Between this and Cherry, it’s becoming more and more clear that the MCU’s best director is called Kevin Feige.
Netflix clearly spent a lot of money on this, you can feel the price of your subscription going up with every new set piece that’s introduced, but the end results are still unforgivingly bland and generic nonetheless.
It’s their attempt to compete with Bond, Bourne or Mission Impossible, but if anything this feels like a poser imitation of those superior blockbuster franchises. The plot is in fact literally ripping off both Skyfall and The Bourne Identity at the same time, but forgets about any of their depth in regards to story and character.
The Russos are clearly trying to recapture that same tone and spark from their Captain America: The Winter Soldier days, but they end up making something that’s more akin to the quality of Red Notice.
In terms of directing they kinda got outdone by their own second unit director with his Netflix action flick, as I’d argue that Extraction is a marginally better film than this.
The action’s poorly done and cheaply put together, lots of annoying editing choices (heavy overuse of drone shots, quick cuts and can the Russos pick a normal font for once?), corny dialogue, distractingly bad CGI, boring visuals and music (why is everything so low contrast, foggy and muddy?); not a lot to recommend about this one.
The acting’s fine, Evans is having a blast, but I have absolutely no idea why an extremely picky actor like Ryan Gosling chose this script in the first place. It seems like a paycheck movie for someone of his caliber. Just watch The Nice Guys instead of this if you want to see Goose in an action comedy, we don’t need these 200 million dollar direct to streaming action films.
4/10
did an anti-vaxxer write this script or what
Pretty bad, more like a bad comedy. And those girls were just two bitches with daddy issues who think they're making a point and giving what? moral lessons?. The poor bastard said 'No' a few times, and I'm not justifying him because he was stupid but those girl kept pushing, come on, everyone has a limit.
I really enjoyed this movie. A great cast and amazing acting. I was lucky to see it in a theater before the Netflix release. If you like law suit drama's then this is a movie for you. Based upon true events with real footage in it
I had high hopes for this movie since it has two of my favorite people in it but I was still surprised by how great the movie was. Funny, smart and elegant both in cinematography and writing, it’s just amazing. I won’t stop recommending it.
Probably the best found-footage movie I've seen. Creep is an accurate title as it's more creepy than scary or spooky.
I just saw this movie, I had no idea what it was about or had any expectaions at all. And damn I got suprised. And I really liked this movie, and it keept me hooked from the begining til the end. But one question, why did they hijack the plane? Anybody that understood this? I guess we have to live with not knowing. :grin:
The movie is way too unrealistic. No one plugs in a USB cable on the first try.
This movie is dumb.
Something else needs to be pointed out as well. They never show her getting off the dam tower. Lame ending.
Why didn't she just stuff the phone in the bird
Normally, I like Charlie Kaufman, but this is him at his most pretentious.
Not that it’s all bad, I actually liked most of the first long scene in the car.
It’s the kind of scene that will make many casual viewers dismiss the film right away (due to its length), but I thought it set up both of our leads very well.
Then they arrive at the parents’ house, and my opinion on the film did a 180.
It does what every annoying art movie does (not saying all art movies are like that, I like a lot of them): everything starts to get weird for the sake of trying to be interesting, but without any artistic reasoning.
For example, the acting becomes a nonsensical mix of very grounded performances (our leads) on one side, and extremely heightened, cartoony perfomances on the other side (the parents).
Also, the cinematography is pedestrian at best, and I fail to see the reasoning behind the chosen aspect ratio (unlike films like The Lifghthouse or Mommy).
Just stick to writing, Charlie.
4/10
Let's be real here. This isn't a good film. And it's flawed from the get-go.
The casting. Dreadful. Hanks is a creation from Batman Returns. Priscilla has none of her beauty. And the most fundamentally unforgiveable issue - Elvis doesn't look like Elvis. Who signed off on an actor to carry this film where the eyes nose and mouth are absolutely incorrect?
The editing. Horrendous and overdone. There is barely a moments peace from the onslaught. However, for this catastrophe of cinematography to only cost 85 million USD is a triumph.
The pov aspect. Why in the hell would you base this around the ridiculous story of Colonel Tom Parker only to then leave out half of the facts? And it's not short on time at 2hr 30.
And finally, the pacing. When Elvis is washed up prior to the 68 Comeback special we haven't been fed enough of him at his peak for the rise and fall to make sense. When he passes, the bloatedness isn't shown and then arrives unexplained but for a single line of voice over. Periods that needed to be shown are glossed over and periods of relative unnecessity are dragged out.
But the real crime is the music. I counted 2 uninterrupted performances. The rest were manic collages or mixed in with - wait for it - modern hip hop... What egotistical mind decided that was a good idea...?
I watched. Now I'll hope to forget. And for anyone who wants an actual representation of Elvis from an actor who actually looks like him and tells the actual story, look for the Jonathan Rhys Meyers TV miniseries biopic.
To paraphrase a Bill Burr routine... Elvis was the first to be a major superstar. He made all the mistakes because he had nobody who had led the way.
Why is that not spelled out?
The 'theft' of black music. The 'child' marriage... I get that 2022 eyes see the world differently but a film like this shouldn't pander to the modern trend for rewriting history. It should provide perspective.
If Elvis hadn't grown up surrounded by black culture and organically witnessed that music, he'd be Pat Boone. But he wasn't. He was a true child of the musical influences. If he hadn't had his career, then it might have been another 20 years before black music found white ears... And it wouldn't have been a black artist who brought it. That's the sad truth. There needs to be a conduit and Elvis was that.
To labour this point... Tom Hanks being cast as a gay man afflicted with HIV (Philadelphia) opened the door to films of that nature being mainstream. Nowadays a gay man must be cast in that role. But you don't get to where we are without Tom Hanks being the conduit. That seems to be lost on people these days.
Progress is a series of incremental steps.
And look at the Priscilla marriage. The age of consent and the times and the location were all a world away. Don't be outraged at this, be outraged at Jerry Lee Lewis or Chuck Berry.
How sad the film was so overwhelmed by its desire to create ridiculous camerawork that it failed to deliver any of the impact of the first major superstar.
5/10
Bob Odenkirk gets his John Wick moment (albeit lesser stakes) and it's pretty frigging awesome. The most fun film I've seen in a while. Also the best movie that Christopher Lloyd's been in in ages
Okay, what the f? How did they pull this brilliant piece of cinema off? I am your standard hater of Disney live-action and I am pleasantly surprised they made me enjoy a Cruella origin film. Wtf. I want that little dog Wink. What a boss.
They never should have made this into a "universe".
Overly-complicated long fights that make no sense.
Keanu has 10 lines literally.
The only time he delivers lines with emotion is when he's speaking to Laurence Fishburne or - surprisingly - when he's talking in Russian.
Too many new characters that are there only to be killed / to be forgotten and basically nobody cares about them.
The villain is weak.
Too long, which equals too boring.
I am convinced that people just don't get what a good action movie is these days, not only because of the majority of the comments here, but also most people in my theatre liked it so much. Just because there are long complicated fight scenes, doesn't mean that this is a good action movie.
First John Wick film is a perfection. Second one was also very good. I will rewatch them and pretend that this was never a "universe".
It's so much fun. It knows what type of movie it is and delivers. The story kept me on my toes. The ensemble cast is terrific. Chris Evans having a blast playing an asshole, Ana de Armas is great, and Daniel Craig playing a detective with a funny accent is a treat. I want to see this again knowing the plot so I can look for all the subtle foreshadowing.
After a rewatch I am even more impressed with how good the script is and how much is set up and paid off. This one is of the better movies of the year.
Sequels often have a bad reputation, yet I believe the case does not apply here. Its formula is very similar to the prior release, that is the main reason why it works!
It surely didn’t let me down - the movie has a very straightforward approach and cough cough one would have to be significantly petty to identify minor setbacks, cough cough amidst all the fun, action and “chaos”.
Shoutout to the CGI and scenery. Moreover, the cast is on point with their impressions. Danny DeVito and Danny Glover are a nice addition. I’ll be definitely revisiting this movie in the near future.
I have a very big question ... If they used a gem and only brought back half down their father's body, why if they use another gem, the upper half of the body isn't appear for another whole day yet?
A film that gets to the very bottom of capitalism and reveals all the horrors along the way.
Poetic, raw and true... If you want your horror to mean something, this is the movie for you.
For those interested in the symbolism:
The Platform is society, where those who have refuse to share with those beneath them who have not.
The Authorities represent the Powers That Be.
Trimagasi: Greed
Imoguiri: Altruism
Goreng: Martyr
Miharu: Revolutionary
Her child: Change
At the end, the martyr dies delivering the message of change (which was created by revolutionaries) to the Authorities, who are unaware of what's going on.
[9.3/10] At first blush, Baby Driver writer-director Edgar Wright and fellow director Wes Anderson don’t seem like a natural pairing. Wright’s films, like Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead tend to be overtly comedic, include a good quotient of action, and bring an adventure-focused quality to the proceedings. Anderson’s, by contrast, tend to be quieter, more droll pictures, that are certainly funny and have their share of exciting moments, but which find their form in the more reserved, music box sensibilities of Anderson’s oeuvre.
And yet, Wright and Anderson’s films have something very much in common. They both create films where it seems like the world was built to fit their characters, rather than more typical films where the main personalities find themselves struggling in a world that’s indifferent to them or even more commonly, which doesn’t fit them at all. Whether it’s Anderson’s elegant dioramas or Wright’s “everything’s foreshadowing” rube goldberg machines, the environments of these films bend to our heroes, not the other way around, resulting in some wonderfully well-choreographed cinema.
Baby Driver is the apotheosis of this tack, brought to bear in the form of car chases, gunfights, and the best jukebox soundtrack this side of the galaxy (and any attendant guardians). Indeed, Marvel Studios’ Guardians is a nice reference point, as both films not only feature countless rockin’ tunes, but also center on roguish but decent young men, holding onto to the last holy artifacts of their mother, finding solace in music and falling in with a rough crowd before deciding to stand for something more. It’s kismet that star Ansel Elgort, who plays the lead (appropriately named “Baby’), is signed on to be the past and future Han Solo in the latest standalone Star Wars flick, a character who’s very much in the DNA of Guardians’ Peter “Star-Lord” Quill.
Independent of any comic book counterparts, however, Baby Driver doesn’t offer much in terms of an original premise. Baby is a badass driver and a decent kid, mixed up with some bad folks, tentative about the prospect of blood and his hands, wanting to start a new life with his lady love. There are a lot of tropes in the film: the quiet but effective young naif, the loose cannon gangster, the slimy mastermind, the ingenue who represents a beacon of hope, the inevitable moral dilemma.
But what the film lacks in originality in its setup, it more than makes up for in performance, texture, and execution. Baby Driver has a murderer’s row of performers who chew up and spit out Wright’s script and make what could otherwise be stock character come alive and compensate for any dearth of depth with the sheer vividness of their presence.
Kevin Spacey looks alive for the first time in ages, bringing a blasé menace as the organizer of each heist. Jamie Foxx is at his extroverted best, rolling through pointed monologues and bringing a lived-in flavor of crazy. Lily James has enough homespun, wanderlust charm to balance out her underwritten part. Elgort is necessarily more reserved, but equally endearing and a fine fulcrum for the movie. And Jon Hamm brings his Mad Men practiced-gentility in a fashion that makes him seem like that much monstrous when the scales fall.
But while the performances carry the film in its quieter moments, what sets Baby Driver apart is sequence after superlative sequence of breathtaking kinetic cinema. Not content to simply toss in explosive but empty action to keep the heart-pumping, Wright, cinematographer Bill Pope, and editor Paul Machliss create these elegantly constructed set pieces of gorgeous synchronous stunts, twists, and turns, the hum right along with the music, just like the protagonist.
That works whether Baby is blowing the doors off the film’s opening with a series of death-defying terms perfectly sequenced to his backing track. It works when the young man finds himself embroiled in a firefight where surprise shots and returned fire blast back and forth in time with the beat. It works in chases on foot as the rhythmic thump of the tune of the moment matches the energy of pursuers and pursued alike. Even when Baby goes to get coffee, the world moves with him; from the graffiti on the walls to the buskers on the street everything goes where he goes.
In the same way, the film doesn’t so much present action scenes as it does ballets of chrome and octane. Baby Driver oozes with style and tempo, knowing how to hold the audience’s attention through great escapes that and close scrapes that keep topping one another, and quieter scenes where the tension comes from sweet interactions juxtaposed with combustive elements, leading the viewer to wonder which will win the day.
It’s also a near perfectly-paced movie. Like a perfect mixtape, Wright knows when to kick things into gear and when to slow things down to let the audience catch its breath before putting his foot on the gas once more. While the film starts to feel a bit overextended at the very end, with the villain creeping into unkillable slasher territory, for the vast majority of its runtime it holds your attention from moment to moment and scene to scene expertly. In that, Wright matches the talents of his protagonist, directing and maneuvering this complex machine like it were a rough-and-tumble ballerina, full of slick thrills and inimitable grace.
He achieves this with a movie, a setting, and a lead character, that each move like clockwork in sync with one another. While Baby Driver is neither as quiet or twee as Wes Anderson’s work, it brings with it the film’s own sense of longing and melancholy beneath an intricately constructed world. Every scene is a dance, every moment a confluence of sound and imagery and movement, whether in the pulse-pounding races against cops or robbers, or gauzy imaginings of another life that might be. In Baby Driver, Wright has built his most elegant, intricate toy, and it’s a treat and a pleasure to see him play on the screen once again.
The paradigm of material being cut from a book to fit into the run time of a movie doesn't really apply here because next to nothing from it happens in the film. It bares little resemblance to the book at all and is completely shallow for it. Conservatively I'd put it at 10% of the book translated to the screen in a recognisable form.
It should be "Inspired by" rather than "Based on" however I didn't find it that inspired at all. It's unbelievable to me that Cline himself handled the screenplay, at least in part. People that love the film will be thoroughly disappointed by the book, especially the PG-13 crowd the film brought in.
The Oasis itself was done an utter disservice by portraying it as basically just a game, it was so much more than that.
Disappointing.
Homage to 80s music, first love and big brothers. This was a pleasant surprise in last night's sneak preview. One of the best music movies I have ever seen and easily a top 5 movie for 2016. Watch it!
Funny as shit. And then sad as hell when you realize it's basically just a documentary.
I..., I..., I went in blind. Just finished. I'm speechless, but I don't know if for better or worse.
I thought the performances were good, the kids were fantastic (Roman, well done). Lily-Rose as well.
There's nothing I can say without spoilers other than if you're at the halfway mark and bored, you can safely end it.
Personally, I couldn't look away.
Impressive. Maybe a bit too much like a Shyamalan movie, but this had better delivery, which is saying a great deal, and is still very original. Its previews did not do it justice. The movie seems as if it doesn't feel obligated to shock or impress you, but rather draw you in to the story, invest you in the characters, then turn on the afterburners. With an epic final few seconds. In other words, a smart, emotional, well-done movie that ranks as one of the best, in at least the past few years.
Throughout the movie your opinion about most main characters will change, and at the end the whole meaning of the movie changes, brilliant movie.
legitimately such a visually stunning and fun entry into the action genre. the number of times bullets run out is one of my favorite aspects of the action sequences, but also there's a scene later on that, combined with mary elizabeth winstead's increasingly horrifying deterioration, puts this on my body horror list. it's not a horror, but it's pretty and there's bodies being horrific, so it works. i'm really digging the recent action films that use just enough stylistic choices borrowed from video games to bump up the immersion.
when i was checking on who the stunt coordinators were i saw some Highly Bitter articles calling this a john wick clone but honestly every action movie follows a formula because the formula works and being poisoned with radiation is a great reason for revenge even if it didn't involve a dog.
also, i don't even fucking care i loved that ridiculous car chase scene
The film was held back from release for several years and its easy to see why. It passes the time but this can hardly be called a 'good' movie. A comedy set in the recession should have been more pointed than this. Teller, Cranston and Kendrick are wasted with a useless script with very little wit. A flop.
What a waste of time! this movie pretends to have a meaning, but it's only a meaningless garbage, the story goes nowhere.
was good only for 15 minutes short movie
Predictable? Yes.
Romantic? Not really.
Comedy? Not hugely funny but some amusing bits.
Heart-wrenching? A little towards the end.
Would George Michael have approved? Likely not.
This is a weird little film. Feels like a cash grab on the Xmas repeats/reruns market. It will now play every Xmas after all...
A weird story and a lead character who is cute but quite horrible to all around her. A redemption story set against the literal words of a song...
I didn't like the strange Brexit/immigration sub plot. It felt out of place. If we're firmly in Richard Curtis-clone mode then why not fully create a London that doesn't exist. Not take bits of reality and bits of fantasy at will.
It doesn't try to do harm and it certainly doesn't. But it also doesn't really uplift. It just feels a bit cringe throughout. Naff jokes and strange attempts at romance.
6/10 - and I'm being generous. This won't get a rewatch in future.
