2014: The Year in Reviews (February)

Every January, I go over almost the films that are scheduled to come out that year. I use Wikipedia’s year in film article as it exists at the time, and preview all the films. I use it to familiarize myself with what’s coming out, and, most importantly, use it to guess what I’m going to think about all of the movies. I like to guess ratings for all the films because, at this point, I know myself pretty well, and I selfishly like to see how close I can get up to twelve months out. Plus, it allows me to see which films at the end of the year surprised me, for better or worse. But mostly, it’s so I know what’s coming out. Sometimes I just want to know what to be excited for.

Aside from the films scheduled, I also go over films that have been finished (or are shooting), that, in all likelihood, will probably come out over the course of the year. I’ve gotten much more thorough about this since starting the blog. 2011 had 30 such films. 2012 had 90. Last year, I had 209, plus an extra 27 held over from the year before. At this point, there’s not much that I miss.

How these articles work: I recap what I said about the films in January, write up my review of the films based on the initial watch (which have been posted in three separate reviews articles from April, August, and… yesterday), and then I give my final thoughts on the film, after having had time to think about it some more, and finalize my ranking. Typically, the Final Thoughts space is for me to go, “Originally I gave it 3.5 stars, but now, it’s more like 3.”

We started with January, and are going month by month through December. After that, I’ll recap the films I tracked in January that didn’t come out (and ultimately decide which ones I’ll keep tracking next year). And at the end of it all, I’ll analyze all the numbers to see how accurate I was in guessing back in January. Mostly it’s to put all the ratings in one place. And of course, after that, we’ll end the year with the Unforgivables list and my Top Ten list. But that’s all not for another two weeks. Right now, we’re recapping February:

One thing I do in all these recap articles is explain how my rankings work.

* * * * * (5 stars) — I really loved the film. Five stars essentially guarantees the film a spot in the top ten or top twenty (Though usually top ten). (2013 examples of 5 star movies: Gravity, Frozen, The Wind Rises.)

* * * * ½ (4.5 stars) — I loved the film, but not unconditionally. Four and a half stars is usually the ranking for films in the top ten and top twenty. Rarely does a four and a half star film fall to tier two, but that’s all dependent on how many there are. (2013 examples of 4.5 star films: About Time, Inside Llewyn Davis, Prisoners, 12 Years a Slave.)

* * * * (4 stars) — I liked the film quite a bit, but it’s not one of those that I would automatically say is a top ten film. It could end up being one when all is said and done, but typically a four star film is one of those that I’ve solidly liked, and will openly say is a really good movie. Three and a half, I’ll say that I really enjoyed it. But four stars is where I’ll say that it’s a really good movie. Four star movies generally are top twenty and tier two. They don’t usually make the top ten, but it’s not unheard of. (2013 examples of 4 star films: Dallas Buyers Club, Escape from Tomorrow, The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman, Pacific Rim, This Is the End.)

* * * ½ (3.5 stars) — The film stood out to me as being particularly solid. I always differentiate three and a half from three by saying that three stars is for a film that I just enjoyed enough to give it the thumbs up. Three and a half is when I go, “Wow, that was actually really solid and I enjoyed it quite a bit.” It’s not alway a mark of “this was better than I expected” or, “It’s better than you think.” Sometimes it’s just, “That was really solid,” or, “That was awesome,” even though the film itself wasn’t particularly a masterpiece. It’s a very variable ranking. It could mean a lot of things. Usually it’s for something I enjoyed, but didn’t love enough to put it near the very top of my year-end list. Three and a half star films never make it above tier two, and most of them are tier three. You’ll see only a few populating tier two, but mostly they’re tier three. (2013 examples of 3.5 star films: Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, The Best Offer, Frances Ha, Now You See Me, Pain and Gain, Upstream Color.)

* * * (3 stars) — Three stars is for films that were pretty good. Usually for a three star movie, I’ll say, “I enjoyed it well enough.” Or, probably the most common phrase I use is, “You can get through it.” But without qualification. For a two and a half star film, I’ll say, “You can get through it, but…” Three stars don’t have the qualification. Mostly three stars is for a film I enjoyed enough to say it wasn’t bad. I found it watchable enough that I wasn’t completely indifferent toward it. If I give a film that seems like it should have a higher rating three stars, then it means I didn’t enjoy it as much as everyone else. And if there’s something you’d think was a piece of shit at three stars, it means I thought it wasn’t actually that bad. But most of the time, three stars just means, “Yeah, it was okay. I enjoyed it well enough.” They’re just entertaining enough for me to not be indifferent. (2013 examples of 3 star films: Beautiful Creatures, The Call, The Lone Ranger, Spring Breakers, To the Wonder, 21 & Over.)

* * ½ (2.5 stars) — Two and a half stars is my ultimate indifference ranking. I didn’t necessarily think it was a bad film, I just didn’t give a shit about it whatsoever. I thought it was utterly generic. Nothing to make me like it, and it wasn’t bad enough to make me dislike it. It wasn’t memorable to me in any way. Odds are, if a “classy” movie is here, it means it was particularly disappointing, and if something that seemed like an Unforgivable is here, it means it actually wasn’t the piece of shit we were all thinking and was actually just about passable. It’s also my way of saying, “You might have liked this, but I certainly didn’t.” And also my way of saying, “This wasn’t very good, but at least it was competently made.” But for the most part, two and a half stars means I just didn’t care whatsoever and will not remember much about the movie in two years. They may also be Unforgivable, depending on my reasons. (2013 examples of 2.5 star films: After Earth, The Butler, Gangster Squad, A Good Day to Die Hard, Jobs.)

* * (2 stars) — Two starts means that the film was mostly competent and all, but I just didn’t like it. Either it wasn’t for me, it was a genre that I don’t like (horror movie), I just found it boring, or it was one of those generic shitty genre movies that populate the early months. Or it was just a giant piece of shit that at least looked like a good movie. So two stars is for — “They tried… it just wasn’t very good.” Depending on how bad they are, they do have a shot at the Unforgivables list. (2013 examples of 2 star films: The Big Wedding, A Haunted House, The Internship, Lovelace, Safe Haven.)

* ½ (1.5 stars) — One and a half usually means the film was terrible, but it’s not a surefire Unforgivable. Probably because it’s a shitty thriller, a shitty horror movie, or a horrible sequel in a franchise that has churned out nothing but horrible sequels. Or it’s for films that could have gone two stars, but I just have a particular dislike for them. These have a pretty good shot at the Unforgivables list, and should for sure make my bottom 25 list. (2013 examples of 1.5 star films: Battle of the Year, The Heat, Identity Thief, The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, We’re the Millers.)

* (1 star) — I really didn’t like the movie. It was so bad it was almost unwatchable. Typically a one star film is certain to be Unforgivable. Sometimes one star movies get saved by virtue of being a certain kind of sequel (like Big Mommas House: Like Father, Like Son) or being something that’s too easy to make Unforgivable (like Marmaduke, or a Friedberg and Seltzer movie. Movies we knew were gonna be pieces of shit going in), but in any case — they’re really awful movies that shouldn’t exist. (2013 examples of 1 star films: Ass Backwards, The Canyons, Inappropriate Comedy, So Undercover.)

0 stars — It means I hated the film. Guaranteed Unforgivable. It’s a film that should never have been made, and has actually lowered the bar for cinema as an art form and has actually detracted from a culture that’s in the toilet to begin with. A film with no redeeming qualities whatsoever and one that physically made me angry while watching it. (2013 examples of 0 star films: Grown Ups 2, The Starving Games.) All right, now let’s get recapping: We’re gonna start, as we always do, with a combination of 2013 films that I didn’t get to see in time for last year’s articles (or are clearly 2013 films that weren’t released until this year or are ones I just didn’t know about until this year).

February

The Lego Movie

What I said about it back in January:

“So this is happening.”

“I have no idea what to make of this.”

“I’m actually pretty high on this one, all things considered. It sounded like a horrible idea at the outset, but honestly — why wouldn’t this work? And the guys behind it are the 21 Jump Street guys, which gives me a little bit of hope. (Not a lot. Since it’s not a track record, just one good film. But a little is enough.)”

“I like this cast. And it’s designed to look like it was entirely made out of Legos, which means I’ll be visually interested in it as well.”

3 stars. I’m not gonna guess higher. That seems most likely. If this can be 3.5, I’ll be a happy guy. 2.5 is possible, but probably unlikely. I’m expecting three here.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I saw this coming as a blockbuster. I did not, however, see people’s crazy responses to this coming. People overrated the shit out of this.”

“I mean, it’s just okay. The animation is nice, because they get rid of the motion blur and make it look like stop motion, but the story is awful.”

“People try to explain this to me as, ‘Well the whole thing is supposed to be in the mind of a kid,’ but that kid is fucking weird. When I was that kid’s age, I could have written a better story than that. So don’t give me that bullshit.”

“The film is enjoyable enough. Let’s not pretend like it’s some masterpiece, though. I mean, really. It’s a fun movie that’s just okay. And if you think otherwise, you’re either under the age of 14 or delusional.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Months later, I don’t remember this at all, except thinking all the reaction on this was horribly overblown.

It was just okay.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Monuments Men

What I said about it back in January:

“Bumped from December because it wasn’t finished in time. I’m slightly worried about quality now, but not so much.”

“Based on this cast, and Clooney being director, I’m saying this will still be pretty good.”

“Maybe this is amazing, and we’re looking at a Best Picture nominee that just happens to come out really early. You never know.”

“I’m gonna guess 4 stars. I want this to be four stars. Clooney, Damon, Murray, Goodman, Dujardin, Balaban — these people have earned it. And Blanchett is there too.”

“3.5 might happen because of the bump. If it’s 3 stars, I’ll be disappointed. But based on Clooney’s filmography, there’s really nothing less than 3.5 stars there. So let’s stick with 4. When he has a story he wants to tell, it’s usually good.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Another one I saw coming.”

“I heard rumblings right when they pushed it into February. They said it was because the film wasn’t done, but it was really because Clooney was struggling to find the tone of it. And you can tell. The film is all over the place, tonally.”

“I’m not really sure what the point of it is supposed to be. I think he was originally going for one thing, but at a certain point, he realized it wasn’t going to be where he envisioned it was going to get to, so he skimmed over sections of the story and shortened the whole thing, hoping it would make it more commercially successful. And that worked.”

“But also — the movie is really just all over the place. It really struggles to find the right tone and the right version of the story. And honestly, as you watch it, you see long stretches where he skips over story in favor of voiceover and montages. The whole thing just feels compromised.”

“It’s entertaining enough, but based on the story and the cast, you really feel like this should have been better than it was. Definitely one of the bigger disappointments of the year.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I’m gonna give this one the benefit of the doubt and leave it at 3.5. But it almost certainly won’t end up on a year-end list that’s anything other than the one about the biggest disappointments. Hugely upset this wasn’t better, and I really wish it were, given all the talent surrounding it.

Oh well.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off. Even if the rating wasn’t that far off… I was off. Big letdown.

Vampire Academy

What I said about it back in January:

“I can’t really be objective about this one. I work for one of the companies that’s producing this. So I’ve been around this thing from script to shooting to editing to now. I’ve seen it already. So I already know what I’m rating it and I already know what I think about it.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I was too close to this one. I had read the script, seen the different cuts. So I can’t give a totally objective rating.”

“I thought the script was a 3.5 star movie, and that it was edited down to (barely) a 3 star movie. It’s probably not even that at this point, but like I said, I can’t be totally objective about it. I saw it a bunch and I thought it was decent enough. But I’ll admit that the editing of this movie was compromised, and it diluted what was a really funny script. It is what it is.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

The end result wasn’t very good. But due to circumstances, I still enjoyed it.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

After the Dark

What I said about it back in January:

“I liked the original title better.”

“I’m still very much interested in seeing this.”

3.5 stars.”

“I feel like I should go 3, but I’m still interested, and I like the premise. So I’ll stick 3.5.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I liked it. Because it made me think.”

“It’s a fascinating thought experiment, and brings about a very interesting second act for the film. Problem is, the ultimate purpose for the whole thing, once it’s revealed, really kills any momentum the whole thing had.”

“But still, I always like films that make me think of films that go down easy. So I was still quite the fan of this one, even if a lot of people won’t be. This is just one of those things I accept.”

“I’d say, while people should see this film, I’d recommend Ladybug Ladybug more, since that’s… it’s a different kind of movie, but way more satisfying and horrifyingly realistic about what happens to people, while this is more of a theoretical version of that.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

That’s basically my thoughts. It has flaws, mostly in the third act, but I liked it, because it made me think, and would prefer this to something like… say… Transcendence, and while people can see it and may like it, I wouldn’t force it on anybody, since I get that people might dislike it. Still, I highly recommend Ladybug Ladybug.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

A Field in England

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. Randomly heard about it at some point in January or February.

What I actually thought about it:

“This movie was weird as fuck, but they made it engaging and look good on what must have been a budget of nothing. So good for them.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Yeah. That’s about it. I give them… whatever letter you give for effort.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

RoboCop

What I said about it back in January:

“You’d think this was a horrible idea, but that Dredd remake actually worked out. Though I think that one was one of those scenarios where they ended up campy the first time and it maybe wasn’t meant to be. Whereas the original RoboCop is meant to be satire, and I’m not sure this one… I get a little worried when people see something meant as satire and take it literally.”

“But… I’ll give this a shot. It’ll probably just be a generic and possibly moderately entertaining action movie.”

“I highly doubt this can go any higher than 3 stars. 2.5 seems most likely, but fuck it, I’m in a giving mood. I can’t see this being so bad it drops to 2. So it’s either gonna be 2.5 or 3. 3.5 would shock me, and quite frankly, I can’t see that happening. 2.5 or 3, and let’s be optimistic.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Barely 3 stars.”

“The first RoboCop was satire. This seemed to take the material seriously.”

“It felt like one of those movies that was trying to say something about society, but ultimately was an example of what the first movie was talking about.”

“It’s just… hollow. There was no reason to remake this. I got through it. But man… what an unnecessary movie.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Wasn’t very good. I can’t remember anything that happened in this movie.

If we’re differentiating between unnecessary remakes, Dredd was better. (Not much better, but better.)

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

About Last Night

What I said about it back in January:

“So, an 80s remake with an all black cast?”

“Sure.”

“Why is Kevin Hart in all these movies all of a sudden?”

“I’m not really expecting to ever see this, but on the off chance that I do, we’ll say 2.5 stars.

“If I do see this, it’s either because it (somehow) got really good reviews (doubtful), or I’m trying to pad my numbers for the year.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I think it’s the cross-cutting in the opening scenes of the film. It made me go, ‘Oh, look… effort.’ And that’s what kept me moderately interested enough to not drop this lower.”

“Ultimately, though — I just didn’t care. I’m not the audience for this film, I don’t like Kevin Hart as a comedian, I don’t find him funny, and I was just indifferent throughout this entire film. It’s just there for me.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I do remember not hating it.

But that doesn’t mean I gave a shit.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Endless Love

What I said about it back in January:

“Have you see the trailer for this? It’s creepy as shit.”

“What kind of movie are they trying to market?”

“Oh, but yeah, this is a remake of the 1981 movie (directed by Zeffirelli, of all people).”

“I… will probably see this out of sheer intrigue as to how close to the trailer it is. It looks like shit, personally.”

2 stars. Let’s let it not be shit.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Yes, I’m going to mention the trailer.”

“Did you see the trailer for this movie? It made it look like a horror film. It was completely bizarre. And then I saw the movie, expecting an easy 2 stars… and it wasn’t that bad.”

“It wasn’t good, but they went the route of unabashed romance and drama. Which I’m totally cool with.”

“Way too serious and overemotional for me.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

God… I forgot I even watched this movie.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star. It proved it wasn’t shit. Not hard, but enough.

Winter’s Tale

What I said about it back in January:

“I was all over this last year. I was very excited.”

“Then the trailer — it looks magical. This is exactly the kind of film I go for.”

“I’m sticking with 4 stars.”

“3 stars would be disappointing, 3.5 would be most likely, but I’m going for 4. I want this to be good. (I probably should stick with 3.5, the more I think about it, but whatever. Maybe this February can actually be good. He said, already knowing how it’s going to turn out.)”

What I actually thought about it:

“I see why people hated this, but I don’t care. I liked it.”

“I mean… it’s compromised. It has (many) problems. But I like a good love story. And this was fine enough. I mean, maybe tone down, or at least maybe explain a little better the whole demon/Satan thing going on. Maybe deal with explaining a lot of things a little better.”

“But overall, I liked it. It’s not as good as my rating, but I like what I like. That’s the deal.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

All right… I’m willing to admit that this actually is a really bad movie.

But I still liked it.

I’m not willing to go below three, but the more I think about it, months later, the more I think this was a terrible movie that I just enjoyed for whatever reason. (Probably because it was February and there was nothing good out, so I was grasping at anything to like.)

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a full star.

The Pretty One

What I said about it back in January:

“Written and directed by a woman, and starring Zoe Kazan.”

“The trailer looked all right. I’m sure I’ll like it well enough.”

3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“This concept was interesting as hell to me.”

“Ultimately, it’s an indie, and has all the indie tropes you remember.”

“But it’s still good, and watchable, and the cast is great.”

“I can give this one a thumbs up and recommend it. It’s good.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Letdown of concept, but it’s an indie movie, so what do you expect?

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Date and Switch

What I said about it back in January:

“Apparently this is coming out February 14th.”

“Also, I hope that’s the tagline.”

“Sounds interesting.”

3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I was tracking this at some point. I came across it and decided, ‘Why the hell not?'”

“It was fine. It had your typical indie comedy moments where you go, ‘No one acts like that ever.’ But I’m always going to be a fan of a film where they treat being gay like it’s nothing. Even when the best friend gets all weird, it’s mostly because he’s not used to his friend being gay, and he just wants to help him. So on that level, it’s a really progressive film.”

“It’s not groundbreaking comedy or anything, but on a societal level, I’m a huge fan of this. I certainly enjoyed it more than I enjoyed something like Divergent.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Fuck, that tagline would have been awesome. Why do I have to come up with all the good ideas?

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Pompeii

What I said about it back in January:

“It’s Paul W.S. Anderson making his own version of Gladiator.”

“I want to be excited for this in a sick way, but honestly — how can this not be shit?”

“I will admit to being a fan of his Three Musketeers movie, but this doesn’t seem like it’s gonna have that fun, adventure feel to it. This is gonna be serious, and all the dialogue is going to have that sick smell of conviction to it. I can feel it now.”

“I want to say 3 stars here, but I’m going 2.5 stars. Something tells me this will be generic. If I’m gonna put my faith in one of these historical epics to be good, I’m gonna go with the one that’s coming out next month.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Welcome to the bottom 25, Paul W.S. Anderson.”

“This movie was a piece of shit. The basis for the story is the eruption of Vesuvius. So you know where it’s ending. The rest of the movie — you can watch it with the sound off and know everything that happens.”

“It’s Gladiator mixed with the standard trope of the lowly servant falling in love with the princess. You’ve seen every single thing that happens in this movie a dozen times. It’s ridiculous.”

“I understand why it was made, though. Not necessarily for its budget, but why they wanted to tell the basic story. Of course it turned into a disaster (pun ridiculously intended), but that happens.”

“Unlike I, Frankenstein, I can look at it and go, ‘I see why conceptually it was something they went for.’ Still a huge piece of shit, though.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

“Welcome to the bottom 25, Paul W.S. Anderson.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

3 Days to Kill

What I said about it back in January:

“Written by Luc Besson. Those usually end well.”

“Directed by McG. Those do not.”

“Kevin Costner is starring, and I like him. He’s on a bit of a revival lately. He disappeared a lot over the past decade… But it’s exciting to see him again.”

“I’ll give Besson and Costner the benefit of the doubt. McG can be competent sometimes (maybe).”

3 stars. I’m expecting maybe 2.5, but let’s say 3. I want this to be entertaining. I want Costner back in movies. I’ve missed him.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Costner is always watchable, and it had enough going for it to keep me moderately interested throughout.”

“It was more about the father/daughter stuff and the character work than the action, which made me leave it at 3. I will have respect for this movie for that alone.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Yup. 3 stars purely for the commitment to character and story over action. Good for them.

Also, does McG know how to make anything other than a 3 stars or less movie?

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Barefoot

What I said about it back in January:

The “black sheep” son of a wealthy family meets a young psychiatric patient who’s been raised in isolation her entire life. He takes the naive young woman home for his brother’s wedding.

“Why is black sheep in quotes?”

“Evan Rachel Wood is in this.”

“Uhh… 3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“It’s probably offensive, and probably not a good movie, but I sort of enjoyed it.”

“I want to think this movie meant well.”

“You probably won’t get too much out of this, but I’ll give it a moderate thumbs up.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Love my review of this from January.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

In Secret

What I said about it back in January:

“This is that Therese Raquin movie starring Elizabeth Olsen. It’s finally coming out.”

“I’ve pretty much lost interest in this.”

2.5 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Of course it wasn’t going to be that good.”

“The title change was a big hint that this was going to be forgotten and that I could have ignored it. but I saw it. And it wasn’t very good.”

“There’s nothing good or interesting about this movie.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

2.5 is being generous. This was really boring.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Bag Man

What I said about it back in January:

“Dominic Purcell is also in this, as is Sticky Fingaz, as someone named “Lizard.” So clearly, we’re dealing with quality here.”

3 stars.”

“Let’s assume I’ll enjoy this as a B movie.”

What I actually thought about it:

“This is definitely one of those B movies you watch on Showtime because Robert De Niro and John Cusack are in it.”

“It’s — mediocre. That’s the best way to describe it. Not too good and not too bad. Just is.”

“The most you’ll get out of this is, ‘Ehh… I liked it,’ in that wavering tone.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I mean, Sticky Fingaz is Lizard. That says it all.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star. Not surprised.

Stalingrad

What I said about it back in January:

“Apparently this is the highest grossing movie in Russian history.”

“I have it, so I’ll see it.”

3 stars.”

“It’s about the Battle of Stalingrad, and it’s a war movie. Why wouldn’t I like it?”

What I actually thought about it:

“It’s a 3 star movie packed into 4 star visuals.”

“This movie looked amazing, but the story is just okay.”

“I still recommend this to everyone because there just aren’t enough war movies made anymore.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I barely remember it, but I do remember it looked good. So there’s that.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Non-Stop

What I said about it back in January:

“Liam Neeson.”

“That’s it. Liam Neeson.”

3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“It’s your standard Liam Neeson thriller. I will always have time in my year for one (or more) of these.”

“This was completely engaging. He’s on a plane, someone keeps texting him that someone will die every hour, and he needs to figure out who. It’s not groundbreaking in any way, but it’s engaging, it’s Liam Neeson, and I’d prefer this to at least half the movies I watched in the first four months.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I did enjoy this. Solid enough for what it was. I like that he’s branching out (but not really) from the Taken movies and turning this into a career resurgence as the only bankable action star out there.

Liam Neeson is the new Charles Bronson.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

– – – – – – – – – –

Tomorrow… March.

http://bplusmovieblog.com

One response

  1. smilingldsgirl

    Every movie I like these days it seems I have to hear an unending people complain it is overrated. Seriously my favs last year Frozen and Gravity people won’t leave them alone and just let us enjoy them. Same now with Lego movie and I’m starting to hear it with Apes and Boyhood. I was dazzled and gave all 3 A+. Oh well I like what I like. Just getting a bit old.

    December 20, 2014 at 1:51 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.