96 replies to this topic

[ACE]

... the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Can't wait to tuck in, though!

Well, you can! Unless it's force majeure, I admire your self-discipline, living in the UK and waiting until Monday to see the film. Our poor American brethren are locked out for another coupla weeks! Looking forward to your thoughts on the movie, Loomie

[Alfred Blacking]

But I still think it has serious problems mainly the to do with the whole structure of the film. It needed room to breathe, to slow down...But I still feel at it heart, it is an empty film. (Unlike Casino Royale, which was all heart).

Well done, MarkA, I think these couple of lines succinctly capture what I took a lot longer to say elsewhere on this forum.

I think that the former of your points explains the latter - the heart was edited out of QoS because it was starved of oxygen (ok the medical analogy stops here), and I don't know whether that is the fault of editor or director.

I don't believe that we were ever going to get the heart in the same way as CR, because that was down to the chemistry in the brilliantly scripted, directed and acted relationship between Vesper (formerly Vespa!) and Bond. But QoS could and should have explored what the death of the relationship, his hopes dreams and world of trust meant to Bond - the loneliness, pain and loss of innocence. We were teased with it (like the cocktail scene), but it wasn't given room to breathe or be explored in the way that CR explored the hope of their relationship in the first place.

Edited by Alfred Blacking, 01 November 2008 - 04:23 PM.

[dee-bee-five]

I think that the former of your points explains the latter - the heart was edited out of QoS because it was starved of oxygen (ok the medical analogy stops here), and I don't know whether that is the fault of editor or director.

I don't believe that we were ever going to get the heart in the same way as CR, because that was down to the chemistry in the brilliantly scripted, directed and acted relationship between Vespa and Bond. But QoS could and should have explored what the death of the relationship, his hopes dreams and world of trust meant to Bond - the loneliness, pain and loss of innocence.

It does. It's all there in the subtext for those that care to look. In fact, I would submit we learn more about Bond than we did in Casino Royale. His story arc is certainly more interesting in this one for me.

[dee-bee-five]

I don't believe that we were ever going to get the heart in the same way as CR, because that was down to the chemistry in the brilliantly scripted, directed and acted relationship between Vespa and Bond.

Bond had the hots for his trendy motorcycle? I don't recall that. Is it in the deleted scenes on the new DVD of Casino Royale?

[Alfred Blacking]

It's all there in the subtext for those that care to look. In fact, I would submit we learn more about Bond than we did in Casino Royale. His story arc is certainly more interesting in this one for me.

OK, dee-bee-five, you've been consistent in this view, so I'm intrigued. I assure you that I really did care to look, and you can see that I'm not too lazy to try to analyse the film. So, would you mind giving one or two clues to, or examples of, this subtext so I can appreciate what I'm missing?

Even so (but I'd still like to know), my point is that it's not explored in any depth. I'm not looking for the director to spell it out in big simple letters...just a few more letters would be nice.

relationship between Vespa and Bond.

Bond had the hots for his trendy motorcycle? I don't recall that. Is it in the deleted scenes on the new DVD of Casino Royale?

Well spotted! Now, how do you edit these bloody posts?

[dee-bee-five]

It's all there in the subtext for those that care to look. In fact, I would submit we learn more about Bond than we did in Casino Royale. His story arc is certainly more interesting in this one for me.

OK, dee-bee-five, you've been consistent in this view, so I'm intrigued. I assure you that I really did care to look, and you can see that I'm not too lazy to try to analyse the film. So, would you mind giving one or two clues to, or examples of, this subtext so I can appreciate what I'm missing?

Even so (but I'd still like to know), my point is that it's not explored in any depth. I'm not looking for the director to spell it out in big simple letters...just a few more letters would be nice.

Well, subtext is subtext, so it isn't always easy to put into words, particularly as most of it was conveyed for me in Craig's eyes. But I'll try.

In QoS, I saw a man who was hurting and angry at the world and Vesper particularly. He still loved her and despised her in equal measures. And he could barely control his fury at those (Quantum) who had used her to get at him. I saw a man whose grief and betrayal and anger needed an outlet; he was, if you will, Fleming's blunt intrument at his bluntest. And all around him was a world of double-dealing intelligence agencies, slimy policians and corrupt businessmen; a murky world with a moral compass so out of kilter that it was virtually impossible to stick to a sense of duty. So he was a loose cannon - unpredictable, yes, but still trying to do what he thought was right - in a ty world. But he goes on a journey; and that journey (or story arc) ends when we see him learn that there is a time to kill and a time to live or let die. In other words, QoS is a stunning dramatisation of Ian Fleming's masterly chapter about heroes and villains from Casino Royale. Swap SMERSH for Quantum and the filmmakers have given us Fleming's motivation for Bond's future career for the next films. It's all there in the script and the action and the performances, but it isn't spoonfed to us.

[Zorin Industries]

It's all there in the subtext for those that care to look. In fact, I would submit we learn more about Bond than we did in Casino Royale. His story arc is certainly more interesting in this one for me.

OK, dee-bee-five, you've been consistent in this view, so I'm intrigued. I assure you that I really did care to look, and you can see that I'm not too lazy to try to analyse the film. So, would you mind giving one or two clues to, or examples of, this subtext so I can appreciate what I'm missing?

Even so (but I'd still like to know), my point is that it's not explored in any depth. I'm not looking for the director to spell it out in big simple letters...just a few more letters would be nice.

Well, subtext is subtext, so it isn't always easy to put into words, particularly as most of it was conveyed for me in Craig's eyes. But I'll try.

In QoS, I saw a man who was hurting and angry at the world and Vesper particularly. He still loved her and despised her in equal measures. And he could barely control his fury at those (Quantum) who had used her to get at him. I saw a man whose grief and betrayal and anger needed an outlet; he was, if you will, Fleming's blunt intrument at his bluntest. And all around him was a world of double-dealing intelligence agencies, slimy policians and corrupt businessmen; a murky world with a moral compass so out of kilter that it was virtually impossible to stick to a sense of duty. So he was a loose cannon - unpredictable, yes, but still trying to do what he thought was right - in a ty world. But he goes on a journey; and that journey (or story arc) ends when we see him learn that there is a time to kill and a time to live or let die. In other words, QoS is a stunning dramatisation of Ian Fleming's masterly chapter about heroes and villains from Casino Royale. Swap SMERSH for Quantum and the filmmakers have given us Fleming's motivation for Bond's future career for the next films. It's all there in the script and the action and the performances, but it isn't spoonfed to us.

BOND once christened a drink 'Vesper'. He gets that drink handed to him again and when asked what it's called he simply and perhaps bitterly responds by claiming to not know what it is called. There is also a moment when he is almost told off by M over the FIELDS death. A moment that could have been a throwaway nod to GOLDFINGER actually becomes a very dark and stark lesson for the character in a way we don't get anymore. BOND has moved light years away from that over-filtered beach in GOLDENEYE and lazy writing nods to "what keeps him alone". SOLACE actually now shows us rather than alludes to it.

[Alfred Blacking]

Well, subtext is subtext, so it isn't always easy to put into words, particularly as most of it was conveyed for me in Craig's eyes. But I'll try... I saw a man whose grief and betrayal and anger needed an outlet; he was, if you will, Fleming's blunt intrument at his bluntest.

Well, I think you had a pretty good go at it, dee-bee-five. Thanks very much - I think your post probably explains what those who liked the film saw...and what those who didn't, believe is missing.

In some ways it is reassuring to find that we were both looking for the same thing - Fleming's Bond explored. The difference is clearly that, for some reason, some us believe that it is in there, and some of us don't. Well, not to a great enough extent anyway. I agree that you can see some emotion and frustration, but I think the drastic editing denied us the chance to explore it - it stripped a dimension from Bond. You consider that the characterisation in the film was subtle - whereas others (myself included) believe that it was shallow.

Of course, we'll all be seeing this film more at the cinema, on DVD and on TV. The chances are that there'll be a regression towards the mean, as is often the case with polarised views, over time. I'll find more nuances (I hope) and you'll find more places where it could have been explored in more depth. In the meantime, I hope this forum will help that process.

[dee-bee-five]

There are some who will claim those of us who love QoS are looking at it through rose-tinted spectacles. That we don't know are own minds. That we're in the pay of Eon/Sony. Or that we simply aren't proper Bond fans.

Well, bollocks to that. Having seen the film again, seeing even more layers than I did first time round, and having reflected on it, I can only say my initial review was...


...too restrained. This is truly a Bond movie for the 21st century. Bad news, I guess, for those rooted in the 1960s, but there we are. This is the future, so get used to it. I, for one, can't wait for the next one of this brilliant, re-imagined franchise.

[Sir James Moloney]

Bad news, I guess, for those rooted in the 1960s, but there we are. This is the future, so get used to it.

Don´t know about that dee-bee-five, you see, I found it very retro in style, so those who are rooted in the 60s, and even 70s, can have a really good time, I know I had. It´s the substance that is very 21th century, and the combination of these two elementes is brilliant.

I said from the very start that I would consider CR and QOS as a combo, but these are two very different animals that actually complement each other beautifully.

I can´t wait to see what comes next

[dee-bee-five]

Bad news, I guess, for those rooted in the 1960s, but there we are. This is the future, so get used to it.

Don´t know about that dee-bee-five, you see, I found it very retro in style, so those who are rooted in the 60s, and even 70s, can have a really good time, I know I had.

Oh, I know what you mean. I was referring to those who are wedded to 1960s storytelling where everything has to be spelled out clearly and the bad guys strut around in black lycra just so we all know they are bad guys. Don't get me wrong, I love those old movies. But they were of their time. And QoS, splendidly, is of its time.

[dee-bee-five]

Quantum of Solace has clearly been released two months early. Had it been released in January 2009, it could join OHMSS (’69), Moonraker (’79), Licence To Kill (’89) and The World Is Not Enough (’99) by being the fifth Bond movie to be released in the ninth year of a decade which polarises opinion amongst fans.

And I really understand why some fans will hate this film because Quantum of Solace is remarkable for the risks it takes and the breathtaking way it picks up the franchise by the scruff of its neck and shakes even more life into it. Casino Royale was the film that finally knocked OHMSS off its perch as my all-time favourite Bond film and I never expected QoS to be able to better it. Nor does it. But is it inferior to CR? No, I don’t think so. It’s equal, then? Yes, very nearly. But the truth is, QoS is so different from its immediate predecessor – indeed, all its predecessors - that comparisons are as pointless as they are invidious.

Those who like their Bond films as cosy bank holiday romps are not going to like this film. Those older, anal fans who think a Bond film can only be good if it were made in 1965, stars a virile Sean Connery and is directed by Terence Young (I’m in my 40s, but thankfully am not one of them) are going to positively loathe it. If, however, one is an intelligently open-minded fan who’s not blinded by silly concerns about such inconsequential considerations as where the gun-barrel is, QoS delivers pulsating, quality entertainment in spades. And given the impeccable professionalism on view – for instance, this film is possibly the most impressive visually since YOLT – that review which give it 1 out of 10 is revealed to be the idiotic nonsense one always suspected it to be. Because, make no mistake, QoS is a stunning piece of intelligent escapism which screams 2008 and redefines what a Bond film is and should be. Forget Casino Royale: this is truly Bond redesigned for a new generation and one should either embrace it – and, boy, do I – or get off the ride and find another one.

The triumph of QoS belongs to two men: Daniel Craig and Marc Forster. Craig now inhabits Bond like no other actor before him, Connery included. He can be intense and brutal when the occasion demands, but it’s a nonsense to suggest he’s a relentlessly blunt killing machine throughout. Those who will tell you there’s no humour in the movie either saw a different version than the one I’ve just been blown away by or they simply didn’t understand what they have seen. There aren’t belly laughs in QoS, but there’s plenty of subtle, knowing humour and Craig delivers the jokes with the understated deftness of an old pro. As for Forster, his style has been much-criticised. And yet it is precisely this style which gives QoS its balls and edge. His storytelling of the deliciously lean, mean script is fast but never confusing – I fail to understand how others can report the film is confusing because it was perfectly clear to me – and he directs like Peter Hunt on acid. Perhaps it’s too soon to make a definitive decision but, right now, I have no hesitation in calling QoS the best-directed Bond movie of the lot. Oh, and the script has far more reflective moments than some would have one believe. Quantum of Soulless? What rot.

Of the other characters, Judi Dench is better than ever as M; Dominic Greene is a much better villain than I anticipated (he’s in the Emilio Largo mould but, for me, much more effective than the pantomimic Adolfo Celi); Camille is superb; Fields is fun; and Leiter is much better-used this time round.

David Arnold’s score is very good, though, for me a slight notch down from CR; the locations are excellent; and the action breathtaking. And I have to say that I rather liked the credits, although the theme sounds rather less than impressive than I thought it might over them. Other criticisms? I have very few. Mathis’ final scene makes Bond seem rather more callous than I think the filmmakers intended. And the gun-barrel – although in absolutely the right place in terms of the narrative – does play just a tad too quickly.

I should just mention the ending. For me, QoS has just about the most perfect ending of any Bond film save from OHMSS. If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond, then I’m glad it was dropped because, for my money, it would have ruined the mood.

QoS takes no prisoners. It is superior entertainment made by people at the top of their game and for people who don’t need to be spoon-fed the plot but are intelligent enough to read and listen between the lines. I rather enjoy filmmakers treating me as an intelligent adult, which is why I embraced Quantum of Solace tonight. Casino Royale aside, I came out of the cinema believing Quantum of Solace is just about the best Bond film since TSWLM certainly, and OHMSS possibly. For me, it’s an utter triumph.

As a postscript, I should also report that I turned on my mobile when I left the cinema and received a text from a friend who’d been to see it at another screen. He’s not really much of a Bond fan, although he liked Casino Royale. His text read: “Much more fun than CR”. So it’s not just me...

It's funny reading one's initial reaction to the film six months on (I wrote this immediately after seeing it for the first time), particularly now I've seen it dozens of times and have the Blu Ray. More often than not, my initial enthusiasm for a new Bond film wanes. But it didn't happen with Casino Royale and it definitely hasn't happened with QoS. In fact, quite the reverse because not only have I not wavered from my original assessment I think, for the first time, that I actually like it more now than I did then. What a brilliant job Marc Forster did...

[Gustav Graves]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

So we only respect the forum members who love a particular Bond film? How...how boring

[Jim]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

So we only respect the forum members who love a particular Bond film? How...how boring

Evidently the respect came before the review.

[Dekard77]

Superb! I love this article. Very nicely written. It's a far superior Bond film than I imagined. I love CR for it's bold steps this one seems a continuation on the road to Bond.
I hope there will be more like this.
What I don't understand is how fans complain about the Brosnan era and then ask the same from DC? I like 90's Bond but now want a different era.

[Dekard77]

It's all there in the subtext for those that care to look. In fact, I would submit we learn more about Bond than we did in Casino Royale. His story arc is certainly more interesting in this one for me.

OK, dee-bee-five, you've been consistent in this view, so I'm intrigued. I assure you that I really did care to look, and you can see that I'm not too lazy to try to analyse the film. So, would you mind giving one or two clues to, or examples of, this subtext so I can appreciate what I'm missing?

Even so (but I'd still like to know), my point is that it's not explored in any depth. I'm not looking for the director to spell it out in big simple letters...just a few more letters would be nice.

Well, subtext is subtext, so it isn't always easy to put into words, particularly as most of it was conveyed for me in Craig's eyes. But I'll try.

In QoS, I saw a man who was hurting and angry at the world and Vesper particularly. He still loved her and despised her in equal measures. And he could barely control his fury at those (Quantum) who had used her to get at him. I saw a man whose grief and betrayal and anger needed an outlet; he was, if you will, Fleming's blunt intrument at his bluntest. And all around him was a world of double-dealing intelligence agencies, slimy policians and corrupt businessmen; a murky world with a moral compass so out of kilter that it was virtually impossible to stick to a sense of duty. So he was a loose cannon - unpredictable, yes, but still trying to do what he thought was right - in a ty world. But he goes on a journey; and that journey (or story arc) ends when we see him learn that there is a time to kill and a time to live or let die. In other words, QoS is a stunning dramatisation of Ian Fleming's masterly chapter about heroes and villains from Casino Royale. Swap SMERSH for Quantum and the filmmakers have given us Fleming's motivation for Bond's future career for the next films. It's all there in the script and the action and the performances, but it isn't spoonfed to us.

BOND once christened a drink 'Vesper'. He gets that drink handed to him again and when asked what it's called he simply and perhaps bitterly responds by claiming to not know what it is called. There is also a moment when he is almost told off by M over the FIELDS death. A moment that could have been a throwaway nod to GOLDFINGER actually becomes a very dark and stark lesson for the character in a way we don't get anymore. BOND has moved light years away from that over-filtered beach in GOLDENEYE and lazy writing nods to "what keeps him alone". SOLACE actually now shows us rather than alludes to it.

Bravo.......... felt the same! Best use of M in Bond films since '95.

[dee-bee-five]

Excellent. Yet another CBner I respect loves this movie.

Will I, though? Time will tell (plan to see the thing on Monday).

So we only respect the forum members who love a particular Bond film? How...how boring

It's not for me to comment on how or when I earned Loomis' respect. Though I am grateful for it and it is, of course, reciprocated and has been from the early days of my joining this site.

But I suggest you go back and re-read what he has written since you clearly misunderstand him. And, incidentally, Loomis dislikes TWINE, which I love while he adores TMWTGG which I can take or leave. I think you'll find that alters our mutual respect not a jot. Boring though you may find it.

[Sigma7]

QOS sucked..... , and was a boring mess as a film, plain and simple

[dee-bee-five]

QOS sucked..... , and was a boring mess as a film, plain and simple

That is an opinion, not a fact. You are entitled to it. I am entitled to disagree.

[byline]

BOND has moved light years away from that over-filtered beach in GOLDENEYE and lazy writing nods to "what keeps him alone". SOLACE actually now shows us rather than alludes to it.

Exactly!

[Tarl_Cabot]

If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond

heh? Where did this info come from?? I do like it though! Now that would have been an interesting ending....sort of mirror to CR's ending...a but I agree it doesn't fit the mood of Bond getting his "Solace on".

a belated Excellent review.

[dee-bee-five]

If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond

heh? Where did this info come from??

There was a rumour going around at the time, but no real evidence to support it. I mentioned it because so many people were bandying it around at the time, but I always believed it was nothing but internet fanwankery.

[bond 16.05.72]

If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond

heh? Where did this info come from??

There was a rumour going around at the time, but no real evidence to support it. I mentioned it because so many people were bandying it around at the time, but I always believed it was nothing but internet fanwankery.

As far as I know Forster confirmed it was shot and considered, so no five knuckle shuffling required I'm afraid. Forster has said though it may turn up on the inevitable 3 discer bound to turn up within the next few years or it may not!
Forster was told rather than give it a cliffhanger the Producers favoured a resolution to the story and I think Craig didn't want a continuation and to be honest I'm glad they've got a blank sheet, whether the Q & Moneypenny thing happens who knows!

I wasn't the biggest fan of QOS but a recent viewing was enjoyable it's flawed for me, too short and sequences shot too fast but it's has some great moments, I know Forster wanted the fast as a bullet approach but It not what I want to see again in Bond 23.

It's weird my opinion of this film is up and down, my original review does not echo my current feelings, I'm going to do revision when I can be bothered, I do know by this point I'd watched Casino double the amount, QOS just doesn't beg me to repeat viewings, I've a feeling I'm always going to have issues with this film. I don't see anything as memorable as in CR but it has it's moments but for me they are the small snatches of dialogue rather than the action which for me was disapointing.

The car chase could have been a cinematic highlight but the editing just chopped it down to a blur, I know some of you worship it but I can't lie it wasn't what I wanted and I think I got my hopes up far too high, I like it but I don't love it like I did Royale.

[dee-bee-five]

If it truly was the case that the film was supposed to have ended on a cliffhanger with Mr. White shooting Bond

heh? Where did this info come from??

There was a rumour going around at the time, but no real evidence to support it. I mentioned it because so many people were bandying it around at the time, but I always believed it was nothing but internet fanwankery.

As far as I know Forster confirmed it was shot and considered

My recollection is that those who were bandying it about claimed Forster said this, but I've never actually seen/heard him say it in anything I've read. If it was shot, I'm pleased it was dropped because it would have ruined the perfect ending to what is now my favourite Bond film.

[Major Tallon]

It certainly was filmed, but I'm under the impression that Bond shot White, rather than the other way around. A very short excerpt was shown on Danish TV as part of an interview with Jesper Christensen. The interview was in Danish, but Christensen's dialog (all two sentences of it), explaining why Haines had to die, was in English.

[Zorin Industries]

The car chase could have been a cinematic highlight but the editing just chopped it down to a blur, I know some of you worship it but I can't lie it wasn't what I wanted...

Wasn't that sort of the point? From my unfortunate experience cars crashing at fast speeds are meant to be a bit of blur. There is no point filming every Bond car chase from two static cameras in order to let the Stuntman's Union of Europe slap themselves on the back yet again to the detriment of the film and its narrative (something Vic Armstrong became a bit guilty of I'm afraid).

[Mr. Blofeld]

It certainly was filmed, but I'm under the impression that Bond shot White, rather than the other way around. A very short excerpt was shown on Danish TV as part of an interview with Jesper Christensen. The interview was in Danish, but Christensen's dialog (all two sentences of it), explaining why Haines had to die, was in English.

That's exactly it! It was White sitting in a chair, pointing a gun at Haines; afterwards (I believe the director said), White is shot, and his shooter, Bond, steps out of the shadows. Haines cries in disbelief, "Who the bloody hell are you?", and the scene then either takes two end routes:

1. Bond introduces himself in his trademark fashion, and we cut to black and thence to the gunbarrel, or...
2. Bond simply smiles knowingly; we know what's coming up, cut to black and the gunbarrel.

I think it would've been too close to the ending of Casino Royale for comfort, but it'd be a good PTS for either of the next two movies.

[DamnCoffee]

Could anyone tell me what White's dialogue was?

[Conlazmoodalbrocra]

It certainly was filmed, but I'm under the impression that Bond shot White, rather than the other way around. A very short excerpt was shown on Danish TV as part of an interview with Jesper Christensen. The interview was in Danish, but Christensen's dialog (all two sentences of it), explaining why Haines had to die, was in English.

That's exactly it! It was White sitting in a chair, pointing a gun at Haines; afterwards (I believe the director said), White is shot, and his shooter, Bond, steps out of the shadows. Haines cries in disbelief, "Who the bloody hell are you?", and the scene then either takes two end routes:

1. Bond introduces himself in his trademark fashion, and we cut to black and thence to the gunbarrel, or...
2. Bond simply smiles knowingly; we know what's coming up, cut to black and the gunbarrel.

I think it would've been too close to the ending of Casino Royale for comfort, but it'd be a good PTS for either of the next two movies.

Yes it would've been very close to the Casino Royale ending, but I wouldn't have minded! But you're right, it would make a great PTS!

[bond 16.05.72]

The car chase could have been a cinematic highlight but the editing just chopped it down to a blur, I know some of you worship it but I can't lie it wasn't what I wanted...

Wasn't that sort of the point? From my unfortunate experience cars crashing at fast speeds are meant to be a bit of blur. There is no point filming every Bond car chase from two static cameras in order to let the Stuntman's Union of Europe slap themselves on the back yet again to the detriment of the film and its narrative (something Vic Armstrong became a bit guilty of I'm afraid).

It's admirable that you stand by this film and your review was unequivocal love letter to QOS but I'm sorry some of us didn't feel this.

CR was a more traditional Bond film and the camera work might be pedestrian in your eyes but I'm sorry the way that car chase was shot was too fast for my eyes, you can't continue to deny that this is not an opinion which isn't in the minority.

I've defended the film to a point with friends who have not liked it but that car chase was a waste, I'm sorry I expected something like The French Connections seminal chase but QOS effort isn't nowhere in the same league. Bond films have always had ok car chases, they were impressive the first time but seem somewhat mild compared to say John Frankenhemier's epic car battle in Ronin.

I actually thought the Pre-title was the chance for Bond to enter the lexicon of top flight car chases, it wasn't. None of the action sequences in QOS are as memorable as the Madagascan foot chase in CR or the Fire Truck or for that matter the end climax sinking house sequence. The only sequence I'll mark out is The Tosca sequence that was inspired

If CR is traditional than I guess I want traditional.

Edited by bond 16.05.72, 10 June 2009 - 07:56 AM.