The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch (2003 TV Movie) User Reviews

The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch (2002) **

[JoeKarlosi · 5/10 · 20 March 2005]

Based on one horrible fan review I'd read before renting this "follow-up" to the first RUTLES film, I was prepared for the very worst. So it turned out that I was relieved to discover that, while RUTLES 2 is surely not in the same class as the original, it does have its funny moments despite some of the gags becoming repetitious (like Eric Idle's reporter constantly winding up in the wrong country for his interviews again and again and again). And while it's also not as polished as the original, I wouldn't consider this a total washout.

The biggest disappointment came when I quickly realized that this was NOT in any way, shape or form an actual "sequel" to the first movie. I had expected that the original cast had been reunited to make a new story of the further adventures of the Pre-Fab Four in their later years. But what CAN'T BUY ME LUNCH really is, is an "alternate" version of 1977's THE RUTLES: ALL YOU NEED IS CASH. Meaning that it's the same basic story of the origin and successes of Dirk, Nasty, Stig and Barry all over again, but this time substituting a lot of previously unseen/unused footage from '77 along with some new songs that were never included the first time around, even though they're featured on our Rutles CD's. Some of the footage is actually pretty decent, and I'm surprised it didn't make the original cut.

To compliment the footage, there are new humorous interviews and muddled Rutles memories with more up-to-date celebrities: Steve Martin, Bonnie Raitt, Jewel, Gary Shandling, Conan O'Brien, Robin Williams, David Bowie and Carrie Fisher. Also on hand is Tom Hanks, who seems to go out of his way trying to be a part of Beatles-related topics (he also participated in a Monty Python skit in the CONCERT FOR GEORGE, in 2002). Hanks is quite funny, as are Steve Martin and Gary Shandling. I liked the bits with the "Triangular Album" and the "Shite" record.

For all the die-hard Rutles Fans out there, I'd say RUTLES 2 is worth one watch, at the very least. Maybe as a rental first to see if you think it's worth buying (I haven't decided yet). Because there are still some new laughs there, even if they're not as huge as they were in 1977. I can't imagine anyone who knows ALL YOU NEED IS CASH by heart not getting at least a few chuckles with RUTLES 2. But just don't expect too much. ** out of ****

You're all missing the point!!!!

[RabidAnchovy345 · 7/10 · 10 December 2005]

Remember when "Beatles 1" came out and suddenly there was this big Beatles media blitz and all these news channels were doing all the rehashed stories on The Beatles and interviewing various people (some who weren't even musicians) about the degree of influence The Beatles had on their careers? Well, THAT is EXACTLY what Eric Idle was doing with "The Rutles 2: All You Need Is Lunch;" he's sending up the fact that all these years later, people are still doing stories about The Beatles, though they're just going over the same ground about their history and recycling the same old comments about them. So that's what "Rutles 2" satirizes. Therefore, it ISN'T EVEN TRYING to be as good as the original (awfully tough act to follow, anyway). With that said, "Rutles 2" is what it is. There are some good items in it (David Bowie gives some surprisingly memorable moments, and there's some great unused footage from the original movie), but this is something you can only watch every once in a while. Otherwise, my relatively high mark is mostly for Eric's satire/self-awareness about the whole thing.

The Magical Mystery Tour of Rutledom

[indy_go_blue44 · 6/10 · 20 August 2008]

With due respect to Mr Idle and Mr Innes, and hoping to avoid being the center of the fiery ire of the legion of Rutles fans worldwide, The Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch is the Magical Mystery Tour of the pre-fab fours' illustrious career. The charm of the original film was Neil's semi-original music: Not quite plagiarism, not quite satire, but a delicious hybrid of Lennon-McCartney-Innes that had me both yearning for the real "boys" to "Get Back" (All You Need Is Cash was first shown in 1978, and it was still a dream, a wish and a possibility in those days) and in enjoying several of the songs (forgive me) just as much as some of the original Beatles stuff.

What made AYNIC so charming and worthy of multiple listens and rewatches was the original music, and the plot that so closely follows the career and lives of our real heroes. It's weakness was Eric as Dirk/Paul, IMO and the weak interview scenes of the imaginary people affected by our heroes lives. (I'm not talking about Simon and Jagger, but the New Orleans scenes.) The other three were real musicians and the music we're hearing is really theirs; Eric didn't even come close to looking like a musician (and he admits it himself.) What you have in Can't Buy Me Lunch is the opposite of AYNIC: Not enough original music, not enough about the career and lives of our pre-fab (or fab) heroes, and too much Eric Idle. Too much focuses on the life of the "guy who interviewed the pre-fab four" and it's just not funny or interesting enough to carry the load.

If you run across the DVD go ahead and buy it and give it a watch, it's okay. But just like MMT fell way short of short of Help or Hard Day's Night, I think you'll find "Lunch" a bit of a disappointment. You might enjoy it better if you have a cup of tea before watching though! (Both are available on DVD.)

A Stale, Cheap, "Piggy in the Middle"

[snazel · 16 October 2007]

This sequel doesn't hold a candle to the original, in fact, at times the attempts at comedy are painful.

At times, the low-budget of the film, becomes more than just a joke, it is actually annoying. The film features washed out lighting, terrible audio and rough impromptu comedy that never delivers much punch. I think at times Idle doesn't even have a crew he just stands in front of a cheap video camera, recording himself. It's funny, but not funny enough, for the entire film to be carried that way.

It's so bad in spots, that you sometimes think someone could make a parody of how cheap, and fast Eric Idle can punch out product. A parody of the parody perhaps, that's about the only way this film could ever save itself. Monty Python has become so cliché and so formulaic now that it begs for parody the way Star Trek, super heroes and other stale icons of pop culture cry out for it.

That's what this sequel is I'm afraid, old, stale pop-culture that just rubber stamps old tricks and dishes it out in liberal, repetitive doses.

It's too bad. The original is brilliant. It is a quick, sharp, witty send-up of an era and an industry that needed a solid comedic thrashing. It spanked the rampant consumer hysteria and the fan boy worship of pop idols, but did it with a lot of love and affection for the music itself.

George Harrison once referred to the original Rutles film this way: "It was actually the best, funniest and most scathing. But at the same time, it was done with the most love." There's not a lot of love in the sequel, just some cheap, quick cameos, some running gags that never pay off and some really poor sound and video to look at.

While my admiration for Idle and Python remains, these guys have become stale. If this film taught me anything, it is that someone needs to make a "Rutles-like" documentary of Monty Python, to remind us all what made them great in the first place.

pretty funny

[badreligionfan · 6/10 · 14 June 2006]

This movie isn't as funny as the first one, mainly because it contains not that much footage. The only "new" thing is the music. The play some songs from "archaeology".

But not in a good way. For example. When the rutles are playing "easy listening" They use the video from "living in Hope".

The interviews are very funny, and the video/audio quality is great. When you enjoyed the first rutles film, I think you should see this one. And It's possible to see only this one, and maybe later the first one. Because it is not about the story, It's about the jokes. And the story is pretty much the same as the Beatles's but with jokes.

disappointed Rutles fan (Rutles 2 DVD)

[weberm_429 · 3/10 · 10 March 2005]

Major Rutles fan and have been for many years, way back to the short film shown on SNL (which should have been a bonus feature on either Rutles DVD!). I waited for some time for this film to be released. I was disappointed (very). Basically it was the first film re-told, with out the SNL cast ('cept for Bill "the K" Murray). Yes there were some scenes from the original movie that are shown here for the first time (deleted or un-used takes)- which was k00l to see BUT come on, its the same story. I couldn't believe that the old footage was used with songs from the most recent album- I really thought that we would see the Shangri-La video or the band talking about the new songs, they should have been playing the new songs, if nothing more than at the end of the re-telling of the old film. The first Rutles DVD was a killer original flick, this is just a re-hash (sadly). I thought for sure there would be more NEW Rutles history/lore/comedy and comments on the newest album, heck the little blurb in the paper (when that album came out) had more original humor than Rutles 2..Still a major fan, but discourage any other fan wasting $ on a purchase...recommend Netflix or as a rental (sorry Eric- just telling the truth).

A Painful Rip-Off

[popgun9 · 1/10 · 9 March 2005]

As hilarious as "The Rutles: All You Need is Cash" is, this one, "Can't Buy Me Lunch" is a clear cut put-on and rip-off. The pasted-in, recycled footage from the original footage with spliced-in unfunny cameos by various celebrities does not make for an enjoyable viewing. In fact, some of the commentary clips are from the 70's Rutles production. Proof is in the footage of a much younger Mick Jagger. Beating the "trousers" bit into the ground became embarrassingly old, as did the stilted writing. Stick with the original, enjoy the two Rutles CD's (which are incredibly delightful), but "Can't Buy Me Lunch" is downright disappointing and sad.

A total waste of time

[Tristo99 · 3/10 · 28 March 2005]

This complete waste of time seems to be rather badly patched together out of out-takes from the first film, new footage of Eric Idle and a bunch of talking head celebrity interviews.

The new Eric Idle footage scores the best and has the most laughs. However, jokes about tight trousers being the reason for the group's success get old and tiresome rather quickly.

Much of the celebrity interviews are inexplicable. Jewel fares the worst, seeming like she's not sure if she understands the joke, or if there even is one. Even if the Rutles were a real band I don't see how they could have possibly inspired people like Gary Shandling and Steve Martin. The problem here is that the musicians interviewed aren't funny and the comedians interviewed are out of place. Tom Hanks and Conan O' Brian fare best in gamely trying to play along, but the result is awkward, forced and quite often unfunny.

Like another person here mentioned I would like to have seen an update of the Rutles today, but with the Lennon assassination, it would be in poor taste to parody the Beatles post-breakup years. Much of this film feels like it's unfinished, and I wonder if Eric Idle was considering filming new footage and then scaling down the celebrity interviews. In it's current state, it's a sorry mess and it's not hard to see why it sat on the shelf for a couple of years.

Stick to the original, and forget this exists.

Bizarrely much funnier than you'd expect

[ekveland · 9/10 · 26 July 2014]

I recently acquired the full Rutles set (albums and all) on the basis that it is my dad's favourite movie (and thus by osmosis one of mine along with everything Python related). I decided to watch the first one knowing full well that it probably hadn't aged as well compared to the memory of my teenage watching of it.

Having just come home from watching the Python Live (One Down, Five to Go Show) I was on a Python high. My dream of finally watching the Python's live had come true and I (as well as my wife who didn't have a Python loving family and thus is reluctantly late to the Python game) was on a Python high.

So, having exhausted pretty much every other Python related venue (except for Jabberwocky), Rutles seemed to be a good choice. And surprisingly it was. I even did a rare spit take, showering my wife's laptop with wine at how Barry was included in the band.

And then we (or really, I) made the decision to watch the sequel. With casual dread naturally. This being a 2002 project it was contemporary to the painful "new material" of the re-re-re-release of the Holy Grail DVD. So my expectations were set suitably low.

My relief at how actually funny the second round was a surprise like no other. Maybe it was my expectation. Maybe it was the fact that a rethread of the same subject was suitably fitting considering how every Beatles documentary ever is the same (meta-commentary?). Maybe it was the fact that Eric Idle is naturally funny. Maybe that the celebrity cameos have increased their status in the later years (Unexpected Jimmy Fallon?). Maybe how the re- thread was in the style of VH1's Behind the Music - a genre unto its own? Or maybe just how obvious it was that Idle had dragged his coat around to his many holidays and filmed short sequences with a shitty hand-held DV camera for so many scenes.

Whatever it was, it was worth the effort. I will gladly show this to my dad. My dad, who performs covers of the Beatles and will drop in a verse of Get Up And Go Back Home into every rendition of Get Back even if the audience has no idea what's going on.

I borrowed it from our local library, yet I feel ripped off!

[mjs_imdb · 3/10 · 26 May 2007]

Very disappointing. My time would've been better spent watching the first movie and some clips of Rutles cover bands on the Internet.

I'm a big Rutles fan. The original movie was great. If you didn't see it, a lot of it is in this pathetic excuse of a movie.

It starts out alright but the viewer quickly realizes there's little new here. The SNL influence is felt when you hear the Nth joke about their trousers; repetition does *not* equal funny, gang. At the end of the film, they show some outtakes of actors laughing. One of my boys wondered what movie they were watching.

Some of the interviews were slightly funny, but wouldn't be again if someone held a gun to my head and made me watch this a second time.

At least it's short.

The $20 could have bought me lunch instead...

[bish11741 · 3/10 · 11 March 2005]

I grabbed this as a "must have" having been a Rutles fan since the release of the original vinyl album. Idle and Innes had produced a perfect parody... perfect in the sense that it had captured the essence of the subject matter (Beatles) with care and love in a way that stood up as a piece of work valid in its own right. The Rutles gave us an alternative (Pythonesque) reality that we took to our hearts. The Beatles supplied the soundtrack to that part of the twentieth century... The Rutles added to it with a nod, a wink and a smile.

Oh my... what happened here? Endless talking heads that no doubt wanted to be part of the Rutles phenomenon (albeit a little late); recycled scenes and cutting-room floor footage from "All You Need Is Cash"; over-extended jokes about the geographical ineptitude of the presenter and some very lame sequences (especially the parts about the odd-shaped albums). Sorry, but the main thing missing from "Can't Buy Me Lunch" is quality control... admitted rip-off or not.

When an alternative reality has been so embraced by the public (e.g. the Star Trek phenomenon), there is a burden upon the producers to respect the credo of that alternative. Changing the presented facts and set-up of the original was annoying... I'd say "upsetting" if it didn't make me seem a little too obsessive about the whole thing.

I mean... Arthur Sultan was all about Tea... not Curry! (I guess that's a spoiler!)

Maybe my expectations were too high. Save the $20 and buy some lunch. As has been said by another reviewer... this one's a rental

Cheers

Name of Character in Main Cast list is its own Spoiler!

[Judd-Half-Nelson · 27 March 2008]

Fallon's character is only known as "The Occasionally Interrupting Younger Reporter".

He is NOT discovered as The Reporter's son until the VERY END OF THE MOCUMENTARY!

Also, the correct credit for Eric Idle's portrayal of the reporter is in fact The Reporter, NOT the Narrator.

Even though he narrates.

However, his character is ALSO the "Documentarist" and therefore should also be listed as the Interviewer.

I think.

"Schindler's List" Was Funnier...

[doctorwholittle · 1/10 · 28 March 2005]

Most outings from Python alumni are good for at least one good, hard belly laugh. Unfortunately, that is most definitely NOT the case with "Rutles 2: Can't Buy Me Lunch". I'm not kidding. Not ONCE did I laugh. If I'd actually been able to find & purchase this sold-out-at-all-stores-I-went-to travesty instead of borrowing it from a friend, I honestly would've taken it back for a refund or an exchange for something good.

Creator Eric Idle had carped about WB leaving this sequel to languish in the vaults "until I should pass away". Trust me, they should have. It's the one time I think "studio wisdom" actually should've been applied. And what REALLY steams me is that I was one of the most vocal lobbyists to get WB to finally release it on DVD. I was mildly worried when one of the two previews on the DVD's official website featured former SNLer Jimmy Fallon.

It was nothing compared to the disappointment that was to follow.

Instead of treating rabid fans of "The Prefab Four" to new footage of those wacky Liverpudlians & what anarchic mischief they've been up to since The Rutles' demise in 1970, we are fed unused footage from the 1978 -- & highly superior -- "The Rutles: All You Need is Cash", & even most of that was seen in the special features of that DVD. NO new appearances from Neil Innes (Ron Nasty), John Halsey (Barry Wom), or Rikki Fataar (Stig O'Hara) were presented to go along with this inferior rehash of a brilliant mockumentary, which obviously inspired the likes of "This Is Spinal Tap", "Bad News", & "Dill Scallion", all funny & all definitely owing a debt of gratitude to Idle's vision.

Shortly after "The Beatles Anthology" was released, Neil Innes & Co. returned to the studio to record "The Rutles Archaeology". Innes contacted Idle to invite him to reprise his role as Dirk McQuickly for the video of "Shangri-La", but Idle turned him down, saying that it'd been done before & he had no time to retread old ground. He should either have stuck to that statement or taken Innes up on the offer. The second Rutles' album was MUCH truer to the original (in some instances, even funnier!) than Idle's movie. Had Idle reprised his role, maybe he would've remembered what made it so funny to begin with.

The new interviews (featuring the likes of Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, Bonnie Raitt, Salman Rushdie[?!]) again feature nothing new or humorous. And the whole "trousers" thing? It was (is) funny for the brief mentions in the original, but it feels like it's being beaten to death in the sequel.

I wish I'd been that fortunate, either before or after sitting through this. Having survived "Rutles 2", I'll never complain about having to go to the dentist's office again.

Exciting prospect, disappointing re-hash...

[kgardnerd · 5/10 · 28 October 2005]

The Rutles, All You Need is Cash, is brilliant. When we heard that Idle made a follow-up, "Can't Buy Me Lunch," we expected something as exciting, fun and original as the first outing. Unfortunately, the flick is really nothing more than Idle re-hashing old footage from the original, with pieces of film that were obviously left on the editing room floor. In the original, narrator Idle ends the flick and briefly tells us "what became of the Rutles," but the description of this flick suggests that he follows through with what has become of the Rutles over a 20+ year period, and there's actually nothing about "what became of," nor is the anything about a "reunion" tour. The rather impressive list of guest commentators about the "Rutles," and the impact the "Rutles" had on their "lives" and "careers" is hit and miss...Billy Connelly, Steve Martin, and Garry Shandling are particularly hilarious in their observations, and while some guests are obviously good choices as interviews: ie: Bonnie Raitt, Carrie Fisher, Conan O'Brian, others really seem to have no reason to be there other than their names. And splicing old interview footage from the original in with the current is so cheesy and really does not work. This is basically what one may expect from this sequel...a lot of old footage, with mainly irrelevant current footage. This could have been a real gem...In fact, there is not an original current "Rutle" to be seen, which would have made more sense; y'know, WHERE ARE THE RUTLES NOW? WHAT ARE THEY DOING? HOW DO THEY FEEL ABOUT THEIR INFLUENCE ON MUSIC AND MUSICIANS...then the comments from the multitude of "guest commentators" might have made more sense AND been even funnier. Instead, one is left with somewhat of a letdown from what should and could have been an outstanding sequel. And what was with the Jimmy Fallon tack-on schtick?

Hi, Im (insert big studio name here) and I wont release this movie and Im stupid

[sean-107 · 8/10 · 28 January 2004]

So here it is 2 years after Cant Buy Me Lunch has been finished and STILL no distribution? I'm growing a little concerned with our society in general when Charlies Angels 2 is welcomed with open arms and a gem like Rutles 2:Cant Buy me lunch doesnt see the light of day. This is a fantastic sequel to the classic original. All the key elements are here the interviews with all the celebrity guests (especially Gary Shandling) are hilarious! I saw this in a theater full of people and everyone seemed to genuinely enjoy it. The bits with Jimmy Fallon are a little weak but Shandling and Steve Martin are extremely funny. We need to get Idle in some more films! are you listening Harvey Weinstein?

What's to complain about?

[dennishermanson · 4/10 · 26 November 2014]

I am amazed that some many critics, er, that is viewers, are left wanting by this inane addition to the Beatles/Rutles canon fodder. Have you (not you reading this, the insipid critics of this mocumentary,,, said critics, have you made a sequel recently? Or anything in film?)

I'm saying, the opening scene is worth the price of Prime or whatever you got it on. IF you are watching on an original VHS-tape, more power to you.

What did you expect, Gone with Citizen Caine? The Poseidon Mutiny? For 50 cent More?

Jeez, I think if you thought this was going to be better than the first one, then you must be one of those people who think Sloppy Seconds were a great band.

Just sayin'. Idle time is the devils playpen. Relax. Take a deep one.

den

If you like the Beatles, you will enjoy this Rutles take-off of the Fab Four

[bettycjung · 8 May 2018]

5/6/18. If you remember the Beatles, then you will enjoy this mockumentary of a group of wanna-be musicians that sound amazingly like the Beatles! Their music is a mishmash of Beatles music that the Beatles could have actually played and sang. I have a couple of the Rutles cassette tapes. A stellar cast of well-known celebrities heap praise on the wondrous Rutles, including Bowie himself! I would have enjoyed a Rutles concert film.

The Sequel Turned Out To Be Rather Stale And Forgettable

[denis888 · 5/10 · 19 November 2013]

Sequels are a dangerous game. Not all 2nd parts work better. There are some great exceptions - Terminator 2 or Aliens. Or Asterix and Obelix And Cleopatra Mission. Here is a very weird sequel to All You Need Is Cash of 1978. Well, this is not a sequel proper. This is not a remake or rework. A rip-off? A repetition, more precisely. Eric Idle is older, and he repeats himself. All the same predictable Monty Python gags and skits are here galore. Do they work? I'd vote, nope. They became stake, vapid and tasteless. Untasty. Taste less. That is so. There is No new dimension to the Rutles story line. Old footage, deleted scenes and additional moments are added, yes. Several famous people are added. Several songs are added. Yet, it does not convince. It leaves me stunned to some extent. And sad. Such a great film, as an original was, got such a stale sequel. Not necessary at all, and not that funny.

Not Eric Idle's Finest Hour

[ShadeGrenade · 2/10 · 11 June 2023]

In 2003, Eric Idle wrote, directed and starred in a belated sequel to his 1977 spoof documentary ( yes, they existed long before 'The Office'! ) 'All You Need Is Cash', better known as 'The Rutles'. The Pre-Fab Four - Dirk, Nasty, Stig, and Barry - were back! But nobody noticed. The film rehashes everything that happened in the first one. If you've seen the original, you've seen this as well. Obviously Idle was never going to make fun of the death of John Lennon, but even so the comic imagination that gave us so many wonderful Monty Python sketches and Rutland Weekend Television is sadly not in evidence here. Steve Martin, Carrie Fisher, David Bowie, Billy Connolly, and Tom Hanks are among those unfortunates taking part. The BBC screened 'The Rutles' many times in the 70's and 80's, but ignored this one and I don't blame them. There were more honest-to-goodness laughs to be found in 'The Beatles Anthology'.

Highly amusing

[banhei · 8/10 · 2 April 2024]

I saw this DVD in the library last week, not having ever heard of THE RUTLES 2: CAN'T BUY ME LUNCH, and checked it out. The negative reviews here made me wonder if I should bother watching it, but I watched it and greatly enjoyed it (so did the non-Beatles fan who watched it with me). Frankly, I didn't think the first THE THE RUTLES: ALL YOU NEED IS CASH was any masterpiece, but, as with THE RUTLES 2: CAN'T BUY ME LUNCH, I enjoyed it. My favorite Rutles products have been the first album that accompanied THE RUTLES: ALL YOU NEED IS CASH and then the RUTLES ARCHAEOLOGY album. In this THE RUTLES: CAN'T BUY ME LUNCH a RUTLES 1 album cover is brought out more than once (it mimics the BEATLES 1 album cover, with its big yellow "1" against a red background) but it was only a prop. I wish it were an actual third Rutles album!

Scheduled for a March 1, 2005 release date

[lrek-1 · 15 January 2005]

I'm a huge Rutles fan and I'd never even heard of this until ten minutes ago. Considering how little information is available about it online (aside from the usual synopses and cast lists), it looks like very few others had seen it either. It's curious to note that apparently the official press release lists Eric Idle as one of the founding members of the Bonzo Dog Band -- I hope everyone knows that's not correct. I also see that the DVD comes with an "Never-before-seen alternate ending" -- interesting, considering how few people have seen the regular ending. Now, to stretch this thing out to the requisite ten lines, here are some vegetables that I like: Oops. Out of space. Maybe next time.

Eric Idle is Really Not a Very Clever Man

[ksprof · 19 November 2019]

If you could cut out Idle's ridiculous interviewer (not funny ridiculous, as in Monty Python, ridiculous ridiculous, as in your tiresome uncle who trots out the same tired schtick every Thanksgiving), this might have some merit, as recycled as it is. I don't know exactly where Idle got the notion that these endless digressions and middle school wordplays are funny. Again and again he'd go back to never funny in the first place routine that would go something like "Right here in 1962...well, er., not exactly here, technically over there about 10 feet...err, actually more like 9.5 feet...or to be more accurate 9 feet five and three quarter inches, or "dyuymov", as the Russians say for inches...but the Russians really have nothing to do with the Rutles, even though they start with the same first letter "R"...although it's only "R" in the English translation of the word we use for "Russian...etc., etc. ad nauseum."

DOES ANYONE, ANYWHERE THINK THAT'S FUNNY? Mr. Idle, you are not a stand alone funny person. You won the lottery by meeting the rest of the Python troupe. You are capable of inspired work WITH OTHERS. But not alone.

He desperately needed some checks and balances here, perhaps the hand of Mr. Innes (who actually has the gift of subtle humor) might have helped, but by most accounts he ran the entire group of former collaborators off. His loss--and ours.