Big Mi6 James Bond film ranking game - A few stats!

1131416181924

Comments

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 23 Posts: 16,624
    Yeah, when you mention that the series didn't need saving at that point, I think although QoS was a disappointment there was still enough goodwill from CR being so brilliant that folks were still pumped for another Craig Bond, and Skyfall satisfied them more than expected, perhaps. And it leant into the Bond film tropes just that little bit more which hit the sweet spot for audiences. I still remember the lady next to me squealing with. delight and clapping when the DB5 was unveiled.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's quite a relevant film for Bond 26 in that sense. It shows you can have a well written, character based, even dare I say 'sophisticated' Bond film that does something different while being fun and able to modernise those classic Bond elements.

    Yeah for me it and Spectre hit the spot completely in terms of tone, although obviously the nostalgia thing is slightly played out now.
  • Posts: 4,310
    mtm wrote: »
    Yeah, when you mention that the series didn't need saving at that point, I think although QoS was a disappointment there was still enough goodwill from CR being so brilliant that folks were still pumped for another Craig Bond, and Skyfall satisfied them more than expected, perhaps. And it leant into the Bond film tropes just that little bit more which hit the sweet spot for audiences. I still remember the lady next to me squealing with. delight and clapping when the DB5 was unveiled.
    007HallY wrote: »
    It's quite a relevant film for Bond 26 in that sense. It shows you can have a well written, character based, even dare I say 'sophisticated' Bond film that does something different while being fun and able to modernise those classic Bond elements.

    Yeah for me it and Spectre hit the spot completely in terms of tone, although obviously the nostalgia thing is slightly played out now.

    To some extent. I like that SF was willing to really lean into that Bondian flair though and didn't feel embarrassed about really going for it, nostalgia and all. It's quite telling that the audience you were with clapped at the DB5/Bond theme (it's the sort of thing that's almost cheesy, but just works all the same). I remember going to one screening where people did a similar thing when the Bond theme kicked in as he set up the bomb to blow up his house. Never seen an audience react that way to a Bond film prior or since.

    Again, just shows those crowd-pleasing, Bondian moments always hit the spot. And if the film's great (or at least resonates) even better.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    Yeah that's the thing about SF, it creates a proper emotional response, and that makes it more thrilling and exciting.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    I also dislike the treatment of Sévérine. She would have made a great Bond girl, I wish she could have stayed 'till the end.

    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...

    Sorry, folks, I have tried and tried and tried, but I can't seem to get on board with it.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,624
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    How do you feel it does that out of interest? I can't think how you mean really.
  • Posts: 7,624
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    I also dislike the treatment of Sévérine. She would have made a great Bond girl, I wish she could have stayed 'till the end.

    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...

    Sorry, folks, I have tried and tried and tried, but I can't seem to get on board with it.

    Don't worry about it mate...You're not alone 😅
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    edited August 23 Posts: 9,086
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...
    The use of Hashima (Gunkanjima) as a villain's lair was a stroke of genius, even though most of it was filmed at Pinewood. The mansion is dreary on purpose, and quite rightly so. And regarding Istanbul, it is far better represented here than in Taken 2 from the same year, and arguably no worse than in FRWL almost fifty years earlier. Plus, James Bond movies should generally not be a mere travelogue (unlike, maybe until the 1970s when you could even sell U.S. locations like Kentucky as dream destinations to much of the world).
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 23 Posts: 16,624
    I think it is a fair complaint that as a travelogue it's not the best: you're right that Hashima was a cool and specific idea, but really otherwise the Shanghai and Turkey bits could have been set pretty much anywhere in the world, and we don't really hear from any local voices in those places. The locations (even when they're mostly studio, like Shanghai) do look gorgeous though.
    It's not the worst crime for a Bond film, but I guess I prefer it when there's a reason to be somewhere instead of it just being a backdrop (Bilbao in TWINE always comes to mind!). I suppose riding bikes over the Grand Bazaar looks pretty cool (love the music in that bit).
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I definitely noticed in the moment how ludicrous it was for Bond to be shot, fall head-first into water from such a tall height, and survive. Thankfully that's the least of the film's problems for me.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    I also dislike the treatment of Sévérine. She would have made a great Bond girl, I wish she could have stayed 'till the end.

    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...

    Sorry, folks, I have tried and tried and tried, but I can't seem to get on board with it.

    I didn't like the "exploding pen" jab back in 2012, and now it's hilarious when the same crew went on to use an exploding watch in the very next film.

    And yes, Berenice is gorgeous, but Bond bedding an ex-child sex slave is such an awkward and not-at-all-sexy moment. She gets all that buildup but only exists as a vehicle for Bond to meet Silva before she's killed off.
  • Posts: 7,624
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I definitely noticed in the moment how ludicrous it was for Bond to be shot, fall head-first into water from such a tall height, and survive. Thankfully that's the least of the film's problems for me.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    I also dislike the treatment of Sévérine. She would have made a great Bond girl, I wish she could have stayed 'till the end.

    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...

    Sorry, folks, I have tried and tried and tried, but I can't seem to get on board with it.

    I didn't like the "exploding pen" jab back in 2012, and now it's hilarious when the same crew went on to use an exploding watch in the very next film.

    And yes, Berenice is gorgeous, but Bond bedding an ex-child sex slave is such an awkward and not-at-all-sexy moment. She gets all that buildup but only exists as a vehicle for Bond to meet Silva before she's killed off.

    I also didn't like when Bond and Severine have that encounter at the bar and she says they are going to kill him when he leaves, it's nicely built up to be something exciting, and Bond does that cool salute with his martini....and then we get a really lame fight, with Bond swinging an obviously empty case around, amid the awful cgi komodo dragons!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I definitely noticed in the moment how ludicrous it was for Bond to be shot, fall head-first into water from such a tall height, and survive. Thankfully that's the least of the film's problems for me.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    I also dislike the treatment of Sévérine. She would have made a great Bond girl, I wish she could have stayed 'till the end.

    Furthermore, the locations, with the exception of the Shanghai and Macau section, are really dull. The tube, that dreary mansion, even Istanbul isn't being done justice...

    Sorry, folks, I have tried and tried and tried, but I can't seem to get on board with it.

    I didn't like the "exploding pen" jab back in 2012, and now it's hilarious when the same crew went on to use an exploding watch in the very next film.

    And yes, Berenice is gorgeous, but Bond bedding an ex-child sex slave is such an awkward and not-at-all-sexy moment. She gets all that buildup but only exists as a vehicle for Bond to meet Silva before she's killed off.

    I also didn't like when Bond and Severine have that encounter at the bar and she says they are going to kill him when he leaves, it's nicely built up to be something exciting, and Bond does that cool salute with his martini....and then we get a really lame fight, with Bond swinging an obviously empty case around, amid the awful cgi komodo dragons!

    Oh yeah, that really weak fight feels ripped from one of Roger Moore's installments. Bond's goofy, surprised pointing when the komodo is moving about is something else.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 23 Posts: 16,624
    That really made me laugh in the cinema, I love how different and surprising it is for Craig's Bond. But it takes all kinds I guess.
    For a film which folks say takes itself too seriously and supposedly thinks it's better than it is, I love how many goofy, unselfconsciously silly and old school moments there are in it. That shot in the PTS when Eve's Land Rover drives past a line of police motorbikes, who the camera settles on as they start their engines to join the chase: it's so much from the 70s/80s school of movie chases -without irony- that I love it.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    How do you feel it does that out of interest? I can't think how you mean really.

    That's a fair question.

    I didn't like the opening shot replacing the gunbarrel, the jab at the exploding (as @Creasy47 pointed out), the poem, the on-the-nose old v new theme, the on-the-nose mother theme, ... . I have the feeling it looks down upon what came before. It feels very Dark Knight-esque too, and I was never that much into that film either.

    The missing travelogue aspect is not a dealbreaker for me, but I do find atmosphere an important aspect and I find this one falls short on that account.

    I am not claiming it's a bad film, it's just not what I look for in Bond. So yes, it's down to a personal preference from my side, I don't mind admitting it.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 41,011
    I will admit, I love that opening shot, but even today I still think "now why couldn't the gunbarrel have preceded it?"

    @GoldenGun, you and I seem aligned in this: I can't knock it for being a bad film really, nitpicks aside. It's just not my kind of Bond film at all.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited August 23 Posts: 16,624
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    I don't mind plot holes in Bond films, but I'm not too keen on them when a film pretends, and I admit this is a 100% subjective feeling, to be so much better than whatever came before. This film feels like it wants to say: "Look how smart this Bond film is."

    How do you feel it does that out of interest? I can't think how you mean really.

    That's a fair question.

    I didn't like the opening shot replacing the gunbarrel, the jab at the exploding (as @Creasy47 pointed out), the poem, the on-the-nose old v new theme, the on-the-nose mother theme, ... . I have the feeling it looks down upon what came before. It feels very Dark Knight-esque too, and I was never that much into that film either.

    Okay thanks, I guess I can see how the poem might seem pretentious perhaps. I guess I'm just so in tune with it by then that it works totally, but if it hasn't clicked by then you'd probably be turned off.
    Totally agree on Dark Knight so I can sort of see where you're coming from! :)
    For me I guess they balance it well with the aforementioned goofiness and some really fun gags. I find it doesn't take itself 100% seriously.
    GoldenGun wrote: »
    The missing travelogue aspect is not a dealbreaker for me, but I do find atmosphere an important aspect and I find this one falls short on that account.

    That's interesting: I find it's absolutely dripping in atmosphere. Those shots of Bond running across the plain, backlit by the burning house.. I find those just amazing. Or even just the DB5 arriving at Skyfall, surrounded by mist, with the amazing music making it more imposing and bleak. I can't think of a Bond more atmospheric, to be honest.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,086
    I'm all with @mtm and others defending SF here, I suppose, but I would just like to add that I don't give a flying you-know-what about having a gunbarrel here or there or wherever, and with a CGI bullet coming out of it or the guy wearing a hat or not or whatever. It is just irrelevant for me. As I may have said before, it's like surveying a parking lot for what kind of, and where the, star is affixed to a Mercedes vehicle. Even if it doesn't suit your taste, it's still a Mercedes. Maybe that's why I consider NSNA a proper Bond film...much more than some others.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    Fair enough, fellas. That's the beauty of the Bond films, every entry has its fans and I applaud that.

    Btw @j_w_pepper, I also always include NSNA in my lists ;) I find it rather enjoyable to be honest.

    Now, we still have ten entries left. They are, in chronological order:

    - Dr. No
    - From Russia with Love
    - Goldfinger
    - Thunderball
    - On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    - The Spy Who Loved Me
    - Octopussy
    - The Living Daylights
    - GoldenEye
    - Casino Royale

    Every actor still has at least one outing left: Sean has four, Rog has two and the rest all have one entry still in the contest.

    Sean Connery - 4 (out of 6)
    Roger Moore - 2 (out of 7)
    George Lazenby - 1 (out of 1)
    Timothy Dalton - 1 (out of 2)
    Pierce Brosnan - 1 (out of 4)
    Daniel Craig - 1 (out of 5)

    Every pre-1990 director also remains in the competition with at least one outing, but Martin Campbell is the only post-1990 director remaining.

    Terence Young - 3 (out of 3)
    Martin Campbell - 2 (out of 2)
    John Glen - 2 (out of 5)
    Peter Hunt - 1 (out of 1)
    Lewis Gilbert - 1 (out of 3)
    Guy Hamilton - 1 (out of 4)

    Directors with no entries left:

    Sam Mendes (2)
    Marc Forster (1)
    Cary Joji Fukunaga (1)
    Roger Spottiswoode (1)
    Michael Apted (1)
    Lee Tamahori (1)

    We'll dive into our top 10 soon.

  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou, but I now hear a new dog barkin'
    Posts: 9,086
    Thanks for the wrap-up, @GoldenGun! I'm looking forward to the further results, though I don't see why the remaining two Moore films and also TB should be in the top ten :D . But hey, this is about differences in taste, no more and no less.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    Posts: 14,691
    It's looking a lot like my own top 10, except I had FYEO and LTK just scrape in. I think OP and TB would be the next two to go, although I have TB surprisingly high. My own 26-film ranking surprises me every time I look at it! I'm doubting a lot of my decisions there.
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    I can at least imagine the Top 5, and even the order of it in this ranking.....

    1. From Russia With Love
    2. Goldfinger
    3. Casino Royale
    4. On Her Majesty's Secret Service
    5. Goldeneye
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    Posts: 3,800
    I'm excited for this, which Bond film you people think would go next? #Predictions
  • Junglist_1985Junglist_1985 Los Angeles
    Posts: 1,036
    Octopussy next I'm sure, which is quite a strong showing given its overall reputation. For me, it has skyrocketed from bottom 5 to cracking my top 10 - the largest swing of any Bond film. It took a long time for it to happen.

    If I'm wrong: Thunderball.
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    Tomorrow morning I'll reveal our #10.

    In the meantime, here's a recap of our honourable mentions:

    15. Quantum of Solace
    14. Live and Let Die
    13. Licence to Kill
    12. For Your Eyes Only
    11. Skyfall
  • Posts: 7,624
    I've got 6 of those left in my list in the top 10, which I'm pretty content with! Shows my choices are not too eclectic 😂
    Be interesting to see what makes number 1, my guess is either FRWL or CR!
  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    Good morning everyone, our first top 10 entry is, naturally, our #10:

    OCTOPUSSY (1983)
    Directed by John Glen

    d4c6a6d4b9d5df47c03a317625457f5268ac2cbfbea0a75fe6514dd8e85a65e3.jpg

    "That's my little octopussy!"

    The second favourite Rog entry of the board, quite surprisingly probably for a casual 007 viewer, OP obtained one silver medal, one bronze medal and one 5th spot as its highest rankings.

    Five more members ranked it inside their top 10, while three participants gave it the 11th place. Seven participants put it somewhere between 12th and 15th.

    Which means only four members had no place for it in their top 15. Only one of them also ranked it outside the top 20, which was a 22nd place, also its lowest score.

    OP, it can be said, scores a lot better amongst the Bond fans than with general audiences. Usually near the bottom in online ranking lists, on here it has a large fanbase, illustrated also by this top 10 finish.

    In total OP collected 133 points.
  • Posts: 7,624
    OP is #7 for me! My favourite Moore Bond movie! Just wonderful entertainment, despite the few silly scenes, they don't mar a really great film. Rog is on form, Maud Adams makes a welcome return, Steven Berkoff is a terrific villain, as is Louis Jourdans Kamal Khan ( who doesn't love the way he pronounces "Octopussy!") A solid storyline, great production values ( Love Peter Lamonts War Room set!) and cracking action set pieces! The pts is great fun and I always loved the theme song, and Barrys instrumental of it, it has one of the best opening sequences of the series, and the scene where Bond diffuses the bomb, one of the most suspenseful, really well directed by John Glen!
  • SIS_HQSIS_HQ At the Vauxhall Headquarters
    edited August 26 Posts: 3,800
    This is #13 for me, I think since Moonraker that Moore became comfortable in his role, as well as showing the progression of the character (from smug to respecting), I think it continued well here.

    It have some tense moments like Bond lurking around Khan's Palace at night or the circus scene.

    But, I'll repost my quote here from another discussion (revised it a bit to fit in with this thread as this came from another thread where I've compared this film to TLD).
    OP is way more campier, more complicated in terms of plot, Bond was forced to act out of character like the Tarzan Yell, for example, it's almost a childish Bond film with how colorful it is, with all of the fantastical and over the top moments in the film (I just don't see India as a 'fit for Bond' location, especially their culture, I have nothing against the country 😅✌️, I may have been misunderstood, but with regards to Bond, I just don't see this country fit and it shows in Octopussy how it could be out of its own depth), it's just not my cup of tea, the villains in OP are weak too, the only thing about Kamal Khan was at least he have the sophistication, nice dialogues and banter with Bond (especially in the backgammon sequence), but he's not threatening, nor do I understand his motivations (it's just so convoluted), Maud Adams is great as Octopussy, the problem is, she doesn't do much and mostly just.....There, maybe even becomes more of a redundancy in the third act and just devolves into an obligatory love interest.
    the thing is, this is a Bond film and these things just doesn't fit, they looked like something out of a comedy or a slapstick film, just doesn't fit for Bond.
    I don't care if it's racist or not (after all, we have race stereotypes in older Bond films like YOLT and LALD, and yes, I could call OP one in here), the problem is, I don't want to see these things in a Bond film, It's just way too much.
    Let alone they even have a concrete plan to do it, OP looks like they just want to bring Bond to India, that's all, we have convoluted plot and uncertain story (it even has many endings, and they don't even know how to use some of the characters, what they've done with Magda? What was really Octopussy's role in the third act? The connection between Kamal Khan and General Orlov was unpolished and not at all clear, it's way too complicated, for example, this film just doesn't have a certain goal for its story or plot, it's mostly a bad travelogue of a film), they just want to show Bond in an Indian culture, it's not even came from a Fleming novel to begin with.

    OP even has two plots and one of them could be in a separate Bond film, and those two plots failed to connect with one another (TLD has two villains, but they're connected, those other things in the film were subplots or side plots, but the main plot remained certain, about Whittaker, in OP, both plots are main and doesn't seem to connect).

    With YOLT and LALD, they came from a Fleming novel, so there's a plot already, they're given a reason to bring Bond in such countries, and they already have a solid backbone, while both films strayed away from the books, at least they have certain directions, there's a guide in how to do it, there are the characters with already given roles, a background, a story, all things served some purpose to the plot or story, they're all connected in there, it's up to them to modify some aspects of it.

    With OP, they're starting from scratch, no books to act as a guide (guidance), so when they thought of a culture that they may bring Bond in, they have no idea how to do it, how to start, so what we've ended up with? Showing all types of Indian Culture stereotypes without it serving any purpose to the story or plot like those found in Fleming novels, they've been just put in there without any sense.

    It now came to my conclusion that OP is the unplanned Bond film, just full of uncertainties, maybe because they didn't expected NSNA to come out and they've all rushed to make a Bond film unexpectedly to counter with NSNA? And here it is, if my memory serves, even Moore's return was also not expected and the plan was to have this as the new Bond actor's first film, but NSNA surprised them and convinced Moore to return.

    That's said, it's enjoyable, some memorable and tense scenes here and there, and it's better than the other Bond films, if making them by comparison, but the highest I could give to it is the ranking where it is now, due to the reactions that remained consistent with me.

  • GoldenGunGoldenGun Per ora e per il momento che verrà
    Posts: 7,221
    Mathis1 wrote: »
    OP is #7 for me! My favourite Moore Bond movie! Just wonderful entertainment, despite the few silly scenes, they don't mar a really great film. Rog is on form, Maud Adams makes a welcome return, Steven Berkoff is a terrific villain, as is Louis Jourdans Kamal Khan ( who doesn't love the way he pronounces "Octopussy!") A solid storyline, great production values ( Love Peter Lamonts War Room set!) and cracking action set pieces! The pts is great fun and I always loved the theme song, and Barrys instrumental of it, it has one of the best opening sequences of the series, and the scene where Bond diffuses the bomb, one of the most suspenseful, really well directed by John Glen!

    Couldn't have said it better myself, though I would add the following:
    - great Cold War tension surrounding the Inner German Border.
    - Bond in an Alfa! Great chase too, with the police showing some competent driving for once.
    - Vijay is such a likeable ally.
    - Q's most involved role until LTK.
    - Magda!

    Orlov is probably a top three villain for me, next to Scaramanga and Fiona Volpe. He's hilarious.

    I had this at 8th, just one place below TMWTGG with whome this one is always battling for the highest Rog spot. Suffice to say, I'm a big fan of OP.
  • R1s1ngs0nR1s1ngs0n France
    Posts: 2,161
    #12
    Love the PTS and 009 being hounded by the twins is still one of the best openings to any Bond film.
    Kamal Khan is a fun villain, sort of a ‘less homicidal’ version of Drax.
    Moore’s chemistry with Adams is by far the strongest among all other Bond women, although at 56 yrs old, he’s getting closer to George Smiley territory than to Ethan Hunt or Jason Bourne.
    Overall, a pretty solid entry, although not what I’d consider top shelf Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,264
    OP was my #16. It's a bloody strong Bond film, despite the clown suit and whatnot. Alas, 15 others please me a little more. ;-) Speaking of Moore, he's at his best in this one. His age is showing, but not in a bad way. The OP Bond is mature (bar the Tarzan yell) and his bonding with Octopussy sincere. The entire cast is solid, as is Barry's score. I even like the theme song, though I'm sure I'm in a minority with that. A little tweaking here and there could push this film in my top 10 instantly.

    The best part: The PTS. Bloody awesome.
    The worst part: Victor Tourjansky. Because he's not here. You do not deny us the pleasure of Victor Tourjansky.
Sign In or Register to comment.