Baby Driver (2017)

Spectacular. What a film should be. So our own Edgar Wright wrote and directed this original film about Baby, a young getaway driver trying to get out of the game with one last heist. Well written, well directed, well done Ed.

The cast was spectacular, and I'll openly admit that I'm bias for half of them. Ansel Elgort is perfect for Baby. I really enjoyed how much of the character is left for the film and isn't included in the trailer. We get to know him as a person and his life growing up gradually, as we should. He has a long time relationship with Kevin Spacey who plays Doc, the big man in charge. I think Kevin Spacey is hypnotising, he was in Se7en (1995), he was in A Bug's Life (1998) and this is no different. Jamie Foxx actually used to sit in and watch Spacey even when he didn't need to be on set, just to take in what he was doing. Very impressive man, but not to talk down Academy Awarding winning Foxx and his character Bats. Who is fun and threatening though in parts cliched, the character is still original to watch. I enjoy Jon Hamm in everything he does, check him out in 30 Rock and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, surprisingly funny. No spoilers but his character has the chance to show a range of emotion and he does. Also thoroughly enjoyed his partner, Darling, played by Ezia Gonzalez, a young actress that can definitely hold her own against the rest of the cast. There's a considerable number of characters and reasonable depth for each of them. Remember, they all have fake names, Doc, Baby, Buddy, Darling, Bats etc, the less we know about them the more we're treated like the other characters. Criminals need anonymity. 

OKAY SOUND TIME. Incredible. That's established in the trailer and the few promo clips. We listen to the sound with Baby as he listens to one of his many iPods. The scenes and editing are cut to the sound. The gunshots, the car door slams, the coffee cups placed on the table, all to the beat of the song playing. It changes if he's listening to one or both ear buds. As he has tinnitus if he's not listening to music there's a low ringing in the background, we're very much in his shoes and I love it. The editing really does highlight this and I'd be honestly shocked if there was no Oscar nod for sound mixing or sound editing. The music was an insightful selection for not only the scene but for the character. The opening sequence and what follows, establishes the theme of the film and then the character. We see Baby interact with the gang, his deaf foster father, his love interest Debora, and his parents, all with music. He uses it to connect with his past and communicate the present with his foster father Joseph. He uses it build up a barrier with the gang and to break it down with Debora. There's no secrets, it's all diegetic sound, we are there, we are included. 

The editing as I said is cut beautifully to the music, it crossed my mind that the editors must have had a great time putting this together. Both Paul Machliss and Jonothan Amos have been editors for many big British shows and have worked together before, as well as with Edgar Wright and it shows. There is a particular scene there the timing of the cut with the sound is reminiscent of a montage of Shaun leaving his house in Shaun of the Dead (2004). Just a small reminder of where this film has came from. The cinematographer, Bill Pope, has again has an impressive list of works including collaborations with Wright and the editors. Very stylistic but not distracting, going back to the opening sequence and the scene that follows, it was gorgeous and immerse. The entire film is almost interactive with the spectator. Great range of colour, great costumes, a few moments of day dreams which accentuate those aspects as well. 

It's an incredibly well rounded film. When you get an original screenplay that's what you should hope for, things said at the beginning making sense at the end. Characters having developments that we knew or that we didn't. It was really on purpose. The script was great, each character seemed like separate characters and their interactions are great. Not as funny as some of Wrights predecessors but still comedic moments. The dialogue felt fresh and natural for the most part. It had moments wherein a film references another films and it didn't feel too unwarranted or take you out of the moment. 

Couldn't think of a flaw after watching this. I read a few reviews myself to try and see a different perspective and I found one poorly written attempt at a criticism but it definitely opened my mind. There is a potential contradiction in character choices when it comes to the finale. I don't quite believe this, I believe that some character development is more subtle than others and I didn't doubt any of the decisions made by any of the characters. But let me know what you think on that front, I imagine a second viewing will do wonders either way.

Outstanding, I'm seeing it again in the cinema and I can't wait for a fancy blu ray as this film is interesting from script to screen 9/10

CINEMATES - A

My Life as a Courgette (2016)

Young Icare – or Courgette, as his mother called him has a troubling childhood and ends up in a children’s home. With the help of a police officer, and the few friends he makes whilst after his arrival, his life ends up being better than he could have imagined. 

My Life as a Courgette is a French animation film. Even though it is only just over an hour long, and it is jam packed with so many different amazing things. 

The story, although quite simple, is powerful, and beautifully portrayed by these animated characters. You learn about learn each of them, and warm to them throughout the film. We get to know a little bit about the history of each character, but not too much that it takes away from the main point of the film. You can connect with, and a feel for each different character as their different personalities are presented through the everyday activities they are part of, or the smaller scale conflicts.

I came out of this showing truly touched by what I had seen, and the story that had been created. I appreciated everything about it. The music in this film, was once again, a simple touch, but it was something that fitted so well. The screenplay was filled with scenes that demonstrated the different simple emotions we all experience in everyday circumstances, and it was so heart-warming to see that it was from the point of view, and experiences of young children.

The main thing I took away from this was what seemed to be the variety of hidden messages within the script. We followed Courgette as he began to experience new things, new challenges, and new feelings. It was emphasised throughout that looks are not the only thing to make a person beautiful, and this was cleverly shown by the animation. Which is something to look out for if you see this film. 

It’s hard to explain this film without giving too much away, and like I explained, all the important qualities to this film are simple, but that it was makes them great. This is a film that must be seen and not just read about. This animation seems to be so natural that it is almost impossible for it not to tug on the heartstrings of anyone who watches it.

I highly recommend giving this a watch, whether you are an adult or a child. It is refreshing, funny, sad, and just so adorable.

7/10. 

CINEMATES - S 

All Eyez On Me (2017)

God where do I even start. I did not enjoy this. I did not enjoy this anywhere near as much as I wanted to. Let's get stuck in. All Eyez On Me tells the 'true' 'untold' story of prolific rapper, actor, poet and activist Tupac Shakur. Now I say 'true' as immediately after the premier Jada Pinkett Smith tweeted about the liberties that were taken with her history with Tupac and how things actually happened. In addition to this,  a little reading shows the original director John Singleton, the only director that had Shakur's mother's approval, couldn't agree with the studio on Tupac's portrayal and left. So take that as you will but music video director Benny Boom is not the intended director for this vision and I think you can see that.

It's a pretty messy film. For the first part of the film the narrative is structured around Tupac being interviewed in prison and the events that lead up to that. The beginning 45 minutes were erratic flashbacks from before Tupac was born to how he became a recording artist and his release from prison. It was little better than a PowerPoint presentation. Like a list of bullet points from Wikipedia were quickly run through. And all as if it were under a tight time limit. It was so quickly paced I had no idea how it was going to rack up to the unnecessary 140 minute run time. The film skims over a lot of vital and interesting information about Shakur and the period of which this was happening. Everyone knows he was a rapper shot before his time but the film doesn't give much more than that. We're given incredibly little about his introduction to the music and film industry, both of which would have been for a more interesting choice to develop over other aspects. All Eyez On Me tries to squeeze an entire impressive life into a couple hours and struggled. The odd pacing and time span meant we were given so many characters so briefly we had little time to care about any of them. Which is a real shame because the cast was not the problem.

Demetrius Shipp Jr plays lead Tupac Shakur. He has a good likeness and believability to him. Some short scenes with intimate characters he shows real feeling. They seem like brief genuine moments with his best friend or his mother. His rapping isn't perfect, as you would have expected from the real legend, Shipp Jr appears to be miming quite often. Some parts, granted, were music videos so we're more likely to appear staged but still. He does get into a good flow on stage and does embody Shakur quite well. His mother, Black Panther Afeni Shakur is played by The Walking Dead's Danai Gurira and she smashed it. In part for me because I didn't see kick ass zombie killer Michonne, I saw a completely different strong black woman with a vision that happens to be Tupac's mum. She had more weight than most characters but again things were a little brief. She's a real person that could easily have a feature length about her and her alone. Gurira is a great actress but it felt as if she was given flamboyant direction at times. The direction is less than subtle throughout. That's pretty much the only full relationship we see with Tupac.

His stepfather has two short scenes, his sister isn't seen in the second half of the film, nor is Jada Pinkett. His first mentor and manager is given a single scene and about 6 words. Many of his entourage and other rappers aren't consistently named. Jamal Woodard returns to play Biggie Smalls as he did in Notorious (2009) but their relationship has shallow development, blink and you'll miss it. Biggies wife Faith Evans is suddenly brought in and taken out just as fast. Tupac's wife Keisha Morris isn't included, his fiance Kidada Jones isn't mentioned by name until her third scene. If that sounded like a whirlwind it's because it is, it's a mess.

There's a great deal of assumption on the audience, assuming they know the time and real story well enough to ignore many necessary introductions. I'm a fan of Tupac, not seen all of his films and was not old enough to witness him in his peak or his death. I knew a decent amount about his life through pop culture but I was hoping for more, I wanted to learn about him and the difference he made but you don't get that. If you don't know much about him or his life you may get lost. Though on the contrary maybe you might enjoy it more going in with a blank slate, but I'd be wary that you might just get confused.

The film doesn't explore its themes in a way that it should and had the potential to. It doesn't much discuss the East Coast/West Coast or Crips/Bloods situation. It shows the relationship between police and African Americans with an awkward severity that doesn't seem quite authentic. Acknowledging the Black Panthers but not whole heartedly diving in with their values was clearly a choice to put Tupac as priority but the Black Panthers are hardly a movement that can be danced over lightly. Regards to his activism again we were whipped over any remnants of that. As a child of Black Panther activists he is shown to have a certain mindset and in parts he does appear to have a strong sense of beliefs. There's a good scene discussing his song 'Brenda's got a Baby' that solidifies this. But we barely get 10 minutes to accept the character as that person. The entire film is a mismatch of what is and isn't necessary for a biopic. An awkward montage of his life without presenting the meaning or influence that he had.

I'd almost say to watch it to hear 'California Love' in cinema surround sound. That sounded great, it had some great tracks. Otherwise the sound was nothing special. Had a few foreboding moments where they played a Jaws like theme which felt out of place with the rest of the film as it rarely had an actual score in place. The editing was terribly messy considering it's done by Academy Award winner Joel Cox. There's random slo mo, far too many cuts during action sequences and was overall quite distracting during performances. Same goes for the cinematography, boring until highlighted as tacky with editing. Clearly the signs of a director used to a 4 minute run time.

You won't gain anything from this film. Watch Gridlock'd, listen to Tupac's greatest hits and go watch Straight Outta Compton 4/10

CINEMATES - A

My Cousin Rachel (2017)

I am usually a fan of romantic dramas set around the 1950’s (assumption, because that was when the book was released). So as soon as I saw the, admittedly confusing trailer, I was game.

My Cousin Rachel is a story about a young lad named Phillip who was adopted, and brought up by his cousin Ambrose. Ambrose falls is and is sent to Florence to try and recover, here he meets the first woman to ever catch his eye, Rachel. He marries her and following this he passes away. Phillip is horrified and sets out to discover who this woman is, and why nothing has been left in her name by his cousin Ambrose. Upon meeting her he is instantly swoon, and she captures him with her beauty and charm. He then becomes obsessed with making sure she is comfortable and well off, so much so that he will ultimately be left with nothing. Once she realises this Rachel attempts to do what is needed to ensure she will not lose her late husband’s estate. 

It seemed that director Roger Michell, having directed classics such as Notting Hill (1999), and Persuasion (1995), was in his comfort zone/area of expertise when it came to My Cousin Rachel. The screenplay although simple, did suit this type of film. He did justice to the fact that not much other than the acting and the few locations we had were enough. 

I am not sure what role he played in helping select the cast, but although it was clear that there was a much-needed connection between characters Phillip (Sam Claflin), and Rachel (Rachel Weisz), in some parts it seemed that it almost began to fade, and they were just acting together, and the amount that I believed the true connection between these two characters decreased.

When casting, I think they selected Weisz well. From the position of a viewer, I wasn’t understanding the charm and beauty that Rachel held when played by Weisz. That is not me being horrible, I liked that. I like that she wasn’t stupidly stunning (not saying that she isn’t), or made to look so, and wasn’t awfully bubbly and outgoing. You got the idea that he loved her for his own reasons, that we probably weren’t going to see. This emphasised the fact that Rachel was their ‘torment’. The other members of the case complimented the story and the other actors well, as this was noticed by other characters almost the same as it was by me. I could see this in the reactions of the characters played by those such as Holliday Grainger and Iain Glen. Who gave a variety to the characters we had on screen, and suited their parts well.

The feeling that given off by this feel was largely set up by the filming locations and minimal sets that were selected – as mentioned above. But this meant that we got some beautiful shots of the places that were supposedly important to the few main characters in this film, and did set a tone for the film. Alongside the costumes, the makeup, the jewellery worn by the characters, even the footwear, and in some cases the way actors held themselves, they were had this period drama sorted!

However, the story although it looks like a juicy one, didn’t do much. I was excited at the beginning as things were set out for us, very well, as we started by hearing a chunk about Phillip and Ambrose and then that kind of just faded away into nothingness, and ended with a few things not being tied up, and finally finishing up similarly to how it all began. There were parts when I believe it was going get dramatic, and we were finally getting to the good bit, but in this area, My Cousin Rachel did lack.

Even though the story did lack in places it was okay, and it wasn’t too badly paced, I didn’t feel too long, and it was a pleasant film to watch. I don’t think it’s a film for someone who has never seen a period drama, or dislikes them, as typically then can be quite straightforward films especially one with a story like this – however, this is not a bad thing.

This wasn’t a bad film, but it also wasn’t a good one. It was fine, but I may even consider buying it one day, though I can’t say I’m desperate to see it again.

5.5/10.

CINEMATES - S 

The Mummy (2017)

After the masses of bad reviews following the release of The Mummy, Universal’s first instalment to its Dark Universe series… I really was not looking forward to watching this film. I mean we’d seen the trailers for months, and I’d begun to just get sick of seeing anything to do with this film, bit the bullet and caught a showing.

The story is what you’d expect from what we’ve already been given, but it is really nicely set out right at the beginning of the film, because we don't really know much about Ahmanet’s (Sophia Boutella) character, or history. So the film was really set up well, and honestly, the story just went downhill from there. Considering the film is called The Mummy, suggesting it is likely to be about a mummy, it’s almost quite the opposite. The main theme of this film was lost in some parts of he film, and it wasn’t so much a film about the villain, or the main character of the film it was more of a series of events surrounding the leading actor.

This was a problem for a couple of reasons. For starters, I’m not a massive fan of Tom Cruise anyway, and I know that isn't a popular opinion, and I cant always justify my reason for that statement, but I just don't always quite connect with him as an actor. This was something that i really noticed in this film, I just didn't quite understand what he was trying to do with his character. Secondly, it was a problem because its The Mummy! We want more of the Mummy! The rest of the cast really were nothing to write home about, I feel horrible saying it, but - they did the job but the actors did not stand out as the new ‘someone to watch’, because they starred in this film.

The actual film itself was really quite messy in parts, and I found myself sat there feeling exhausted, because it was pure on screen chaos. We jumped from one dilemma to the next, without much transition, or in some cases closure. It felt like during filming they were like RIGHT, WE NEED A BUNCH OF DISASTER, EDITING TEAM… SMUSH IT ALL IN. The result was not a positive one, and ended up with the film not only being a bit all over the place, but a little bit too long. It really felt like it was 2 hours long.



Not all was bad though, there were some interesting bits of action that I hadn't expected, and a lot of Cruise falling of buildings, dodging explosions and showing us some new creatures, which did on occasion look different to most others that we have seen before. The comedy however, was truly awful, corny, and eye-roll worthy. When i wasn’t that, it was jus funny because some scenes almost ripped off Shaun of the Dead… Which is great, if you’re watching Shaun of the Dead.

Honestly, this film for me was a hot mess, and like myself, I wouldn't rush to see it. It’s not the worst film by all means, but is it better than the 1999 original? No, of course not. Is it worth buying? No. Is it even worth recommending? Probably not. For a 2 hour film there is not a lot to say that isn't really mean, but I was no more impressed with this after watching than I was before release.

4/10. Sorry Cruise, I still won’t be joining a fan club.

CINEMATES - S 

It Comes at Night (2017)

I heard about this film a little while back, we were given a poster (which I adore) and one trailer and that was it. I'm a fan of A24 and the story seemed right up my street so I was on board. If you were anticipating a strange monster in the woods, a scary climax and some potentially disturbing visuals, this is not it. I will tell you now the marketing is in some places incorrect. After watching the trailer back, it comes across as a slightly different film, different genre almost too.

So, we have Joel Edgerton as Paul, the father and husband in a desolate world when an intruder breaks into his home. After restraining Will, said intruder, we discover that he too has a wife and son and is looking for refuge. I mentioned before that I loved the poster and I do. The simple contrast and empty space alone is pleasing. It so effortlessly implied danger whilst showing none. Like a famous piece of art called Deimos by Dragan Bibin. A dog, in It Comes at Night's case his name is Stanley, standing alert and uneasy staring at something we can't see. I was intrigued and impressed that we did not have the big reveal up front. Though after watching it's kind of because there isn't one. This is a character piece, this is a drama. It would barely scrape horror, thriller is a closer fit.

Some of the score has a sci-fi feel, like warped sirens, the repetition that wouldn't feel out of place on a space vessel. It also relied decently on the absence of sound. Heads up, you can't eat your popcorn during every scene. The silence adds real unease and suspense, the whole film is, visually and audibly, quite natural. Bar the occasional score it was all diegetic sound, very real. And most frames are filled with darkness. The black seeps in from the edges to meet the often-small singular light on screen. We see no electricity in the film, just multiple lamps and the natural lighting. The shadows created against the characters hints at what we don't know. As I said, it's more of a character piece with moral standing being part of the ensemble. 

The cast were great, Edgerton is great, I thoroughly enjoyed him in Warrior and The Midnight Special and it's no different here. One of the biggest flaws I found in the film is that there isn't enough of anything. This goes mainly with the characters. Edgerton's Paul has some difficult scenes, he shows emotion and self-conflict well but somehow has a surprisingly sparse time to show them. Kelvin Harrison Jr plays Travis, Paul's son, who has possibly the best performance of the film. He shows a genuine range of emotions and unlike most other characters he can explore them fully. As an audience we're tied to him, he often day dreams or is deep in thought and we stay with him as other characters continue with scenes. He's in a way our time keeper, he often leads us in and out of days with simple dimming to black as he sleeps and brightening as he wakes, often from nightmares. He has different relationships with every character and, thinking about it, is the only person to have a direct conversation with every other character in the film.

Will, played by Christopher Abbott, came into his own. I personally only knew him from Lena Dunham's Girls, and it was nice to recognise him but not see the character and just see this new person. But again, we don't have the chance to see the full potential and beef the character out a bit more. Same goes for the two women in the film, Travis' mum Sarah is well played by Carmen Ejogo who again doesn't have many solid scenes to show off but still managed to show her character. Will's wife Kim alternatively gets a couple of scenes to give some information about her but ultimately, she's used for other characters to work off. With the film being on 97 mins none of them really got the chance to flesh themselves out that well considering its a character driven film.

Overall it felt like a student film. Low budget but well made. Clearly Trey Edward Schults baby as he wrote, directed and co-edited the film, something I have split minds over. I don't tend to agree on people being involved in that many aspects on one project, mostly a 'Jack of all trades master of none' mentality. Sometimes one person's vision needs another persons contributions. It Comes at Night is likely to divide people’s opinions though the reception has been good. Very similar tones and style to The Witch (2015), which debatably had the same marketing flaw, though was well received. I really wished I enjoyed the ending more. A good ending doesn't have to mean a happy ending so I was open to something awful. It felt abrupt and largely unsatisfying. Though one part may shock some people it doesn't have that much of a crescendo to the basic character development. Third act has an interesting goal but not executed that well.

It's slower and more art-house than advertised. Strong aspects but more forgettable than I would like. 6/10 add on another 2 marks if you're a fan of The Witch.

CINEMATES - A