2020: The Year in Reviews (March)

No matter how strange the year is, we still gotta do the thing. You know how it works: in January I preview and guess ratings for a bunch of movies, then most of them come out over the course of the year, and then we recap it all in December. This year will be no different, though admittedly it’s a much thinner year to review than I’m used to. But, we can only review what comes out.

It started as a game for me to see how well I could guess stuff, but really, like most things on this site, it becomes a vehicle to try to get people to watch stuff. The tallying part is just for me to make it interesting. Mostly I’m just trying to tell you about all the cool stuff I saw this year.

Today we go over March.

March

Onward

January’s preview:

“Pixar. That’s really all you need to know.”

“I’ve been seeing trailers for this for months, and normally I reserve a 4 star rating for an original Pixar film. But this one hasn’t looked great from the start and the more I see what the story’s about, I feel like it’ll have the requisite Pixar emotion but the subject matter won’t interest me all that much.”

“I gotta go 3.5 stars with this. 4 feels like the ceiling on it, given what I’ve seen in all the trailers. 3.5 stars makes the most sense and feels like what I’m gonna get out of this. I’m feeling something more like Brave than something like Coco.”

The review:

“Feels like they took it out of the oven too soon.”

“Usually original Pixar makes me feel something or cry. I just… didn’t care about this movie.”

“Honestly, can’t believe I’m saying this — felt like it could have been made by someone else.”

“The fantasy aspect felt like a gimmick to spice up the story and sell stuff (‘Zootopia worked, let’s try that!’). Much like the father character for the majority of the road trip, it didn’t feel all there.”

“It’s fine, but I think the message is simplistic and doesn’t achieve the emotional catharsis as well as other films with similar themes.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I’ll watch it again at some point, but I stand by my feelings about this one. It feels not fully done. It feels like they’re getting by on muscle memory of knowing how to make you emotional, but the rest was paint by numbers. I just don’t know why the setting mattered other than to spice up the story. Clearly they came in with the emotional arc and the rest was built around it. I just — didn’t really care all that much about the majority of this movie. My response to this is the same as my response to Zootopia — why does everyone else think this is better than it seems to be? But whatever. It’s Pixar. Saying this is one of their weakest films is like saying Ballad of Buster Scruggs is one of the weakest Coen brothers films. Okay. Look at the output. This can live near the bottom. If any other studio put this out exactly the same, it probably would be one of the five best animated films they’d ever released.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Way Back

January’s preview:

“Gavin O’Connor, of course, is responsible for two very good sports films already, Miracle and Warrior. So on those two alone, it’s hard to go below 3.5 stars on this.” 

The review:

“I liked it well enough.”

“I like that it doesn’t do anything too ‘movie’ — he doesn’t stop being a drunk after a talking-to or for the big game, and the team doesn’t suddenly become unbeatable and go from 0-10 to winning the championship. It’s realistic. Life doesn’t always work out, but we take steps to assure that maybe it’ll be okay.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

It was solid. Gavin O’Connor knows his way around a sports movie. It had all the tropes without ever feeling cliched, and I like that Affleck really worked at this one and didn’t allow himself to fall into autopilot. An all-around solid movie.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

First Cow

January’s preview:

“It’s Kelly Reichardt, which tells me most of what I need to know about it. Her movies have been exclusively either 3 stars or 3.5 stars for me, depending on how interesting they are, since none of them really have firm plots.”

“I’m sticking with 3 stars, just because I need to see it win me over and get to 3.5.”

The review:

“It looks really nice, as her outdoors films tend to do, the pacing is her usual slow, and maybe some people will find profundity in it. I think it’s just a perfectly solid movie. I don’t read too much into it. It just kind of is.”

“If you need your movies to have Marvel level pacing, then don’t watch this. You’ll be bored out of your face. If you think that slow moving shots and nothing happening constitutes auteur level filmmaking, then this will be the greatest movie you’ve ever seen.”

“Like all other Kelly Reichardt movies I’m giving it 3 stars and saying it’s perfectly fine. That’s how I respond to her films.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

The fact that this is gonna be on so many people’s top ten lists amuses the shit out of me. Because it’s just so obvious. I mean, it’s fine. It’s Kelly Reichardt. I’ve seen almost all her movies. They’re all exactly this. Perfectly solid, but not anything I consider more than just ‘pretty good’. I can’t wait to learn everything about people’s film tastes based on where they have this ranked at the end of the year and what’s ranked around it.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Hope Gap

January’s preview:

“Given the stuff (William Nicholson) has written, it feels like a movie that is a bit outdated. Which for some people sounds promising. For me, just feels like a cool 3 stars.”

The review:

“There’s always a handful of movies each year that make me go, ‘Who is this for? What is the purpose of me having watched this?'”

“It feels like something that was maybe more interesting as a novel but doesn’t make the most interesting film.”

“I’m not really sure what anyone got out of it, but it was watchable I guess, so there’s that.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

I think the ‘who is this for?’ question about covers it. I’m really not sure what the purpose of this movie was.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Burnt Orange Heresy

January’s preview:

“Mick Jagger is in this! And Donald Sutherland! And Elizabeth Debicki!”

“Looks like a nice little mystery.”

“Not seeing more than 3 stars here. I can hope for more, but I can’t guess more than that given what I see. The cast is one thing, but movies always find a way to get cool casts and not amount to much.”

The review:

“Liked it. Didn’t expect to like it. Because, you know, anything that becomes about a theft or a heist or something, and you know that going in, you’re immediately watching to figure out what all the angles are, who’s lying to who, and so on. And this isn’t that kind of movie. It’s pretty straightforward, and that, I think, maybe set up my expectations in the wrong direction.”

“I think the movie won’t appeal to most people, but I was surprised at how much I cared about it. Which is largely due to the strength of the actors more than anything else.”

“Wasn’t crazy about the turn it takes around the third act. But it’s based on a book, so what can you do.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I liked watching it. I like Elizabeth Debicki. I thought Mick Jagger was awesome in this (because Mick Jagger is awesome). I loved what Donald Sutherland brought to it. The third act goes crazy out of nowhere, but it sticks the landing. Overall, I liked it and I think it’s worth your time.

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

Run This Town

January’s preview:

“I guess 3 stars. Trailer seemed interesting enough.”

The review:

“Appreciated the story, not sure I liked how they told it. It’s trying to be a slick, Sorkin/fast-paced dialogue/witty kind of political journalist thing. However, it’s clear this is a first feature from a young writer who thinks he’s hot shit.”

“The problem for me (aside from the fact that you can hear the writer’s smug self-satisfaction with every turn of phrase) is that the main character is utterly unlikable.”

“While there are parts I really enjoyed (Mena Massoud as Ford’s right hand man in particular), I’m really not sure what the point of it all was. ‘Hey, this happened, and here’s this young idiot who fucked it up, and here’s some of the people affected by it.'”

“Mostly it just feels like a filmmaker saying, ‘Look at me, give me work.’ And honestly, fine with that. It was engaging and felt generally well made. Not gonna go much further than that, though.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I still think about that — how they made the main character look like he was smart and witty and competent and then completely made him look like a fucking buffoon the rest of the movie. It’s such a weird set of choices that, to me, boils down to someone saying, “I’m hot shit.” And again — fine with that. Just… the movie had problems, despite having some good stuff. Just as long as we’re all clear on that.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Sorry We Missed You

January’s preview:

“This is Ken Loach. So that means either 3 or 3.5. Let’s go 3.5 stars. Why not.”

The review:

‘Ken Loach movie. So you’re getting blue collar people going through awful shit and a series of bad things happening to them with no real silver lining at the end of it.”

“It’s like all Ken Loach films, really solid but depressing as hell. You know what you’re getting with him.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

It’s Ken Loach. They’re all solid. You know exactly what you’re getting with him.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Swallow

January’s preview:

“Tone looks tricky. But I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.”

3.5 stars.

The review:

“Well this is a fucking weird one. But I guarantee you won’t see more than one or two movies more unique and memorable than this one during this section of the year.”

“It’s very well shot. Immaculate to look at. And Bennett is very good. Plus it’s just so weird and offbeat and tonally very well done (because it’s unsettling without veering too much in any direction).”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

This is so beautiful and strange. I loved it. This is a real hidden gem from 2020.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Banker

January’s preview:

“I guessed 3.5 stars last year based on this same information, and all that happened is they pushed it a few months based on something totally unrelated to the movie itself. And now, having seen a trailer, I see no reason not to stick with that 3.5 star guess. Looks really solid to me.”

The review:

“This was solid.”

“It generally works. I just wish it held up as well as that first half started out.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

Solid. Doesn’t set the world on fire, but it’s a nice story that’s well told. You could do worse for a film.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Escape from Pretoria

January’s preview:

“Hey, another Daniel Radcliffe movie! I like that the only features he seems to do now are these VOD movies where either he’s doing action or starving himself to death in the wilderness. Judging from the title and logline, this is the latter. And this time he gets an accent!”

3 stars. Can’t guess higher than that. Not with that trailer. But prison movies are always interesting, so that’s good. So far this month’s looking pretty solid.”

The review:

“I like prison break movies.”

“It’s just a solid movie. Forget the political stuff, you’re watching people break out of a prison. And that’s never not interesting.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

Prison break movies are always interesting. That’s what that extra half-star is. It’s been a while since I’ve seen one, and I must have forgot.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Spenser Confidential

January’s preview:

“What? This is a Mark Wahlberg/Peter Berg movie? Based on the title and the fact that it’s on Netflix, I just assumed it was some teen Nickelodeon show adaptation or something. Isn’t that what it sounds like? Some LA-based child actor in khakis and some colorful shirt and glasses — middle school student by day, secret agent by night. ‘Saving the world in time for algebra.'”

“I’m sure the movie’s terrible, but fun trumps terrible. Cast looks great too. I’m 100% going 3.5 stars on this.”

The review:

“This rating is purely an early year rating. I like dumb, fun movies like this. It’s not good at all. To the point where it’s clear how much it was edited to even make it sort of coherent.”

“It’s got cool people and it’s entertaining enough, plus I gave it the half-point for just enjoying these kinds of movies.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

The 3.5 stars on this is 100% a case of, ‘It was early in the year, I was stuck inside because the pandemic had just started and this was a little bit of escapism’. Make no mistake — it’s not great. It’s starting to feel like when directors get older and lose their touch. This one’s starting to feel a little stale in terms of — Berg and Wahlberg have made five movies together now. Lone Survivor was great. Deepwater Horizon was solid. Patriots Day was solid. Mile 22 — ehh. This at least tried to be fun and largely succeeded, but isn’t really a good movie. It’s just not as tight as it could be and felt like they maybe had more fun making it than there was actually good material to put on screen. But you know what? I enjoyed it in the thick of quarantine, so I’m cool with it.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Bloodshot

January’s preview:

“So this is RoboCop meets Source Code but with Vin Diesel? Okay, then.”

3 stars. Hard to think it goes much higher than that. 3.5 stars is within the realm of possibility, but from where we’re starting, it’s hard to see this getting out of the 3-star hole, especially given the trailer basically told me the entire plot of the movie.”

The review:

“I wonder how much more interesting this movie could have been had they not ruined the twist in the trailer.”

“It’s not great. But if you hid that twist and just let it happen, maybe some people will go, ‘Oh, that’s fun.’ But no. Just kind of a generic action movie.”

“You kinda know what you’re getting with most Vin Diesel action movies that are neither fast nor furious. It’s fine.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

It’s Vin Diesel, so unless he’s fast or furious, it’s gonna be a 3-star movie. This… they ruined the twist in the trailer, and I knew exactly what I was getting from that moment on. It is what it is. You could see how a much better movie could’ve been made from this, but sadly, this is what we got. Oh well.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

The Roads Not Taken

January’s preview:

3 stars. It’s hard to tell just how melodramatic this is gonna be.”

The review:

“Boy, was this a slog.”

“I’m not sure what the point of this was. There was really nothing for me here at all.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

Long, boring, too much of a downer. Not sure what the point of this was, even though the actors made me capable of getting through it, even though I was very much not interested in this.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Big Time Adolescence

January’s preview:

“I guess we’ll say 3 stars, but it could be 2.5. I just don’t know how I’m gonna respond to something like this.”

The review:

“I liked this more than I thought I would.”

Anything with Pete Davidson in it is a questionable proposition for me. But, here, he works.”

“Any excuse to not go to 3.5 stars I probably would have taken, but it’s a testament to how charming this was that I kept it at 3.5.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

This is an example of me seeing Pete Davidson for the first time before the Apatow movie. So I saw the one character he can play. And I thought, “Well that works.” Because that’s his range. Lovable fuck up. Had I seen this after I saw that movie, I probably would have liked it less. But I’ll stick with the 3.5, since I did think it was a pretty charming little movie.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

The Hunt

January’s preview:

“This is that thriller they pulled in the wake of a shooting. Not sure if they’ll ever release it, but I figure I’ll give it one more year in case they figure they can.”

3 stars.”

The review:

“Well, this was a weird one.”

“Feels like it’s taking a lot of unnecessary steps to make a point away from what is otherwise a pretty decent premise.”

“It all pretty much stays true to the premise while slowly letting out information for the protagonist as we go along. The problem is when the information comes out. The more you learn, the more the movie falls apart.”

“I’m not really sure what the purpose of it is. Are we supposed to not be rooting for the main characters because they might support an ideology we disagree with? The entire political message here is so muddled and unnecessary that it detracts from what could otherwise had been a lean and badass horror-survival movie.”

“But whatever. It’s not like Damon Lindelof is a stranger to criticism for lazy, half-baked writing.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

It’s a watchable thriller with a good premise that is utterly ruined by trying to make either some sort of political statement or make it political satire or whatever the fuck they were trying to do. It’s a well-put-together film with a great central performance from Betty Gilpin, but honestly… the more you learn about the plot, the more you go, “What the fuck are you doing?”

I also thought my last line of the review was funny.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always

January’s preview:

3.5 stars. Bring this shit on. I’m concerned it might go a bit too indie, but if it’s a straight road trip/friendship movie, that should be enough for me.”

“I’m so ready for this movie to be good.”

The review:

“This is the best film that came out in this third of the year. No contest.”

“The scene where the film gets its title is the most powerful I’ve seen this year.”

“I really like this movie a lot and think people owe it to themselves to watch it. Because there’s a lot of garbage that comes out in the first quarter of the year, but this feels like the first legitimate contender for being one of the best of the year that’s emerged thus far.”

* * * * (4 stars)

Final thoughts:

Really liked this one a lot. I’m due to watch it again over the course of the next two weeks, but man, was this something I absolutely adored at the time and something I think is one of the best films of the year. We’ll see just how much I like it when I see it again, but even without that, do yourself a favor and see this if you haven’t.

* * * * (4 stars)

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

I Still Believe

January’s preview:

“OH SHIT IT’S A SHITTY FAITH-BASED MOVIE.”

2 stars. This looks so awful. Oh my god, I almost can’t wait to hate this.”

The review:

“Religious movie. The usual garbage. Based on some Christian music guy and his dead wife. Didn’t care. Will never care. Honestly should stop watching these at this point, but once in a while we get the ‘Columbine out of nowhere’ movie and it kinda almost makes it worth it.”

* * (2 stars)

Final thoughts:

These movies are such garbage.

* * (2 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Lost Transmissions

January’s preview:

“Gut instinct says go 3 stars. So I will.”

The review:

“This is another pure indie. It’ll work for some, not work for others. I’m middle of the road.”

“Pegg does a good job with it, as good as the material will allow, but ultimately it just feels like that middle-of-the-road indie that’s neither good nor bad.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

It was fun watching Pegg play bipolar, otherwise it was very indie. “Middle-of-the-road indie” feels like exactly the right description for this.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Stargirl

January’s preview:

“I thought this was some superhero thing. Turns out it’s a coming of age movie. And it’s a Disney+ thing. But it’s from Julia Hart, who did Fast Color, which was terrific. So I’m not totally writing it off.”

“I’m concerned it could be a bit treacly, based on the trailer. So I’m only going 3 stars, but with the right tone and the right writing, this could go higher.”

The review:

I liked this so much more than I ever thought possible.”

“It’s really sweet and the message there is really nice. It also gets a little more serious than maybe I’d have expected out of a movie like this.”

“I like movies with kids this age learning hard truths and dealing with emotional pain that helps them learn and grow.”

“I quite enjoyed this movie, and for every school musical number there’s another sweet scene that more than made up for it.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I was very charmed by this and am now even more thrilled because I can talk up Julia Hart as a director after her making three films within the past year that are fantastic. (Fast Color was hers last year, and we’ll get to I’m Your Woman when we get to December.) This is likely to not be for everyone, but I thought she found folds within the high school coming-of-age movie that I hadn’t seen before, and I quite enjoyed it.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Lost Girls

January’s preview:

“This is a tough thing to pull off. Movie trying to de-villainize sex workers and show their plights while also being a mystery about a mother looking for her daughter. I’m not sure this movie can fully do it, so I’m gonna say 3 stars, but more power to them for what they’re trying to do. I hope it works.”

The review:

“I liked this. It’s not all there, but what’s there is solid.”

“I wish Thomasin McKenzie had more to do and maybe it didn’t go as ‘mystery’ as it does (there’s Zodiac type scenes where you almost become convinced the creepy dude who sure seems suspicious had something to do with it, even though in reality they never caught the guy), but overall, it’s solid.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

It was a solid film, even though admittedly I’m struggling to remember large chunks of it, now nine months later. Still, I appreciate the message, think the actors did a good job and liked the film when it focused more on the cops not caring about these women and those who cared about them trying to overcome that indifference rather than when it tried to go all Zodiac near the end.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Human Capital

January’s preview:

3 stars. This sounds completely indie, through and through.”

The review:

“I liked all the people in it… just not sure what the point was.”

“It’s a strangely put-together film. It has moments of being solid, but doesn’t (human) capitalize on most of them. Oh well. At least the cast is good and they tried hard.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

It was a watchable drama with good actors… I’m just not sure how much I cared. It’s one of those movies that you watch, you’re invested (a capital investment), and then once it’s over, you go, “What was the point of that?” I’m still not sure. But at least it was watchable.

Also, that Human Capitalize pun was A+. Don’t sleep on how good that was. (Capital investment was just okay. I’ll own that one.)

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Blow the Man Down

January’s preview:

“’m not taking the bait and guessing higher than 3 stars. But hey, this could be a cool little gem that I could champion. So I hope it’s great.”

The review:

“I really enjoyed this.”

“It’s a bold debut from the directors.”

“I like the small town element and the fact that it doesn’t become some action thriller or anything like that.”

“It’s one of the hidden gems from the year people should seek out. And judging from how small the film crop this year is looking to end up being, I think maybe this has a bit more of a shot than it otherwise might have.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I really liked this one. It’s incredibly well-done. I loved the style, I loved the tone, I love that it never had these bit action sequences the way a lot of movies would have. This is one of the better films of the year and you really should see this one.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Uncorked

January’s preview:

3 stars. Tone could be tricky and if it’s overly comedic it could drop to 2.5 very easily, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.”

The review:

“I liked this way more than I thought I was gonna.”

“I figured this would be about wine in some way, but for some reason I was expecting some bad comedy. But it’s not.”

“While it takes a turn or two that might feel a bit obvious for a story like this (not too badly, either, I’ll add), I think it finds a subject matter that is interesting, and even though I could care less about wine past red or white and a broad taste, I found myself enjoying scenes of him tasting stuff and being able to tell everything about it.”

“Netflix has a lot of crap out there, and it’s got a lot of really great stuff. This is in that mid-range, where some people will like it, some people won’t care, but it’s also good enough that I’d say it’s worth a shot, as opposed to some of the other crap they throw out there on a weekly basis.”

* * * (3 stars)

Final thoughts:

I really enjoyed this one, to the point of almost considering going to 3.5 stars on this. But honestly, the rating doesn’t matter as much as me talking about it. You’re an idiot if you just look at numbers and move along. This is a really solid film and one of the better ones Netflix has put out. I was surprised at how much I could care about someone studying to become a sommelier. Also a film from a black writer-director — you love to see it. This movie should be championed.

* * * (3 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

Resistance

January’s preview:

“Seeing as they’re gonna dump it on VOD means I can’t really guess higher than 3 stars. Hope it’s better, but I can’t guess better.”

The review:

“Okay, so I had no idea what this really was.”

“First Ed Harris shows up as Patton… then Jesse Eisenberg showed up and started doing a mime act, and then his father called him Marcel. And I went, ‘Wait, WHAT?’ Because it’s about fucking MARCEL MARCEAU.”

“I actually had to pause the movie for like nine hours before I went back to it just to mentally prepare myself for that being the story.”

“It’s a solid movie. I generally find it hard with these war (especially World War II) period pieces to truly care, but I did quite enjoy this one.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

I thought having Ed Harris in the movie for literally a scene was gonna be the strangest thing about this… then I learned it was a secret biopic of Marcel Marceau helping the French Resistance. Even weirder? I liked it. I really enjoyed it. Don’t need to ever see it again, but it was very solid and looked great.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

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

Vivarium

January’s preview:

“It looks strange as hell. And it looks like it’s got a hell of a social commentary beneath it.”

3.5 stars.”

“I’m in for this.”

The review:

“This is straight Kafka. Pure psychological horror.”

“It’s solid, even if it kinda loses me a little past the midway point. Not to say I disliked it, I just lost interest in what was otherwise a set up I enjoyed.”

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

Final thoughts:

This was a Twilight Zone episode. Kafka. If that’s your thing, absolutely see this movie. It’s weird and darkly funny and quite good.

* * * ½ (3.5 stars)

How close was I?: Exact.

– – – – – – – – – –

http://bplusmovieblog.com

5 responses

  1. Frankily, I think you were too generous to Onward

    December 19, 2020 at 12:57 pm

    • I’ve learned not to waste my time getting mad about things I don’t particularly care for. It only makes people yell louder when they disagree. I prefer to focus my time trying to talk up the ones that are worthwhile. Like Wolfwalkers.

      December 19, 2020 at 5:15 pm

      • Wolfwalkers was amazing! I cried. And it’s so pretty

        December 19, 2020 at 6:07 pm

      • Here’s hoping Soul is as good as it looks.

        December 19, 2020 at 6:28 pm

      • I’ve heard nothing but good things from reviewers who got screeners

        December 19, 2020 at 6:34 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.