Why five? Because WHY NOT five? Yeah, get your head around that!
1. The character of Chris, played by the fine-but-not-outstanding Emile Hirsch, was sort of niavely selfish, wasn't he? It's nice and all for him to be so self-reliant, high and mighty and feel like his parents wanting him to get an education is some sort of evil scheme, but seriously... he was a wanker and I didn't particularly like him.
2. I liked the movie better when he was with other people, particularly Catherine Keener and Hal Holbrook (neither of whom I would particularly be excited about getting Oscar noms, but they were both fine) because it meant Chris' obvious flaws weren't on flagrant display.
3. It's not that I particularly have anything against films that are so clearly "episodic" in nature, but it's just that it's so much easier to pick the flaws of a film when it is so.
4. It was all very pretty.
5. B- probably, but check back with me tomorrow.
Wow, I used the word "particularly" a lot here.