trinityvixen: (thinking Mario)
I caught this article on about the renaissance of the comic book movie. Despite the $$$ made by The Avengers, I have a suspicion that comic book movies, specifically superhero comic book movies, are actually on the wane. Not necessarily in terms of quality, but I think the fad it going to start petering out.

Anyway, it will surprise no one that I disagree with a lot of points in that article. I have a long post as to why I disagree, but I summarize it up in an image for those not interested in the rant.

Because she never mentions this guy:

I am Iron Man. )
trinityvixen: (fangirl)

Ahem. Okay, I'm not joking when I say I'm elated. I'm still riding that adrenaline high of excitement, despite the fact that there seems to be plenty of space for criticism of that trailer alone. Another time, perhaps. BECAUSE I JUST SAW AN AVENGERS TRAILER AND IT HAD THOR AND IRON MAN AND CAPTAIN AMERICA AND 'SPLOSIONS AND NINE INCH NAILS MUSIC AND I CANNOT BE RATIONAL RIGHT NOW.

trinityvixen: (somuchlove)
The internet used a fan syllogism to freak me the fuck out last week. That syllogism:
1) Clark Gregg's Agent Phil Coulson is a much beloved character that ties together the disparate Marvel fim franchises.
2) Joss Whedon, who is directing Clark Gregg (among others) in The Avengers, is known for brutally killing off beloved characters in franchises.
3) Ergo, Joss Whedon will kill off Clark Gregg's character.

Now, it is possible that some of you don't feel the Agent Coulson love. You're wrong, but I acknowledge your existence. (Unlike, say, my willingness to acknowledge those of you females in denial about Thor's hotness. You are all faries, unicorns, trolls, whatever, far as I'm concerned.) Clark Gregg is nothing short of adorable and is a breath of fresh air and pragmatism grounding the otherwise fantastical movies in which he has appeared. (Which is saying something given how literally sky-high Thor and Iron Man can get.) He's smarmy and fun and smart, and, besides that, he serves a useful and practical role without usurping movies away from their respective stars. Joss Whedon is smart enough to love that about his character, which doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't then immediately kill that character off, which is why I was freaking out.

Luckily, however, Clark Gregg is easily as (if not more) charming as his fictional counterpart and has reassured us all that he's going to be around at least until The Avengers 2: The Search for More Money. In this interview, he manages to a) sound like a fanboy of the actors with whom he works, b) present himself as SRS AUTEUR, c) pretend to spoil you for events that probably won't happen in The Avengers (OR WILL THEY?), and d) completely make me love him even harder than I did before. That's it, Clark Gregg, I'm buying all your movies. I didn't even like Choke that well, but you have sold me. (Plus there's a chance he'll get residuals on that. Not so likely for the Marvel movies, I'm guessing.)
trinityvixen: (fangirl)
Without a doubt, our 2012 May Movie is going to be The Avengers. (Warning: following that link to the IMDB, of all places, may potentially spoil you for...something. The internet is still debating what it might mean. If you care, you can read this post to find out what the spoiler even is, since I assume most of you wouldn't know you were spoiled even if you saw it. If you prefer to stay unspoiled, by all means, go to the IMDB and ignore that last link. Also, this is where you shout "NEEEEEEEEERDS" at people on the internet. Just saying.) In preparation for that most momentous event, about which I am already unduly excited and they haven't even finished primary filming for the movie, I have had an idea. I want to do a possibly monthly movie watching series leading up to The Avengers with screenings of each Avenger's title film. (Or, in the case of Iron Man, films.) I'm posting this to gauge interest. The best way to do that? POLL! It is an extremely short poll, not to worry.

Would you be interested in screening Marvel movies in anticipation of The Avengers?
1) With you? HELL TO THE YES.
2) It may be uncomfortable sitting next to you during Thor, but otherwise yes!
3) I may be in for one or two of the movies.
4) I don't think this is my cup of tea.

The order in which we watch the movies will follow, roughly, the in-universe timeline of the movies. That means we'd watch Captain America first, then Iron Man, then The Incredible Hulk, then Iron Man 2, and then Thor. There are some who could make the case that Thor happens concurrently with Iron Man 2 (Agent Coulson leaves that movie midway through to show up in a clip after the credits that itself takes places midway through Thor). There is also no absolutely certain way to place to The Incredible Hulk except that it has to take place after Iron Man but before The Avengers as its only connection to movie-universe continuity is Tony Stark's cameo in the credits, where he is pitching General Ross on the Avengers initiative, which would suggest it took place after Iron Man 2, when Tony is more on board with that, but he's known about it since the post-credits scene in Iron Man. Regardless, I am making the executive decision here to use the movie release schedule to call this thing, and since The Incredible Hulk came out between the Iron Man movies, we'll say that the post-credit scene is a post-Iron Man, pre-Iron Man 2 event, thus putting The Incredible Hulk between them in the roster. Plus, it means we don't spend four hours in a row with Tony Stark. (You want to pace yourself where exposure to exteme assholishness is concerned.) What say you, friends? Are you with me?
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
It's Friday. I so rarely get the weekend itch, but today I have it. I stayed up all of half an hour later than my usual last night, and I'm paying for it today. I almost called in sick because that's how alluring my bed was. Now that I'm at work, I'm going through my tissues like mad because something's in the air. I should probably go get some Claritin or whatever. Stupid trees, stop having sex!

I saw Anything Goes last night. Had a great time.I need to go out to the theater more often! )

I should note that my marked interest in theater correlates, possibly, to my dread of the next few weeks of cinematic releases. I'm bang-on for completing my New Year's resolution to see a movie-a-week, but the next three weekends' movies? Green Lantern always looked horrible. There was one second of my life, though, where, after seeing X-Men: First Class and having it not suck despite the marketing department doing everything it could to make me think it would, where I thought the same could be true of Green Lantern. Yes, the trailers were THAT BAD. The CGI was THAT BAD. But X-Men: First Class was not a total loss, so maybe...

Then I passed exactly one poster for Green Lantern and came to my goddamn senses, as the early reviews confirm my worst suspicions. One interesting line at The A.V. Club's review struck me as a brilliant summation of what's wrong with the movie and why the DC properties aren't experiencing the phenomenal revival the Marvel ones are:

"Green Lantern
tries to make a case of human exceptionalism: Out of the thousand-plus species comprising the Green Lantern Corps, only Hal, the newcomer, has the humanity that can save the universe"

Hero exceptionalism: some meta )

Hero exceptionalism: some meta )

Hero exceptionalism: some meta )

Perhaps none of that matters. Perhaps Green Lantern is just a shitty movie and Warner Brothers has just had uneven luck in bringing DC's properties to life and Marvel has had astonishingly good luck. Maybe it's not about the fundamental differences between the two comic giants' philosophies on heroism and it's just a question of talent and trust. But I don't think so. For starters, the WB has thrown so much money and recruited plenty of talented folk for its movies. And they only have The Dark Knight going for them. (Granted, a $1Bn movie isn't such a bad thing to have going for you.) There's got to be something there, right?
trinityvixen: (fangirl)
I shouldn't have this much to say about Thor. At least this isn't about Thor really?

After the debacle that was shoe-horning in Black Widow into iron Man 2 and all the Avengers stuff that Jon Favreau clearly wanted nothing to do with, I was, despite my abiding love of Clark Gregg as Agent Coulson (who I think is way more interesting than Samuel L. Jackson as Fury), quite done with the crossover stuff to a degree. I knew that there would be some Avengers stuff in Thor, especially a much talked-about cameo by spoiler! ). The aspect of a cameo, in particular, annoyed me because it would either be a throwaway scene that stopped the momentum entirely or would be a literally nothing scene where you couldn't tell who or what you were supposed to be excited about.

As it turned out, the cameo was more the latter than the former, but it worked for me. It was just significant enough that you went, "Wow, we seem to be more involved with this one guy than we have any of the other faceless SHIELD agents," and no more involved than that. If you didn't know who it was, you didn't really notice. This is in direct contrast to the very heavy presence of SHIELD in the movie. Some people felt that it was still being studio-mandated or whatever into being. I think that setting up Agent Coulson as a means to throw Thor and his human companions in together a little more firmly really helped instead of hurt the film.

A.O. Scott's review was extremely negative despite the fact that he, for the most part, conceded that the movie was good. It's funny because he was especially upset that the movie was good and it exists, in part, to be a prologue to the Avengers movie. There's a point to be made there, that this movie, however good or bad it may be, is part of a money-making scheme that obligates you to return for more later to get the entire payoff. I understand that, but that's more a criticism that should be lobbed at a not-great movie that boosts its popularity by demanding that you see it in order to understand what comes later (Iron Man 2) versus one that is good and has some elements that will set up a later movie (but doesn't require that you see it for something else). Look, Marvel made its bones on its crossovers, but people liked those crossovers. Yes, it's a crass commercial calculation, but if it also pleases the audience, it isn't just about money.

All this is a long way of saying that my antipathy towards the advertising for The Avengers has been mostly dissipated. In fact, I think I threw myself firmly in the opposite camp and now I want alllllll the franchises to go into a blender. I think I, in all seriousness, endorsed an Ocean's Eleven/The Fast and the Furious crossover. I would love to see Vin Diesel and George Clooney plot a heist together. For real.
trinityvixen: (win!)
Thor was better, by far, than I could have imagined. I was completely taken aback at how it managed to balance being so funny with being so completely serious, and captivatingly so. I hope Kenneth Branaugh is proud of himself. He did actually manage to meld an almost assuredly mindless action film with something possessing more gravitas in order to generate a popcorn flick that still made you feel ways about stuff.

A lot of credit must be given to the leads, Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston. "What is my motivation?" may be a cliche, but cliches are cliches for a reason, and it seems like both men took the time to really probe at the corners of their characters. This may have been especially hard to do for Thor, who starts off as something akin to a high school football hero making the most of his big fish, small pond status (right before being slapped with the reality of the real world that doesn't give a shit that he can throw a ball however many feet). There's almost no "there" there, and while that's sort of the point--Thor has a lot of growing up to do--Hemsworth still managed to find shades of uncertainty, even self-doubt in his character. In particular, minor spoiler ) One criticism I've heard is that Thor's maturity comes too fast. Indeed, it may--especially as regards the obligatory romantic subplot--but there's very little unnatural to it because you can pick up the threads that were woven, quite deftly and subtly, earlier in the movie. You have to be paying attention. For all that I admit to drooling over the man's body (oh how I drooled), I found myself most excited by his eyes. Hemsworth does a lot of emoting through significant gazes, and they are often just as sexy as the rest of him. (Oh so sexy. Holy God.)

Tom Hiddleston has a much richer part as Loki, and, as the antagonist, he should, really. Loki is a difficult character because, unlike some trickster archetypes, he doesn't really stand a chance of being misunderstood in a brainless bit of fiction. Loki is always the one you're going to suspect, and you'd be right to because he's probably doing something very naughty. Which is funny because most of what would have been Loki's mischievous ways starts off being only the hearsay of other characters. He's accused of having a "silver tongue" even though the worst you could say of him for most of the movie is that he has a politician's gift for extraditing himself--and others--from situations that might reflect poorly on him. For the most part, too, Hiddleston plays Loki as a straight-shooter with a sense of playfulness. An occasionally dangerous sense of playfulness, but not an unsympathetic one. He may even have been right to pull the prank he does at the beginning, minor spoiler )

Loki is incredibly savvy, very observant, and very atypical in his antagonism. He is not malicious, not needlessly so, but he knows where to stick which pokers to stir the pot the best effect. All of the credit can be given to Hiddleston for that, as far as I'm concerned. Looking at trivia about the film on the IMDB, I read that Hiddleston put himself on a very strict diet so that he would physically have a very hungry, sharpish aspect. And, now I think of it, he absolutely did. So you have this aura of starving, ravenous ambition at the edges of a performance where Hiddleston is otherwise very open--his face seems completely honest (the better to fool you with, my dear). You can believe his every emotion to be sincere even as his actions scream of duplicity. It's really a nuanced bit of character writing enhanced by a phenomenally minimalist performance.

That there is even this much to say about performances is a testament to the effort to make something more of Thor than just about anyone could have expected. There's more X-Men 2 to this than there is, say, Iron Man, despite my liking both. Iron Man is a tad skimpy on the thoughtfulness at times in favor of action and humor. I think Thor manages to combine that with the consideration of causes and effects, especially as regards statecraft, and it comes out the better for it. In the end, will I want to rewatch Iron Man more often? Oh, probably, but that doesn't take away the fact that Thor achieved something here. Captain America, the bar has been raised.

(Also: ZOMG CHRIS HEMSWORTH IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HOT. I cannot overstate how entirely distracting that man is. All weekend, if I would let my mind drift it drifted to this. And I really like what's going on around them hips in this shot. Goddamn, boy. I maintain that if you are female and claim to be heterosexual and you don't think he's hot, you are lying. All the ladies were aflutter after the MAY MOVIE, and with good reason. Personally, much as I want to lick that rise of muscle just over his pants in that one shot, I was as much in love with the bee-ee-ee-youuu-tiful eyes he has. Because they are very pretty. Very, very, verily.)
trinityvixen: (squee)
ETA: I figured out from the YouTube description where that clip was from. I'm sorry I went looking. Now I will have nightmares about rubbery superhero "dancing."

It's a fan trailer. I want it known, upfront, that I know it's a fan trailer. (New point of interest: where is that footage from what Chris Evans movie that they used that isn't Captain America?) I know that this is a fan creation.

That said, I'm still kinda excited, u guyz:

For balance, so as not to let my fangirl run away with me (TOO LATE), I offer this obvious but necessary recut of the only Captain America trailer we have to date:

I'd like you all to welcome a new LJ tag debuting today. See if you can guess which one it is.
trinityvixen: (drinks are on Tony)
Iron Man 2's central scientific premise--SPOILERS! That Tony Stark could build a particle accelerator in his basement and create new elements with it--not so far-fetched after all!

By "not" I mean "still pretty," and this has been a nothing-to-see-here post for you all. Hope you enjoyed it.
trinityvixen: (vampire smile)
I'm not even halfway through June and I'm getting this review/list done. I am proud of me! I'm less proud that, nearly halfway through the year, I've not even seen 100 movies. I'll never beat last year's record. ::pouts::

We're going through the list chronologically this time. )

The even shorter version of that list would be an acknowledgment that I saw precisely one amazing movie (that would be Network) and the rest fell on the spectrum of enjoyable to enjoyably bad to MAY IT BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY. C. THOMAS HOWELL!!!!!!!! ::SHAKES FISTS::
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
ETA: Someone found a much better source costume for Thor. Why couldn't they have gone with that? Also, I realize that part of what's been bugging me is that with the facial hair he's got and the long blonde hair, movie-Thor looks a lot like psycho-harpoon-hand-Aquaman. 'S weird!

The concept art is out for film versions of Captain America and Thor. Like the Cap, am suddenly less confident about Thor than I was previously. To be fair, concept art that incorporates the look of a real human being is always going to look a bit weird, and the only reason that the design for the Cap doesn't look as horrible as the art for Thor is because most of his features are covered. (Thor lets it all hang out, baby.)

Still, Thor looks all kinds of ridiculous despite the fact that virtually the same aesthetic dominates these two costumes. This is because of the illogical nature of Thor in the first place, I suspect. Captain America can wear what we're now used to considering comic book-combat chic. Basically, it's fine for him to look like he's got an amalgam of the X-Men uniforms crossed with the Batsuit. He's a soldier, that's what we've decided comic soldiers wear when they're made into live-action people.

But Thor is a goddamned, well, god. If ever there were an excuse for impracticality or theatricality, hey, this is it. Let's get him into some plate mail or quilted outerwear! I know, I know, it doesn't fit into what Marvel has planned for The Avengers movie--but neither does Thor! I mean, you quite literally cannot make him make sense. You can hand-wave away Iron Man as part of Tony Stark's genius, and I think we've proven that the general public is too stupid to know what you can and can't do with DNA, so that covers just about every other Avenger there is (the mutants, the spider-bitten, the Hulk). But not Thor. He's a god, so your attempts to make him real are either irrelevant or stupid. Guess which one I'm leaning towards?
trinityvixen: (drinks are on Tony)

The movie is at 7:45 pm, at the 34th street Loews-AMC, so I figured I'd invite you who are about to rock (and I do salute you) this, the 10th Anniversary of THE MAY MOVIE, to join me at the Skylight Diner for food before hand. I'll be there at 5:30. We have to eat fast-ish, because I want to be in line (yes, I want to be in line) by about 7. Those of you who cannot make dinner, can you hold us a spot if we're late?

trinityvixen: (drinks are on Tony)
We have a date and time for THE MAY MOVIE. This year's MAY MOVIE is Iron Man 2. Trailers have been rather cracker-jack, I'm liking the inclusion of Sam Rockwell (all movies need more Sam Rockwell), and this could lead to the Marvel Movie Mash-Up of every fan's dreams. (Or nightmares.)

We'll be seeing this year's MAY MOVIE, which happens to be the tenth annual MAY MOVIE, May 7, 2010, at the AMC-Loews 34 Street theater (312 W34th St, between 8th and 9th avenues) at 7:45 pm. Please go pick up your tickets either at the theater or at Fandango.

Since the movie is so late, I figure we can go grab food before hand. There are at least two dinners in the area that are preferable to Tick-Tock. One is the Starlight Diner on 9th (I believe), the other is Andrew's Coffee Shop on 36th and 8th (again, not sure of exact coordinates, we'll work it out). If anyone has any other suggestions, I would love to hear them. I figure if we get to dinner by about 5:30-ish, we can eat comfortably and then head to the theater to claim seats.


Mar. 23rd, 2010 12:36 pm
trinityvixen: (question)
I was thinking about my earlier post (in which I objectified at least two men and hinted at a history of doing so to many, many others) and the oncoming onslaught of superhero movies (our taste for which is surprisingly still rapacious). Marvel has no less than a dozen movies already assumed: Iron Man 2 and, very probably, 3; Thor (with Thor 2 less likely but not impossible); Captain America (its sequel potential somewhere between that of Iron Man 3 and Thor 2); The Avengers; Wolverine 2; Deadpool; and some variety of X-Men-related films--the long idle Magneto movie and the more active X-Men: First Class.

DC has, to its credit, tried to step up production of the next Christopher Nolan Batman film and is making noise about another Superman film (though they won't film anything until the lawsuits are settled, I'm sure). And, while they do that, Green Lantern is already filming. (Seriously, someone took a shitty quality photo of Ryan Reynolds on set with what looked like a smudge on one of his fingers and the Lantern fans exploded with paroxysms of glee that he was wearing the ring.) The Flash may be getting another script treatment. Don't ask about Wonder Woman, though.

But, no, wait, let's ask about Wonder Woman for a second. Or, rather, since I don't want to hear the bullshit about how they can't figure out how to make Wonder Woman interesting enough to justify a movie, let's focus on what really bugged me as I looked at the Marvel line-up. Forget DC for a moment. I need comics fans to answer (riddle) me this: Who is Marvel's Wonder Woman?

I'm not trying to pick at wounds here, though it is a sore subject for me, personally. I really just could not think of any grand dame of the Marvel universe who stands on the sort of equal footing with her male colleagues that Wonder Woman does in the DC universe. The best I could come up with were the obviously-derivative-versions-of-male-characters, sometimes-members of the Avengers, like Spider-Woman or She-Hulk. Thinking about female Marvel characters, I immediately thought of X-Men, but they're hardly any of them anything like Wonder Woman. You can think of the iconic Marvel characters without ever touching on any X-Man or X-Woman. So the X-Women cannot be said to be iconic enough to Wonder Woman, for all that they are, by far, the most interesting women in the Marvel universe.

So, comics nerds better versed than I: am I wrong? Is there an iconic Marvel character who is on par with DC's Wonder Woman and I'm just not thinking of her?
trinityvixen: (drinks are on Tony)
The best way to picture my response to this, if you need help, is to imagine you are standing on a corner. You hear a noise off in the distance. The noise is dopplering as it gets closer to you, but it's not close enough yet to identify. Is it a siren? Is it someone on a megaphone? Eventually, it gets close enough to rise in pitch and you realize it is an extremely insane woman screaming "eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeee" as she runs past you at full tilt, putting the Ferrari to shame with her speed, on her way to the ticket counter to ask why they don't offer May tickets already.

trinityvixen: (no sense)
A serious article about film criticism and its decline.



The criticism of online reviewers in the first link seemed especially prescient this morning when I went from it to the second link. Of course, the problem with the io9 criticism is that the cyclical nature of genre popularity is just that: it is only popularity that waxes/wanes, not actual production. There will be some stepping off of making superhero movies, say, when a few superhero movies have failed to make big bank or have failed critically (either with fans or reviewers or both). But the movies will still be around. After Watchmen did less well than hoped, and after Wolverine was so boring even fanboys didn't bother watching the leaked movie, we are still looking at a slew of movies that were pushed into action regardless of those films failures.

This year, we get Iron Man 2. Next year, Thor and The Avengers. DC is pushing a new Superman movie and another in the Nolan Bat-films. Kick-Ass is already rumored to have a sequel in the works. It is not that we'll tire of superhero movies. We only tire of some superheroes. That's what I mean about popularity. As the Burton-Schumacher Batman franchise started to wane, Blade stepped in, as did X-Men. (The former informed upon The Matrix; the latter took a few cues from it.) Within a couple of years, we had Spider-Man. All around them were the also-rans: The Hulk, The Punisher, Fantastic Four. Then we came back to Batman again.

To the internet's credit, most of this was pointed out to the io9 OP. Perhaps we aren't all the anti-education film reactionaries that that first link assumes many of to be?
trinityvixen: (win!)
We have ourselves a May Movie for 2011.

If you have complaints to make, you may make them now, but you must realize that a) there is no negotiating with THE MAY MOVIE, and b) dude, you have a year plus at this point in which this could easily not happen, so chillax. (That's what I hear the kids are saying these days. The cool ones. That don't hang out with vampires.) I mean, they already moved the date once...

In fact, if the dates in that article remain accurate, we have the next two May Movies beyond this year.

For those of you wondering what this year's May Movie will be (a reasonable question given that it's happening much more soon and more definitely than these other movies), I say to you: Uh, DUH!?!?
trinityvixen: (squee)
I keep trying to make sure I check in with LJ, but I'm finding out left and right that I've missed, like, whole threads of things. So, uh, am I missing anything I should know about?

Here's something you shouldn't miss: IRON MAN 2 TRAILER.

Oh pleaseohpleaseohpleaseohplease come out the first weekend in May. This needs to be The May Movie!
trinityvixen: (squee)
IRON MAN 2 POSTER!!!!!!!!!!!


Okay, er, sorry, that got away from me. My friend H recently gave me my months-overdue birthday gift, which was the 2-disc Iron Man DVD set. Which is fucking awesome, in case that squealing above didn't tip you off to how I feel about it.

What helps me to be excited, beyond the fact that Iron Man was pretty much astonishingly perfect for an action/comic book movie, is that everything about it screams quality. Okay, maybe not the poster they went with for the theatrical release. That was crap. But there is so much love everywhere else. I mean, look at the teaser poster for the first movie. I first saw that one of the light boxes at a theater and could not stop staring. (Naturally, I acquired a copy ASAP.) Everything about the movie looked this good, too. It just did.

AND NOW THE SEQUEL POSTER IS OUT AND ZOMG ZOMG ZOMG. I love the contrast, too, between the shadowy-but-squeaky-clean teaser for the first movie and the brazen sturm-and-drang-with-dirty robots of the second one. Pathetic fallacy says what!?

Another thing that makes me want to die for laughing with maniacal glee: they're making a Pride and Prejudice and Zombies miniseries. I think this is the right venue for this degree of silliness. It's not film-quality material. It's SyFy Channel stuff. Although, I doubt anything could compete, silliness-wise, with that That Mitchell and Webb Look P&P parody. Still, eee!
trinityvixen: (blogging from work)
...another thousand movies I've watched. No, not really. Since I can't possibly capture your attention or wow any of you with my books-read-this-year total, time to do my annual recap of media I've consumed in 2008.

There seems to be a cap fast approaching, as I saw only three more movies in 2008 than I did in 2007. Television, however, fell off dramatically (25 seasons this past year versus 46 in 2007), and frankly, I'm astonished. I've been exercising regularly while watching episodes of television since July. I suppose the caveat there is that since I've been forcing myself not to watch shows when not exercising, I haven't been breezing through entire series of shows in a weekend. (::coughcoughDoctorWhocough::)

My recs and trends beneath the cut!

Movie magic )

Boob Tubing )

I said I wouldn't write about books. Naturally, I wrote THE MOST about them. )

And that's the year that was.


trinityvixen: (Default)

February 2015

89 1011121314
22232425 262728


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 11:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios