Baby Driver [Film spoilers not car spoilers]

[red snow]

I noticed this was getting a lot of mentions on the "TV and film" thread and it seems to be polarising between "Excellent" and "Solid but nowhere near as good as hype" so thought it would be good to maybe have some discussion.

I also think it would be cool if people spotted any music/film crossovers I may have missed (more on that in my comments about the film below) beyond the opening credits (Baby gets coffee) and the use of guns.

Here's my post from the TV and film Thread with some extensions:

Watched Baby Driver the other day. It's very stylish and overall good. But I think the super excitement critically is more indicative of how bad the average hollywood film is these days.

What was good. A serviceable plot, some good car chases and characters that had a few twists and turns to them. The merging of the music with events "on screen" was also really cool. The problem was that the opening credits had a beautiful couple of minutes where the lyrics were naturally turning up or being acted out on the screen. Mesmerising stuff but there was a catch-22 with it. Either disappoint the viewer by not having that occur throughout or constantly distract the viewer by having it occur all the time. I think they were wise just to pepper it throughout but would maybe argue they shouldn't have opened so heavily with it.

Jamie Foxx and Jon Hamm were both really strong in the film, particularly Foxx who had a palpable dangerous insanity throughout (sort of on a Pesci "goodfellows" wavelength but utterly self confident). Jon Bernthal still manages to be "that extra who stands out in a film" and I was disappointed we didn't see him again. I'm not familiar with Lilly James but she did an excellent job of reminding me of Madchen Amick from Twin Peaks. Ansel Elgort is a bit odd but that could just have been him inhabiting the role really well (I'm unfamiliar with his other work) - he did seem to do a good job with the physical side of the role.

I also liked how the characters evolved in ways that weren't initially as expected. eg Jon Hamm turning out to be the "big bad" and Kevin Spacey turning out to be "not so evil" although the latter twist didn't really ring true for me as Spacey's character was aware of Baby's "girlfriend" when he decided to use her as part of the blackmail to get him to do another job. I thought Baby's girlfriend was a little too accepting of discovering Baby was a criminal and involved in some serious business. But the film gets bonus points for Baby still having to go to prison (not sure he'd get out early given he was the only surviving member of the heist team)

I enjoyed the film especially the cleverness but I still wouldn't say it was an amazing film. Just better executed and more inventive than most stuff these days.

[Nictarion]

I'm definitely in the thought it was great camp. I'm interested how people interpreted the ending? I think I lean more towards the ending being a dream/fantasy of Baby's. I read that Elgort prefers that take on it, but Wright made comments about the significance of the rain during the last robbery, and the rainbow at the end. If you remember Baby's talk with the post office lady she mentioned part of a Dolly Parton song something along the lines of everyone wants the rainbow, without the rain. Wright implied one way to look at the ending was Baby's incarceration (for at least 5 years) was the rain Baby had to go with before getting his rainbow. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Ah good a thread on this!

Yes I saw it last night. I would be in agreement with pretty much everything you said. In comparison to much of what I've seen recently it was definitely a step up, but that says more about the state of modern cinema than anything else.

As you say, almost everyone in the movie gave a great performance, Jamie Foxx and Jon Hamm especially were very entertaining to watch, I'm a big fan of Jon Hamm actually, he can do a lot more than just Don Draper and is really good when he plays a baddie.

But I think the movie overall fell a bit flat. The first thing to say is that there is nothing new or original about the story, its a pretty functional tale of a guy who's got into a criminal world and wants out. I maybe wasn't expecting a lot more than that to be honest, what I expected was that the movie would be a treat for my eyes and ears.

It had been talked up as a visual ballet of guns, cars and music. Mark Kermode gave it a lot of praise for this, as almost an ode to film making. But actually I didn't see a lot of that in the movie. There were certainly points in the movie where the music was integral to the action, the opening chase was very intense, but for much of the movie the music wasn't adding much, the visuals didn't tie in hugely to what I was hearing and I didn't get the sense that this was anything outside of the usual heist fare I'm used to.

This might be a personal preference, but I thought the soundtrack choices were misjudged. I sensed that the choice to base the movie around 70's / 80's rock , R&B was more down to Edgar Wrights taste than what made sense in the movie, or what worked visually. Even if I like that sort of music, I kind of this something more modern, more upbeat and techno would have worked far better, and really helped the pacing of the action scenes. As it was, I found the music a distraction.

Wright didn't even manage to mix his scenes in that well with the music and his main technique seemed to be to simply make a cut on a main beat.  Maybe he was more comfortable with this style and maybe something more modern would have made the movie more akin to the Faster movies.. I don't know. But something didn't work for me. 

The music choice also fed into the main Baby character. I can see his reasons for liking that style of music, due to his mother, but in most other ways it didn't come off as very real. I'm not sure what the actual year the movie was meant to be set in, seeing as the phones were crappy and he was using ipods, but it could maybe have worked better had it been set in the 90s or something.

As for Baby, I think that a big problem is that I never got my head round his character. Was he the quiet, almost autistic type who has trouble talking to people? No because when Debora was around he was basically James Bond! It was really hard to understand who he really was, because he doesn't speak and his actions are so inconsistent. ( I also am not a fan of the actor tbh)

So yeah, wasn't that great a movie at all. It was passable and enjoyable, but failed if it was trying to be something special.

 

[Nictarion]

Techno? Thank the fucking gods he didn't use techno!

[Werthead]

I think the first half of the movie was excellent, then it really didn't know how to wrap up and fell back on boring gunfights. The actors were really good so that elevated things and the soundtrack was pretty cool. It was probably Wright's least effective movie (apart from the lacklustre World's End) though, and not a patch on Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuss or Scott Pilgrim.

This, by the way, is the music video Wright directed in 2003 which kickstarted the idea for the movie. The music video briefly flicks up on screen when Baby is flipping through channels.

Lilly James I suspect is being positioned as the next big actress, which isn't too bad a thing: she's quite good, did a mean Southern accent (she's actually British) and has a bit of range (the last thing I saw her in was the latest version of War and Peace).

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

Hahaha!! Thank you! I saw that pop up on the screen and knew I recognised it because it was Noel fielding but had no idea where I knew it from! That was bugging me

[Fez]

9 hours ago, red snow said:

Watched Baby Driver the other day. It's very stylish and overall good. But I think the super excitement critically is more indicative of how bad the average hollywood film is these days.

This is exactly where I'm at. I liked the movie quite it a bit, but I think its only extraordinary because of how bad most of the competition is. I thought the way the music tied into everything worked really well, and I had no problem with any of that. I didn't love Elgort's performance or the character of Baby though, and would've preferred more Hamm and Spacey, who were both excellent (as was Foxx, but I think there was just the right amount of his character). The other actors were all solid-to-quite-good as well.

I think a better movie would've been to use the same premise and concept, but be following Hamm's character earlier on in his career (he would be a former "Wall Street guy," which I'm unclear if he actually was in the movie) and as he meets Gonzalez's character. Have it be a more explicitly Bonnie & Clyde movie and end in tragedy (either they die or Hamm becomes a monster after having much more empathy earlier on).

[red snow]

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

 It was probably Wright's least effective movie (apart from the lacklustre World's End) though, and not a patch on Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuss or Scott Pilgrim.

 

What I liked about those other films was how they poked fun at the genre they were set in. Shaun and Hot Fuzz were both good at wringing comedy out of how mundane things were in places too. While "Baby Driver" didn't need to be funny I think some more pokes at movie conventions would have been nice.

It's weird how Kingsman in many ways felt more like an Edgar Wright movie. I can see why Wright might want to show he can do "straight" films too as he doesn't want to get boxed into a style (like Tim Burton has). Box office wise it might prove to be his most successful film (although Hot Fuzz may have been more profitable?). I hope we get a really insane Scott Pilgrim film from him in future - although i suspect producers would rather not risk another Scott Pilgrim.

Scott Pilgrim is a film i need to watch again. I actually really enjoyed it the first time around.

[Nictarion]

I don't understand the it was only good because everything else is shit narrative. You either liked it or you didn't...

Anyway, if you guys can take a small break from nitpicking, I'm still interested in hearing people's take on the ending. Real or not?

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Nictarion said:

I don't understand the it was only good because everything else is shit narrative. You either liked it or you didn't...

Anyway, if you guys can take a small break from nitpicking, I'm still interested in hearing people's take on the ending. Real or not?

Seems pretty straightfoward to me: The movie was good, but not great. It feels great though simply because good is so rare these days, especially good genre.

As to the end, I assumed it was real. I didn't even consider it could be a dream until this thread.

[Nictarion]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

Seems pretty straightfoward to me: The movie was good, but not great. It feels great though simply because good is so rare these days, especially good genre.

As to the end, I assumed it was real. I didn't even consider it could be a dream until this thread.

Good movies are not that rare, imo. Perhaps people are watching the wrong one's? 

Just a few really good genre movies i've already seen this year; John Wick 2, Logan, Get Out. 

But yes, the director made the ending intentionally ambiguous. 

[red snow]

8 hours ago, Nictarion said:

Good movies are not that rare, imo. Perhaps people are watching the wrong one's? 

Just a few really good genre movies i've already seen this year; John Wick 2, Logan, Get Out. 

But yes, the director made the ending intentionally ambiguous. 

I've seen all three and enjoyed them but I'd still say they were simply good movies that stand out due to the current level. Both John Wick(s) and Get out are well executed films that should ideally be the minimum we expect for those genres. The good thing is that both of them are relatively low budget and the marketing is very much focused on word of mouth making these films more profitable.

Logan is slightly different in that it is a big budget film and possibly tries to aim higher with its intentions. Arguably it fails moreso than the other two examples but it's nice to see them strive for that (especially after the film by numbers that the other Wolverines were)

It's more an issue with the vast quantities of underwhelming/bad films (with half-baked screenplays) and the rarity of excellent films.

I also don't mean to come off as if "Baby Driver" is bad. It really isn't (It's in my top 10 for the year). I just find it odd when it's being hailed as one of the best movies of the decade. For me. it's a hell of a lot better than "fast and furious" but I'd still say "Drive" was a better film (even though I swing from loving to hating that film on repeat viewings) or "Ronin" for that genre of film. In terms of car chases the classics are still hard to beat (Bullit or even the car chases in the various Bourne films) but that's a bit unfair as classics have had time to build a reputation and the advantage of "doing it first". But again, I think the film will be remembered more for the use of music and editing - if others start to mimic it (maybe others have tried already?) then that will be what makes the film a classic. It's pretty cool to introduce (or at least establish) a new storytelling technique in film

[red snow]

9 hours ago, Fez said:

Seems pretty straightfoward to me: The movie was good, but not great. It feels great though simply because good is so rare these days, especially good genre.

As to the end, I assumed it was real. I didn't even consider it could be a dream until this thread.

I took it at face value initially too. It didn't feel like the kind of film that needs the ambiguity (it's not like the end of Sopranos or Black Sails where it has a massive effect) but it's true the post-prison release mirrored the dream he had and felt a little too neat.

How do people feel about the possibility of a sequel? I can see how they could do one I'm just not sure if we really need one. As others have mentioned a film with more focus on Jon Hamm's character seems more interesting to me than the continued adventures of Baby. Or seeing what happened to Jon Bernthal's character afterwards. That was one thing they did a decent job of creating a world where I could imagine the various criminals going off and doing their own thing and only crossing over for the heists. If they did a spin off where this film was essentially "the Avengers" and the follow up is more akin to Pulp Fiction in that it follows several plots surrounding characters' actions before/after the first or second heist. I'm not that interested in another car chase film about Baby.

[Nictarion]

11 minutes ago, red snow said:

I've seen all three and enjoyed them but I'd still say they were simply good movies that stand out due to the current level. Both John Wick(s) and Get out are well executed films that should ideally be the minimum we expect for those genres. The good thing is that both of them are relatively low budget and the marketing is very much focused on word of mouth making these films more profitable.

Logan is slightly different in that it is a big budget film and possibly tries to aim higher with its intentions. Arguably it fails moreso than the other two examples but it's nice to see them strive for that (especially after the film by numbers that the other Wolverines were)

It's more an issue with the vast quantities of underwhelming/bad films (with half-baked screenplays) and the rarity of excellent films.

I also don't mean to come off as if "Baby Driver" is bad. It really isn't (It's in my top 10 for the year). I just find it odd when it's being hailed as one of the best movies of the decade. For me. it's a hell of a lot better than "fast and furious" but I'd still say "Drive" was a better film (even though I swing from loving to hating that film on repeat viewings) or "Ronin" for that genre of film. In terms of car chases the classics are still hard to beat (Bullit or even the car chases in the various Bourne films) but that's a bit unfair as classics have had time to build a reputation and the advantage of "doing it first". But again, I think the film will be remembered more for the use of music and editing - if others start to mimic it (maybe others have tried already?) then that will be what makes the film a classic. It's pretty cool to introduce (or at least establish) a new storytelling technique in film

Fair enough. You make some solid points that I won't disagree with. One of the best movies of the decade is probably a bit much. Certainly of the year though. I think it's probably my favorite thing Edgar Wright's done, but that's more because crime/thriller movies are more up my alley than comedies most of the time. Although as pointed out his stuff has a great mix of comedy and other genre's. I can totally see why someone would feel Shaun of the Dead (which is a very close second for me) and Hot Fuzz are better. Both are great movies. Baby Driver is far better than Scott Pilgrim and World's End though, imo. 

[Nictarion]

As for a sequel, I'm down. So is Wright from the sound of things:

http://collider.com/baby-driver-2-edgar-wright/#ansel-elgort

[Howdyphillip]

17 hours ago, Werthead said:

I think the first half of the movie was excellent, then it really didn't know how to wrap up and fell back on boring gunfights. The actors were really good so that elevated things and the soundtrack was pretty cool. It was probably Wright's least effective movie (apart from the lacklustre World's End) though, and not a patch on Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuss or Scott Pilgrim.

This, by the way, is the music video Wright directed in 2003 which kickstarted the idea for the movie. The music video briefly flicks up on screen when Baby is flipping through channels.

Lilly James I suspect is being positioned as the next big actress, which isn't too bad a thing: she's quite good, did a mean Southern accent (she's actually British) and has a bit of range (the last thing I saw her in was the latest version of War and Peace).

My single complaint about the movie is that the accents by James and Elgort were horrible and Wright obviously had no clue about his setting in a US southern city.  Other than this nitpick, I found the film almost flawless.

[red snow]

16 minutes ago, Nictarion said:

Fair enough. You make some solid points that I won't disagree with. One of the best movies of the decade is probably a bit much. Certainly of the year though. I think it's probably my favorite thing Edgar Wright's done, but that's more because crime/thriller movies are more up my alley than comedies most of the time. Although as pointed out his stuff has a great mix of comedy and other genre's. I can totally see why someone would feel Shaun of the Dead (which is a very close second for me) and Hot Fuzz are better. Both are great movies. Baby Driver is far better than Scott Pilgrim and World's End though, imo. 

I agree with you in terms of ranking his films ( but with Hot Fuzz at the top). Scott Pilrgrim is a weird one for me in that I really like how crazy it is with bringing video games to life but it's certainly more style over substance. "world's end" didn't work for me although I loved the action scenes which "kingsman" almost certainly mimicked (to the point where i still wonder whether there was a shared fight choreographer)

[Fez]

10 hours ago, Nictarion said:

But yes, the director made the ending intentionally ambiguous. 

So here's my expanded thought: If Wright wanted an ambiguous ending, I think a much better one would've been a cut-to-black either after Buddy dies (for a more happy ambiguous ending) or on the bridge with the cops as Baby and Debora kiss (for a more downer ambiguous ending). Instead, he went through the trouble of filming the courtroom scene and bringing back all the secondary characters to remind us of what a good guy Baby is, all so a judge could make the extremely implausible sentence of "25 years, but the possibility of parole after 5 years."Which just lso happens to be long enough to seem a like a punishment, but just short enough so that Elgort could still play the character at the end of it. And then he filmed a prison scene with Baby getting letters from Debora, showing she still thinks of him.

I don't think you lay all that groundwork past the climax of the movie just to have an ambiguous ending. I think you do that because there's a very clear ending you want to get to, but you need to tie up loose ends to do so.

[red snow]

2 minutes ago, Howdyphillip said:

My single complaint about the movie is that the accents by James and Elgort were horrible and Wright obviously had no clue about his setting in a US southern city.  Other than this nitpick, I found the film almost flawless.

I had no idea where it was actually set to be honest but I guess the accent is one of those things only a familiar ear can spot as off.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

So here's my expanded thought: If Wright wanted an ambiguous ending, I think a much better one would've been a cut-to-black either after Buddy dies (for a more happy ambiguous ending) or on the bridge with the cops as Baby and Debora kiss (for a more downer ambiguous ending). Instead, he went through the trouble of filming the courtroom scene and bringing back all the secondary characters to remind us of what a good guy Baby is, all so a judge could make the extremely implausible sentence of "25 years, but the possibility of parole after 5 years."Which just lso happens to be long enough to seem a like a punishment, but just short enough so that Elgort could still play the character at the end of it. And then he filmed a prison scene with Baby getting letters from Debora, showing she still thinks of him.

I don't think you lay all that groundwork past the climax of the movie just to have an ambiguous ending. I think you do that because there's a very clear ending you want to get to, but you need to tie up loose ends to do so.

I didn't see any ambiguity in the ending at all. The whole movie is entirely straightforward, I don't think there is much need to put any thought into the meaning of the ending.