Search Results

I saw Paddington 2 on Monday 20th November with my Mum and sister at the Vue Cinema and I have to say it was truly marvellous. The film features a snappy, classic narrative arc, a lovable Special FX bear (that looks scarily real may I add!) and some of the finest and well-loved British actors of this generation, what’s not to love?! I couldn’t help but laugh out loud most of the way through, along with the rest of the audience and at some points was moved to tears by Paddington’s innocence and total trust in others. I can imagine this film being a box office hit in America, with features of top British landmarks like Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament and a very unrealistic, over the top British prison, I can imagine they loved the film. The films plot and story is perfect for people who love a warm hearted, funny, typical British family comedy, like me. I have to say I was quite impressed with Hugh Grant’s performance as the once loved famous actor, now turned bitter wannabe West End Actor Phoenix Buchanan. The first time you see him on screen you see a somewhat typical antagonist, a villain wanting the same thing the protagonist wants. However, throughout the film you begin to see a funny and a very over dramatic actor that you can’t help but love. From seeing him in your typical British Rom-Coms like Bridget Jones, Love Actually and Notting Hill, it’s nice to see another, funnier side of his acting and to hear his fantastic accents! Overall, it’s a fantastic film that I would recommend to anyone who’s wanting to sit back, relax and watch a fun, entertaining, truly British film. Everybody who was in the cinema went out with a big smile on their face, a true testament to a good film.

From the moment Denis Villeneuve’s name became attached to the sequel to the iconic 1982 sci-fi classic, my interest elevated from cautious curiosity to ‘take my money now’ excitement. The French Canadian director has hardly put a foot wrong since his confident 2010 foreign language hit ‘Incendies’, with his following introduction to mainstream film resulting in three of the best thrillers in recent memory in Prisoners (2013), Enemy (2013) and Sicario (2015). However, it was his 2016 film Arrival which stamped Villeneuve’s name into everyone’s list of the best directors working, and apparently served as his audition for the monumental task of directing the Blade Runner sequel. Arrival caught movie-goers off guard (partly due to its misleading advertising campaign) as its alien invasion premise is skilfully diverted in favour of agonizing questions on fate and free will, whilst exploring humanity’s division and the importance of communication. The film received eight nominations at the academy awards, winning one, and initiated the challenge for a true craftsman to build upon these themes in the influential world of Blade Runner. After all, it was Blade Runner that first posed the question; in a world of isolation, decay and replicants – What does it mean to be human? Blade Runner 2049 takes place 30 years after the events of the first film, with Ryan Gosling starring as “K”, a young blade runner who stumbles on a secret and follows the breadcrumbs, threatening the foundations of his reality. Delving further in to the plot points would do a disservice to the viewing experience, as the sequel follows its predecessor in allowing its audience to have unique interpretations on its compass. Firstly, lets get the obvious out of the way. The film looks heavenly. Roger Deakins revisits the vibrant neon-shadows of Los Angeles and illuminates its most dissolute corners with seamless CGI and sterile physicality to transport you straight in to its alleyways. The metropolis is authentic for the entire run-time. Even the most implausible devices imagined for our future, are never questioned when introduced to Deakins canvas of circuit-board precision and crowded strokes of the bleak underbelly. It would be too easy and unfair to attribute the cinematography’s success to the advancements in technology available for todays designers, especially compared to what Jordan Cronenweth had at his disposal for the original. Rather, this is just another reminder of Deakins talents and his understanding with production designer Dennis Gassner. Faced with the invitation to play with crazy CGI effects akin to this years ‘Ghost in the Shell’, they decided to focus on the climate, with claustrophobic snow, rain and dust constructing the isolation of Noir films. Despite the futuristic setting, Deakins manages to sustain the realism he achieves in his other ventures such as “No Country for Old Men”, “Skyfall” and Villeneuve’s “Sicario”. When the film does decide to show off its sci-fi influence, with its flying vehicle Spinner 2.0 and colourful holographic ads in the skyline, it treads carefully enough to be a continuation of the analogue future imagined in the first movie. No touch screen apple tablets or google maps in sight. The biggest surprise of 2049 was the pacing, which may split audiences and movie critics. The pacing is slow, patient and moody; with Villeneuve choosing to match the tone of its predecessor over its action filled contemporaries to which it inspired. This will please fans of the original movie, however the central storylines do take a while to kick in to gear and its hefty run time of over two and a half hours is far from a casual movie experience. It is important to keep in mind that when Blade Runner was released in 1982, the initial response from critics was mixed, with many citing the films pacing as dull and far too slow. I fear the same fate for Villeneuve’s sequel, but I’m confident it may share a similar future recognition as a sci-fi masterpiece. The performances are good, without blowing you away. Harrison Ford returns as Deckard, and is significantly more animated and engaging this time around as the veteran recluse. Ryan Gosling again proves a commanding screen presence and, without spoiling the films complex themes, effectively carries the sensitivity and isolation of a man tasked with “retiring” life-like creations. Filled with a solid supporting cast of Robin Wright and Jared Leto, it is actually Ana de Armas who impressed the most playing the holographic love companion of agent K. As cliché as it sounds, ultimately the desert dunes and cyberpunk city streets are truly the protagonists of the experience, and provide enough dimension to make up for any lack of character spectacle. Villeneuve subverts the character driven features of the Noir Genre in order to expand the scope of the story beyond the tribulations of the protagonists, choosing to develop sizeable themes on human consciousness, existentialism and the ethics of connectionism. In most cases, the decision to place the motifs in the forefront of a narrative would have negative implications for its connection to its audience. After all, themes don’t make you feel a story, characters do (sorry Prometheus). But in this particular case, the film is patient enough to let the overarching motifs land gently on its canvas, letting agent K naturally investigate in this bleak world without reminding the audience why they are there and what morals they should take away from the film. It took Ridley Scott five different edits to realise the potential of ambiguity in the answer to “do androids dream of electric sheep?”; Villeneuve only needed one. My outpour of admiration for the skill displayed in this film is perhaps a result of relief more than anything, as the film isn’t completely perfect. The score by the holy Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch falls surprisingly flat of matching the dreamy majesty of Vangelis’ original, opting for strong synthesizers that occasionally plucked me right out of the story and right into a Transformers movie. There are also secondary plot points which gather extraordinary momentum throughout the first two acts of the film, but eventually result in incomplete timid sequences that make you wonder why Villeneuve would include them at all. But thankfully, these issues do end up being minor nit-picks in what is otherwise an extraordinary feat of patient storytelling and awe-inspiring imaginings of what this world could be. The DNA of Riddley Scott’s vision is still there, but with enough exploration of its lasting effect on science fiction to question its maker, and drive through its hitches with confidence. In a time of bigger, noisier and lousier follow-ups, Blade Runner 2049 is an entirely new breed of sequel. Not a replicant, but something else entirely. A modern day great.

Based on the comic strip By Charles M Schulz, Peanuts tells the story of Good Ol' Charlie Brown as a new girl moves in town and poor Charlie Brown wants to win her heart with the help of his dog Snoopy. there is a side plot where Snoopy writes a story about fighting The Red Baron with his birdie pal Woodstock. This is one of Blue Sky's best work. The Animation is jiggered to match the original TV Specials, the ink dot eyes match the original Schulz's original drawings, and there only 5 poses per character, side view, outside profile, inside profile, side view, back view because that in-between the frame really don't look like Peanuts. Blue Sky stayed really faithful to the comic strips even the lighting looks good It has still got Vince Gualdi's original music - Linus and Lucy and Christmas Time is here. and the pop music by Meghan Trainor is catchy. If there is one flaw it would be that The Red Baron scenes are good and give the film comedy, but it in no way helped Charlie Brown and would have been just fine as a special feature for the DVD. The characters are just as you remember them, Lucy is still bossy, Linus is still carrying his blanket, Schroeder is still playing Beethoven on his toy piano, Pig Pen is still dusty, Frieda is still bragging about her naturally curly hair, Marcie is still intelligent, Sally still calls Linus her sweet baboo and Peppermint Patty is still a tomboy who loves skating and hockey. Yes this film is for huge Peanuts fans but even non fans will appreciate this. i give it a 5 star rating

Greta Gerwig's warm and fond tribute to family, love and home Lady Bird is the coming-of-age tale of Christine McPherson; or "Lady Bird", as she demands to be known. It deals with all the usual genre tropes; angst, high-school popularity, rebellion, bad sex, there's even a prom scene. What sets Lady Bird apart from similar films is that these cliches are only the setting. The basis being the relationship between the two leads. It's where the film really shines; with Saoirse Ronan and Laurie Metcalf both giving a sincere and intense portrayal of the up and down nature of mother-daughter relationships. Lady bird isn't a movie that deals with false, over-the-top dramas for the sake of excitement. It's a movie that has been carefully put together, piece by piece, by director Greta Gerwig, as a loving homage to her own pre-adolescence. Sacramento, California, 2002. Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson (Saoirse Ronan) and her mother - Marion McPherson (Laurie Metcalf), are driving home after a tour of Californian colleges. Although initially enjoying listening to the radio together, the mood soon sours with Christine declaring she wants to apply to out-of-state colleges. "I want to go to the east coast! I want to go where culture is!" Marion is dead set against it, knowing the family can't afford the tuition. An argument begins and quickly escalates as Marion berates her daughters' work ethic: "The way that you work... or the way that you don't work... you're not even worth state tuition, Christine." During the climax of this argument – which is now just Marion talking over her daughter – angry, and not wanting to sit and listen anymore, Christine throws herself out of the car; which results in a broken arm. This opening scene tells you all you need to know about Christine and Marion and their relationship; which is central to this film. Christine is impulsive, melodramatic, and sometimes selfish; believing herself to be the unfortunate product of her upbringing, declaring: "I wish I could live through something." But, she's also ambitious and artistic; proving to be a talented actor. Marion is a loving and caring mother; a nurse by profession. But, she's clearly troubled by the situation her family has found themselves in. As a result, her behaviour can be unhelpful. Larry McPherson (Tracey Letts), Christine's father has lost his job and suffers from depression, something her age won't allow her to appreciate. There's a really interesting dynamic at play between these three that never feels insincere. With both parents playing very different roles; dad being more placid and agreeable, someone Christine regularly confides in. And mum being of stronger character, more realistic, and as a consequence, more irritable; at one point, scolding her daughter for leaving her clothes out and unfolded on the bedroom floor. "Some of your friends' fathers could employ your father, and they're not gonna do it if it looks like his family is trash." What impressed me most about this movie is how coherently it characterised the monotonous but overripe nature of adolescence, with the oft-unappreciated sacrifices of being a parent; all through the eyes of one character. All whilst never seeming unfair to anyone. In many ways, Lady Bird reminded me of Richard Kelly's brilliant, darkly comic Donnie Darko. Not in tone, but in the sense, they act as an antithesis to the cliched teen movie. Now that I think about it, there are many similarities between the two films and I wouldn't be surprised at all if some influence hadn't been garnered from Donnie Darko as a whole, or from Jake Gyllenhaal's portrayal of Donnie himself. Either way, bravo! The performances here are superb, and the cinematography and soundtrack create a warmth which radiates throughout the film. Whatever issue Christine may find and/or imagine with her surroundings or even the people in it. This is home; and she treasures it, whether she realises it or not. Verdict Whilst Lady Bird contains several coming-of-age cliches, it distances itself from similar, more contrived movies by being about more than that. At its heart, this is a film about family, friendship, hope, and love. Thanks to some excellent writing and directing by Greta Gerwig and stellar performances throughout, this film feels personal and almost caring, not just for Greta herself, but to the audience in general. So accessible is this movie, that almost anyone could find something familiar; something to relate to. A younger audience may attach itself to Christine, whilst an older audience may look upon it in nostalgia. The parents among us will undoubtedly be more empathetic towards Christine's parents, their sacrifices and the unreserved love they have for all their children. Regardless, lady Bird is a beautifully well-made movie, one that made me cry, made me laugh, but more importantly, filled me with a warmth that reappeared every time I thought about it. I've thought about it a lot. 10/10

“In the past 25 years I have probably seen 10,000 movies and reviewed 6,000 of them. I have forgotten most of them, I hope, but I remember those worth remembering, and they are all on the same shelf in my mind.” – Roger Ebert, Life itself (2014). Roger Joseph Ebert is possibly the one and only influence I have when it comes to my work in film criticism and general journalism. Who can blame me, really? He was a pioneer when it came down to the early days of critical analysis in film. It should come as no surprise then that I had a great amount of interest in watching his documentary, Life itself. The interest for this documentary most probably stemmed from that aforementioned influence he has had on my path to becoming a film critic. For me, personally, Life itself is a fitting send off for the greatest film critic that ever lived. I have never reviewed a documentary before. If I’m honest I never planned on it, nor do I plan to do another documentary after this. But there was something about this documentary that deserved to be reviewed. A documentary all about the man that shaped the way film journalism is carried out. Needless to say, the documentary delivers in more ways than one. My expectations for this documentary were astronomically high, and somehow it meets the standards I set. Director Steve James sets out on creating a narrative that will resonate with the passing viewer. Something that can apply to those who may not know very much of Ebert, but also can be utilised by someone who knows the in’s and outs of his award winning work. The balance is perfect, somehow managing to tackle huge aspects of Ebert’s life and cramming them into a two hour documentary was no easy feat. Yet here and throughout the two hours was something amazing, you get a real feel for his work. We are very vividly shown the intricate workings of his career. Although I would have enjoyed seeing how Ebert actually reviewed his films, the content throughout was more than intriguing. Although the film does feature his last few months of life, there’s a very heavy leaning towards looking at his career as a whole. It’s more a memoir than a real time documentary. Obviously because of this the film brings up his previous works with other film critic, Gene Siskel. At first I thought the documentary was going to just rehash the same few bits and pieces we’ve been told over the years. Nothing of the sort came from these scenes. It was refreshing and gave new insights and information on a topic I thought I was well read on. I cried five different times at this documentary for five different reasons. You see Ebert dealing with his illness in stride. It’s admirable and emotional to see how his daily life works, something about it just got to me. Seeing him attempt to regain his strength is honestly heartbreaking too, especially the scenes of therapy. By far the most upsetting moment of the documentary is when his wife, Chaz Ebert, recalls his death in an interview. What I find specifically admirable about the documentary as a whole is that it is tasteful. It doesn’t try and stir controversy that was never there or create new drama. As a piece of film it merely looks back and celebrates the life of Roger Ebert and how his career impacted film. This is more often than not shown through a number of interviews with directors he influenced, including Martin Scorsese. Because of these talking heads you may believe that this documentary will become a tribute show, but it doesn’t. Yes, it was made to tribute the life of Ebert, but they actually add to the film. They give information that I and many others had never heard. A number of talking head interviews are presented throughout with family, friends and colleagues of both Ebert and also Gene Siskel. Obviously one of the main features of the documentary was going to be the animosity between the two critics. But the way it’s presented, it makes sure to have you take home the real message, that they were friends. A good documentary always makes you learn. I didn’t know that Ebert had written the screenplay for a film, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (1970). Nor did I know that he had struggled with alcoholism. These aspects of the documentary are vividly pictured and highlighted very well throughout. Aside from crying though, Life itself does attempt to make you feel some other emotions. I did laugh a few times and there were some genuinely heartwarming moments throughout the run-time. Seeing Ebert’s overall passion for film was enlightening and truly inspiring. It really was a testament to the man’s career. Even when confined to a bed he was still working. The director of the piece asks a number of questions through email and as the film progresses we see more and more. Throughout the documentary we see a number of scenes from Ebert living in hospital. There’s something about him as a person that is truly just warming and genuinely calming. I noted a few times throughout that he’s a thoroughly optimistic person, and that’s definitely something to take into account both when watching this documentary and reading his reviews. As far as documentaries go it isn’t afraid to tackle some of the larger topics and even come up with some of it’s own theories. I don’t want to go into too much detail as to what they are, but some of them are excellent. Verdict Documentaries should do one thing and one thing only, they should teach you something. They should inspire you to do something that you would have initially been hesitant to do. For me, seeing Ebert work no matter what his condition was truly admirable and remarkable. Like I said previously, Ebert is a heavy influence on my career, the impact he had is impossible to measure. To see him work whatever his condition was inspiring to me. Reviews are almost always personal reflections, and to me this documentary encapsulates everything I aspire to be as a film critic. There’s something so raw and emotional about this documentary that just works so well. Like I mentioned previously, it’s a very respectful and tasteful piece. The content is handled with a genuine care. As a piece it knows when to pull on your heartstrings. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry and you’ll more than likely be left with a feeling of satisfaction. If you have any interest or have even heard the name Roger Ebert then I cannot recommend this enough. As Ebert himself would say; “Two thumbs up”.

Jaws I thought it best that my first film review should at least give some insight into the cinema I love watching that has inspired as well as encouraged me to study film at university level. One film in particular which my dad first showed me, in which I consider to be my first 'grown up' film would be the nail biting thriller that is Jaws (Spielberg, 1975). My dad made the ever so wise decision to show me this film at the age of 6. Hopefully, these good judgements are bestowed upon me when I have children. Nevertheless, now that I am older, I can appreciate Spielberg's masterpiece and look at the picture in a whole new light. Based on a novel by Peter Benchley, Jaws takes place in the quaint, white picket fenced town of Amity Island, New England. A heavily tourist based beach getaway for city dwellers, run by the ‘people pleasing’ Mayor Larry Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), heavily focused on bringing in those big bucks at any cost. Throw in a ferocious, cold-blooded predator into the mix and Spielberg had a summer block buster on his hands. Although the film adopts a very simple pitch: man eating shark terrorising local bathers. The truly defining aspect of the story is the relationship between actors Schneider, Dreyfus and Shaw. It is their flawless performance which invites the audience in and creates an exciting premise for all thrill seekers. The town was in need of a dedicated, fearless hero ready to take on the merciless shark that stalks the town’s beloved beaches. Unfortunately, the only man available at the time who was only somewhat willing to protect the people was hydrophobic chief officer Brody (Roy Schneider). Brody pleaded with the Mayor to shut down the beach, but was instead forced to sail into the open ocean with shark hunter Quint (Robert Shaw) and Oceanographer, Hooper (Robert Dreyfus) in order to catch and kill the monster. In my eyes, the impact of the film came from the unknown rather than the shark itself. The audience are left in the dark for a large majority of the film as no one knows what the shark looks like. Instead, Spielberg leaves us in a state of suspense for pretty much the entire first half of the film, by allowing us to see body parts washed up on shore and boats with huge chunks ripped out the side. This allows us to build an image of the shark into a vicious monster without even seeing the beast in its true form. However, we are very much aware of its presence by use of John Williams’ genius soundtrack which sets an ominous and foreboding mood throughout the entire cinema. Williams describes the music as a sound which is almost "grinding away at you, just as a shark would do, instinctual, relentless, unstoppable" (Friedman, 2006, pg. 174). Spielberg cleverly delays the shark’s appearance, without this, I believe the film would not be as popular as it is. If Spielberg were to over expose the audience to gruesome gore and fully reveal the killer too early on, then I feel the audience’s reaction would become stunted. The delayed appearance allows us to over think and use our imagination to build the shark into this ruthless monster. The fear of the unknown is what truly creates the perfect thriller, as the imagination is far more fearsome than the monster itself. One particular actor whose performance should never be forgotten is that of Robert Shaw. Shaw creates Quint into a fascinating character by combining elements of fear, mystery and even humour to his persona, forming a unique and endearing individual. Quint rapidly takes on role of the leader (much to Brody and Hooper’s dismay) as they board his vessel and take to the ferocious waves which holds the dreaded beast. The moment where I became truly mesmerised by Shaw’s performance would be his USS Indianapolis monologue. The scene is completely stolen by Robert Shaw (and for good reason!), as both Hooper and Brody sit and listen to Quint’s haunting memories of the journey back from delivering the Hiroshima bomb June 1945. It is at this moment the audience realise Quint’s motivation and hatred against sharks, as well as the reasoning behind his dark and angry façade. I believe that his bloodcurdling speech not only enthrals us, but allows the audience to connect with Quint and evoke a sense of sympathy from both characters and spectators. If you haven’t already picked up on the subtle hints thus far, then I shall state more clearly that this is a must see film and I highly recommend. Although, those that haven’t already seen this masterpiece should keep that information tightly to their chest. Jaws exhibits all you could ever want in one film: fear, action, murder, passion and even comedy at times. Everything all wrapped up in one big fish, an offer impossible to pass up. References Friedman, L. (2006). Citizen Spielberg. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, p.174. Filmography Jaws. (1975). [film] Directed by S. Spielberg. United States: Universal Pictures.

As Monday’s Golden Globes kicked off Hollywood’s award season for 2018, we are reminded of the inequality which exists in the industry. Only four African Americans have been nominated for the Best Director Academy Award, still with no trophy, and only one woman has ever achieved this feat: Katheryn Bigelow. Near Dark is Bigelow’s 1980’s vampire-western. Set in the American Mid-West, the film boasts gorgeous landscape shots and drawl which will make every John Wayne fanatic feel at home. However, Bigelow’s cowboys are a gang of rogue vampires, hungry for blood. As local boy Caleb sets his sites on 17 year old Mae, he has no idea that his life will change forever: Caleb: Can I have a bite of your ice cream? Mae: Bite? Caleb: I’m dying for a cone Mae: Dying? Mae is a vampire. After she bites him, he is taken from his family and set to hit the road with Mae’s vampire clan, terrorising unsuspecting mortals and hunting their prey, as they will for him to prove himself, otherwise threatening to cast him out. Following the vampires as they pillage their way from town to town, the film’s most memorable scene takes place in a roadside bar. Jesse (Lance Henriksen), leader of the vampire gang, locks the door behind him, warning those inside that their lives are about to come to an end. Bill Paxton is Severen, a sexually charged killer, hungry for blood. He is a maniac, and is proving the hardest for Caleb to impress. He starts by playing with his food; pretending a man has hurt him before laughing with his clan and biting the man’s neck. The Cramps’ Fever plays in the background as every human in the bar is slaughtered. The bloodiest death is of the waitress whose neck is sliced and lands conveniently into a pint glass, which overflows. The gross-out imagery of the scene plays with expectation, and the viewer’s every sense is overcome. With nothing to prove, the narrative is allowed to be ambitious. The genre hybridity of the vampire-western allows for some clever scenes. A highlight is a unique take on the Western classic shootout scene; it’s not the bullets which are deadly to Bigelow’s cowboys: it’s the sunlight which shoots through the holes made by the bullets. Structured cinematography highlights the vampire outlaws for who they are at heart. A backlit shot of the clan silently makes the audience aware of the danger these ageless, blood sucking villains posses. Their silhouettes are cast by the moon as they move on, in search for their next bite. The main fault with the movie (WARNING: SPOILERS) is the conclusion. Caleb’s dad finds his son and completes a blood transfusion, making him human again and restoring equilibrium. It is an unsatisfying ending: the old white man saves the day. Whilst structurally this is the classic end to most Western films, the audience are left longing for the vampire characters. They ooze cool, dressed in leather, spurs on their boots, easing the fever of the 80s. Severen proves himself to be evil, of course he should meet his explosive end, but the others I don’t feel warrant theirs. Perhaps roaming endlessly from one place to another for eternity would be punishment enough for the brutal murders they have committed, rather than burning alive. Of course, Caleb’s father restores Mae’s humanity too. The final shot is of the pair, held in an embrace: love conquers all. Overall, Near Dark is a clever movie. Bigelow’s knack for creating stylish characters doesn’t fault, and, with her direction, the Western-style shots compliment the deadly vampire narrative. Near Dark sets up for Bigelow’s future achievements, cementing this film as an ageless cult classic.

Baby Driver, the fantastic new film from director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz), is many different movies all rolled into one. It’s an action film, obviously, full of car chases and shootouts and scary looking men who mean business. It’s a comedy, like all of Wright’s films, although with its share of dramatic elements. But, the key to appreciating Baby Driver comes realizing where its heart truly lies, not with the action genre, but with the musical. Granted, there aren’t a lot of characters breaking out into song here (although the opening scene appears to be a little nod in this direction), but the way music is woven through the tapestry of the film, often syncing up with gunshots and car doors slamming, it becomes an invisible character that stands alongside the actors on screen. Baby (Ansel Elgort) is a getaway driver with tinnitus, acquired in a childhood car accident which killed his parents. To drown out the ringing in his ears, he has a constant stream of music playing in one of the many iPods he carries around (“different ones for different days, different moods”), whether he’s walking down the street to buy coffee or driving one of the many heists he does for criminal kingpin Doc (Kevin Spacey, in the last great role we could enjoy him in before his recent fall from grace). Baby owes Doc money, but he dreams of getting out of the life and running off his with newfound love, a waitress named Deborah (Lily James). That is, until Doc coaxes him back into doing the fabled “one last heist.” Joining Baby on the job are Buddy (Jon Hamm), Darling (Eisa González), and Bats (Jamie Foxx). As expected, things go sideways and Baby is thrust forward into a rhapsody of sights, sounds, and cinematic sleight of hand towards the thrilling (if somewhat expected) climax. The film is perfectly cast. Elgort shines as the nominal Baby Driver, bringing an effortless likability and charm to the role, as does James as his love interest. Foxx makes the most of his relatively limited screen time to bring menace and weight to a role that could have been lost in the shuffle. The standouts, however, are Spacey and Hamm: the best one liners are Spacey’s to relish, and Hamm’s natural charm takes a delightfully sinister turn for deranged in the third act. The camerawork is done by Bill Pope of The Matrix fame, and both the action sequences as well as the quieter scenes feature the same precision and visual dexterity as any moment in that film. The below-the-line elements are all top notch, with whip-tight editing and masterfully crafted sound design (the best of the year) working overtime to assist the soundtrack, expertly arranged, which features songs from a wide range of artists from The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion to T. Rex and Barry White. Wright, who has dabbled in action before (both satirically in Hot Fuzz and more indulgently in Scott Pilgrim), has honed his natural talent of visual comedy to razor-sharp perfection. There’s scarcely a moment out of step in the film. Every summer since time immemorial has been saturated with big budget action spectacles, some excellent, more satisfactory, and most mind-numbingly dull. However, the award for best summer action film this year, needs to come with an asterisk denoting the first ever multi-genre winner as an action musical. The creation of a new genre? It remains to be seen. But for now, Baby Driver can be happy knowing it’s the most enjoyable action film in theaters this year.

Blade Runner 2049 is a Denis Villeneuve directed film starring Ryan Gosling, Harrison Ford and MY Joker aka Jared Leto. Villeneuve is one of the best directors working in film today, infact if you look at his filmography, with the last 2 as your point of comparison, he continues to surpass himself film after film (Check out Sicario and Arrival). Blade Runner is a follow up to the Ridley Scott directed Blade Runner (1982) that starred Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard, a retired cop, known in the year 2019 as a ‘Blade Runner’ who is tasked with retiring (Killing) human-like androids called replicants. In the original, Ridley Scott is able to create a film noir masterpiece, still highly regarded for its artistry and substance, as it delves on the themes of identity and love. The original ask’s the audience to question their sense of loyalty to ones species vs their sense of compassion and empathy as we witness yh witch hunt of rogue replicants who strive for more than their creators will. Scott was able to paint these non-human characters with so much humanity and complexity, whilst creating an almost un-human like characters for the actual humans in the movie. In the dystopian future he creates, due to man made pollution and destruction, any wildlife or organic foods are a thing of the past and have been replaced with genetically created crops and mechanically created animals. This absence of life is shown to have utterly deprived humankind off its humanity and they, are the ones shown to behave mechanical, without emotion and completely rational. Deckard is shown to be the same, until he meets Rachel, who is shown to be, unbeknown to her a replicant, through a series of tests Rickard is able to conclusively determine her to be a replicant but when faced with the decision to kill her, he decides against it but instead decides to flee with her. Throughout the film, Rickard is plagued with dreams, specifically of a unicorn, Scott uses this imagery along with Rickard’s tick for tat relationship with Gaff, a colleague who seems to know the contents of his dreams. This was an indicator to the audience that Deckard might have been a replicant himself. The film ended without conclusively stating whether or not Deckard was a replicant but when asked in interviews following the re-relaease of the directors cut of the film, Scott confirmed Deckard to be a replicant. Blade runner 2049 picks up with this same world 30 years later, as we are introduced to K (Ryan Gosling), a blade runner and replicant who after terminating an older model of replicants stumbles upon a mastery that will drive the film as its main narrative. Within the last 30 years since the original, much has changed, along with the new model of cooperative replicants, the Tyrell company who were the originators of these human-like droids have long since gone bankrupt and have been bought out by the Wallace group headed by godlike mogul Niander Wallace (Jared Leto). Similarly to the original 2049 places K as the central figure in the storyline as it is he who we first meet, we find out what drives him as a replicant and a blade runner and also what differentiates him from others in the world we are watching. K is shown to have a longing desire for love and companionship, a void he attempts to fill by attempting to role play a human like romantic relationship with an artificial intelligence, shown in the form of a woman called Joi (Ana De Armas). Throughout the course of the film, their relationship is shown to have all the traits of a normal relationship apart from the physical sexual experience, an action Joi tries her best to fulfil using another woman (Don’t ask me, just watch it for yourself and see). Villeneuve is known for not placing style over substance, although his stylistic choices look excellent on screen, he still able to play with numerous concepts whilst delivering a visually outstanding film. On this occasion he had big shoes to fill, with the original being a stand out for Sci-Fi, Scott painted a beautifully disastrous post-modern world with bleak backdrops filled with beautiful neon colours as technology is shown to have advanced well beyond what we can say we have achieved in reality in 2017, 2 years off the original date in the film. 2049 does deliver a visually stunning world, outdoing its predecessor, as the vibrant colours, practical and CG effects blend beautifully to place us the viewers in a believable post-post modern world, its safe to say I am eagerly anticipating a world where flying cars can have drones that survey a large mass of area to let me know if there’s traffic ahead. Back to the Villeneuve, he dances around similar themes to the original with K having an identity crisis near the middle of the second act leading to him to believe he might be the first of his kind, a replicant not created but born. What is important to note with Gosling’s performance is the expectation leading in, during the marketing campaign, he was sold as the mark 2 version of Deckard’s character from the original, but watching the film I was pleasantly surprised by his performance. His subtle yet strong performance as the lead of the movie would have you believe, as the narrative teased, that he was the character in question, but as we find out in the final act of the film, the child in question isn’t K, leading to this existential crisis. The whole movie had teased his identity being more than what he had always known it to be, but as his character development lead to him breaking out of his usual cycle, it is then shown to be nothing more than a bluff. The film gives subtle red herrings before the final reveal and although the ending teased at the possibility of a final film to complete the trilogy, the ending of K’s story was bittersweet, with his desire for love and a greater identity beyond what he known being left unfulfilled, his final choices maybe gave a glimmer of hope for a far greater development than what is witnessed on the surface. In the first scene of the movie, K before terminating a rogue replicant called Sapper Morton (Dave Bautista) is told that he has never witnessed a miracle, this seems to be what drives him to investigate this rare information of a born replicant, and what ultimately what causes him to help reunite Deckard with his child. Clocking in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, 2049 is not for the easily distracted or impatient. It is a slow build, a trait of Villeneuve’s recent work (Seriously, check out Sicario and Arrival). The pacing starts off slow and with little to know action in this film, Villeneuve really asks the audience to pay attention, to feel the emotions of the characters both human and replicant and like the original, decide for yourself who the real villains are. This film is not jam packed with dialogue either, yes Leto is in two scenes in the entire movie and his character seems to fall into the Jared Leto archetype character of long emotive dialogue that leave much to be desired, but this film does a lot in silence. It builds, it holds and it grips you with tense and clever camera work. The score alone was excellent but attached with the stunning visuals I spoke about earlier, it really questions your patience as it meticulously plods along with no real desire to rush its conclusion. It may be easy to say 2049 adopts a lot of what the original started, and so it should. It pays homage to what Scott started but does a nice job of not simply repeating the same narrative in its attempts to appear like a continuation. As I said with K’s character, it’s easy to misjudged and assume he is nothing more than a copy and paste version of Deckard, what it does however, is subte neaunces of the original but with an originality that makes it unique and different. It has no qualms with taking your criticism of it being a replicant itself, but buys into it gaining your attention then delivering a masterpiece that to me stylistically but maybe not thematically surpasses its superior. When Deckard finally meets K, I expected there to be a witty repartee between them and to a certain degree there was, but at the time the narrative lead to their relationship being more than just an old replicant meeting its newer model, what we did get was great acting. Ford buys into the film and it showed as he seems to have all the charm and vigour he showed in his other reprised role (Han Solo). The scene that stood out to me was the involvement of Rachel’s character from the original, she is repurposed and used as a way to convince Deckard to give up the location of his child, but what I found pretty cool was the way she was used and how CG continues to develop in Hollywood today. When I watched Rogue One, one of the stand out moments was the involvement of the Tarkin scenes. Now everyone that knows Star Wars knows that the actor that played him is longer alive but with the development of CG he was able to still be a fleshed out character before our very eyes. Many weren’t fans and quoted begrudgingly the uncanny valley (Google it), for me, the computer-generated Rachel (Sean Young) that appears in 2049 may be the best example yet of CG being used to resurrected deceased or aged actors for new roles. Villeneuve said in a recent interview “It [takes] very long to do. That’s the thing that maybe saved my ass–is that I limited the amount of shots [with CGI Sean Young in them]“. I can testify that on this occasion, Blade Runner has far less Uncanny Valley than Rogue One suffered. Blade Runner 2049 has a lot going for it, it is beautiful to watch, smart, and slow but entertaining for the length that it is. It treats the audience, whether you have watched the original or not, with a level of respect allowing you to interpret it how you see fit, but delivers on what the narrative the original started. And although nothing beats an original, I found it to be exactly what it was meant to be, a new story told through the lenses of the old without being an echo but rather creating a harmony that does justice to the beautiful melody the original created.

Baby Driver is the 6th film in the filmography of Edgar Wright, starring Anlsel Elgort(Fault In Our Stars, The Divergent Series), Jamie Foxx (Ray, Django Unchained) & Kevin Spacey (House of Cards). The film is based around a guy by the name of Baby, who has found himself being the unfavourable position of being the get-away driver for a natorious criminal gang. Baby, an exceptionally skilled driver battles his inner demon’s after the loss of his parents in a car accident when he was young and dealing with tinnitus, a side effect of said accident. He uses music to drown out the noise and is determined to overcome his past mistakes and build a better life for himself and those he cares most about. Edgar Wright infuses his classic high octane style with his patented musical narrative to produce a well balanced product. If you have read my review of Scott Pilgrim Vs The World then you know I love his style of direction and a lot of his films have found their way into my favourites list. Baby Driver is no different but what I found to be most commendable from Wright was his ability to deliver an action film without falling into the pot holes that most do when delivering a film of this type. What you tend to get sometimes is the overindulgence of explosions, car chases, things that look good on the screen but have no real substance or even engages the characters you are watching to you in any sympathetic or relatable way. However, Wright is able to provide all of the above without neglecting things like character development, ensuring that the story makes sense and that the motivations of the characters fit into the narrative he is creating. Baby driver could be seen as just another heist/action film with a romantic subplot, and to a certain degree it is, but what it has going for it however, is it’s ability to keep the viewer occupied, whether that be with its musical soundtrack, turning a simple coffee run into a fun continuous long take, infusing some of the lyrics into the backdrop of the scenes to give it a music video type feel, to the comedic moments that gives it a freshness from the intense action that follows. Although when you compare Baby Driver to other classic heist films of the past it may not have all the twist and turns that encompass a classic but it did more than enough to make the main protagonist an empathetic figure in the viewers eyes. It can be one of the most overlooked narrative points when directing a movie but ensuring that the audience relates to the struggles of your main character ensures that towards the end of the film, we as the audience are all in to see a happy ending. Certain traits like love, loyalty or even courage are all tools the screenwriter & director uses to sell the main character to the audience as someone to root for, and even of they end upon mankind bad decisions, as we see at the start of this movie, we as the audience tend to justify their actions in our head because of the fact we are now empathetic to why they have made these bad decisions. So as we are introduced to Baby (Ansel Elgort) driving a get-away car after a bank robbery, we wonder what possible reason does he have for being a criminal, later down the line we see his home dynamic and this unlikely candidate wins the audience over as he displays not only his quirky charm, but also his skills and with the introduction of his romantic interest, the love he has to give. Jamie Foxx (Bats) stands out for the criminally short amount of screentime he was given in this film, along with Kevin Spacey (Criminally underused in my opinion in this), as Foxx plays a unstable criminal with trust issues who takes a particular interest ion Baby. Spacey’s character, who is a blank, straight to the point leader of the ever-changing crime gang, has a character change near the middle of the third act but for the first half of the film excels as the criminal mastermind who has one over on baby and seems to be extorting him, further empathising Baby in the audience’s eyes. The addition of the love interest, Debra (Lily James), gives the film a new dynamic and gives Baby the motivation he needs to rebel against the situation he has been forced into motivating his coming of age as he becomes his own man. The ending was a little rushed and it felt like his happily ever after, although earned, was only placed there to ensure the movie didn’t seem pointless, often a narrative heist movies end up having. I still utterly enjoyed this movie and would recommend you watch it with some friends over a pizza or something.

From Writer / Director James Webber and Producer Roxanne Holman comes SOROR, the follow-up to the BAFTA long-listed and Cannes Film Fetsival Coup de Coeur winning DRIFTWOOD. Starring: Rosie Day (Outlander, Misfits), Sian Breckin (Tyrannosaur, Starred Up, Donkey punch), James Alexandrou (Eastenders) & double BAFTA winner Kate Dickie (Red Road, Game of Thrones, The Witch). Watch the full film for free now on Findie:https://www.findie.me/video/soror