​There are firsts for everything. Baby Driver gave me a new first; the first time ever - as far as I can remember - where I disliked a film's protagonist in less than 5 minutes. How is that possible while everyone around me loved the film from start to finish?
Let me set the scene: three people approach a bank with guns and masks while a young man sits behind the wheel of a car, innocently listening to music. And he's got great taste in music, I tell you that! He starts singing along, tapping the wheel, as we all do. But then he starts going overboard, banging on the outside of the car and making a huge fuss about how much he is loving his music all the while grimacing in the most arrogant cocky way that only a sure as heck, arrogant, cocky kind of late teen/early twenties male can do. I despise this person immediately. I want him to shut up and stop what he's doing, thinking he's the king of the world without the charm of a young DiCaprio. And I usually love Ansel Elgort. But this introduction to Baby made it really hard. I like self-assured, confident people as much as the next person, but I despise arrogance. I. Cant. Stand. It. Even if the guy wasn't supposed to be an inconspicuous getaway driver - which he is spectacularly failing at - this display of "I'm the greatest person in the universe" isn't endearing at all. At least in my book. Thankfully our friendly neighbourhood (not as much friendly as violent) bank robbers don't take long and we're off on our first car chase. And this is where Baby Driver truly shines.

Director Edward Wright decided to time all action sequences to the music Baby is listening to. It is absolutely brilliant! The choreography in conjunction with the earworm-worthy music makes for a mesmerising style that almost makes 'Baby Driver' into an action musical of sorts. The action pieces are fantastic. The chase sequences are fast, precise, insane and utterly exhilarating. And the film doesn't stop there. Plenty of non driving action scenes appear in the second half of the film, not any less impressive than their car chase big brothers. Wright knows how to give us shiny visuals combined with awesome soundtracks and 'Baby Driver' is no different. It looks great, it sounds even better. If only it had established a likeable protagonist I would have loved this film. 

Elgort is joined by Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, Jon Hamm, Eiza González and Lily James. Despite the star power the characters are mere caricatures than fully realised people. Everyone is introduced with a code name and you never really get to dig deeper, even with our hero. Yes, we do find out his parents died in a car crash when he was young; which also gave him his tinnitus. And that he grew up with a loving, deaf foster father (how hard it must be for a deaf, black, wheelchair bound man to be considered as a foster parent on his own baffles my mind), who he is clearly very close with. But all that feels like reading someone's online profile. You don't really get to know the person behind it all and that is where the film ultimately failed for me. I did not care about any of the characters.

We have pretty much all ingredients of your usual superhero origin story in 'Baby Driver'. Little boy witnesses his parents death in a car accident, gets an ailment (tinnitus) which somehow turns him into a superhero as he has to listen to music constantly to drown it out, and apparently that enables him to be the world's greatest driver and parkour artiste. Unfortunately Baby never turns into the superhero he is set up to be. He is clearly uncomfortable with the violence he is being part of and when he finally springs into action it felt hollow, because he was causing as much violence, carnage and - if I'm not mistaken - death as the people he was going up against. What was his point again?

Style over substance. That sums up 'Baby Driver' for me. Nothing wrong with that, but personally I need charismatic and/or memorable characters. And there were none. On top of all that the film wastes a great opportunity at the end, where we are instead greeted by an almost inconsequential resolution to the events we've witnessed. Our lead character seems unchanged by what he endured. Character development: non-existent. The action was great and I'll remember the soundtrack, that's something.

Whichever way this balance is found, vignettes of happier/earlier days would have pulled me in the story and in Robyn’s psyche a lot more, to probably punch harder as the play ends. The loftier the start, the bigger the crash.

Picking up a year later, in terms of the story and the production, the start to season 2 is a rocky one, with the actors struggling to re-inhabit their roles. The delivery is stilted and their movements stuttery, but once they find their groove again, things really improve drastically and then continue to do so right through to the emotional conclusions. There are great lines and references from the beginning, but it's not until episode three, You and Me, that 'History' really begins to excel, both comedically and emotionally. As the dynamics between the characters becomes both more natural and authentic in their interactions and some of the emotional beats become more keenly felt.

From episode three onwards, there is clearly a lot more confidence and comfort in both the writing and direction and, even more so, in the performances. 'History' is a very talkative piece, but there comes some moments when words are no longer needed, and Jack Tracy - both as a writer, director, and as an actor - is unafraid to let things play out almost silently. This is most visible and profound in the moment's when he is confronted by stark truths and realisations. In one of the episodes, the character of Jamie is taking a selfie with a friend who insists that they show no teeth, prompting him to (as far as I'm aware) to invent something called 'Smising' wherein his face remains stoic whilst his eyes smile. He really needs to come up for a term for the dramatic version of this phenomenon, because - whether it's a friend highlighting how pain exists outside of his own or when he's receiving a voicemail that serves to convey just how much pain he himself is on the verge of inflicting upon others - It's all in his eyes, and it's beautifully done.

Javier Bardem doesn’t break any new ground. He is channelling his Bond villain persona in a period costume on the high seas. Like every other Sparrow nemesis before him, he is a victim of the supernatural and wants to make Sparrow pay. Only difference, Salazar isn’t a pirate but a pirate hunter. Everything else, the same.

The film looks great, the CGI is state of the art, but deep down it is missing a soul. Superficial beauty with no charm or personality. And the few scenes that were a hoot to watch lost their impact because I had seen them dozens of times in the trailers or the promo footage playing before 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2'.

None of this would matter as much if the characters were more interesting. I did not care about any of them. How is that even possible? Even Jack Sparrow. He is the same Jack we have seen in Curse of the Black Pearl and all subsequent films. He hasn’t evolved. While that might be entertaining to some, I can’t help but be bored. With some funny bits splashed here and there, Salazar’s Revenge still manages to entertain. Good action sequences, a few character highlights and a tongue in cheek approach help elevate the film.

In the final act is when the films faces its biggest problems. The moral ambiguity that fuelled much of the interesting conflict is abandoned. Instead the plot is reliant on making twists and turns, which haven’t been earned and end up feeling unsatisfying and borderline silly, with muddy motivations being at the core of the problem. In the end 'Miss Sloane' offers some interesting ideas and engaging moments, but ultimately feels falls well short of its full potential.

While Jamie (Jack Tracy) is the clear star of the show, the other characters are just as interesting and captivating once you get to know them. Especially William (William Cohen) and Matthew (Jacob Seidman), who round out the new trio of friends post-breakup, make for wonderful additions to the show and bring out a new side in Jamie. I have to admit that Episode 4 'Saying Yes', which I immediately dubbed the “friendship episode”, was my absolute favourite and these three shine throughout.

Jumping from one hook-up to the next Jamie is desperately trying to fill the void left by Jared. He needs them to feel good about himself and fight his loneliness. He cannot be alone even for a minute. This is perfectly captured in a scene where we see Jamie clinging to his phone like a lifeline. When the battery is empty and he has to wait for the first tiny bit to recharge before being able to use it again, his life literally comes to a stop. He sits on the floor, leaning against the wall that has the phone charger plugged into it, staring at the lifeless device, not sure what to do. Once it comes back to life he immediately comes out of the catatonic state he was in. The series has a few powerful moments like these, but I don’t want to give too much away.

Not knowing what’s to come is intriguing. Suspense is the lifeblood of a good story. I love walking into the cinema not knowing anything about the film I’m about to watch. It doesn’t happen often, hardly ever if I’m totally honest. Trailers nowadays spoil most of the plot points. It is such a different experience viewing a film without any preconceived notions. So I was really excited sitting down for 'A Quiet Passion' in a cosy little cinema just off Oxford Street.
​
The film is a period drama, not my favourite genre. A biopic, even worse. About the life of Emily Dickinson, a poet! I chuckle to myself, remembering my experience with another poetry film, 'Paterson', a few weeks ago, and readying myself for a lengthy two hours. Within a few minutes the film has me truly chuckling at the snappy performances and witty dialogue firing left and right. The Dickinson family has you engaged from the first moment.

The cinematography is intimate, yet distant. Dickinson hardly ever left her homestead, she never married and turned into a recluse in later years, so most of the film takes place inside the house. The mostly stagnant camera captures that claustrophobic feel well, which draws even more attention to scenes where it is moving, like the 360 degree pan near the start and end of the film, showing the family (or what’s left of it) in the living-room. The one thing I could have lived without was the aging family portraits to show the passage of time, thereby introducing new actors for certain characters. Instead of showing every single member of the family by themselves a family portrait would’ve cut down on this rather repetitive sequence.

As most biopics I found 'A Quiet Passion' to be checklist-y, jumping from one seemingly important or well-known event to the next. The film doesn’t have as much flow to the narrative as I'd have liked. But the captivating performances more than make up for any shortcomings in that regard. Even the poetry readings Cynthia Nixon does throughout the film in form of a voice-over are interesting and fitting. A stark contrast to what I thought of the same technique used in 'Paterson'. Nixon delivers the prose eloquently, keeping her read truthful, vibrant and engaging.

Overall solid performances and witty dialogue make 'A Quiet Passion' an entertaining framework for Emily Dickinson’s poetry.

In an almost parallel storyline, with again an esthetics that brilliantly captures the 90s, we’re also acquainted with adult Massimo (Valerio Mastandrea), a reserved journalist, who must finally tackle his childhood trauma as he prepares to sell his parents’ home.

This home is the place of the film’s inciting incident: Massimo’s mother’s death. Though its place in the film makes a lot of sense, and Massimo’s family’s gauche way of handling the situation is completely human, the consequences on Massimo’s adult storyline (what is shown of it) was more difficult to fully grasp. And though this was the entire point of the film, Massimo’s weaknesses as an adult, in spite of having worked in Sarajevo, held a good career as a sports journalist as well as experiencing tremendous success when responding to a reader about motherly love (or lack thereof. This moment is by the way the only comic relief of the film), made it hard to fully route for his character. How can an intelligent adult be in that much denial without anyone ever saying anything? How can a child who seems so observant become an adult who, in spite of his job, accepts what he is told as pure truth without ever challenging his father or re-examining the facts? He of course eventually does, but it’s nearly impossible to believe it would have taken him that long, especially given his professional background and his apparently otherwise normal mental health, give or take a few panic attacks (which one might expect of someone who has seen the horrors of war first hand).

This aside, the film, childhood and adult moments alike, manages to bring us back to our own childhood fairy tales, (for me, strangely, it was Gina Lollobrigida’s Blue Fairy from a 1970s Pinocchio).  Seeing childhood creatures still haunting adulthood, though outlandish to the logical mind, may be highly relatable to many.

Similarly, one of my favourite moments showed teen Massimo (Dario Dal Pero) visit a wealthy friend in a gorgeous old house, and sitting still as the other teen misbehaves with his mother (the wonderful Emmanuelle Devos who I was hoping would play a more important part in the film). The scene was fairly random and only relevant to the overall story as it showed Massimo’s yearning for a mother persist throughout his teens. Though it does bring narrative value to the film, it doesn’t seem essential to tell the story. But there is something almost otherworldly, something deliciously French and Italian and which in a way also captures the emotional stakes of the film so much more than many slices of Massimo’s adult life. It is that sense of nostalgia and “out of time-ness” which kept me hooked, and later led me home daydreaming, a head full of fond memories of the past and longing for the magic moments ahead.

A gorgeous and heartfelt mess.

Spoilers for 'John Wick' (the first one) but then it’s not much more than a movie about an angry Keanu Reeves killing everyone he meets, so maybe not worry about it too much.

Anyway, chapter 2 takes place in the immediate aftermath of the first movie, John Wick (Keanu Reeves) has killed everyone he set out to kill plus a few people who were dumb enough to try and kill him in return, and now he’s looking for his stolen car. We open with him finding it in the process of eliminating another branch of the Russian mafia in a pretty epic gun fight slash car chase sequence just to tie up loose ends before we move on.
​
John goes home with his new dog and prepares to settle in to retirement once more, but unfortunately for him he barely has time to put his feet up before there’s knock at his door. It seems word has gotten out that he’s been on a killing spree and some have presumed this means he is back to work and an old acquaintance is at his door to call in a debt he is owed. John turns him down and our new villain proceeds to aggressively threaten him into accepting the deal despite everyone around him being able to see what a stupid idea that is.

 This is the main problem of the film, the first 'John Wick' was about the idiot son of a gangster accidentally making enemies of the most dangerous assassin who ever lived because he’s an idiot. In this film we have a relatively uninteresting sociopath gangster (or something, I’m not actually sure what his deal was) deliberately and repeatedly making enemies of the most dangerous assassin who ever lived because presumably he’s an even bigger idiot.

This is actually a huge disconnect for me, the first movie was a clever revenge story that whilst the “bad guys” were clearly bad guys our hero was also basically a bad guy and the script wouldn’t have required too much manipulation to turn it into a horror movie where John Wick relentless hunts and murders a bunch of people who whilst far from being saints don’t necessarily deserve a gruesome death.
​
Coupled with some amazing fight sequences and a return to form for Keanu, seriously he was born to play this character, the first movie was kind of an unexpected surprise. Simplistic maybe but it did what it did to perfection and constructed an elaborate world with it’s own mythology and rules that though we only scrapped the surface, was clearly very well thought out and opened up an infinite amount of possibility.

This time around we get to see a lot more of this secret world but as with any mystery the more you know the less interesting it is. The move to another branch of the Continental in Rome is almost meaningless and Lawrence Fishbourne commanding an army of homeless people and pigeons is actually kind of silly, they only serve to over complicate the world. In addition it all makes the rules of both this world and the assassins guild within it much less clear. There’s a cool scene where Keanu and Common walk through a crowded area covertly firing silenced pistols at each other, and it’s a fun idea, but why do they do it, from a practical standpoint.

This “secret” society doesn’t seem too concerned with secrecy, the number of people aware of it’s existence seems to be growing beyond it’s assassin base and the assassins themselves don’t seem too concerned about openly firing their guns in public, starting fist fights in the street, and equate wandering into a building and shooting everyone they meet as the same thing as a meticulously planned assassination. So the world has been dumbed down a bit and the villain has been dumbed down a lot and it’s impossible to have the same unique impact as the first movie, so … did I like this? I feel like I shouldn’t like this.

Okay, so on a positive side it is basically more of the same from the first movie, cool action, interesting world building, cool action, Keanu Reeves owning the show and cool action. I mean it’s mostly cool action, that’s kind of why we’re here, and it does it well just not quite as well as the first movie and as I’ve said it’s impossible to create the same experience a second time around. This is basically a less interesting plot with less likeable characters. It comes to life a little when John becomes the target of the not-so-secret assassins society and we meet a handful of seemingly unique characters who come after him but they all just turn out to be nameless stunt people with guns for shooting and fists for punching and it’s just a whole lot of nothing.

So it’s good for what is more or less a two hour fight scene but I suppose you’d do just as well watching the first one again. You won’t be disappointed but you probably won’t be rushing to watch it a second time.

The true story of Richard and Mildred Loving who fought for their marriage to be recognised in there home of Virginia where interracial marriage was still outlawed. The case catches the attention of the ACLU and some ambitious lawyers who push it all the way to the Supreme Court where it challenges the very foundations of American society.
​
The story is told almost entirely from the perspectives of the Lovings which gives us this curious outsiders look on the bigger picture as Richard and Mildred aren’t marching on the capital they just want to live their lives. It’s also interesting to see their lawyers, who whilst on the right side of history are clearly viewing this as a once in a lifetime career opportunity they can’t afford to let slip through their fingers.

It’s a strange almost cynical look at the whole issue and it’s actually kind of interesting to see this kind of story told without being grandiose about the matter or leaning too heavily on the message. It sort of grounds it, we’re just looking at people who want to be themselves and why shouldn’t they be able to? It’s surreal that this happened not that long ago.
​
Unfortunately just because something is historically interesting doesn’t necessarily make it dramatically interesting, and whilst it would be wrong to inject a load of fake drama into such a serious story, after the initial set up the Lovings pretty much just go about their lives whilst all the more interesting civil rights issues happen somewhere else.

This is entirely fair to the story, the Lovings weren’t superheroes, they were humble people who wanted what was fair. The impact that would have on the country is more of a background detail. But as I say this doesn’t make for a particularly thrilling narrative, even the local sheriff who is set up as their antagonist in the beginning of the film just disappears from the story about halfway through and we’re left with a lot of tension that never actually amounts to anything.

​I have to say that I found myself wanting to like this film more than I did, though don’t dismiss the film entirely, it is a very important story beautifully told with some powerfully subtle performances from Ruth Nega and Joel Edgerton who completely draw in your sympathies. So it’s kind of average but it’s on the high end of average, and historical significance aside it’s ultimately a really sweet story of love conquering all that deserves to be told.