Baby Driver (****)

From the onset, BABY DRIVER seemed like a silly premise. A thriller that stars a quiet driver and explores his employment in the criminal world while romancing a waitress quite literally seems like a carbon copy of Drive, that singularly awesome movie by Nicolas Winding Refn not so many years ago. The title sounded more like the sequel to "Baby's Day Out" more than that of a car-chase action flick. The director, Edgar Wright, known for his British comedies (namely Shawn of the Dead) didn't seem like the main hand to helm such a caper. In the end? I'm surprised to say this movie works.

In regards to the comparisons to Drive, I have to admit that such ideas are quickly dismissed early on in the film. Yes, we have similar characters, but the tone couldn't be more different. We meet Baby (Ansel Elgort), a driver who listens to music in his ipod to drown out a ringing in his ears from a childhood accident. He works for Doc (Kevin Spacey), a crime lord of some sort who employs Baby as the getaway driver for his various heists. His team ranges from the regulars like Buddy (John Hamm) to the quick-tempered and fiery Bats (Jamie Foxx).

As we would expect, Baby falls for a waitress named Debora (Lily James) who finds his quiet demeanor attractive and his taste in music fabulous. As their romance blossoms, so does the risk of imminent danger. With each new mission, the threats rise beyond just being captured by police. The violence slowly mounts, and by the end we have a bloodbath in which no one is safe.

Wright's film (which he conceived of in the mid 1990's apparently) uses an eclectic soundtrack to create a world that contrasts fun music with bloody violence. The first few scenes quite literally feature Baby dancing down the streets, jamming to his music, mouthing the words as though he is stuck in a musical. Many of the characters ask if he's "retarded." We slowly come to understand that Baby is just one strange kid. Having survived a car accident as a child, he has found himself indebted to Doc despite his want for a clean career. Task by task, Baby pays off his debt, adding money to his pockets but dancing a dangerous line between success and death.

I'll be the first to admit that this film's first half didn't work for me. Elgort's performance in particular feels miscast. He plays a boy who's meant to be quiet, studious, intense, and yet he comes across as an actor trying to pander to a script that falls beyond his grasp. Elgort has been fine in other movies, but here is a fundamental skip on the part of the director. Those that do succeed are Kevin Spacey and Jamie Foxx. Foxx in particular plays a wildcard criminal who shoots people without a moment's pause and seems lost to the moral stakes at play. His is a performance that is fun, exciting - an actor at the height of his powers.

Where the beginning felt too forced as a concept, the ending concludes in a bank heist (actually it's at a post office) that builds and builds through action, chases, gunfire, blood, and broken glass... Without a moment to breathe the film whips by and adds to the chaos with each new moment. It's a riveting segment that ends not with the hero driving off into the sunset, but an extended sequence in which the justice system comes crashing down. Sobering as the finale is, I suspect many in the audience might still find moments to cheer.

In the end, the movie whittles down to a pulpy drama chock full of violence and interesting scenarios. Where other stories might become predictable, here I found myself guessing what would happen with each new scene. Not every aspect of this movie works (the romance especially between Debora and Baby was uninspiring to say the least), those parts that succeed hit it out of the park. As a piece of action, this packs a punch. It's stylish, colorful, loud, wonderfully-photographed and expertly paced. Though it's not the best the genre has to offer, boy is it a good time.

The Beguiled (**)

THE BEGUILED is the work of an assured filmmaker with nowhere to go, no story to tell. It's a beautiful vision of a world that isn't something that needed to be told. Clint Eastwood starred in a different film adaptation of the same material in 1971. After watching Coppola's latest work, I have to ask whether there was anything else that needed to be explored?

Sofia Coppola is one of the premiere filmmakers of her time. The Oscar-winner who is known for her charming and ethereal style, her work has been both praised (Lost In Translation), debated (Marie Antionette), and lost as the years go on (The Bling Ring). We can identify her films through many factors: a quiet bubblegum soundtrack, strong female leads, a lack of dialogue for long stretches... The Beguiled seemed like a perfect project for this filmmaker to add to an already challenging resume. The story of a wounded Civil War Corporal (Colin Farrell) who is found in the forest and brought to a small all-girls boarding school to recover. The school, led by a tenacious Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and with the assistance of a shy teacher named Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), keeps secure the Northern soldier in the music room. He is considered both a danger and an object of intense curiosity, especially at the hands of the younger students.

We explore a world in which the Civil War is being fought just off screen. Artillery shells create a constant echo of battle through the woods, and yet we never face the gunfire at hand. In fact the entire movie plays out in the claustrophobic scenery of the antebellum overgrowth and the small school set there in the wilderness. The Colonel asks Edwina if she has a man fighting off in battle, to which she sadly replies "no." These 7 women live a life that carries on despite war. They are not held up by it.

As stated, Sofia Coppola knows how to create a mood in her stories. The camerawork here is second to none, naturally-lit and beaming with sunlight and green plants and shadowy rooms. Likewise for the performances: subtle, assured, not a weak link in the bunch. Why does the end result feel so vapid? The story is slow, trudging along until the characters hit a breaking point in which sexual desire seems to take hold. It's a development that unfolds in all of the last 30 minutes of the movie, detaching the audience from such a hypnotic tale and nosediving into something more cliched. I don't feel the need to explain the plot details but know that the film ends in a bout of carnage, violence, and revenge. The final act of vengeance by Miss Martha and her girls feels so out of place, as does the change of character for the Corporal and his brandishing of a gun in one particularly flat moment.

I didn't care for these people once the movie was over, nor did I feel compelled to worry for these characters as they began to make rash decisions. If I could mute the movie I would, bathe in the subtle and effective filmmaking from a purely technical aspect. Beyond that, there's not a whole much to appreciate.

Band Aid (****)

"The secret source of humor is not joy but sorrow." At least that's what Mark Twain thought.  The most effective jokes seem often rooted in a deeper sadness; jokes that work to mask the pain of the teller. It's easier to make people laugh. So it goes with "Band Aid," a surprising new comedy from Zoe Lister-Jones (the director, writer, song-writer, and star). On the surface this is a traditional romantic comedy about two people falling in and out of love, but there's so much more at play.

Anna (Lister-Jones) and Ben (Adam Pally) are a young married couple living in Los Angeles. Unlike most of their friends who now have "adult" careers and newborns, they work the odd job here and there and smoke pot recreationally. They joke about their financial predicaments and argue about miscellaneous issues like dirty dishes and a leaky faucet. The first scene establishes the way our characters will interact: quick dialogue and pointed humor. There is chemistry that works well in the film, both as romantic characters and simply as actors. It's fun to watch these two talk.

 They seek help from a therapist who we discover later has been sought out for more than just the everyday argument. We have the cliched scene in which the two sit on opposite sides of a couch while talking over each other. The scene ends with the stressed out therapist declaring she is moving to Canada. In a moment of pure inspiration that is one of the few scenes that feels 'overwritten,' Anna comes to the brilliant conclusion that they should put their arguments to song. Each has played guitar in their past and after dusting off the strings and setting up a garage band, they find out they're not too bad at composition.

The songs they compose are without doubt the highlights of the film, funny rhymes with catchy tunes. With each new song the two laugh and hug, happy to have worked together and unaware that they have only glossed over the deeper issues at hand. The other high point comes with the introduction of their neighbor, Dave (played by a funny Fred Armisen). He is your typical creepy neighbor next door but offers his services on drums after hearing the couple playing through his walls.

The movie speaks to generational issues that feel so relevant now. Not just broad issues like student loans and lack of job opportunities, but awkward interactions with Uber drivers and the absurdity found in baby names. There are a lot of laughs in the film that will keep audiences rolling, but even at times the film goes too far into it's own fantasy. Dave, the neighbor, reveals he is a recovering sex addict and has "cocoa Tuesdays" at his place with retired strippers. It's a completely different brand of humor that, while funny, felt out of place in such a grounded story.

Zoe Lister-Jones is the highlight of the film and brings to it a depth that I hadn't expected from such a quaint movie. While her screenplay it at times a bit too formulaic, the story is nonetheless entertaining and charming in its own unique way. You wouldn't be too surprised to learn it has a happy ending, as it should, but it left many questions unanswered that I would have assumed we should find out. Do Anna and Ben land a record deal, or are they doomed to continue their lives in a jobless mediocrity? Do they end up trying to have a child? Is there a way to write an actual love song that isn't corny? I suppose movies don't need to answer all the questions that they pose, but that's praise to the filmmaker for making me want to find out what happened to these characters. They're that interesting.

The Mummy (Zero Stars)

In all the years we have reviewed on this website, I've only given one other movie a "zero star" rating. After seeing THE MUMMY today, I apologize to Hardcore Henry for assuming that it was the bottom of the cinematic barrel. I was wrong.

Universal Studios has released this movie in an attempt to form a cinematic universe around the classic monster movies of the early 20th Century: The Invisible Man, The Creature from the Black Lagoon, Frankenstein, and so on..  We even meet Dr Jeckyl (as played by Russell Crowe) who acts as a ring leader for all the monsters and whatnot (think Nick Fury in "the Avengers"). A stupid addition to the movie, no doubt, but an addition nonetheless. Dubbed "The Dark Universe" franchise (as the opening credits suggest), this is the first (and I would assume last) film to test the waters for such an idea. The idea itself isn't bad, but this flick sure as Hell was.

The "story" follows Tom Cruise as he hunts for buried treasure in modern day Iraq. He's accompanied by a friend (played by Jake Johnson) and tracked by a scientist (Annabelle Wallis) who, by sheer luck, stumble into a buried Egyptian tomb hundreds of feet under the Earth. There they find a single tomb, buried beneath feet of liquid mercury, guarded by ancient statues, protected by enormous camel spiders, covered with warnings and incantations... The scientist literally sees the protection around the sarcophagus and states "they weren't trying to keep us out. They're trying to keep something in!"

Naturally, they exhume the body and take the mummy to London...

What follows is perhaps the most incomprehensible movie yet made this decade. It's a bizarre blend of typical 'Tom Cruise action' mixed with slapstick comedy and the most cringeworthy horror tropes known to man. The fact that Tom Cruise plays the comedic role (one would imagine someone like Robert Downey Jr or maybe Chris Pratt in the part) is so beyond belief and so laughably bad, it's a wonder he accepted the role at all. Plagued by constant, tiresome, confusing, lazy, annoying, bizarre, stupid flashbacks in which he hears the Mummy (a dead evil Princess) explain her plans to him in detail, Cruise wakes up and tells his friend "I just saw the chick in a box." The 'chick' being the mummy and the 'box' being the sarcophagus that was only moments before opened. Cruise is also guided by his dead friend (Jake Johnson, as previously mentioned - who gets shot early on) who is seemingly brought back to life by the Mummy and explains the plot in long stretches of expository dialogue that attempts to be funny. Boy, are those scenes hard to watch.

In London, Dr Jeckyl captures the Mummy and keeps her locked away in one of his laboratories. He explains how they hope to dissect her body and find out the keys to immortality (or something like that). Every few minutes, he takes a booster to prevent his alter ego from bursting out (Mr Hyde being a cockney version of Russell Crowe who presents little threat and lots of laughs). Every few minutes, Tom Cruise interrupts with a "what??" or a "what's going on??" for good measure. The movie resorts into one of those movies where they have to destroy something before the bad guy gets it. "If we destroy the stone we break the curse!" to which someone replies with "if the Mummy gets the stone then the world will end as we know it!"

The suspense.

The original Mummy reboots (remember the ones with Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz?) were full of humor and actual plot. Sure, they were oftentimes stupid, but they were guided by a sense of fun and serial adventure. The 2017 incarnation is a far cry from entertainment. It's a far cry from common sense. There isn't a joke that works. There isn't an action scene that is suspenseful. There's not a single plot device that can be logically explained (how did the mummified Princess even come back to life in the first place?). The writing is atrociously bad, and the ending is a conundrum of nonsense in which Tom Cruise becomes some sort of god-like monster and returns to roaming the Earth to find a cure. What? It's an offense to the senses in the way it tries to craft an exciting film. It flies in the face of the intelligence of average movie goers. It's a cheap attempt to make a fast buck that had no less than SIX screenwriters without a single clue.

God help us if they proceed with more of these films. At one point in the movie, the Mummy tells Cruise that "there are worse fates than death" in the world. After watching this trainwreck, I kind of know what she's talking about.

I, Daniel Blake (****1/2)

I, DANIEL BLAKE is a beautiful peek into the world of people we identify with. They're decent folks trying to make it through each day, even though it might mean going to bed on an empty stomach. Ken Loach's film explores not just the injustices done amongst the lower class but also the realities of such a situation. It's a story that is sad, maybe depressing, but overall a very human experience.

It's a small town in northern England and the struggle to find work is a major factor for its citizens. One such man is Daniel Blake, a recent widower who has lost his pension after experiencing a heart attack. His doctor advises that he doesn't work for several months yet, and still the government insists that he search for a job in order to continue being given benefits. We can fill in the blanks when figuring out who Mr Blake is. He is inept at computer usage, spends long hours on wait when making phone calls, complains about the neighbor's garbage, and spends his time alone. For someone else, this would be the new norm. For Daniel, this is a new world in which the elderly are at a distinct disadvantage.

Meanwhile we get to know Katie, a single mom who has been placed in government housing after living homeless for many years. She is a person who has also been forgotten; lost in a new town and searching for work, she skips meals in order to provide the best for her children. We know she is poor and in a constant struggle, but when her daughter whispers that she has been bullied for having broken shoes, Katie assures her that getting a new pair will be no problem.

Both Katie and Daniel meet and form a kinship in an employment office. Daniel sees a woman down on her luck who needs a simple boost of assurance. For Katie, he might be a godsend. Daniel helps fix her house, adjust the heat, build a bookshelf, decorate the kids' rooms. This isn't a relationship that forms into a romance, nor is it something that becomes a friendship. The two share a common struggle. Helping each other out is the only decent thing to do.

Ken Loach, the director, builds a story that is concise in it's message. The distain for government is hard-edged. The politics are clearly drawn. The final few scenes shows the breaking point in which Daniel Blake graffitis a message of distain on the side of a building. He's taken to prison and yet charged with no crime. He's not a criminal after all, and his motives are understandable. The film ends in a single scene in which Katie recites a letter written by Daniel. The film quickly fades to black and we expect another scene to start. That's it. We are disappointed by the ending, knowing in real life such a story would also face a similar ending. I applaud this film for it's peek into the humanity in us all. Everywhere you look it is possible to find people of good character. By the end of the film, Katie surely realizes this. The heartbreak comes not from knowing the movie ends, but that someone like Daniel has no place in this world.

Wonder Woman (***1/2)

As bloated and as long as "Batman v Superman" was when it was released a year ago, I still remember the entrance of Gal Gadot's Wonder Woman in the final battle and the cheers that went through the audience when she arrived. In a genre that's dominated by male heroes and stories that are told over and over and over again (stay tuned for Spider-Man: Homecoming later this summer), I think the world needs Wonder Woman. She's strong, independent, beautiful, and unlike a lot of her counterparts, she can actually kick some ass.

The movie is not without its flaws, but I admired it on the whole for it's more playful tone and consistency. DC movies have been anything if not somber, and for once the filmmakers slowly dabble in bits of humor and wit. As all superhero movies go, the first is always the 'origin story.' Here we meet Diana, a Princess living on a lone island amongst a tribe of warrior women called The Amazons. They are descended from Zeus and are sheltered from the modern world, training for a battle that they know will one day come. Zeus, long ago defeated, warned of the return of Ares (the God of War) and gave them a special power that they can use to defeat him should he ever rise again. What is that power? Diana wants to find out. She is trained by her steadfast aunt, Antiope (Robin Wright) and learned in the ways of battle and combat.

The story picks up with the arrival of a WWI fighter plane that crashes just off shore. On board is an American spy, Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) who is lost at sea with stolen German documents. He is rescued by Diana and kept prisoner on the island, but his stories of war and death lead Diana to believe that this is the moment they have been training for their whole lives. Sword in hand, she sets off with Steve to return to civilization to search for and defeat Ares. Back in London, Trevor assembles a crack team that hopes to penetrate enemy lines and defeat a woman known as 'Doctor Poison,' a German scientist who is dabbling in poisonous gas.

The movie is fine when its attention is on Gal Gadot, a natural presence on screen who understandably makes men weak in the knees. With help from Steve, she buys dresses and hats in order to blend into society, but she rips the slit wider so it is easier to fight with. At a cocktail party, she hides her sword down her back in case it ever needs to be used quickly. Chris Pine is also surprisingly charming in his role, evolving from a character with a single mindset and concluding as a person who Diana can respect. The film sets up the idea that the Amazon women were put on Earth to ultimately save the day and protect the world of men, but in the end the heroism of Chris Pine ultimately shines as the one moment of heroism. Despite the gray areas, not all humans are bad.

The film is without doubt too long, and drags on through scenes of war, plotting, destruction, and jokes. It's nearly an hour before we get our first glimpse of Wonder Woman in action, and in perhaps the film's best scene we see her slowly making her way across "No Man's Land" while being gunned down by the enemy artillery. Bullet by bullet, she deflects the shots, and leads an army across a desolate field. Later, she single-handedly takes down an entire brigade by bursting through walls and jumping over rooftops. The action takes cues from "The Matrix" or maybe "300" in the way time is slowed down before every hit. Sometime's it's cool,  but other times we might find it tedious. I understand also how Diana is superhuman, but still the images of her jumping 50 feet in the air and ascending buildings was more comical than impressive.

There's a final duel (two, in fact) in which Diana comes face to face with a German officer who she believes is Ares in human form. He inhales various gases that give him super strength, and for a while he is an equal match for her. Nonsense. The scene is bonkers for trying to convince us that a normal man on poppers can match strength with a god. Later, Diana meets her true adversary and the finale shapes into the standard CGI-laden blur that we come to expect with such a movie.

Overall I liked this film, directed by Patty Jenkins (who's first film was the impressive 'Monster' starring Charlize Theron). While it doesn't break new grounds in the genre, it is certainly a well-made movie with enough moments of dazzling visuals that make the price of the ticket well worth it. Am I excited to see what DC has to offer next? I'm unsure. All I know is that at least for once, they have found a good character that is both interesting and fun to watch. Batman better watch out.