2015: The Year in Reviews (May)

Look, this is the fifth year I’m doing this. You guys know what it is by now. Every January I go over everything scheduled to come out, and about 200 more movies, just to be safe. I guess what I’m gonna think about them, and then immediately forget I did it. Then, in December, I recap everything I saw and see how I did.

I put up batches of reviews for everything I saw, once in April, once in August, and once… yesterday. Those contain my initial thoughts on the films after I saw them. I take those thoughts and match them against what I said back in January, plus I take some time to reflect upon how my thoughts have changed in the time between when I saw the movie and now (since only crazy people develop a final opinion on a movie after a single watch). It’s very straightforward. Plus… five years. I know you’re supposed to treat every person as if they’re reading for the first time, but there’s only like twelve of us who read the crap I write anyway.

Today we’re recapping May:

Oh, yeah, also, so my ratings system makes sense, here’s how it works:

* * * * * (5 stars) — I really loved the film. Five stars essentially guarantees the film a spot in the top ten. I’ve never had a five star film not make the top ten. (2014 examples of 5 star movies: There actually were none.)

* * * * 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 below top 15. (2014 examples of 4.5 star films: Birdman, Fury, Interstellar, Whiplash.)

* * * * (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, 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 really good. Four star movies are either in my 11-20 or tier two. It’s also not unheard of that a 4 star movie makes the top ten. (2014 examples of 4 star films: Boyhood, Cher, Godzilla, The Guest, Snowpiercer, Top Five.)

* * * 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, “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 verstaile ranking. 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. (2014 examples of 3.5 star films: American Sniper, The Babadook, The Double, Edge of Tomorrow, Frank, Still Alice.)

* * * (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. (2014 examples of 3 star films: Beyond the Lights, Exodus: Gods and Kings, The Lego Movie, Need for Speed, 22 Jump Street, White Bird in a Blizzard.)

* * 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. (2014 examples of 2.5 star films: Hercules, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Ride Along, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Veronica Mars.)

* * (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. (2014 examples of 2 star films: Dracula Untold, Dumb and Dumber To, I Frankenstein, Wish I Was Here.)

* 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. (2014 examples of 1.5 star films: Blended, Sex Tape, Tammy.)

* (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. (2014 examples of 1 star films: Addicted.)

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. (2014 examples of 0 star films: Heaven Is For Real.)

May

Avengers: Age of Ultron

What I said about it back in January:

“This has so much exposure that I have nothing to say about it.”

3.5 stars.”

“The trailer was great, but I’m not gonna let that sway me. I need Marvel to prove to me it won’t be the same crap again and again. I’m being generous with the 3.5. Let’s not even try to do 4.”

“Also, if this is one of your ten most anticipated movies of 2015, we have nothing in common.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I got what I expected.”

“It’s entertaining. Some parts are fun, some parts are cringeworthy.”

“They do a good job of not making it like the standard Marvel bullshit, though. This feels like a nice separate adventure from the other movies. And the world building is more acceptable, since everyone’s here.”

“Overall, not a bad entry into the catalogue. We’re at 11 movies now, and I’d say there are now above .500 in terms of movies that are decent enough. (Though still really only one great one.)”

“I will say, the end result of all this world building, introducing all these characters — it could actually pay off in the end. As long as they don’t kill off too many characters.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I want to say this movie was a disappointment, but it wasn’t. I got exactly what I feel Marvel is. I’m not sure why everyone else was disappointed. Did you think the first movie was any better?

This is what Marvel is, people. It’s only gonna get more generic from here on out.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Reality

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing? Really? How is that possible? Probably because I’m used to these Quentin Dupiuex movies not actually coming out in the U.S. the year they’re released.

What I actually thought about it:

“This was just okay.”

“I’m starting to lose faith in this guy to make this hilariously surreal movies that no one will see but I’ll enjoy because they’re so bizarre.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Dupieux seems to have a one on, one off track record. Wrong and Rubber were great. Wrong Cops and this were just okay. So hopefully the next one will be good.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Welcome to Me

What I said about it back in January:

“Sounds nice and fucked up.”

3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Almost hit 3.5 for me just because it’s so off the beaten path. Ultimately didn’t, just because I don’t think the movie tonally hits where it needed to in order to be truly memorable.”

“But it’s good. Worth seeing. Definitely not your typical movie. Mentally ill woman wins the lottery and uses the money to start a talk show about herself. Some people are really gonna love this. But it’s bizarre.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s really weird. But engaging too. Didn’t enjoy it as 3.5, but I considered making it 3.5 just to try to get people to see it, because it’s so out there.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Far from the Madding Crowd

What I said about it back in January:

“Actually more excited for this than The Avengers.”

“Kinda want to follow the Belle model and say 3.5. Though 3 seems most likely. What to do, what to do.”

“Fuck it. 3.5 stars. Gotta take a shot here. The first four months felt like nothing but 3 and 2.5 star guesses. I’m at least excited for this. At worst I figure I’m getting 3.”

What I actually thought about it:

“It looks great. And Carey Mulligan is great as always. And it moves, and is engaging.”

“Can’t really say anything bad about it. It’s not gonna end up as one of my favorite movies of the year, but it’s one of those solid movies I can give a thumbs up to. I liked it.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s a very good update of the ’67 version, which is about the same, quality-wise. Looks good, good actors, well-made all around. Solid film.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Hot Pursuit

What I said about it back in January:

“This is good. The Unforgivables list felt light thus far.”

2 stars.”

“Aiming low!”

What I actually thought about it:

“No. Just no. Not even gonna pretend like this isn’t Unforgivable.”

* * (2 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Welcome back to the Unforgivables list, Reese!

* * (2 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

5 Flights Up

What I said about it back in January:

“This… doesn’t seem like it’ll be particularly great. And a VOD downgrade…”

2.5 stars.”

“2015 is the Year of the VOD Downgrade.”

“I’m calling this an experimental year.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Surprisingly better than I thought. It’s more of a “mature” movie (which means 50 and older will like it more than anyone else).”

“I like how it doesn’t really go for anything. It’s just sort of there, and tells this story.”

“Most people won’t like it, and I’m not gonna push it on anyone, but this was better than I expected.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I did like this. Surprisingly didn’t get the VOD drop. It amounts to nothing, but it was a mature movie that caught me on just the right day. I’ll keep the 3.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

The Seven Five

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. But the subject was too good to not see.

What I actually thought about it:

“If you like The French Connection and Serpico, you’ll enjoy this.”

“Corrupt 70s New York cops? What better genre can there be?”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Winning: The Racing Life of Paul Newman

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. Part of the Great Documentary Purge of 2015.

What I actually thought about it:

It’s an interesting portrait of a lesser known facet of Paul Newman’s life.

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Pretty good.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

The D Train

What I said about it back in January:

“Not sure how this one goes.”

“Let’s say for the hell of it 3 stars.”

“I don’t really know why. It’s hard to gauge these Sundance movies.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I was marginally aware of the turn this movie takes, so it wasn’t as shocking as I guess it could have been if I didn’t know. Though it didn’t happen the way I’d have expected.”

“Still, I can say this was a unique movie.”

“It’s one of those indies that has characters making bad decisions all the way through and a lot of the humor comes from how cringeworthy the decision-making is. But it has little twists to it that make it stand out from your other generic indies.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I like this one more than the rating suggests. This one will stay with me. It has a lot of interesting elements to it and is definitely one of those gems that nobody knows about. It’s a very strange movie. Kudos to Jack Black. He’s great in this.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Maggie

What I said about it back in January:

3 stars, just for that. No way I can downgrade that one.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Was very excited about this for a lot of reasons, but ultimately it’s just morose and slow and doesn’t get the most out of its premise. Which is a real shame.”

“Schwarzenegger is good, and the premise is great. But ultimately the movie doesn’t live up to it or do anything really extraordinary.”

“Could have been a hidden gem.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

A 3.5-4 star premise but only a 3 star execution. It does nothing with the setup, which is a shame. They could really have made something truly interesting here.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Stockholm, Pennsylvania

What I said about it back in January:

“It’s Martha Marcy May Marlene but with kidnapping instead of a cult.”

3 stars.”

“My gut was to say 3.5, but I’m feeling a solid 3 here.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I thought this would be an interesting movie, but then it got picked up by Lifetime, and I got really nervous.”

“Turns out, that was warranted. This plays like a Lifetime movie. And it’s not particularly good, either. Which is a shame.”

“I had pretty moderate hopes for this, and then… nope.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Once this went Lifetime, any hope of it being good went out the window. The real surprise is how much it feels like a Lifetime movie. Did they deliberately cut out all the music to make it feel more Lifetime? What the hell was that?

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

Slow West

What I said about it back in January:

“Always down for a western.”

3 stars.”

“Really excited, hope it’s higher.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Western. Looks great. Lives up to its title (as in, very slow, and takes place in the west).”

“Probably a 3 star movie that gets a western bump for me. Not a whole lot of story here, and drags at times, but I’ll take any kind of western I can get.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I kind of got this right. It’s a 3 stars movie, but also gets the western bump. So I’m right to rate it both ways. It’s keeping the 3.5 though, because westerns.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

Every Secret Thing

What I said about it back in January:

“Wonder which way to go on this… I guess I’ll give it the VOD downgrade.”

2.5 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“This was boring as shit. Completely morose, and I got nothing out of this. Predictable all the way, and the twist doesn’t play at all. Forgettable.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Oh god, this movie. This was so difficult to get through. Not a fan of this at all.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Mad Max: Fury Road

What I said about it back in January:

“Been excited for this for a while.”

“I’m thinking this is gonna be at least 3.5 stars. I’m hoping for 4, but this looks pretty badass.”

“I heard that it might be shot to be a continuous action sequence, but I don’t know how much of that is legit. 3.5 seems like the floor for this movie for me. Can’t wait.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I think this is all gonna be in our top 20s for the year.”

“It was just badass. Fun, nonstop action, and a good time all around. There’s nothing I can say about this that hasn’t already been said.”

* * * * ½ (4.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Honestly, my feelings on this have only gone up. I’ve watched it twice since I saw it in theaters, and it’s just as entertaining and I have even more respect for the practical effects and operatic nature of all the action. This is a perfect entity.

* * * * * (5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a star and a half.

Good Kill

What I said about it back in January:

“Reviews have been slightly above average, though that was also the case for Lord of War, and I loved that movie. So I’m not gonna take the reviews completely as truth.”

“I think I can safely call this a solid 3 stars. Maybe it goes higher, but I feel a solid 3 is worth my time.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Another one of those solid 3s, that doesn’t hit 3.5.”

“I was engaged throughout, but I couldn’t find myself really liking the movie.”

“It’s kind of in that Savages range. It’s well-made, and I was engaged, but I couldn’t say I liked it. You know what I mean?”

“You know who I liked in this? Bruce Greenwood. And Zoe Kravitz. Hawke is fine too. Overall, it’s worth a watch. Wish I liked it more, because it’s well made.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

This was solid. Almost 3.5 solid. But I didn’t like it that much. It’s a very well made film that keeps you interested despite not a whole lot happening. Thumbs up here.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Pitch Perfect 2

What I said about it back in January:

“I didn’t really like the first one.”

“So naturally now the Bad News Bears have to go to Japan.”

2.5 stars.”

“The first one barely got a pass out of me. This one, I’m gonna guess goes completely indifferent. The first one barely got 3, I’d be shocked if a sequel somehow jumped up out of nowhere and got more.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Nope. Didn’t like the first one, but this was a complete retread of that, made entirely to make money and give the “fans” what they want.”

“Good for them for making all the money and having a female-centric comedy, but nope. Not for me, never was. Moving on.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Can we appreciate my Bad News Bears Go to Japan reference? I feel like that’s not what’s gonna get the most play out of this review.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Poltergeist

What I said about it back in January:

“I’m gonna be very open about this… haven’t seen the original. So I don’t know how to gauge this at all.”

“I’m gonna have to see the original first, just to be able to gauge this next to that. It seems unfair to see this before the original.”

“Anyway, it was written by a Pulitzer Prize winner. The guy who wrote Rabbit Hole.”

“Who, since then, has written Rise of the Guardians, Oz the Great and Powerful and Shrek the Musical. So… yeah.”

“The director did Monster House and City of Ember. And Rockwell said this one is more of a kids movie. So I’m not opposed to this. I do need to see the original, though.”

“Okay, 3 stars. I can’t go anywhere else without having seen the original. But I’m definitely expecting decent things. Not like a remake that’s coming up soon.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Nope. Don’t have a problem with it, but nope. Not for me. Still haven’t even seen the first one, but I already know it’s better than this.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

The good news is that when I see the original, I will remember literally nothing about this movie. So there’s that.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

Tomorrowland

What I said about it back in January:

“Is George Clooney playing a former boy genius?”

“I am actually excited for this. All things considered. Brad Bird has proven that he can make a live-action movie that’s not a disaster.”

“That said… I’m still reticent about this, based solely on the fact that Disney is putting it out.”

“So I’m gonna go 3.5 stars, and hope this ends up at 4. 4.5 seems a bit out of reach, especially for a summer movie. 4 is reasonable. And of course there’s the 3 star disappointment. Let’s stick with 3.5.”

What I actually thought about it:

“It’s not 3.5. It is, but it isn’t. I enjoyed this, but it’s a sugar 3.5. Even now I don’t think of it as a solid 3.5, and by December, I’m sure I’ll have decisions to make about where I truly consider this rating to be.”

“It was fine. It wasn’t as disappointing to me as it was to some because I didn’t get my hopes up for it.”

“I thought it was fun, I thought it had a message for kids, who are really the target audience (even though it hits adults over the head in an insanely forced manner), and for what it’s worth, I enjoyed it.”

“I think it’s not particularly well-written, I think some of the elements are really cheesy, I think they spent way too much money on it, and I think a better overall story could have turned out a way better product.”

“It’s a disappointment for Brad Bird, but otherwise a moderately entertaining movie that works if you’re not expecting great things out of it.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

This was a disappointment. I thought it was okay, but the expectations for what this could have been leave me disappointed in the outcome. Otherwise, it’s a fun adventure movie based on an original premise, and my only real problems with it are how much money they spent and how slight the story is. I’m fluctuating between keeping this 3.5 or dropping it to 3, and since I haven’t watched it again and was sufficiently entertained by it, I’ll keep it 3.5.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Aloft

What I said about it back in January:

3 stars.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Pretty boring, mostly.”

“Don’t worry, you probably don’t know what this is and will likely never see it. No need to worry about it.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Totally boring. Already forgot what this was, and you don’t need to bother with it.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

When Marnie Was There

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. Again, not sure why. At this point, I should know that I will eventually get a chance to see Ghibli movies even before the U.S. releases them.

What I actually thought about it:

“It’s Ghibli.”

“I didn’t love this as much as, say, Princess Kaguya last year, but this was beautiful and very well done.”

“I consider it on par with From Up on Poppy Hill, which was really terrific, but I didn’t love enough to put in my top 20. But that’s still enough to most likely make it my favorite animated film of the year.”

* * * * (4 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s Ghibli. You know you’re getting quality. Though please don’t let this be the last movie they ever make. That would make me very sad.

* * * * (4 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Results

What I said about it back in January:

3 stars. It’s either gonna be 2.5 or 3, I imagine.”

“Positivity.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Actually was surprised at how engaging this was.”

“Ultimately I was let down by it being an indie and falling into the usual indie pitfalls, but Cobie Smulders does a great job here, and Kevin Corrigan is great, and Guy Pearce does a good job too.”

“Completely watchable, and I think people should check this out. Maybe you’ll love it.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

This was better than I thought. I thought generic indie, and this was actually offbeat interesting indie. Smulders and Corrigan are good. No idea what the hell the point of it all was, but I was engaged.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Survivor

What I said about it back in January:

3 stars. Seems like the only real choice here.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Generic thriller.”

“You’ll see this on pay cable in six months.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

The epitome of generic action thriller. Not even the entertaining kind. The completely forgettable, no fun, deadly serious kind.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Off by a half-star.

I’ll See You in My Dreams

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. One of those indies they send screeners for because they think it’ll get nominated.

What I actually thought about it:

“This is one of those movies that only I would watch as a screener because no one else would give a shit. And rightfully so.”

“I really have no idea what this was supposed to be about. Though it did have a scene where Blythe Danner, June Squibb, Rhea Pearlman and Mary Kay Place get high and buy a bunch of groceries. Never thought I’d get to see that scene.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

There’s always one movie they think will get nominated even though it doesn’t stand a chance. This was really generic and amounted to nothing. But hey, four older ladies got really high in it.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Barely Lethal

What I said about it back in January:

“Ehh… I’m nervous about this one. Really want to say 2.5 stars, but I’ll go 3 stars.”

“Samuel L. Jackson is the only reason why.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Samuel L. Jackson as a trainer for child assassins. I was intrigued.”

“Overall.. meh. Not great. Plays like a low-budget VOD movie. It has its moments.”

“For most people, it’ll be a 2.5 or 3 star movie. Either you won’t care or will consider it just enjoyable enough to give it a pass. That’s all this is.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

BARELY 3, he said, waiting for the standing ovation. But it did get 3. I was sufficiently amused.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

San Andreas

What I said about it back in January:

“It’s a Dwayne Johnson movie.”

3 stars.”

“He’s always good for 3 stars.”

“Not gonna go 3.5, just because… well, there are reasons. Maybe after a trailer, I can get more excited for this. But, now… let’s let it prove itself.”

What I actually thought about it:

“Actually surprisingly entertaining. Which I credit entirely to Dwayne Johnson, who remains one of the few constantly watchable movie stars (in terms of blockbusters) out there.”

“Destruction movie. You know what you’re getting. And I was entertained all the way. Good for them.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

You know exactly what this is, and that’s not a bad thing.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Aloha

What I said about it back in January:

“This is A Foreign Affair, just done by Cameron Crowe.”

“The other concern is that Cameron Crowe… not really that good a resume since Almost Famous.”

“Whatever happened to that zoo? I bet all the animals died.”

“Fuck it. 3.5 stars. Let’s just let it be a disappointment.”

What I actually thought about it:

“I think we all knew this was gonna be hugely disappointing from the start.”

“Damn shame what happened to Cameron Crowe.”

“This is arguably more disappointing than We Bought a Zoo. Because that seemed mediocre. This one seemed like it could have been salvaged by the cast.”

“How can this movie be this forgettable with Bradley Cooper, Emma Stone, Rachel McAdams, John Krasinski, Alec Baldwin, Bill Murray and Danny McBride?”

Cameron Crowe is playing on tropes he did before and really just not trying, it seems.”

“I didn’t hate the movie, and I’m not gonna call it Unforgivable just yet. But for sure, this is going to be considered one of the year’s greatest disappointments. And I don’t know if we can trust Cameron Crowe anymore, which is a real shame.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Still really considering whether or not I’m gonna make this Unforgivable.

On paper, this is perhaps the single greatest disappointment of 2015. (Jupiter Ascending is probably second.) In actuality, we pretty much saw this coming. So I don’t know. It’s hugely disappointing in a lot of ways, but does the fact that we knew to lower our expectations make up for some of that? Find out in ten days!

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

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

– – – – – – – – – –

Tomorrow is June.

http://bplusmovieblog.com

One response

  1. So glad you gave Max the bump to 5 stars.

    December 20, 2015 at 7:30 pm

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.