, but the quality of SF and SP, from a technical standpoint, is unsurpassed. Both films have been crafted by a master.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    edited March 2017 Posts: 257
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and puerile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    OK - except Feirstein was still involved in TWINE.... GE and TND, despite some good points, weren't what I would call well-written when it comes to plot or dialogue. DAD, among its many many flaws, had a tiny bit of Fleming in it at the very least. The tongue was certainly purposefully placed in the cheek for DAD - shooting for fun and big laughs for the 40th Anniversary (and missing). I'd say Purvis and Wade's work since then has been leagues ahead of what had happened in the interim after Maibaum.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    TripAces wrote: »
    Mendes takes a bad rap on these boards, but the quality of SF and SP, from a technical standpoint, is unsurpassed. Both films have been crafted by a master.
    =D>
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and puerile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    OK - except Feirstein was still involved in TWINE.... GE and TND, despite some good points, weren't what I would call well-written when it comes to plot or dialogue. DAD, among its many many flaws, had a tiny bit of Fleming in it at the very least. The tongue was certainly purposefully placed in the cheek for DAD - shooting for fun and big laughs for the 40th Anniversary (and missing). I'd say Purvis and Wade's work since then has been leagues ahead of what had happened in the interim after Maibaum.
    Fair points. I realize that Feirstein was involved in TWINE, but some of the overt childishness in the attempted humour in the banker's office suggested the involvement of someone new. That sort of infantilism continued in DAD, which is what led me to conclude that it must be P&W. Yes, there has been improvement since then no doubt, but if I'm not mistaken, others have been called in to clean things up and augment, including the aforementioned Haggis, Joshua Zetumer (QoS), Logan (SF & SP) and Butterworth (SP).
  • Posts: 4,044
    TripAces wrote: »
    I somewhat agree with you, @Legionnaire.

    It is now been 16 months since I first saw SP. It's grown on me considerably since then, and I think it will be more appreciated in the future. How much will depend on Bond 25. DC and CW need to return. Spectre's role as a pseudo-Illuminati organization needs to be flushed out some more.

    But aside from some of the flaws in plot and a third act that still seems rushed, Spectre is warming itself to me. I realized this the last time I watched it, and I took great delight in the Morocco scenes, from the arrival at L'Americain to when Bond and Madeleine spot the Rolls Royce. The music, the art direction, the costume design...all "marvelous."

    Mendes takes a bad rap on these boards, but the quality of SF and SP, from a technical standpoint, is unsurpassed. Both films have been crafted by a master.

    Mendes certainly has a vision of how he wants to drive a Bond film, it just isn't shared by a lot of people here.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited March 2017 Posts: 23,883
    vzok wrote: »
    TripAces wrote: »
    I somewhat agree with you, @Legionnaire.

    It is now been 16 months since I first saw SP. It's grown on me considerably since then, and I think it will be more appreciated in the future. How much will depend on Bond 25. DC and CW need to return. Spectre's role as a pseudo-Illuminati organization needs to be flushed out some more.

    But aside from some of the flaws in plot and a third act that still seems rushed, Spectre is warming itself to me. I realized this the last time I watched it, and I took great delight in the Morocco scenes, from the arrival at L'Americain to when Bond and Madeleine spot the Rolls Royce. The music, the art direction, the costume design...all "marvelous."

    Mendes takes a bad rap on these boards, but the quality of SF and SP, from a technical standpoint, is unsurpassed. Both films have been crafted by a master.

    Mendes certainly has a vision of how he wants to drive a Bond film, it just isn't shared by a lot of people here.
    I get what he was trying to do, but I just think he was more successful with SF because he went all in with his vision. With SP, he looked like he was trying to straddle between his overriding theme and traditional Bondian attributes, which he attempted to sprinkle throughout the film in a 'lip service cliched' style reminiscent of the disappointing 90's.

    At the end of it all, I didn't quite enjoy his stylistic attempts nor did I enjoy the traditional elements. It felt to me like he tried to do too much and bit off more than he could chew. If they had pared it down a bit, there would have been a better film on display. I certainly admired his ambition, but not his execution the second time out.
  • Posts: 142
    @vzok,@TripAces Mendes may get a bad rap on these forums, but he’s got what it takes to direct both award winning films and theater productions. The difference between a good director and a bad one is having a vision. Anyone can write a story, anyone can make a film, or paint a painting, but without a vision they aren’t saying anything. SF and SP were good Bond films and while Mendes’ vision of Bond won’t appeal to a lot of fans, that doesn’t make them any less good Bond stories, just hard for some people to digest. Craig is such a hard edge character as Bond, it will probably be difficult to lighten up if he’s in the next Bond, but hopefully something on the playful side would be nice. Like Moore’s clownish slapstick, too much dark side of the moon stuff gets old.
  • Jazz007Jazz007 Minnesota
    Posts: 257
    bondjames wrote: »
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I'll agree that the 'marvelous/lovely' was awful and seemed like something a novice trying to emulate Bond would say. I won't comment on the genius of the Brosnan years.
    I detect a hint of sarcasm there. Perhaps a poke at Feirstein?
    Why does everyone hate him? As far as I know, he actually added some depth to Brosnan's portrayal. Yes, you read that correctly, depth.
    You are correct to detect sarcasm, but not about Feirstein. TND wasn't too bad. The idiocy began with TWINE imho. The dialogue was increasingly infantile and puerile as the Brosnan years progressed, culminating in 'innuendo galore' in nearly every line uttered in DAD. As I've said numerous before, I can only hope it was intentional in that film (perhaps to take Austin Powers head on), otherwise somebody completely lost the plot at MGM/EON for allowing it.

    OK - except Feirstein was still involved in TWINE.... GE and TND, despite some good points, weren't what I would call well-written when it comes to plot or dialogue. DAD, among its many many flaws, had a tiny bit of Fleming in it at the very least. The tongue was certainly purposefully placed in the cheek for DAD - shooting for fun and big laughs for the 40th Anniversary (and missing). I'd say Purvis and Wade's work since then has been leagues ahead of what had happened in the interim after Maibaum.
    Fair points. I realize that Feirstein was involved in TWINE, but some of the overt childishness in the attempted humour in the banker's office suggested the involvement of someone new. That sort of infantilism continued in DAD, which is what led me to conclude that it must be P&W. Yes, there has been improvement since then no doubt, but if I'm not mistaken, others have been called in to clean things up and augment, including the aforementioned Haggis, Joshua Zetumer (QoS), Logan (SF & SP) and Butterworth (SP).

    Very true - they need a chaperone.
  • Posts: 7,653
    I think Mendes vision was alright but he forgot in both movies to foot the story with decent scripts. When people complain that more 007 movies had poor scripts I will agree but those directors did something with them that made the look good and enjoyable. I can see what what Mendes wanted to do but while his movies have got great moments they lack cohesion and have plotholes 22 other 007 movies can drive through them side by side.
    Mendes failed to do the Fleming 007 any credit and the movies may look good occasionally but that is not what I like about this franchise so much. For me Mendes is a question of diminishing returns, I find that the QoB 007 gets a real bumdeal with this director, for me Craig 007 is CR/QoB.
    And I think that only CR will be really be remembered when the next 007 starts his run, And on the basis of GE/CR I can understand how people would love to see Campbell return, he is not a great director but managed to re-invent a new 007 twice.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 3,327
    Jazz007 wrote: »
    I smell nit-picking....

    "It all sounds marvelous/lovely" is chump change compared to "Pump her for information," getting "the trust of it," how "Christmas only comes once a year" ... Or, my favorite: "Revenge is not hard to fathom for a man who believes in nothing." What?? If he believes in nothing, wouldn't revenge be hard for him to fathom??

    Would Fleming's Bond have even said "keeping the British end up" - or, worse, be known for keeping his "tip up"?

    They're finally taking this stuff seriously again and suddenly everyone is a Fleming purist. You must be joking.

    No you are right. The Brosnan era was an utter disaster. I don't even really class them as Bond movies.

    Maibaum just about got the right tone with Fleming dialogue on films that were close to the novels - LTK in particular. But P&W still haven't. CR was getting closer to it, but still not perfect.

    I am pleased that the tongue-in-cheek has been dropped, and the lines are more serious in tone. But now P&W need to do a bit more research and actually start writing dialogue how Fleming Bond would sound in the books. This ain't rocket science. You would have thought they would have got that by now, given the amount of time they have worked on Bond.

    If P&W always need their work finessing or polishing by another writer, then obviously they aren't good enough in the first place - or am I missing something here? Surely this isn't that difficult to find a decent screen writer who understands the character of James Bond, knows how he would speak, and also knows how to adapt the still untapped Fleming material.

    I am sure there are thousands of talented unemployed screenwriters out there that would jump at the chance, if given the opportunity.

    And yes - I've always been a Fleming purist.

  • Posts: 3,327
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

  • Posts: 4,044
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.
  • Posts: 7,653
    A lot of folks will rarely read a book when the movie is available.
  • Posts: 19,339
    SaintMark wrote: »
    A lot of folks will rarely read a book when the movie is available.

    Totally right.

  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    Some random thoughts, in response to some good recent posts on this thread:

    1. How much of a hand did Mendes have in the scripts for SF and SP? I might be wrong, but it seems that the first draft of SF was done before Mendes agreed to come on board. And then when Logan delivered the script for SP, Mendes seemed miffed by how bad it was--suggesting he was not steering the story much.

    2. Ultimately, Babs and Michael have control and responsibility for the franchise. The problems with SP lay at their feet, first and foremost.

    3. The more I watch SF and SP, the more I see a true Jungian approach that coincides very well with Fleming, who was interested enough in Jung to translate a lecture he did on Perecelsus--an early alchemist. The idea of alchemey (of refining one's self) is a theme in both films, as is the theme of the "shadow" and the duality of the soul. I have no problems at all with these explorations and thought they were done effectively, especially in the case of SF.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    At this point the rampant and cartoonish hate SP gets means that, by any logic, it can only go up in people's minds. You'd think Mendes poured acid on a maternity ward of babies, judging by the mewling here.

    I'm not ignorant of some of SP's faults, but its massive style, art direction, vintage flair, performances, character work, themes/motifs and attention to Bond's development from the reckless man of CR earn massive respect from me. The amount of effort put into these films, and their ambition to not just be something you've seen twenty times before earns further respect, with the added depth and operatic power it has. The only way SP could even slightly sour is if I compared it to the early Connery (minus GF), OHMSS and the other Craig films, where it may rank in the back 6 or 7 films therein, but only because the others are so profoundly great. It's a waste of time for me to even think the Moore and Brosnan films are worthy of a comparison with SP, so I don't even bother.

    I think SP represents an interesting snapshot of where we're at in our reaction to the film industry now. Not only is everyone a critic, the criticism is almost barbaric. People think that movies that don't cross a billion are failures (even if SP got near $900 milllion), and they are better producers and writers than the people at EON who have grown up in the industry. Lastly, when people get what they asked for, they still complain. People hated seeing Bond placed in super emotional storylines that forgot the old Bond elements, so they got it all back, even the damn gun barrel. Now, people are crying for Craig to just play the Bond he did in the other films, the portrayal of the character so many hated (though I argue SP represents a Bond who has simply matured, and not a different guy at all). I just find it amusing, really. But I went through this with QOS and loads of other films, just as I will with SP. The trigger-happy culture may yet fall in line.
  • edited March 2017 Posts: 3,327
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    vzok wrote: »
    vzok wrote: »
    I don't think they are aiming for cinematic Bond to sound like Fleming.
    You're telling me!!

    And this is why they fail every time.

    But they will feel the series has been successful. Most moviegoers don't care about Fleming.

    Depends on what you see as a success. The most highly acclaimed Bond films in the series are the ones that closely resemble the books. The ones which are mostly seen as the bad apples of the franchise (DAD, MR etc.) are the films which stray very far away from Fleming.

    In Craig's tenure, I believe CR will be seen as his high point once he is done as Bond, and again this closely follows the book.

    This ain't rocket science.

    There's another element to that that changes the perception of what is going on. The Fleming based films had Fleming's source to work from, meaning the scripting process was easier. The movies that tell original stories then have it much, much harder.

    I can't think of a script that would be harder to write than a James Bond film, and the added pressure of having no core Fleming to follow while still being expected to balance what the audience wants and what the story itself needs to be different and unexpected is brutal. It's why I don't judge any scriptwriters too hard, as I understand their struggle.
  • stagstag In the thick of it!
    Posts: 1,053
    I've only watched SP once. I must find time to watch it again. I was less than impressed the first time round.
Sign In or Register to comment.