Log in

No account? Create an account
LiveJournal for I Like Movies!.

View:User Info.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.

Saturday, May 20th, 2006

Subject:X-Men: The Last Stand - F:3 M:5
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:11 pm.
Here is a report of the "review" I wrote in my journal. I have placed it all behind a cut since I do get into minor spoilers:Collapse )

For those who were too lazy to remove this community from their friends list, I have EXCITING NEWS. I have changed the rules of this community so that anyone can post a review, but I will be moderating them. Post enough of quality and become a moderator yourself and save me the trouble of single-handedly trying to keep this community full of content! Read the user info for this community for more details.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, February 14th, 2003

Subject:Daredevil - F:3 M:3
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:11:10 am.
Daredevil is a step backward from the relative successes of Spider-Man and X-Men, a mess with just enough good moments to drive you ever the more mad when the next forced plot point occurs.

Too much is crammed in and cliches are used to the extreme (obnoxious ex-girlfriend leaves a terrible expository break-up message, a love scene is ended with a pan over to a roaring fireplace). Instead of a proper score we are treated to music from the artists of today. The songs are as awful and ill-placed as you might imagine.

This all but destroyed any sense of mood. Watch Ben Affleck et al try in vain to act in the middle of such buffoonery... they succeed but the movie seems determined to make them fail.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the hard-boiled moments. I liked Daredevil taking pills and sleeping in a strange soundproofed chamber. His Radar Sense is handled in a striking fashion.

And yet... I didn't like it. I can sum up the parts and say bits of it were more than worthy, but if I'm groaning in the theatre and not enjoying myself then I don't feel the need to justify a movie's shortcomings.

I'm a little out of practice in writing reviews, so bear with me
Comments: Read 6 orAdd Your Own.

Monday, December 2nd, 2002

Subject:Analyze That - F:0 M:0
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:30 am.
I haven't seen the original but I can smell a "cash-in" sequel when I see one. This fucker is worse than Showtime. It's a comedy and it isn't funny.

Let me say this so you can be warned of the repetition of this phrase:
"Grieving... it's a process"

Apparently there is a lot to do with fathers being dead in this movie, but it doesn't really mean much. There is a lot of crying but it only serves to be the annoying kind, akin to your kid sister crying over and over for no reason.

Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Friday, November 15th, 2002

Subject:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets - F:1 M:9
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:17 am.
This movie is not made for anyone who is not a fan of Harry Potter. If you haven't seen The Sorcerer's Stone then you might pick up some things by inference, but it is pretty much jumping into the deep end to learn how to swim since there is no recap whatsoever. Think watching The Empire Strikes Back without knowing anything about Star Wars. What, you saw Empire first and got it immediately? Congratulations, you are a geek.

Anyway, if you know the book or the characters then you'll be pleased to know it is better than the first movie. It is decidedly darker and has many more CHARACTERS to enjoy, particularly Jason Issacs' Lucius Malfoy (with his Viggo "Ghostbusters II" hairdo) and Kenneth Branaugh's Gilderoy Lockhart. If you don't then you might very well enjoy it anyway but you will probably be as lost as a mud-blood.

It is all a bit of a trifle anyway. It really does mean nothing, but you will be plenty entertained for three hours, making this a ILM Value For Your Entertainment Dollar selection.
Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Wednesday, November 6th, 2002

Subject:Femme Fatale f:6 m:10
Posted by:movieman.
Time:10:41 pm.
I saw Femme Fatale tonight, and I am really not sure what I was expecting. It has no stars (that I care about) and has a well known director, but not that great a director (to me at least). I really like Brain De Palma's directing style here, and honestly, the best part about the film, believe it or not, was Rebecca Romijn Stamos. She acted very well, but more than that, I couldn't take my eyes off of her. I don't know if it was just this role that brought it out of her, but she was just so hot. But yeah, she looks amazing.

Anyway, back on to the film, the cinematography amazed me too. I am a sucker for reflections, and long shots, and we get a lot of them. Mostly at the beginning of the film, but there are still some throughout the rest. This is basically, a very well made movie. Very fun, and some unexpected events, and twists occur. So I recommend it highly if you want to watch a good movie. If you want a film, go see Punch-Drunk Love.

As a film: It has some neat cinematography, and the style is really awesome, but the style leaks over to the movie score, so a 6 fits about right.
As a movie: Extremely awesome, and well made. Stamos is gorgeous which is a major part of the movie. It looks great, it moves quickly, and lots of things happen. It has twists, it has action, and it has nudity, everything that makes a "movie" fun. A definite 10.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Sunday, October 20th, 2002

Subject:Punch-Drunk Love F:10 M:3
Posted by:movieman.
Time:10:57 am.
This is one awesome movie. But just a little note, I am very biased on this film because P.T. Anderson is my favorite director of all time. I have seen every one of his previous films, and now, with Punch-Drunk Love, I am convinced that Mr. Anderson cannot make a bad film. He has yet to even make a film that isn't great.

--Plot Summary--

The film is just awesome. Everything about the film just kicks ass: the directing (of course), the acting (yeah, Sandler can act), the cinematography, the script, and yeah, well, that is about everything.

This film though, isn't for everyone. It was one of the most "artsy" films I have seen. Being "artsy" isn't a good thing or a bad thing, it is just something to note.

I will definitely be seeing it again in theatres before it leaves.

As a film: 10: Brilliant. Definately go see it.
As a movie: 3: If you like Sandler in comedies, you will not like this film. It is not a comedy.
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Friday, October 18th, 2002

Subject:The Ring - F:3 M:6
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:56 am.
This movie is pretty successful at accomplishing what it is trying to do, which is creep you out in a way that is more satisfying than the typical "ha ha ha" horror film. Such movies produce more scares of laughter than the slow subtle tension that The Ring specializes in, even as some of them attempt what The Ring succeeds in doing.

Anytime that nature responds violently to an unseen force, it makes said unseen force seem that much more powerful. The Ring does this with one animal in particular (and one scene specifically). Unfortunately the rest is burdened by the tendency to overexplain the forces driving the videotape. Pretty much every aspect of the five W's is gone over by the end, as befitting the reporter character played by Naomi Watts (who does a fine job, though nothing too terribly remarkable).

There are genuine moments of creepy tension. There is a reversal at one point that will make much of the audience go "ah ha!" and feel smug having been tricked. It feels like a Hollywood version of a cult film, which is exactly what it is.

Yeah I liked it... it looks beautiful (the cinematography is its strongest suit) and has a decent score (nice to see Hans Zimmer not phoning it in all of the time). Will I see it again? Nah.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Subject:Below - F:2 M:9
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:45 am.
It's a genre picture... only not the genre you are probably thinking. The proper classification for this film is in the "haunted house" category.

Before we learn this (as it is only suspicion for a little while), you are treated to some very violent depth charges (as well as some other interesting attacks). The tension escalates to a level that has not been matched by any "submarine" movie in recent memory.

Anyway, you probably think it is crap, because the advertising is crap. What they fail to mention is that it is a script originated by Darren Aronofsky (of Pi and Requiem For A Dream fame). It also doesn't mention David Twohy being the director of Pitch Black, which was also a really fun little genre movie.

Just think "burger not steak" and you'll be in the right mindset to enjoy your meal. It's a fucking great movie.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, October 11th, 2002

Subject:The Rules Of Attraction - F:4 M:2
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:4:50 am.
Know this:

The film is ambitious and annoying. The pace is rather slow. (The quick-cut trailers lie!)

You will probably wonder more than once why you are supposed to care about these characters. Then you'll realize that is the whole point. Then you will yawn.

Everyone in the movie is scummy. Chortle as you see goodie little two shoes actors and actresses slum it for the decadence. Then you yawn again.

You will realize that the film is skillfully made. It does manage to create its own world, albeit one that is painted with few strokes of reality or humanity. Without the latter, I could not be intrigued, as much as I tried to be. Yawn.

I really only learned one thing from the film, and that was
Comments: Read 3 orAdd Your Own.

Friday, October 4th, 2002

Subject:Moonlight Mile - F:5 M:1
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:6:42 am.
Mood: okay.
Q: At what point does a film become too personal?
A: When you can't relate to it at all unless you've been through the situations that the characters have been in personally.

I guess I'm used to movies working on both levels... for those who have prior experience and those who don't. Moonlight Mile does not give the dead daughter (no spoiler there, she's dead from the start) any face save the reflections of grief that drag on for seven reels.

This coupled with some machinations of screenplay tinkering (the main character's Big SecretTM) left me detached from much that was going on during the film. The nostalgic trip it tried to take through songs telling the story was too faux-Cameron Crowe for me. Almost Famous set the latest bar on that one, jack.

I'm glad the director made the movie he wanted to make. I'm glad it is finding an audience (albeit a small one). I'm glad for the performances, which make the affair much more engaging on that deep level than it probably would have been otherwise.

Glad or not, this score is a reverse of my Eight Legged Freaks score. If you are going to make a film that is to engage people, you have should at least attempt to write it so that it can draw in those who have not been in the situations previously! In The Bedroom took a different tack, and while it isn't in the same genre, it dealt with loss and did in such a way that drew you in. Moonlight Mile keeps you out.

In The Bedroom was nominated for Best Picture. My guess is that Moonlight Mile will not be so honored. It will be cherished by a few. That is the fate of some movies I suppose... comedy or drama.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Subject:Red Dragon - F:2 M:10
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:6:27 am.
Plot Summary

Red Dragon succeeds in being the most entertaining of the Hannibal Lecter trilogy. This doesn't make it the best film.

I would venture to say it is the worst... not to say that it is bad, but Hannibal was a wonderful black comedy (which most wouldn't agree with) and Silence of the Lambs was an excellent thriller (which most people would agree with).

When Clarice shows up at a certain person's doorstep, it was largely unexpected. In Red Dragon the final showdown arrives with the subtlety you would expect from a broad comedy director: Brett Ratner, who also directed the schmaltzfest Family Man (different enough, to his credit, but certainly not subtle) and the Rush Hour films (which I have not seen, but have entertained many).

To point to one thing, it's not a good film because Hannibal Lecter is more of a cartoon character here than he was in Hannibal. However, it is wildly enjoyable, regardless.

Thus I give it my highest visceral movie recommendation. I give it two film points for having the courage to show the violence that was inherent in the story, but not so much where it was gratuitous (and hell, Hannibal was very guilty of that, regardless of its other merits).

Enjoy its parade of A-List talent, even as their involvement is almost totally unnecessary. I loved Harvey Keitel in this movie. He plays a damn FBI chief, and that is all there is to it, but goddamn, I like Harvey Keitel. I like Phillip Seymour Hoffman too. I like em' all. Ratner did get a good cast, and an excellent crew... the cinematography was gorgeous, the score was perfect (you have redeemed yourself, Mr. Elfman), the editing was crisp and keeps things going, going, going for a solid two hours.

The only discovery I felt was seeing Ralph Fiennes become so very small as Francis Dolarhyde. My favorite small part in the movie was the Bald Black Dude Who Always Is A Cop. Even the small parts get the best of their type!

Anyway, if you even have a mild interest in seeing it you will probably love it. If you are of the nitpicky sort, you may dislike it for not being as good of a "film" as Manhunter. That's it.

Read movieman's review here!
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Wednesday, October 2nd, 2002

Subject:Red Dragon F:8 M:9
Posted by:movieman.
Time:11:55 pm.
Plot Summary

Red Dragon, from the ads that I have seen, looks like the biggest piece of crap ever, but had one of the greatest casts from any movie. It stars Sir Anthony Hopkins, Ed. Norton, Emily Watson, Harvey Keitel, Ralph Fiennes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Mary-Louise Parker. I mean, this film has three of my all time favorite actors (Norton, Hoffman, and Watson.) The more I thought about it, the more I tried to convince myself that it was at least watch able, with a good script. It had to have a good script to attract the stars it did, right?

Yes. The script is good, though not flawless. There is one major flaw that I found, though I am not going so spoil the film. Even with this flaw, the film is just amazing. The cast, with the exception of Norton, is phenomenal. I found Ed Norton to be very dull, but that is how the character is, so he is just playing what he should. Still, it was dull.

Now as for Brett Ratner. I was very skeptical of the film, and this was one of the main reasons. How could the director of the Rush Hour films, and Family Man possibly direct such a high profile drama with this well known a cast. Well, I don't know how he did, but he pulled it off with ease. To add to the greatness of the film, the score, from Danny Elfman is just chilling, and the cinematography from Dante Spinotti (L.A. Confidential, The Insider) was brilliant as well.

I enjoy films more when I am not expecting them to be good, and even more when I am expecting them to be bad. So take this as you will, since you know my philosophy.

Also, a quick note, the audience applauded after the film was over, which doesn't happen too often, at least to the screenings I have attended.

As a movies: 9- I mean, this is one of the best "movies" of the year. I really hope it does well at the box office. It deserves it.

As a film: 8- The score and the cinematography are awesome. The acting, and just plain talent involved is incredible. This movie is for both "film," and "movie" watchers.

Read Poodleface's Red Dragon review.
Comments: Read 1 orAdd Your Own.

Monday, September 23rd, 2002

Subject:Igby Goes Down - F:3 M:2
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:7:38 pm.
Mood: bored.
plot summary

It is unfortunate that the direction, script and editing are all wretched (though the editing was probably a directorial choice).

What perplexes me is the wide range of MIA actors that have come out of nowhere to appear in this movie. And they are all brilliant, not a single false not in the movie is rung from the actors themselves. Instead I can only blame the script, a mess which evokes the worst tendencies of the Trust Fund Family Drama, where our young maligned hero bounces from school to school, eventually finding love in Claire Danes (where is decidedly not deserved, which makes a latter twist in the movie easier to believe, if hard to swallow). Along the way he fucks others and does drugs. The movie is bookended with the suffocation of their mother, played in uber-bitch mode by Susan Sarandon.

At any rate, Jeff Goldblum stood out for me, if only for the final arc to his character, which allowed him to show his indignation at Igby in a rather brutal manner.

All those bastards comparing Igby to Holden Caulfield need to step off the drugs and the nihilistic trip. Dare to disagree!
Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Friday, September 20th, 2002

Subject:The Four Feathers - F:2 M:6
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:49 am.
I really wanted to like The Four Feathers, so that probably helped. It has some beautiful shots, which help to cover some of the problems with the plot. Not one frame annoyed me too terribly much. Heath Ledger looks a lot like Mr. American Taliban when he makes his transformation from British Coward to Loner Hero Arab-Impersonator Seeking Redemption.

Maybe if the director were trying to make a political movie we might have been treated to a bit more bite, but as it stands it is merely a nice little movie.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Subject:Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever - F:0 M:0.5
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:3:45 am.
There is little that needs to be said about this movie except that it is in the running for the worst movie of the year.

In the first thirty minutes of the movie we are treated to ten minutes of Lucy Liu shooting guns in slow motion. This is less exciting than it might sound. Someone might think it is a bit of cheesy fun for this reason, but I am speaking literally, people. The rest is full of a plot that centers around the result of a car explosion (once something is used as a ploy device in an Austin Powers movie. it is no longer available for serious filmmaking), a kidnapping involving some Super Secret Assassination Weapon, and a whole lot of grimacing and underacting by our two little agents, Mr. Grizzled Lost His Wife and Ms. Quiet Revenge Seeker.

There is no way I can justify this movie's existence. The half point is given for having a few decent stunts that probably could have been done cheaper using CGI, but instead were done with real cars and real falling bodies.

The title is bad. The movie is worse.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Thursday, September 5th, 2002

Subject:Feardotcom F:0 M:0
Posted by:movieman.
Time:10:15 pm.
Feardotcom was so bad, that I didn't laugh. It was so bad, it went past being laughed at to almost making me want to walk out. Instead, I tried sleeping. I couldn't. I just sat there, and watched one of the worst films ever made.

It made no sense, horrible acting, and well, what else is there.

Feardotcom as a film: 0 - zero
Feardotcomas a movie: 0 - zero

Please do not go see this. Please.

Also I had very, very low expectations. It isn't often when I have that low of expectations, and it doesn't live up to them. Yeah, stay away from Feardotcom.
Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Wednesday, August 28th, 2002

Subject:One Hour Photo F:10 M:6
Posted by:movieman.
Time:11:11 am.
The more I think about One Hour Photo the more I love it. Directly after viewing this film yesterday, my friends and I were talking about how it compared to other films this past year. We decided that the other two greats of the year, Signs and Minority Report were great, but One Hour Photo is better. Mark Romanek, who has directed videos for such bands as Nine Inch Nails and R.E.M., flawlessly directs this film about Sy Parrish, a clerk at a one hour photo inside a Savmart. Sy has been working there for years, and regularly comes in contact times with his costumers, knowing many by name. The Yorkin's, Sy's favorite, come in very often, and Sy thinks he has become sort of like their uncle to the family, as he admits himself. Having no family of his own, Sy longs to become part of the Yorkin family, and soon, begins doing things that may bring him as closer to that dream life.

Robin Williams is comedic superstar, and when a star like that tries to take on a role that is on the other spectrum from what the viewer knows them as, it is hard to take them seriously. That is why Robin Williams's performance is so amazing. He completely transforms into Sy Parrish. He looks the same, but there is no doubt in my mind that he is now Sy Parrish. Personally, I think that Robin Williams's performance is one of the greatest of all time. You are probably thinking this guy is crazy, but I am not. I honestly think so. And I think this way of the film too. It is one of the best.

The rest of the performances were good, especially Connie Nielsen, who I have grown to love after Gladiator. I think she is a great actress, and always picks great scripts. Michael Vartan, while not in the film for that long, was kind of there. He wasn't great, but he wasn't bad either. He was there. The kid did what he needed to, and very effectively.

My favorite aspect of this film was the cinematography. You know it is great cinematography when you are just in awe while watching it. It is hard for a film to do that on a first viewing. Usually I notice things like that in a second viewing, but with this film and other films, such as Black Hawk Down or Magnolia you notice it in the first viewing. Along with the camera work is the editing which is superb. I am also an editing fanatic, and it just stood out. Much like a music video. Just great.

I love this movie, and I have to see it again soon.

So, as a film it gets a perfect score of ten out of ten.

As a movie it gets a six out of ten. It is a thriller that is for everyone. While I think it won't get into the mainstream audience, it should and most definitely will on video, much like Memento, though One Hour Photo is easier to watch.
Comments: Read 5 orAdd Your Own.

Saturday, August 24th, 2002

Subject:The Life of David Gale - F:9 M:5
Posted by:movieman.
Time:3:20 pm.
Well, this is definitely one of those films made to win Oscars. It has everything it needs to have: Brilliant acting, a strong script, and a well-known director. Starring Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet, Laura Linney, and directed by Alan Parker (Mississippi Burning, Pink Floyd's The Wall), The Life of David Gale tells the story David Gale (Spacey) who is now on death row, and going to die in four days. Bitsy Bloom (Winslet) is a journalist selected by Gale and his attorney to solve the murder and rape Constance Hollaway (Linney) which Gale was convicted of. The story unfolds as Gale tells Bitsy his story. As Gale was hoping, Bitsy does work at solving the case. The only problem if she does solve it, will it be in time?

Basically, that is the movie, but much, much more. The acting is superb, most notably Laura Linney. She is just one of the most amazing actress�s working today. Spacey was also very good, and that means a lot coming from someone who thinks he is a terrible actor. I think he portrays no emotion in his acting, and the facial expressions he is able to put out, are annoying, but in this film they aren�t. He is great as David Gale. I really felt his innocence. Then there is Kate Winslet, who is always good. Especially good here. And the directing by Alan Parker was just great, though I did have some problems with some of the camera angles during the transitions from flashback to reality, though I am sure that it will be fixed later on, because the transitions were honestly horrible.

Through the movie, I was really, in my heart rooting for Bitsy to solve this. And I was hoping that Gale got out of jail. I really wanted everything to go right. The film just pulls you in and doesn�t let go. Now I am not going to say if she solves the case. I am not going to say if she gets Gale off death row. You will just have to watch the film when it is released. You will not regret paying you nine bucks and two hours.

note: Hello, I am David and I am glad to be here, reviewing movies in ilikemovies along with the awesome poodleface who set up the great community. Thanks for reading, and enjoy.
Comments: Add Your Own.

Friday, August 2nd, 2002

Subject:Signs - F:4 M:9
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:4:21 am.
Mood: good.
Plot Summary (spoiler free)

I can safely say that M. Night Shyamalan is one of the smartest filmmakers working today. I only fear that his smarts are going to get him into trouble.

Before I digress, I'll write of the movie as much as I dare. The script was extremely solid. I mean, SOLID. Only the ending suffered from being over explained, with five lines under the theme to make sure you got it when you walked out of the theatre. That cheapened what power it might have had. I'm sure it wouldn't bother me as much on a subsequent viewing.

What I felt to be the greatest strength was the use of television reports to portray events happening outside of the characters. It never leaves their point of view, and that makes events that may have seemed hokey much more realistic, even when they flirted with the fantastic. One particularly strong scene is just one character reacting very strongly to something that he has just seen on television, waiting in horrible anticipation for confirmation of his (and the audience's fear). The memory of September 11th is strong here.

The acting was great. The cinematography was great. It created moments of genuine suspense that I dare to say will not be topped anytime soon.

As I think about how perfect the whole thing was, I am reminded of The Road To Perdition ("review"), which also had numerous contributions that resulted in a flawless execution.

And well... I don't like things being that perfect. And that is a personal and completely subjective criticism that will not go down completely with many of you. However, this does inform my point of view when seeing a movie/film, so take it or leave it.

Every shot is perfectly composed. One can tell that storyboards were used extensively before shooting. Should I notice this? I don't think so, especially when it is going for a rather naturalistic tone, to bring something that has been mostly served previously by serious and hokey science fiction. This is a thriller, first and foremost, and the overwhelming focus being held on the family and its progression in the grand scheme of things is the most welcome aspect of the movie.

Rarely does a filmmaker trust his/her own judgment and the attention of the audience this much. I would have expected another to cut away from the focus of the story, which is this small family living on the farm. Night does understand that less is more. I only wished he had applied that reasoning to the framework in which he paid off the conclusion.

Make no bones about it: This is Shyamalan's show. One gets the sense that he dictated every single detail that is present in the movie. Is this good? Yes... and no. Usually the great creations of art are born of friction: the actor adding additional shades to a role, the cinematographer shooting things in a certain way, the stamp of the writer being different from what the director might see it as. When I watched Signs, I felt that every emotion, every shot, every fraction was dictated and executed to Night's high standards. This is good... but it makes the whole affair seem a little too calculated.

A minor gripe, and many films have been ruined by collaboration just as others have been elevated, but in this case it keeps a great movie from being a classic. I'll give him time though... he really is the only director who has had a consistant standard of quality in recent memory.

Addentum: A friend pointed out the Coen Brothers and Wachowski Brothers have also maintained a high standard of quality. Are there any others you can think of? Comment below.
Comments: Read 2 orAdd Your Own.

Friday, July 12th, 2002

Subject:Thirteen Conversations About One Thing - F:9 M:4
Posted by:poodleface.
Time:4:15 am.
Mood: thoughtful.
Plot Summary

I normally don't review movies that have been out for a while, but I feel this is an exception, even as it is not an easy film to watch at times.. As the ultimate misery piled on the participants grows, so does the discomfort. All in the pursuit of the meaning of happiness.

I was reminded of Waking Life, which offered more questions than answers, and answers that seemed obvious (but doesn't everything that makes sense seem obvious... until you realize you had never thought of it in that way before).

There are some real human characters in this one, as opposed to the hyper-real personalities that seem to infiltrate the best intentioned movies. For that alone I mildly rejoiced. When all was said and done, I left the theatre thinking about what I had seen, where it remained for some time.

Isn't that what makes a film great? That it would stay with you after it is done and remain in your thoughts and dreams? I think so.
Comments: Add Your Own.

LiveJournal for I Like Movies!.

View:User Info.
You're looking at the latest 20 entries. Missed some entries? Then simply jump back 20 entries.