Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Oct 21, 2014 4:21 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16353 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 ... 818  Next
Last Movie You Watched 
Author Message
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Moral ambiguity is a wonderful thing, but I'll admit that it's refreshing to see stories that stake out an uncompromising moral position. It doesn't happen much in the big pictures.

---

Smash His Camera

A nice little documentary about Ron Galella, an early adopter of paparazzi-style photojournalism. This movie doesn't dig deep and doesn't unearth any skeletons, but there are lots of cool pics--some of "celebrities" you wouldn't expect--and the man himself is a bit of a cartoon character. It's entertainment.


Black Swan

This is a rarity in the world of the hit-driven motion picture industry: a movie about art. Specifically, it's a movie about the union of life and art. The goal of the characters is to bring the two together. Some of them realize it and some don't.

I had a difficult time with this film for a few reasons. While I appreciated its audacity and its stockpile of enchanting images, I was initially very put off by the style. Darren Aronofsky has a deserved reputation as a superior visual storyteller, but his work in the first act of the movie is often workmanlike and occasionally borders on hackery. The fabric of the film made itself apparent in ways that it never should.

Perhaps the uncertain camera work, overreliance on closeups, and superfluous cutting were meant to reflect an unstable state of mind--in which case, it might have been better off if it had developed and modulated along with the rest of the film instead of blithely crashing in from the beginning. Or perhaps it was merely an effort for the movie to coexist in today's stylistic climate of hyperkinetic nonsense visuals--but it shouldn't feel obligated to. Either way, the choices here damage the cohesion of the film when it needs it the most. It makes it uncomfortable, almost irritating to watch. Whether the appropriatenss of the style changed as the film played on or I simply began to tune out the noise, the issues seemed to fade after a while.

I'm hesitant to pass final judgment on Black Swan, because the audience I saw it with might be the worst of any screening I've ever attended. (Yes, including the 2001 screening in LA where the guy lost his shit during the star gate scene.) There were several large groups of people who chattered constantly with one another and openly remarked at every single development in the film. There was constant laughter at material that isn't funny by any stretch of the imagination and was never intended to be. I felt like I was in a theater filled with eight year olds.

I used to think that too many moviegoers today were simply not taught to behave properly at the movies as children. I have since come to think that there's more to it than that. Both Black Swan and its director have a known reputation. These people knew they weren't going to see a movie about Robin Williams getting hit in the nuts with a tee ball, but they chose to treat it as such. Rather than take the film seriously, they felt that the only way they could enjoy it was by commenting on it constantly and trying their hardest to turn it into a comedy.

Rather than a generation of mere imbeciles, we may be dealing with a generation raised on irony--a generation that has numbed itself to genuine, unguarded experiences for so long that it doesn't remember how to have them anymore.

Perhaps I'll see Black Swan again one day and decide for certain how I feel about it. Until then, it stands to me as a compelling, ambitious, but ultimately flawed movie. It has also prompted me, once and for all, to avoid movies at the cinema until they're near the end of their run.


Wed Dec 22, 2010 3:21 pm
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 1 - A bit ponderous as all of the pieces are set up for the final (final) installment. If you like bickering, or camping, or bickering while camping, this is the film for you. I have a suspicion that anyone going into this without having ready the books would be completely lost. No Hogwarts, no Quidditch and characters in search of the next deux ex machina makes this probably the weakest of the latter (say from book 4 on) Potter films. 2.0 / 4.0.


Wed Dec 22, 2010 4:48 pm
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Il Divo (2008) - Italian film that was nominated for Best Makeup Oscar. Frankly that nomination is a little perplexing. The makeup is decent, but it's always apparent who is a young person in "old people" make-up. One dance scene came off as unintentionally hilarious because it reminded me of those Six Flags commercials with the "old man" dancing. So, the makeup is just decent but surprisingly the direction and editing are really interesting. There's a lot of cross cutting and snazzy camera effects that really add to the story and lend it a sense of immediacy. Unfortunately, the film's problem is its story. It tells the tale of Giulio Andreotti who was elected as Italy's Prime Minister on seven different occasions. His last term ended in controversy and he eventually faced several charges that linked him with the mafia and several murders. The focus here is on a small period of time during the mid 1990s but if you're unfamiliar with Italian history (as I imagine most of us are) then the film is extremely confusing. In one 10 minute segment it introduces at least 20 characters, some of whom are important later in the story and some who aren't. The whole movie is like this as we constantly see new faces who are politicians, members of the mafia or persons who are about to meet their demise. I'd imagine that most of these are well known to Italians, but for the average viewer it's impossible to ascertain who is important. That's a pity because the film is otherwise really well-made and details an interesting period of history. 6/10.

Robert Holloway wrote:
ed_metal_head wrote:

A Christmas Tale (2008) - egads! How can a 150 minute French film about a dysfunctional family be this funny? And good! I dreaded seeing this one, but the tone and pacing of this multi-character ensemble is just about perfect. No melodrama, no cloying sentimentality, just an honest look at a family who does not put the "fun" in dysfunctional. The best description I can offer is to call this a French version of The Royal Tenenbaums. And what a neat ending too
[Reveal] Spoiler:
the mother (receiving her son's bone marrow) while he looks on. But he's separated from her by a thick plastic curtain (mirroring their relationship in life). The conversation ends on a coin flip where he refuses to show her if she won or not (mirroring her health).
Good stuff and one of the better movies of 2008. 8/10.


This is in my instant queue on Netflix. Summoning up the strength to watch a 150 minute French movie
Thanks for the helpful push
Rob


See it before the 25th. It'll get you into the Christmas Spirit!


Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:10 pm
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Dinner for Schmucks and Black Swan. Schmucks was one of the worst comedies that I've ever seen. Simply god awful... Paul, Zach, Steve, what are y'all doing being in such crap? I don't think I chuckled more than once and the best part was when the credits rolled. Watching names roll down a screen was more entertaining than that POS movie.

Black Swan, on the other hand was awesome. I never thought that a film about ballet could be interesting to me, Arronofsky, however, showed me something that I never expected; one of the better psychological, cerebral thrillers that I've seen in a while. I am definitely looking forward to seeing it again.


Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:29 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
The General ****
Wow, this is an incredible film. Buster Keaton plays a train engineer who is rejected by the Confederate army only to find himself right in the tick of things. Keaton is incredibly good, mastering both physical comedy and daring stuntwork. The score is outstanding. Every film fan should see this film.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:41 pm
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
firefly wrote:
The General ****
Wow, this is an incredible film. Buster Keaton plays a train engineer who is rejected by the Confederate army only to find himself right in the tick of things. Keaton is incredibly good, mastering both physical comedy and daring stuntwork. The score is outstanding. Every film fan should see this film.


The film's score is almost as good as the score in Serenity ;)

But seriously the film is a masterpiece *Que Kunze*


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:03 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JJoshay wrote:
firefly wrote:
The General ****
Wow, this is an incredible film. Buster Keaton plays a train engineer who is rejected by the Confederate army only to find himself right in the tick of things. Keaton is incredibly good, mastering both physical comedy and daring stuntwork. The score is outstanding. Every film fan should see this film.


The film's score is almost as good as the score in Serenity ;)


Haha. I do quite enjoy the score of Serenity (though it's not as inventive as the score for Firefly episodes), but I wouldn't quite put it in the elite score categories. The General has the best score of any silent film I've seen.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:13 pm
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
True Grit '69

People like to think that since this is the movie that John Wayne won his Oscar, that this is a great movie. They're morons. It's basically a big, dumb cartoon....and yet, I do like it. It is funny, it is entertaining and I do like John Wayne and Glen Campbell in it since they're hilariously over-the-top. I don't like Kim Darby in this though, she's annoying, she's all wrong for the role and I don't think Mattie Ross was supposed to be British. Also, the score is pretty bad here.

7/10


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:28 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7478
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Patrick wrote:
True Grit '69

People like to think that since this is the movie that John Wayne won his Oscar, that this is a great movie. They're morons. It's basically a big, dumb cartoon....and yet, I do like it. It is funny, it is entertaining and I do like John Wayne and Glen Campbell in it since they're hilariously over-the-top. I don't like Kim Darby in this though, she's annoying, she's all wrong for the role and I don't think Mattie Ross was supposed to be British. Also, the score is pretty bad here.

7/10


I agree with you here 100%, though I would like to mention that no matter how corny parts of the film are, it stirred my blood when John Wayne took his revolver in one hand, rifle in the other, and charged at the bad guys.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:36 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7478
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JJoshay wrote:
firefly wrote:
The General ****
Wow, this is an incredible film. Buster Keaton plays a train engineer who is rejected by the Confederate army only to find himself right in the tick of things. Keaton is incredibly good, mastering both physical comedy and daring stuntwork. The score is outstanding. Every film fan should see this film.


The film's score is almost as good as the score in Serenity ;)

But seriously the film is a masterpiece *Que Kunze*


Ugh this is one of the movies I wish I liked! I was all set to love it, but it didn't amuse me at all. Part of the problem, I think, is that I saw the completely overlong 108 minute version. But still, I found very little to like. And it makes me feel really bad :(

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:38 pm
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
Patrick wrote:
True Grit '69

People like to think that since this is the movie that John Wayne won his Oscar, that this is a great movie. They're morons. It's basically a big, dumb cartoon....and yet, I do like it. It is funny, it is entertaining and I do like John Wayne and Glen Campbell in it since they're hilariously over-the-top. I don't like Kim Darby in this though, she's annoying, she's all wrong for the role and I don't think Mattie Ross was supposed to be British. Also, the score is pretty bad here.

7/10


I agree with you here 100%, though I would like to mention that no matter how corny parts of the film are, it stirred my blood when John Wayne took his revolver in one hand, rifle in the other, and charged at the bad guys.


FILL YOUR HANDS YOU SON OF A BITCH!


I don't know what that means but it gave me the power to eat a dozen manly steaks!


Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:39 pm
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
JamesKunz wrote:
JJoshay wrote:
firefly wrote:
The General ****
Wow, this is an incredible film. Buster Keaton plays a train engineer who is rejected by the Confederate army only to find himself right in the tick of things. Keaton is incredibly good, mastering both physical comedy and daring stuntwork. The score is outstanding. Every film fan should see this film.


The film's score is almost as good as the score in Serenity ;)

But seriously the film is a masterpiece *Que Kunze*


Ugh this is one of the movies I wish I liked! I was all set to love it, but it didn't amuse me at all. Part of the problem, I think, is that I saw the completely overlong 108 minute version. But still, I found very little to like. And it makes me feel really bad :(


The General is one of those "masterpieces" that, to me, shows exactly how overused the term is. There's very little (read: nothing) of value in the film aside from the stuntwork. There's a rough outline of a story, almost no emotion, and few laughs. The movie pales in comparison to just about everything Chaplin did in his silent films. A masterpiece should have more than some cool stunts on a train.


Thu Dec 23, 2010 9:41 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
I think there are several brilliantly drawn scenes--the opening scene, for one, which is much different than your standard silent fare (since Keaton did not overact). The most brilliant is the scene where he overhears the plans--phenomenally shot and hilarious. I guess the humor is either something that you get or you don't--I found myself laughing quite a bit during it.

I think that Ebert captures the brilliance of the film in his review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 10365/1023

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Dec 23, 2010 10:57 am
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
firefly wrote:
I think there are several brilliantly drawn scenes--the opening scene, for one, which is much different than your standard silent fare (since Keaton did not overact). The most brilliant is the scene where he overhears the plans--phenomenally shot and hilarious. I guess the humor is either something that you get or you don't--I found myself laughing quite a bit during it.

I think that Ebert captures the brilliance of the film in his review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... 10365/1023



A few things:

1. Ebert's review is the kind of fluff I hate from the man (who I generally enjoy). He calls the movie one of the most expensive of its time, then, later in the review, credits Keaton for being resourceful because he wasn't as well-funded as Chaplin. Right. Ebert may prefer Keaton, and that's fine, but he's in full spin mode here to justify that preference. That's utter crap.

2. There may be several brilliantly drawn scenes (although I'd dispute the brilliance), but that's just it. They're just scenes with no cohesion. There's no story to tell. The movie is essentially a canvas for Keaton to pull stunts or perform camera tricks. It's kind of neat, but there's not much to latch on to. I mean, how long do you think the script was for the movie? 2 pages? There isn't necessarily anything horribly wrong with the film, but I'll never understand why it is held in such high esteem.

3. I dislike the notion that other silent filmmakers were "overactors". That's a completely relative term, and it's easy to compare today's acting standards and those of 80 years ago and come away with the theory that silent comedians were overactors. When put into context, those "overacting" silent stars were mostly just acting (albeit with different standards). Keaton was more understated, and that's not a better or worse thing. It was just his style. To say he's a better actor than other silent filmmakers because he's different is silly.


Thu Dec 23, 2010 11:39 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
A few things:

1. Ebert's review is the kind of fluff I hate from the man (who I generally enjoy). He calls the movie one of the most expensive of its time, then, later in the review, credits Keaton for being resourceful because he wasn't as well-funded as Chaplin. Right. Ebert may prefer Keaton, and that's fine, but he's in full spin mode here to justify that preference. That's utter crap.


I think that Ebert was noting the general trend in Keaton's productions rather than this one specifically--in general, Keaton had less money and received less notice than Chaplin. Chaplin was afforded unparalleled time, money, and patience--the production of his movies consisted of him sitting around until he figured out a scene to film, then telling everyone what to do and filming the scene, and then going back to sitting around till he figured out the next one, all the while getting paid.

Quote:
2. There may be several brilliantly drawn scenes (although I'd dispute the brilliance), but that's just it. They're just scenes with no cohesion. There's no story to tell. The movie is essentially a canvas for Keaton to pull stunts or perform camera tricks. It's kind of neat, but there's not much to latch on to. I mean, how long do you think the script was for the movie? 2 pages? There isn't necessarily anything horribly wrong with the film, but I'll never understand why it is held in such high esteem.


I didn't really get this impression--I found there to be a cohesive story, the tale of a man who becomes an unlikely hero after being turned down by the army by (mostly) unwittingly finding himself in the middle of battle, all the while proving his love for the girl he wants. The relatively thinner nature of scripting in the silent era is hardly limited to Keaton, though--Chaplin employed the same style.

Quote:
3. I dislike the notion that other silent filmmakers were "overactors". That's a completely relative term, and it's easy to compare today's acting standards and those of 80 years ago and come away with the theory that silent comedians were overactors. When put into context, those "overacting" silent stars were mostly just acting (albeit with different standards). Keaton was more understated, and that's not a better or worse thing. It was just his style. To say he's a better actor than other silent filmmakers because he's different is silly.


You're right that there was a different standard in that day, and I don't want to impugn the work of Lon Chaney, Chaplin, etc. but this is pretty objective: Keaton was doing something very different than pretty much everyone else around him, and what he was doing holds up far better than most of the others in his era. Just as Marlon Brando was doing something very different than pretty much everyone else when he started out, and his work holds up far better than his contemporaries who engaged in stagier acting. The same can be said for the actors who did something different with villainous roles (Dan Duryea, Lee Marvin, Richard Widmark). We can note that the general style back then was to be far more demonstrative than is realistic, while still appreciating Keaton's different approach.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:36 pm
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
firefly wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
A few things:

1. Ebert's review is the kind of fluff I hate from the man (who I generally enjoy). He calls the movie one of the most expensive of its time, then, later in the review, credits Keaton for being resourceful because he wasn't as well-funded as Chaplin. Right. Ebert may prefer Keaton, and that's fine, but he's in full spin mode here to justify that preference. That's utter crap.


I think that Ebert was noting the general trend in Keaton's productions rather than this one specifically--in general, Keaton had less money and received less notice than Chaplin. Chaplin was afforded unparalleled time, money, and patience--the production of his movies consisted of him sitting around until he figured out a scene to film, then telling everyone what to do and filming the scene, and then going back to sitting around till he figured out the next one, all the while getting paid.


Yes, but he's using that to justify his opinion that Keaton is better than Chaplin when he admits that The General is one of the most costly films of its era. Then there's the fact that Chaplin's films were proven money makers, and The General was a complete failure financially. It isn't proof that Keaton was better than Chaplin. The only thing any of this proves is that Chaplin was afforded more freedom because his films made money. That doesn't mean either is better than the other and Ebert spins it as such.

firefly wrote:
Quote:
2. There may be several brilliantly drawn scenes (although I'd dispute the brilliance), but that's just it. They're just scenes with no cohesion. There's no story to tell. The movie is essentially a canvas for Keaton to pull stunts or perform camera tricks. It's kind of neat, but there's not much to latch on to. I mean, how long do you think the script was for the movie? 2 pages? There isn't necessarily anything horribly wrong with the film, but I'll never understand why it is held in such high esteem.


I didn't really get this impression--I found there to be a cohesive story, the tale of a man who becomes an unlikely hero after being turned down by the army by (mostly) unwittingly finding himself in the middle of battle, all the while proving his love for the girl he wants. The relatively thinner nature of scripting in the silent era is hardly limited to Keaton, though--Chaplin employed the same style.


I hate to sound like a douche and ask this, but how many Chaplin movies have you seen? Anything of his that is regarded as a classic has a far more thought out story than The General. To boot, Chaplin was interested in visual metaphor to tell his story, whereas Keaton used the camera for tricks, stunts, and comedy. That's all there with Chaplin, but there's also more. He started exploring what the medium of film could do artistically, which is much more than I can say for Keaton (based on the very little I've seen). There's a reason Chaplin gets brought up when discussions of auteurs take place.

firefly wrote:
Quote:
3. I dislike the notion that other silent filmmakers were "overactors". That's a completely relative term, and it's easy to compare today's acting standards and those of 80 years ago and come away with the theory that silent comedians were overactors. When put into context, those "overacting" silent stars were mostly just acting (albeit with different standards). Keaton was more understated, and that's not a better or worse thing. It was just his style. To say he's a better actor than other silent filmmakers because he's different is silly.


You're right that there was a different standard in that day, and I don't want to impugn the work of Lon Chaney, Chaplin, etc. but this is pretty objective: Keaton was doing something very different than pretty much everyone else around him, and what he was doing holds up far better than most of the others in his era. Just as Marlon Brando was doing something very different than pretty much everyone else when he started out, and his work holds up far better than his contemporaries who engaged in stagier acting. The same can be said for the actors who did something different with villainous roles (Dan Duryea, Lee Marvin, Richard Widmark). We can note that the general style back then was to be far more demonstrative than is realistic, while still appreciating Keaton's different approach.


See that bolded section? You start off objectively, but then after that comma you get purely subjective. It isn't a fact, or being objective, to claim something holds up better than something else. That's nothing but opinion. That's a nasty debating habit to get into (passing opinion off as fact).

I'm not saying Keaton's approach was bad, or poor, at all. I'm not saying it can't be appreciated. I am saying that to cite something as better simply because it is different is incorrect. However, I do like calling silent actors "far more demonstrative". That drops the misnomer of overacting, and describes the style without the negative stigma. After all, it can't be overacting if that was the norm for acting. It's just acting in a different style.


Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:01 pm
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
PeachyPete wrote:
The General is one of those "masterpieces" that, to me, shows exactly how overused the term is. There's very little (read: nothing) of value in the film aside from the stuntwork. There's a rough outline of a story, almost no emotion, and few laughs. The movie pales in comparison to just about everything Chaplin did in his silent films. A masterpiece should have more than some cool stunts on a train.
Modern cinema would be infinitely improved if it had The General's understanding of composition and physical movement within a shot. If you watch this movie carefully, the camerawork and editing are almost invisible. Every shred of momentum, every bit of suspense is imparted to the film through pure physical action and the careful placement of objects and actors.

Pick a random movie off your shelf that was made in the last 10 years or so. Chances are it has at least a few scenes in which the actors remain stationary and bounce lines of script off each other while the DP and the editor gamely try to make it look like something's happening.


Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:05 pm
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7478
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ken wrote:
PeachyPete wrote:
The General is one of those "masterpieces" that, to me, shows exactly how overused the term is. There's very little (read: nothing) of value in the film aside from the stuntwork. There's a rough outline of a story, almost no emotion, and few laughs. The movie pales in comparison to just about everything Chaplin did in his silent films. A masterpiece should have more than some cool stunts on a train.
Modern cinema would be infinitely improved if it had The General's understanding of composition and physical movement within a shot. If you watch this movie carefully, the camerawork and editing are almost invisible. Every shred of momentum, every bit of suspense is imparted to the film through pure physical action and the careful placement of objects and actors.

Pick a random movie off your shelf that was made in the last 10 years or so. Chances are it has at least a few scenes in which the actors remain stationary and bounce lines of script off each other while the DP and the editor gamely try to make it look like something's happening.


I take your point Ken, but that's not quite fair as a comparison. After all, actors didn't remain stationary and "bounce lines of script" when there were no lines of dialogue.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:21 pm
Profile
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Ah, but what does this tell you about how movies use dialogue?

God damn it, I wish I had a wooden pipe and a tweed jacket with leather on the elbows. I would be hitting that pipe so fucking thoughtfully right now.


Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:27 pm
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:54 pm
Posts: 1484
Post Re: Last Movie You Watched
Quote:
It isn't a fact, or being objective, to claim something holds up better than something else. That's nothing but opinion. That's a nasty debating habit to get into (passing opinion off as fact).


I think it is pretty objective that Keaton's style holds up better in the sense that it is much, much closer to the modern approach to cinematic acting than that of his contemporaries.

Quote:
I hate to sound like a douche and ask this, but how many Chaplin movies have you seen? Anything of his that is regarded as a classic has a far more thought out story than The General. To boot, Chaplin was interested in visual metaphor to tell his story, whereas Keaton used the camera for tricks, stunts, and comedy. That's all there with Chaplin, but there's also more. He started exploring what the medium of film could do artistically, which is much more than I can say for Keaton (based on the very little I've seen). There's a reason Chaplin gets brought up when discussions of auteurs take place.

I've seen City Lights and parts of several other Chaplin movies. You may like his movies better but that doesn't change the method of his construction of movies, which was often to string together different ideas he had into a cohesive whole.

_________________
I am a Leaf on the Wind. Watch Me Soar
---
http://www.leafontheweb.com


Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:07 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16353 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331 ... 818  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr