Tag Archives: jamie foxx

‘Baby Driver’ is Well-Acted and Original, but It Just Wasn’t For Me

Leave a reply

Baby_Driver_poster

Every time I see Kevin Spacey in something I’m reminded how much I love seeing Kevin Spacey in things.

 

“Baby Driver” stars Ansel Elgort as a young getaway driver for a crime boss (Spacey) who has to do one last job before getting out of the life and running away with his girlfriend (Lily James). Jon Bernthal, Eiza González, Jon Hamm and Jamie Foxx also star as Edgar Wright writes and directs.

 

I’ll give Edgar Wright all the credit in the world, when the man makes a film he often takes the most basic, cliché genres and plots (like zombies, cops and heists) and somehow manages to put a fun, unique twist on them. I enjoy his trilogy of films with Simon Pegg and Nick Frost and was looking forward to his version of “Ant-Man” before he left the project. Here, his “Baby Driver” is a heist film set to music, and while I can appreciate the attempt at originality there was something about this film just didn’t work for me.

 

I’m more than sure this is going to be one of those instances where I’m in the very minute minority opinion of a film and that’s fine. I wanted to like this movie; it was near the top of my 2017 watchlist. The cast is great, the trailers seemed fun and like I said, I’m a fan of Wright’s style, ambition and previous works. But about 15 minutes into this film I got “that feeling” that you occasionally get when you’re watching a film that has gotten good buzz, that “ohhhh no, I’m not gonna like this, am I?” feeling.

 

The cast is solid and they all play their roles well. Basically playing caricatures of who they play in everything they do, Jon Hamm is solid as the rogue and mysterious  badass, Jamie Foxx is the wise-cracking gangster and Kevin Spacey is the dry “don’t dare double cross me” leader. Ansel Elgort, having seemingly survived the “Divergent” franchise, does good work in his first starring role without Shailene Woodley, although he does more swaying and nodding through Ray-Bans than actual talking. The characters all have nice dynamics between one another and Wright continues to excel at writing nice banter.

 

The chase sequences are cool, but they suffer from two things: the best shots being in every trailer and TV commercial, and failing to compare to other car chase films. The most impressive moments of the car sequences (and there’s really only two of them in the film) are shown in the ads, whether it is when Baby does a 180 degree whip around a backing up truck or kicks the police road spikes back at them. Also, nothing in this film is as intense as, say, the opening scene to “Drive,” and that featured no real dialogue or musical score, just the commentary to a LA Clippers game (YouTube that fantastic sequence if you haven’t seen it).

 

One of the things everyone will talk about in regards to this film is how it pretty much always has a song going on in the background, to represent how Baby is constantly listening to his iPod. For the most part this is interesting and there are times the editing and character movements coincide with the beats which was cool.

 

But despite the good performances and ambitious take on a worn genre, I just sat there looking at the screen waiting for something to happen that would grab me and suck me into the world, but it never came. I felt like I should be enjoying things a lot more than I actually was, and the last thing you ever want to do is resent a film just because it didn’t meet your expectations.

 

“Baby Driver” isn’t bad and it’s the type of film that Hollywood needs right now- relatively fresh and upbeat-but it just wasn’t for me. Maybe down the road I’ll watch it again and realize I was horribly naïve and that this is a masterpiece, and I’m sure everyone and their uncle will be praising it all summer long, but this is my review and my thoughts, and for me, even the perfect Kevin Spacey wasn’t enough to validate this ride.

 

Critics Rating: 5/10

baby-driver

TriStar Pictures

Wallis Shines in Meh ‘Annie’

Leave a reply

Annie2014PosterThere’s a point about halfway through the 2014 remake of “Annie” where Cameron Diaz’s character says, “people love musicals”. Well that may be true in most circumstances, just not this time around.

“Annie” stars Quvenzhané Wallis as the title character, an orphan who desires a home almost as much as she enjoys erupting into spontaneous song and dance. Jamie Foxx plays a mayor candidate who starts to hang out with Annie as a publicity stunt, and Rose Byrne plays his assistance. “Easy A” director Will Gluck writes and directs here.

The trailers for “Annie” looked awkward, painful and just plain awful. Well I am happy to report that it is none of these things…but it still isn’t a great film.

First things first, Quvenzhané Wallis is great and lovable as Annie. We know Wallis can act (12 years old and she already has an Oscar nomination) and she carries the film here. Without her charm and cuteness, I don’t think Annie would be watchable. She has nice chemistry with Foxx, too, which aids the film.

Wallis and some creative uses of everyday objects to implement an infectious beat by Gluck are really the only bright spots of the film, however. There are some parts that are lazy, some that are boring and some that are cliché or contrived.

Example of the lazy: there is a part (shown in the trailer) when Foxx saves Annie from being hit by a truck. Later it is said that a man recorded the incident on his cell phone, yet when that clip is shown, it is just the exact same footage used earlier in the film, including the uses of different angles. You know, not possible when you record on your phone.

Example of boring: the film is two hours long. A child’s film is two hours long; there is no excuse for that. There are points that aren’t needed that just add to the run time, such as Annie and Foxx’s character attending a movie premiere for nearly 15 minutes.

And example of the cliché: when the film is approaching the climax, you know exactly what is going to happen with all the characters, assuming you didn’t guess it when you saw the trailer. Let’s just say I saw this movie a decade ago when it was called “Like Mike”.

The music is at times toe-tapping, sure. Wallis has a great voice and New York City makes for a vibrant backdrop to some of the musical numbers. But there are other times where the singing does not work, including one cringe-inducing, painfully awkwardly obvious lip syncing by Diaz. When her little rendition is completed, a character compliments her on her singing.

This made me think two things: first, that character is clearly tone deaf. And second, this means everyone in the world of “Annie” can hear each character when they break out into song, which makes a number when Annie is running down the streets of NYC singing in people’s faces pretty awkward.

“Annie” is drenched with fluff, cuteness and product placement (a trend that is brought up in the film in a moment of satirical self-deprecation), and while it isn’t a great movie, it is far from the disaster that it could have been. If you’re forced to see it with your kids then you won’t be looking at your phone the whole time, but aside from humming “the sun will come out tomorrow”, there is little you’ll take away from “Annie”.

Critics Rating: 4/10

‘Spider-Man’ Sequel as Mediocre as First

The_Amazing_Spiderman_2_posterEvery now and again a film comes along that has a lot of potential but just can’t quite reach the levels it is striving for. “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is such a film. A follow-up to the unnecessary 2012 reboot, this sequel follows Spidey (Andrew Garfield), as he struggles to deal with his emotions towards Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) while at the same time battling a new supervillain known as Electro (Jamie Foxx). Marc Webb directs.

The first “Amazing Spider-Man” was simply alright. There were a lot of creative ideas and potential, however it was weighed down by numerous similarities to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, as well as a very underwhelming villain. This sequel manages to fix some mistakes that bogged down the original film, however many issues still linger.

First things first, Andrew Garfield is a very good Peter Parker. He nails Spider-Man’s sarcastic attitude, even in the middle of conflict, and has solid chemistry with Stone, as well as Sally Field, who plays Aunt May.

Speaking of character chemistry, that is by and far the strong point of “Amazing Spider-Man 2”. Marc Webb, who directed the rom-com “500 Days of Summer”, is very good at directing emotional scenes, making them feel genuine and human. The film has plenty of funny pieces of dialogue, and there are a few lump-in-the-throat inducing moments as well.

Unfortunately, the film did not learn from the first go around in the villain department. The Lizard was underdeveloped and lacked any real motive in the first film, not to mention his design wasn’t too impressive either. Here the film goes 0 for 3, missing with Electro, Rhino (Paul Giamatti) and Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan). All three have no true motives for their actions, are underwritten and not one of them affects the plot; I’m not even kidding, except for the end battle, the movie would be completely unchanged if none of the villains were in the film.

A superhero film should be driven BY the villain, not simply FEATURING one. Look at “Spider-Man 2”: Peter has his own issues and is fighting the choices he has to make, but Doc Ock is featured as a fleshed-out character and is ultimately the reason Peter decides that he has to be Spider-Man. None of that is present here. Rhino is essentially a cameo, Electro is cliché (think of Jim Carrey’s Riddler story arc from “Batman Forever”) and the Goblin is shoehorned in to fill a plot point and set up a spin-off film. I also wasn’t a fan of the design of Goblin and Rhino, but that is purely personal opinion.

The battles are well-shot (although most every action scene is shown in the trailer) and the interactions between Gwen and Peter are entertaining, but “Amazing Spider-Man 2” cannot overcome the cluttered plot and indecisive narrative. I almost feel bad for kids who have this as their staple Spider-Man. When the Raimi films came out, I remember how much everyone in my school loved them, and I distinctly remember seeing “Spider-Man 2” and being blown away (it’ll be the 10 year anniversary next month). Unfortunately there’s just nothing awe-inspiring or memorable about this new series.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is at its best when Spider-Man isn’t on screen, and in a film with the word “Spider-Man” in the title, I’m not sure how much of a positive that is. The film is entertaining, for sure, and I was never bored, but at more than on occasion I was sitting in my seat thinking “why does this movie exist?”. There’s a point in the film when Electro says, “I will show everyone what it’s like to live in a world without Spider-Man”. If only he could actually make that happen…

Critics Rating: 6/10