Advertisements

2016: The Year in Reviews (February)

End of the year, time to recap. Every January, I go over everything that’s schedule to come out, and a bunch more stuff that isn’t yet scheduled. Based on what I know at that time, I guess my eventual ratings for them.

So what ends up happening is, I watch everything over the course of the year, writing up reviews articles every four months, recapping and rating all the films I saw during that period. Then, in December, I post these articles, which contain both the initial guess and the actual rating, along with a final rating, which is based on how I feel about the film having had time to sit and digest it for a period of time.

I do it to see how accurately I can guess ratings for movies a year in advance, but really it serves as a way to give a complete picture of my feelings about each movie I see.

Today we’re recapping February:

Here’s how my ratings system 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. (2015 examples: Inside Out, Mad Max: Fury Road, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl, Steve Jobs.)

* * * * ½ (4.5 stars) — I loved the film, but not unconditionally. Four and a half stars means a likely top ten appearance, and for sure a top twenty spot. Rarely does a four and a half star film fall below top 15. (2015 examples: Anomalisa, Brooklyn, The Revenant, Sicario, Son of Saul.)

* * * * (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 great 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, especially after a year or two. (2015 examples: Beasts of No Nation, Bone Tomahawk, Crimson Peak, Dope, Grandma, The Walk.)

* * * 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 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 versatile ranking. Three and a half star films never make it above tier two (though not many will end up there), and most of them are tier three or four. (2015 examples: Cop Car, The Danish Girl, It Follows, Kingsman: The Secret Service, Mississippi Grind, Spy, Tangerine.)

* * * (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. (Though I still might hate it. That’s a completely different discussion.) 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. (2015 examples: 45 Years, By the Sea, The Diary of a Teenage Girl, San Andreas, Southpaw, Trainwreck.)

* * 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. 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. (2015 examples: The Age of Adaline, I Smile Back, Minions, Paper Towns, Pixels, While We’re Young.)

* * (2 stars) — Two starts means that I just did not like the film. For the most part it’s competently made (though not always), but it’s either part of a genre that I don’t like (horror movie, shitty thriller, Nicholas Sparks), I was utterly bored by it, or it’s one of those movies that really annoyed the shit out of me. Decent chance it could be Unforgivable. (2015 examples: The Boy Next Door, Fifty Shades of Grey, Hot Pursuit, Seventh Son, The Visit.)

* 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 films. 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. (2015 examples: Superfast, Vacation.)

* (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 sequel or being something that’s too easy to make Unforgivable (like a Friedberg and Seltzer movie. One we knew were gonna be a piece of shit going in). But in any case — they’re really awful movies that shouldn’t exist. (2015 examples: none.)

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. (2015 examples of 0 star films: none, thankfully.)

February

The Choice

What I said about it back in January:

“Nicholas Sparks alert.”

2.5 stars. It’s either that or 2. No other alternatives.”

“How do they keep getting casts on these movies?”

What I thought about it:

“Nicholas Sparks movie. So I’m not gonna waste any time. I saw it, I didn’t care, I don’t know why I watch these, and we move on and forget this even happened.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

That up there about covers it.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Hail Caesar!

What I said about it back in January:

“Joel and Ethan Coen. How can this not be funny?”

“It’s the Coens, so they automatically get a blanket 4 stars. At worst this is 3.5 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“I don’t even know how to talk about this one. Because it’s the Coen brothers. That’s both a positive and a negative. They have such incredible films on their resume from top to bottom that it’s hard to rate one of the ones that feels ‘lesser.'”

“You have to realize that this is still a really solid and hilarious film that I like a lot and will end up thinking very highly of at the end of the year. That said, in terms of the rest of their oeuvre, this is pretty low for me.”

* * * * (4 stars)

Final Thoughts:

That feels right. This is low in their filmography for me, but as a film, it’s very funny and a lot of fun. Some parts don’t work, but because it’s the Coen brothers, even the parts that are questionable are somehow okay.

Overall, very funny and really enjoyable. On its own, a great 2016 film.

* * * * (4 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

What I said about it back in January:

“I don’t think we needed a synopsis for this one.”

“The trailer didn’t look promising. This looks like it’s gonna go the way of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter. 2.5 stars. At best it’s going 3. It really doesn’t look very good at all.”

What I thought about it:

“They’re playing it straight and it’s not campy. That’s a bad decision. Didn’t they learn anything from Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?”

“You have to make these things campy. And this was not that. And it failed. I was bored, I didn’t care, and now we have a movie that appeals to absolutely no one. Good job.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Honestly, I didn’t give a shit about any of this. You can’t play a campy premise seriously. Misguided from the jump.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Michael Jackson’s Journey from Motown to Off the Wall

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. Found this documentary about a month ago and had to watch it.

What I thought about it:

“It’s exactly what the title says. And that’s it. It’s about Michael Jackson’s music, and that’s all I need. Simple as that.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Who doesn’t want to see a documentary about Michael Jackson’s musical genius?

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Regression

What I said about it back in January:

“Amenabar’s films are usually watchable. The bump can be explained by outside factors. So I won’t downgrade the film based on that.”

“Though the premise sounds more like a thriller, which doesn’t make me think I’ll like it. So, between 2.5 or 3, I’ll go 2.5 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“Wow, this was boring.”

“There’s a ‘reveal’ at the end, but did no one see this coming from minute one?”

“At least Ethan Hawke gives a committed performance. And I like Emma Watson. So there’s that. Otherwise, no.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s almost watchable, but it’s so generic. You can see the ending coming from a mile away. I could forgive that if it was at least interesting. But it wasn’t.

You can tell everything you need to know about this movie from the poster. That’s never a good sign when the poster is as generic as that one is.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Misconduct

What I said about it back in January:

“Sounds like a 90s thriller, doesn’t it?”

3 stars. How can this not be a straight 3 star movie?”

What I thought about it:

“Thriller. Paycheck cast (Pacino, Hopkins, etc).”

“It’s fine. You get through it. Nothing great, nothing terrible. Cast makes it mostly watchable. You could do worse.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s not great, but I’m predisposed to liking these movies. Plus, I’d rather a cast I like phoning it in than a cast that I don’t care about.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Deadpool

What I said about it back in January:

“A lot of people are really excited for this. I’m not, particularly.”

“I think this will be entertaining, but I feel like this needs to prove to me that it can be more than just a pretty good movie.”

“The trailers look good, the tone seems right, but I’m worried the trailers will give away all the good stuff and that the movie just won’t be that great overall.”

“At minimum, this is 3 stars. 3.5 is possible, but I need to temper expectations here, so I’m sticking with 3 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“I enjoyed the film quite a bit.”

“I didn’t go in with any expectations except that it would be fun, and I got that and more. It was smarter than most superhero movies. Smarter in this case being more aware of itself and using that to its advantage in the right way.

“The stakes aren’t high, which I liked. None of that 9/11 imagery in the climax that’s starting to bore me to tears in the Marvel movies. And the budget and character limitations worked to its advantage.”

“I’m not gonna overthink this. It was fun, it wasn’t a masterpiece, but it wasn’t supposed to be.”

* * * * (4 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I’m glad I was wrong.

Sure, I should have went 3.5 stars, but I’m glad I didn’t. It had to be that way for me to truly enjoy the film. Sure, it’s overrated as fuck, but it’s a lot of fun. I can’t really have asked anything more out of this movie. So I’m satisfied.

* * * * (4 stars)

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

How to Be Single

What I said about it back in January:

“It sounds like your typical January rom com/comedy that doesn’t get the tone right and fluctuates between the two, making it impossible to market. Remember That Awkward Moment?”

“My gut says 3 stars, but that trailer wasn’t promising at all, so 2.5 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“I have an inherent problem where movies treat relationships as if they’re some noble endeavor and are the focal point of a person’s life, whether they want them to be or not.”

“This is a perfectly acceptable movie on its own. It might have ended up as three stars if not for the aforementioned point of view. Not to mention the typical scene of ‘single person doesn’t know how to act like a normal person in a social situation in the most over the top way’.”

“So much of this feels like a retread of things we’ve seen before. And it’s all so completely illogical.”

“If I cared enough, I’d think about making this Unforgivable. But I’m not sure I do care enough to bother with it. I don’t think it makes me mad so much as it makes me disappointed.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Everything I said up there.

I’m not mad, I’m disappointed.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Zoolander 2

What I said about it back in January:

“Yeah… I think it’s well-documented how much I hate the original. I’m really not looking forward to having to see this. I’d like to be able to skip it.”

“But since I can’t, 0 stars.”

“I just can’t.”

What I thought about it:

0 stars.

Final Thoughts:

0 stars.

How close was I?: Exact.

11.22.63

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. I never preview miniseries. But I always end up counting them as a single film because they’re contained.

What I thought about it:

“The first two episodes were really great. And then it just kind of lost steam the more it went on.”

“I stopped caring about midway through, but it picked up a bit toward the end.”

“It was fine, but the premise didn’t sustain itself. I thought we’d be really in depth with the time travel stuff and all the details of the assassination.”

“Overall, solid, but it definitely started better than it finished.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

The premise is great, but the more it went, the more I realized we weren’t dealing with a playful take on history so much as veering away from it into a unique story. And I’d rather have seen more of this actually dealing with the assassination rather than going off for four episodes on a tangential story. Plus, James Franco.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Touched with Fire

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. I definitely had heard of it. I guess I figured I’d never have to watch it. But then reviews were good and it was easy to see at a time when I had nothing to watch, so, I saw it.

What I thought about it:

“Probably a bit better than my review, but my review is based on the fact that I didn’t care about it.”

“It’s a perfectly decent movie that’s clearly personal to the writer and director, who had to have lived at least some of this. So for that, all the respect in the world. I just… not for me.”

“A lot of people are gonna find this a charming, solid little drama. And they’re not wrong. It just wasn’t for me.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Decent, but not for me. Give me those shitty B movie thrillers over something like this any day.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Race

What I said about it back in January:

“Amazing how they just dump black biopics in the early months because they don’t think people want to see them.” (Yes, I know Black History Month. But come on.)

3 stars on principle. I’m sure this is watchable, but February is not a promising month.”

What I thought about it:

“It’s good. Predictable, not overly great, but strong when it needs to be.”

“Certain moments intrigued me more than others (namely… how have they not made a Leni Riefenstahl movie yet? ), but otherwise it’s a perfectly serviceable biopic that proves to not do a disservice to its subject.”

“It keeps the door open for a great version of this story to be told one day. (Which of course they won’t, because, you know… Hollywood.)”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It’s fine. Not great, pretty forgettable, but solidly made and all that. It just doesn’t hit any great notes. Jesse Owens deserves a better movie one day.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Tumbledown

What I said about it back in January:

“Holdover from last year. On that alone, I assume VOD drop, so 2.5 stars. Plus the synopsis doesn’t sound appealing.”

“Gonna stick with 2.5 and let this prove itself to me.”

What I thought about it:

“Indie movie. The worst kind. The ones that are borderline pretentious. Though fortunately it doesn’t cross the border all that much. Just knocks up against it.”

“Mostly about sad people, so the movie doesn’t have a particular kind of life to it. Ultimately I didn’t care. And it’s Sudeikis, who I find I’m just not all that invested in on screen.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Did not care. That about covers it.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Forsaken

What I said about it back in January:

“I can’t believe this is actually coming out. This has been at least two years on the shelf.”

“It’s a western, so I’m going 3 stars. Even if this is generic, the western bump will likely push it to 3 for me.”

What I thought about it:

“The great thing about a western is that even if it follows the same path every other western follows, you can still be fine with it because it’s a western.”

“There’s nothing at all new about this, but I love a western, so I did not care for a second.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Very generic, but I like westerns.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Night Manager

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing. Miniseries. But absolutely everything about this appealed to me, so of course I was gonna see it.

What I thought about it:

“LOVED this.”

“Very TV, but I’m glad we got a miniseries and not anything more. Any more it wouldn’t have sustained.”

“I’m down for anything John le Carré, and this was a real joy.”

* * * * (4 stars)

Final Thoughts:

le Carré, Hiddleston, Laurie. What more could you want? Elizabeth Debicki is quite terrific in this. She was the standout for me. But I loved every episode of this. Very glad they made it.

* * * * (4 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Risen

What I said about it back in January:

“Yes, I know, it’s a religious film. I usually skip these and ignore them completely because they’re all the same garbage. But this one is actually being directed by Kevin Reynolds, who did Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Waterworld, and the recent Hatfields and McCoys miniseries. So on his name alone, I’ll see this.”

2.5 stars.”

“Not saying it’ll be any good, I’m just saying I’ll see it.”

What I thought about it:

“A Roman guy is tasked with finding who took Jesus’ body from the cave. So it’s a relatively interesting twist on a story everyone knows.”

“Did I like the film? No. Was it bad? No. Just kinda there. So that’s all right.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

It was there. The setup intrigued me. The film did not.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Eddie the Eagle

What I said about it back in January:

“My kinda cast.”

“The trailer, however, is really on the nose.”

“It looks by the numbers, based on that trailer. That, plus the release date, makes me have to say 3 stars and hope for better. Because I can’t rightly assume 3.5 stars based on what I’ve seen.”

What I thought about it:

“It’s utterly charming and delightful. How could you not feel that way about this?”

“You can’t not love this movie. It’s harmless, and it’s entertaining as all hell. It also has both Hugh Jackman and Christopher Walken in it! What’s not to love?”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I love the idea that the underdog in the underdog story is terrible, and part of the charm is that he’s terrible. That overcomes the generic plotting and the clichéd approach.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Gods of Egypt

What I said about it back in January:

“Have you seen the trailers for this? Yeah… me too.”

“The less said, the better.”

“That said, I’m still saying 3 stars. At worst I’m thinking this is 2.5. It could be truly unwatchable and go 2, but that seems unlikely. I expect this to be shit, therefore I will expect the ridiculous stuff to entertain me or at worst make me yawn. I mean, it’s guys riding the backs of giant fire breathing snakes. What are we really expecting out of this?”

What I thought about it:

“Oh shut up, it wasn’t that bad. You knew what you were getting when you saw the trailer.”

“These movies aren’t awful. They’re bad, and they’re too expensive and misguided, but they’re never terrible. They’re moderately entertaining, have too much CGI, are too on-the-nose and formulaic, and they make you wonder why all these people thought the movie would be worth spending $150 million on and that it would be able to make it back.”

“This isn’t one of the ten worst movies of the year, despite what all the articles from now to December will tell you. It’s just a high profile bomb, nothing more, nothing less.”

“Watch it on Netflix in eight months. You won’t want to shut it off. The most you’ll do is laugh and wonder why the hell they thought this was a good idea.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

This really shouldn’t be on anyone’s “worst of 2016” list. It’s really not that bad. It’s bad, but it’s not awful. All of my problems with this are intellectual. On a pure entertainment level, it’s fine. Everyone else is just gonna dismiss this, and they’re wrong.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

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

A Country Called Home

What I said about it back in January:

“Imogen Poots stars, and I like her, but after not coming out and that synopsis, I can’t not say 2.5 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“This is a typical indie movie — 20-something that doesn’t have their shit together goes home to take care of a dying parent and has to deal with ‘home’.”

“The standout here though is Mackenzie Davis, another actress I’m starting to enjoy seeing in all these random movies (that the mainstream knows nothing about).”

“(Her and Poots) are the most interesting parts of this movie. The rest is whatever.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

The movie’s whatever, but Davis and Poots are good. They’re the only reasons to ever see this.

* * * (3 stars)

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

Standoff

What I said about it back in January:

“Sounds like my kind of B movie.”

3 stars.”

What I thought about it:

“REALLY liked this.”

“This is the kind of B movie throwaway that no one knows about that I think is awesome.”

“Not much going on here, but it’s awesome.”

“These are the movies I love. The ones you catch on cable out of nowhere that you’ve heard nothing about. I will always champion a good one of these.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

Really liked this. Check this one out. It’s cool.

Assassin trying to kill a little girl, she runs to a guy’s house for safety, and the guy and the girl are upstairs and the assassin is downstairs, waiting each other out. Good stuff. Lot of fun.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

The Mermaid

What I said about it back in January:

Nothing.  Heard about it after it got great reviews, though I’m pretty sure I mistook it for another crazy mermaid movie out of Sundance. But by that point, I had it, so, why not.

What I thought about it:

“It’s fascinating to watch movies like this because they’re so clearly made for a different audience. This movie is purely for the Chinese market. And it’s really interesting to see what they’re responding to that I (and I imagine many American viewers) am not.”

“Overall, I was sufficiently amused enough to be okay with this. Still — very strange.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final Thoughts:

I mean… sure. It’s more interesting to watch what China flocks to than it is entertaining. But hey, better this than some shitty horror movie.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: N/A

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny

What I said about it back in January:

3 stars. I don’t particularly love the original, though I respect it and think it’s a good movie. I can’t imagine what I’d be getting out of this to make me really love it.”

What I thought about it:

“This was embarrassing.”

“If you want to shit all over Zoolander 2 for being a decade too late and nothing more than a cash grab (and believe me, no one wants to shit on Zoolander 2 as much as I do), this should be even more offensive to you.”

“Because Zoolander wasn’t a great movie to begin with. A sequel — you know what you’re getting. Crouching Tiger was a phenomenon. That movie was about five minutes away from BEST PICTURE in 2000. Ang Lee won the DGA for that movie!”

“This is just such a hollow movie. Everyone is speaking English. The plot is TV movie generic. There’s no beauty or sublime action here. And you could tell when they put the full title in there that they were hoping to get people based on the original and nothing more.”

“There’s absolutely nothing of value here, and I feel embarrassed for the people involved. Fortunately this came out on Netflix and barely counts as a sequel, kind of like all those American Pie movies they churned out that no one takes seriously.”

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

This was very embarrassing to watch. One of the worst movies I saw this year.

* * ½ (2.5 stars)

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

Triple 9

What I said about it back in January:

“It’s John Hillcoat, so he’s usually quality. Though they bumped this out of September and into February. Which is troubling.”

“Sure, granted, Lawless was disappointing, but this cast is gonna make me go 3.5 stars and let this be disappointing if it’s not that good. Sometimes things need to be held to higher standards.”

What I thought about it:

“I can’t tell if this counts as a disappointment for Hillcoat or not.”

“The action scenes are well done. The rest of the film I didn’t much care about, but the cast kept it afloat because I like them all.”

“This is one of those 3.5 star ratings that’s solid, but I’m ultimately going to forget about a lot of what happened in this movie and think, ‘Yeah, that was pretty good,’ but not have any real affection for it over time.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final Thoughts:

That about covers it. It’s a hollow 3.5. No real love for the movie, but it was solid because of the cast. Not something I’m really gonna wanna go back and see, but it was decent enough the one time.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

– – – – – – – – – –

Tomorrow is March.

http://bplusmovieblog.com

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s