Bad Moms (Jon Lucas & Scott Moore, 2016)

0/10
This wasn't my choice to watch but wow this was putrid. Basically motherhood wish-fulfillment porn. Plot-wise, you know what to expect if you've ever seen an Apatow thing (this was written by The Hangover guys) - a bunch of like-minded characters, moms here, lash out at the restraints imposed upon them by society's expectations, decide to Go Wild, learn some lessons about moderation in the end, blah blah. Curiously, Bad Moms kicks off on a decidedly anti-feminist note - the central character Amy (played by Mila Kunis) has her life go completely off the rails when her husband leaves. This is even more interesting because Amy's husband, of course, is portrayed as an oblivious, do-nothing loser. So it's weird that him leaving is what sends her life spiraling into chaos.
So Amy joins up with 2 other moms who want to Go Wild - Kristen Bell playing the timid one and Kathryn Hahn playing the brassy one in roles you've seen before being played by Tina Fey and Amy Schumer - and we're treated to excruciatingly implausible scenes like Amy struggling to get laid at a bar because she doesn't know how to talk to men and can only talk about "mom stuff" like her kids' bathrooms habits. I will remind you that Amy is played by Mila Kunis, who could probably brand a swastika into her forehead and still go home with any number of men of her choosing.
The whole movie is like that, extremely tone-deaf and lacking in self-awareness. It doesn't care much beyond being obnoxious and hoping that some very deluded individuals will identify with its cartoon character protagonists.
Most of this ground was already covered well by Bridesmaids, or covered well enough by Sisters. It's cool that female ensemble comedies are an established thing and more prominent than ever but this does no favors at all to the genre.

The Girl on the Train (Tate Taylor, 2016)

6/10
I haven't read the book. The movie wasn't as bad as I expected, in fact the reviews seem a little harsh. It's a functional enough thriller, keeps you guessing reasonably well (I didn't figure out whodunnit, but I'm notoriously lousy at that) and features a really good performance by Emily Blunt, even if it's a little showy. The most annoying thing in the movie (vague spoiler talk): and this probably worked better on the page, is that it relies upon misleading its audience as the foundation for its "twist". Similar to Gone Girl, but at least it doesn't have the same pretentions of artistry that movie did. So when you show me something taking place, and then show me something later that basically says "no this is how it really happened", it just feels like a cheap trick, not clever moviemaking (or storytelling).
As a decently entertaining night at the movies, you could do worse.

Steve Jobs (Danny Boyle, 2015)

7/10
I guess The Social Network set us on a path of movies showing us how clever jerks got to be really rich jerks as each global giant successively gets their entry into the canon (stay tuned this year for Michael Keaton as Ray Kroc! Who will play Colonel Sanders in his biopic in 2018?!). Aaron Sorkin scripted this one as he did The Social Network. The dialogue certainly crackles, thanks in no small part to Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet who are both terrific, but it does veer into portentousness at times, with characters in the heat of an argument delivering clunky lines that are heavy-handedly meant to be interpreted as a metaphor for the scene as a whole.
The three product launch sequences that make up the movie are impressively mounted, although each feels more rote than the last - the movie has Jobs commenting on this repetitiveness in an attempt at self-awareness ("I feel like before every product launch people get drunk and tell me what they really think about me") but it doesn't make it feel less paint-by-numbers.
Like Moneyball, another Sorkin adaptation, there seems to be a fear of getting too technical - there with baseball stats, here with computer specs. Any technical sequence is immediately followed up with a hammy father-daughter scene as if to scramble to pull the viewer back in but frankly, as in Moneyball, I found the technical stuff way more interesting than the Hollywood schmaltz.
Overall it's a decent movie, the acting is the strength by far and the writing is solidly in second. I'm just not sure what all we were supposed to glean by sitting through it. We already knew that Sorkin could write and Fassbender could act and Boyle could direct and Jobs was a jerk who took more credit than he deserved.