Welcome, everyone, to the YouChew Writing Staff's picks of the best movies of 2017. While there were quite a few terrible flicks that were put out in theatres (i.e. The Emoji Movie), this year was a pretty damn good year for film. So we here at the Writing Staff picked at least one to five of the best flicks that we saw that were released throughout 2017, whether in the theatre, on home video, or on-demand via some movie channel, because hey, not all of us can afford to go to the theatre every day. So lo and behold, here are our picks...
TheOneManBoxOffice's Top 5 Movies
5. Get Out
When I think of Jordan Peele, I think of his run as one of the cast members of the sketch comedy show MadTV and half of the comedic duo that is Key & Peele on Comedy Central. He is indeed a hilarious guy and a man of many talents. So, it surprised the hell out of me when I found out his directorial debut film, bluntly titled Get Out, is a psychological thriller about a man who’s fiancé is a member of a family with one hell of a dark secret. If you haven’t seen this picture yet, don’t worry, I won’t spoil the secret here. I will say, however, that for Jordan Peele’s first, and so far, only feature film (as of this posting), he nailed it. I highly recommend this one if you’re into movies like this.
4. The Lego Batman Movie
In 2014, I saw Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's film The Lego Movie in the theatre expecting the worst. After all, it was a movie based on a toy line, which is a common marketing strategy. But, like many who gave the picture a chance and sat all the way through, I was surprised at how great of a flick it was. Then, three years later, The Lego Group and Warner Brothers double dipped by giving us another theatrical release, this time centering around DC Comics' iconic Dark Knight, who also had an appearance in the last film. Directed by Chris McKay, who is also one of the directors for Adult Swim's Robot Chicken, not only do I think The Lego Batman Movie is just as great and funny as the 2014 flick, but it's also a solid comic book flick (or Batman movie in general) that satirizes its source material, as well as have a touching moral about teamwork and being a part of a family. This film once again proves that even a movie that could've been made solely meant for selling products can also have heart and soul put into it.
3. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Speaking of comic book flicks, here's another one. This time, it comes from the realm of Marvel Comics and its cinematic universe. I saw the original Guardians of the Galaxy at least a year-and-a-half ago on DVD, and I instantly fell in love with it. I love the idea of a rag tag team of unlikely heroes that eventually become the galaxy's only hope of survival. The X-Men, they clearly are not. This year, Marvel gave us a second helping of the Guardians' adventurous shenanigans, with the main plot focusing on the mystery of Star Lord's (or Peter Quill's) parental heritage. Everyone who starred in the original flick, including the voices of Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel as Rocket Raccoon and Groot (or Baby Groot, to be precise) is back, with Kurt Russell playing the role of Star Lord's long lost father. The question of whether this movie is just as good as the original is debatable amongst moviegoers, but to me, it definitely is, and deserves a welcomed place in the #3 spot.
2. Loving Vincent
And here in my own personal gallery of my top five favorite movies of 2017 is a movie that should've been talked about more, but didn't, because it got a limited release, which is a shame. Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman's Loving Vincent is a Polish animated film focusing on the life and controversial death of one of the greatest artists who ever lived, Vincent Van Gogh. To make it even more authentic, the filmmakers decided to have the animation done in the style of a Van Gogh painting, with every frame of the film, with the exception of opening logos and end credits, done entirely in actual oil paint. No digital trickery. That in itself is dedication to the one of art's greatest masters.
1. Baby Driver
While Loving Vincent came close to being my number one movie, I gotta say that I have to go with the crowd on this one, because this was the movie I practically LOVED with a passion when I sat through it, and I won't lie when I say this is in my top three movies directed by Edgar Wright, the same man who also brought us the Cornetto trilogy and Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World. What I absolutely love about this movie, from a filmmaker's point of view, is how music played a vital role in the editing process, where the action, camera movements, and cross/jump-cutting are synchronized to the accompanying soundtrack, with the best use of it coming from a scene in the movie where "Hocus Pocus" is playing. That, and even though this movie isn't really a comedy, it still has that quirkiness that could only come from Wright himself. I don't think I need to say anything more. This is by far the best movie of 2017 for me.
Crazy Luigi's Top Movies
The Disaster Artist
I have to repeat the notion that I'm someone that doesn't really see a lot of films, unlike some of my fellow peers. While I might have seen a few more films than usual in 2016, I can't really say that the films I did see that year truly stood out to me, save for the obvious Doctor Strange. Honestly, for 2017, I decided to take the opposite approach and see only a certain few films this year (especially since some sicknesses this past year limited my opportunities for seeing some films like Logan). In fact, I can say I've only seen a few films from 2017 that I've seen in their entirety, and I can say I've been better for that. Still, I can't deny a few films were on my hype list this year, and if you couldn't tell by now, this was one of them. Of course, I had seen at least a little bit of The Room, the same film that this movie's doing a few of its biographical parts on, via Adult Swim's April Fools Day showcasings and the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Room, but even then, it's probably one of the surprisingly deeper character cases you could have for a film like this out in the Hollywood (underground) scene.
Before I get into greater detail here, I should note that this film is best understood if you're well aware of what The Room is or even read up Greg Sestero's book of the same name, which dives a bit deeper into his friendship and time spent with our main character Tommy Wiseau. On the other hand, I watched this film with my grandma and Aunt Ann the first time around, and they both had a blast with the movie despite knowing next to nothing about this film's story (my aunt especially), so I think you can take it from me when I say context isn't ultimately necessary for this film! Not to mention the beginning of the film is where it sets up how Greg meets Tommy (both being played by brothers Dave & James Franco respectively) and showcases how they each looked to play each other off in the events that followed up to Tommy Wiseau creating The Room, with Greg having some moments of promise that ultimately rarely paid off for him and Tommy... let's just say kind of showing his true colors when he's away from his best friend. While the set-up to the film is pretty good, it's when Tommy starts doing just about anything under the sun with his film, along with Greg and the rest of the film's cast and crew, which is where things truly start to shine through. It can already be said that for anyone that's seen the more infamous moments of The Room, they're going to have a ball with this film's reinterpretations of scenes like the flower shop scene and the ending suicide scene. However, it's more about the moments that are outside of directing those scenes with The Disaster Artist's cast that truly paint a picture of pain and betrayal that I bet Tommy himself didn't see the first time around himself.
While things did start out just fine when the film's shooting first began, it's from the moment Tommy decided to act as Johnny where some of the dysfunction from within truly commenced. It started out with simple things related to shooting the film (like Tommy's questionable acting for certain scenes, including the infamous sex scene that looks like Tommy's having sex with the lead actress' bellybutton), but later escalated to more serious issues like arguing with the directing crew and not providing food or drinks for his fellow actors. However, it's when we see the creator of Malcolm In The Middle shows up at a coffee shop and complimented Greg on his look, stating he had the perfect look for an episode he was having trouble finding someone to cast in that truly showcased how ugly things really got from The Room's production. From the moment Tommy became completely uncompromising on wanting to shoot a small scene with his friend and a few of the actors with Greg's beard shaved off, the final day of shooting between Greg and Tommy results in a stunning breaking point for him, as he fights Tommy for having his own trust in him being betrayed in its own, ironic way. Combine all that with the opening day reactions from the cast that did The Room's remade scenes and reacting to how the movie went down (going from disgust and fear to pure laughter), not to mention Greg trying to cheer Tommy up after realizing the truth of his own movie, and you have a film that truly reflects on the modern-day difficulties of making a film with someone that's truly stubborn in their own ways.
Look, even though I had seen Suicide Squad in 2016 and I thought it wasn't that bad of a film (if anything, it's just decent at best), I think we could safely say that 2016 wasn't a fantastic year for DC's films. While I can't say anything about Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice myself (if anything, I would have to think that film and Captain America: Civil War would just about be the same thing in terms of basic premises), I would think it's safe to say that film underwhelmed the general audience that did see it. Therefore, I wouldn't blame people for being cautious about the DC Cinematic Universe films by that point in time after they had only released those two movies in 2016 and felt worried about their future films that year. However, if I recalled correctly, one of the positives that was in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was the cameo of Wonder Woman, so if nothing else, there was at least some sort of hope for Wonder Woman being a success to audiences that their previous films kind of weren't, to put it mildly. Luckily, despite any potential causes for concern, the Wonder Woman movie became a surprise hit that helped make DC's live action movies feel respectable again, if only for this one movie.
What exactly caused Wonder Woman to succeed where something that was supposed to be a surefire hit like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice failed to the general audience? Well, besides the fact that the final script for this movie wasn't a male dominant fantasy trip like Joss Whedon's original script (done over a decade ago, just so I'm fair here), this movie focuses on making what's ultimately a story that fits the titular character herself (played by Gal Gadot) with what makes her unique as a superhero and how it makes her stand out among many other superhero movies released over the past few years. More specifically, it showcases her growth from being one of the usual Themasciran females to saving and joining Allied World War I pilot Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine) out in the European trenches to defeat the things that interest both characters in the film (Diana with defeating Ares once and for all and Chris stopping the Germans and Ottomen in order for them to accept surrender in the war). While the themes explored for this movie are pretty simple, it's the way the film executes the little things that could potentially cause controversy had they not been dealt with properly instead work rather well for the typical moviegoer. Things like how Diana decides to stand up for the injustices that went on with the war and how she plans on stopping them her own way and the reveal of who the true enemy is (which, spoiler alert, actually isn't of the German side despite what the build-up might suggest it is) were handled in ways that truly felt respectable to the audience that watched this film altogether. Honestly, I think I see myself as someone who watches movies mainly to see if they entertain me well enough; if they did exactly that, they ultimately succeeded, especially if they genuinely wanted to make a great film here.
While I will admit the movie isn't flawless (mainly in the fact that some scenes were obviously shot with a green screen and I thought I saw a rope carrying someone in the fight scene where Steve and the actual German soldiers enter Themascira), it is the film that I could say had the entertainment value I would want from a movie from beginning to end. I have to admit, part of the reason why I wanted to talk about The Disaster Artist first was I knew with any faults that might have been seen there, it was because that film knew it didn't want to be anything more than what it actually wanted to be, primarily in the special effects department. It actually wanted to be fun with everything that was had from its source material, even if everything wasn't as hunky-dory as the unintentionally funny moments of The Room were. However, I have to say in terms of films that managed to make a story that did work from beginning to end, it was the best film released in 2017 that did exactly that. (At the very least, it managed to do that a bit more than Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi did, even though some of that film's strengths were actually fantastic in their own rights.) That's why, even if it's only for this one film, I can actually say the DC Cinematic Universe films that had involvement from Zack Snyder have actually been worth it after all.
Dieathan's Top Movie
Spider-Man’s history on the silver screen has been filled with its fair share of ups and downs over the past 15 years. Sam Raimi tried his hand at translating the web-slinger to film back in 2002 with Spider-Man. It saw enough success to warrant an even better sequel, Spider-Man 2, in 2004, that was met with even more unanimous praise than the first film. Unfortunately, this upward trend would only be shot down dramatically with Spider-Man 3 in 2007, which simply did not live up to the legacy set by the previous two films, disappointing many in its wake, followed by Raimi’s struggle to produce a fourth film before cancelling the project in 2010, and effectively leaving our friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man’s film career uncertain. That is until Marc Webb stepped into the ring with The Amazing Spider-Man in 2012, rebooting the film franchise with a new but familiar feel that saw relatively good success, even if it didn’t reach the same heights as the first two Raimi films. This reboot was short-lived however, as its sequel, The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro, met a similar fate to Spider-Man 3, and could not live up to its predecessor, which in turn led to its planned sequels getting canned, and putting Spidey in limbo once again. But despite his likeness fading from the film scene twice, his recent appearance in Captain America: Civil War seemingly set the world on fire, integrating him firmly into the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and leading us to his new film, Spider-Man: Homecoming, making this his third chance at upholding a series of films, and to put it simply, it’s a promising start.
For a Marvel film, it delivers in the ways you would expect it to for the most part. There’s plenty of eye-catching action and set pieces, one of note featuring a ferry having been split in two and Spider-Man using his web-slinging abilities to hold it together having some wonderful detail. The cast delivers some amazing acting performances, especially from Tom Holland playing the part of Peter Parker, who maintains the comical nature of his character while also selling his state of mind in his most dire of situations. The broad musical scores with the occasional licensed track thrown in are there and accounted for, as are the allusions to connections to other films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, both in form of referring to prior films and to upcoming films, but what I found incredibly interesting about it compared to some of the more recent Marvel flicks is how character-driven the movie is, specifically around Peter Parker and to a degree its antagonist.
In a way, you could consider this film as a coming-of-age story for Peter Parker (Played by Tom Holland), and a respectable one at that. When you compare Spider-Man to many of the other high-profile Marvel superheroes out there such as Iron Man (Who fittingly enough acts as his mentor of sorts), Spider-Man can be seen as a kid by comparison in that he generally only gets roped up in conflicts in scale to that of his local whereabouts, and this film aims to explore his identity of where he really stands in the grand scheme of things, not just as the superhero Spider-Man, but as the ordinary teenager Peter Parker as well. As Spider-Man, now serving as a new member of the Avengers in-training under Tony Stark’s care, we see him do his best to try and make a difference, and while he tends to not succeed in his intended cause, even sometimes causing things to escalate beyond his control, he still remains adamant about being able to do what he can on top of trying to rectify his own mistakes, despite Tony’s reprimands towards his actions. On the other side of the coin, Peter Parker has an upcoming sophomore homecoming dance, providing him with the opportunity to confess his feelings to Liz, a senior classmate at his school, and the head of his school’s Academic Decathlon. While he plans to take this chance while he can, if of course comes into conflict with his callings as a hero, which is where this exploration of his identity comes into play. His attitude as a whole throughout the film is relatively idealistic, and as the film progresses, we see him learn that if he is to grow up, he will have to accept all the losses that come with it, and that the ideals that have supported him will ultimately tear him apart should he continue playing the hero the way he has. It helps to bring plenty of depth to Peter’s character as it explores his identity and inner struggles, and the film does a good job of balancing the tone between its lighter and serious moments, all the while avoiding the trap of creating some incredibly jarring transitions, so don’t expect Peter to break into dance out of nowhere and have it followed up by him moping to himself all of the sudden.
Even the villain of the film, Adrian Toomes (Played by Michael Keaton), otherwise known as Vulture, paints a rather intriguing picture. He starts off as the head of a salvage company, contracted to clean up the remains of the Chitauri invasion left over from first Avengers film, but when Tony Stark takes over the job, he’s put in a situation that’ll leave his company bankrupt. This leaves him to steal the Chitauri technology for himself, and use it as a means of keeping himself financially afloat as a black market arms dealer, providing weapons to any aspiring street criminal that he comes across, and even using said technology to create a flying suit of his own to create his identity as Vulture. This leaves him and Peter Parker in very similar positions as Tony Stark plays a pivotal role in regards to how they act and behave, but otherwise shows how their different the paths they took really are. On one hand, Spider-Man strives to serve the public, with Tony pushing him to become a better hero than he really is, whereas with Vulture, he seeks revenge for being stripped of his purpose due to Tony stepping in on his business and forcing him to take drastic measures to continue providing for his family. That’s only just scratching the surface, as he even gets involved with an incredibly plot twist that adds even more to both Peter’s and his own struggles. He’s not so much a villain as he is just another person who was led into unfortunate circumstances that caused him to commit such acts, arguably making him one of the most memorable and sympathetic antagonists in any Marvel Cinematic Universe movie to date.
If there’s one real issue I had with the film though, it would have to be the portrayal of Tony Stark. Tony is established as Peter’s mentor, keeping a watchful eye on him and hoping to see him develop into a fine hero of his own. While that in itself is fine, I felt as though his treatment of Peter was often needlessly exaggerated and uncalled for. Understandably, Tony only is trying to do what he thinks is best for Peter, namely that he should be more cautious about his actions which come off as quite reckless given the collateral damage and harm they caused, but I feel as though his remarks and attitude were a bit too harsh, and it makes his character seem unlikable. Tony’s presence doesn’t take up too much screen time though, as he only shows up periodically to make these statements, but I still found it to be rather bothersome, especially after past films cemented him as a particularly likable guy.
I admit I haven’t been one for following the Marvel Cinematic Universe too closely, but putting that aside, I found this to not only be a great film on its own merits, but also an even better Spider-Man film, possibly surpassing the likes of Spider-Man 2. It takes everything that makes Marvel’s recent film outings great, irons out the few issues they have (Most notably the forgettable villains), and you’ve got yourself a film that makes itself out to be something truly special. Time will only tell if Spider-Man will continue with this same spectacular level of character and clever writing, but if it doesn’t, I just hope that other Marvel films will take to heart what makes this film so highly-regarded. And to that I say, welcome home our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man.
Nozdordomu's Top Movie
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri
There's one big reason why Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri is my favorite movie of 2017, and it's probably not any of the reasons you've heard before. No, it's not the almost unfairly witty, poignant, and thought-provoking script from In Bruges wunderkind Martin McDonagh, who also directed and does a fine job of that too. It's not the wonderfully character-inhibiting performances from Frances McDormand, Woody Harrelson, and especially Sam Rockwell, not to mention all the other great actors and actresses in smaller parts. It's not the combined timeliness and timelessness of the premise, which throws rape, murder, suicide, racism, police brutality, and bad parenting into a mess of uncomfortable but instantly relatable human emotions. It's not even the surprising moral complexity of the story, which refuses to paint either the infuriated grieving mother or the irresponsible bullying police in broad strokes.
No, I love Three Billboards because it did something that most movies completely fail at, even great ones: it gave me hope. It took a heap of conflict that seemed utterly hopeless - one woman against the cops, one woman against her loss, one man against his anger - and came away with something surprisingly life-affirming, if not exactly uplifting. The idea that wounds can indeed heal, and that flawed people can actually improve themselves as human beings, is really something we need to hear much more often in our culture, even if it takes tragedy to get there in the first place. The dual transformations of Mildred Hayes and Jason Dixon really must be seen to be believed; you'd never expect to actually sympathize with a bigoted cop, though the movie doesn't gloss over his bigotry (or the less savory parts of Mildred's personality, for that matter). Still, that's the beauty of it all. Three Billboards is never sentimental or unrealistic in its hope, but merely asks us to consider the possibility of positive change, even in a community as deeply crippled as Ebbing, Missouri. The fact that it all seems so possible - in no small part due to the impeccable writing and acting - alone makes Three Billboards one of the year's best dramas, and my personal pick for the year's best, period.
Other 2017 favorites: Get Out, Lady Bird, Dunkirk, Star Wars: the Last Jedi, The Shape of Water, Baby Driver
Biodegradable's Top Movie
At the risk of sounding like a snob, there really aren't a lot of big name directors this day and age that are worth following, at least as far as mainstream cinema is concerned. The independent film scene is an entirely different animal, so I'm not going to rope that in here. What I mean is, how many film directors can you name making big Hollywood movies that feel like a movie being made by a person and not by committee? I know I've struggled with this question. It certainly is telling that the majority of my favourite filmmakers are either retired or dead. The amount of mainstream filmmakers I consider myself a big fan is painfully small: Wes Anderson, Joel & Ethan Coen, Terry Gilliam, Guillermo del Toro, Martin McDonagh, Alejandro González Iñárritu and of course, Edgar Wright. My reasoning? These guys not only make terrific films, they do things with the medium. It feels really weird that in an age where technology has evolved to such an extent that nothing seems impossible to achieve in film, so many movies are just so goddamn boring to look at. Thankfully, Wright's films are not and Baby Driver is a swift, firm slap to the Hollywood machine's face to remind it that film is a visual medium and that the frame is for more than just showing the actors delivering their lines. Wright's continued experimentation with film and his sense of "play" with the medium is what truly makes him one of the most intriguing and exciting filmmakers working today.
The opening sequence alone does an incredible job setting up the tone, thematic synchronicity with the soundtrack, visual flair, pacing and editing style that remains consistent throughout the entire film. The first six minutes is thrilling, beautifully-shot and is so damn precise with its editing, I wish I had the ability to frame it and stick it on my bedroom wall. It's honestly one of my absolute favourite parts of the entire movie and really says to the audience, "This is what the movie's going to be like. You in or what?"
Here's an interesting little thing to consider: how many heavy action sequences, such as a car chase, in movies these days feel painful to watch? The answer is their insistence of shaking the camera around. On paper, the idea suggests that shaking the camera creates the illusion of vibration in perspective to keep the eye immersed in what's happening on the screen. In practice though, it creates the exact opposite. I don't know about you, but whenever lousy action movies shake the camera about, I'm pulled out of the experience. I can't focus on anything that's happening on the screen and am left annoyed that the movie doesn't want me to know what's happening. Throughout the opening car chase, notice that camera never wobbles about like it's been duct-taped to a newborn giraffe. Despite the high-energy chaos invoked on the screen, the frame itself remains crisp and clear. The camera moves with the action, rather than fighting against it. You feel like an active participant in the action sitting in the passenger seat as Baby maneuvers the car because you can actually see what's going on at every second. This is just one of the reasons I fucking love this movie.
Another thing I really want to waffle on for a bit is the editing. Wright's films, every single one of them, have gorgeous editing. This is the other prime example of visual mastery on his part that comes into play regarding his work. It's honestly one of the things that really stands out, but despite the principle of "good editing isn't seen", this is an exception because Wright's emphasis on quick-paced transitions, jump-cuts, objects shown and then swiped out of frame, to all manner of really clever cutting that I could yak on about endlessly is a stalwart part in his filmography. In Baby Driver, the two aspects of the editing I love the most are the excellently-timed cuts and amazingly-integrated transitions during the action scenes. In the second car chase scene, much like the first, the editing does a phenomenal job of keeping things in frame long enough to see an action, but doesn't hang on to anything for too long. Each time the frame cuts, it feels visceral, deliberate and damn immersive as it syncs up with the music (which is another impressive and spellbinding aspect of the film all on its own). As someone who has been toying around with editing for two years and more recently experimenting with fast-paced timing and cutting, these sequences are endlessly fascinating to me. I keep watching them over and over, counting the seconds between cuts as they range from two to about eight and a half seconds at a time in the second car chase alone. Everything is perfectly timed as, while things zip across the screen and giving you that building sense of urgency and speed, your eyes are still fed enough information in every given frame, so you never feel lost or overwhelmed at any point during one of these sequences. It's simply sublime.
As I mentioned, many scenes incorporate the film's soundtrack on both a visual and thematic level that elevates the film immediately in my mind. Why? Because it dares to be different. Aside from the visual aspect of the film where all the action sequences are timed to the music, (and not just in terms of cuts, I'm talking car doors slamming, gunshots, things being broken or destroyed) it also serves as a thematic device regarding Baby's character. There's no real spoilers as to why that is, but I'm not going to tell you anyways. Just watch the film for yourself, and if you've seen Guardians of the Galaxy and understand the thematic significance as to the choices in songs for the soundtrack, you'll have a good idea what I'm on about. While I wasn't overly familiar with all but one song in the soundtrack, they all work and never feel jarring or misplaced when they show up in a scene at any given time during the film.
Now some people have said that the story is the film's weakest aspect, which I'm not entirely sure I agree with. Not to generalize, but I feel there's a strange stigma people have towards stories that can be considered "simple" and mistake that as a bad thing. I don't personally subscribe to this assertion and believe any story can be good whether it be simple or complex. It's definitely the most simplistic in terms of storytelling when comparing it to Wright's previous films, but it works perfectly well. Sure, it's not mind-blowing or anything, but it has stakes, a clear conflict and a memorable cast of characters. Everything works, nothing feels out of place and there isn't a plothole to be found. It's solid and I have no beef with it whatsoever. Another criticism I've seen is Baby and Debora's relationship, suggesting their little romance feels phony or forced, wooden or unrealistic. Personally, I don't get that impression. I think the characters have an interesting chemistry as two wayward youngsters who find common ground for their appreciation of music and that want to escape without a care, without a plan.
Unrealistic? Oh come on, how many stories do you hear of crazy kids falling head over heels for each other rather quickly and suddenly want to run away together in real life? Hell, I hear so many stories of much older people doing that a lot more often these days. Look, I'm no expert when comes to the whole "relationship" thing, but for my money, I feel Baby and Debora are believable and adorable to watch as their connection develops over the course of the movie. You could argue that maybe they fall in love a little too quickly, but their relationship isn't the big focus of the film to begin with. It is pretty damn cute, though, so shut your face.
If there's one thing I can openly say I don't like about the movie, it's Jamie Foxx. I cannot stand him in this film, though that might just be the point considering he plays an unlikable bastard. But for whatever reason, I just really couldn't enjoy his performance in this film, which is sad because I've seen plenty of good performances from him in the past. When it comes to a hokey performance, the actor is usually the last person I would blame. An actor can only do so much with the material they're given and however they're being directed. For whatever reason, his part in the film just felt very forced and dopey. Again though, that might've been the point. Either way, he's the only part of the film I don't like.
Baby Driver is a really fun and exciting movie that pumps you full of adrenaline, but also has a lot of heart with little quirky moments and really reminds you of what can be done with a movie when you put someone with an imagination behind the camera. Solid performances, likable/interesting characters, exciting cinematography and editing, and a soundtrack that'll no doubt introduce a new generation to some classic tunes. This was by far my absolute favourite movie to come out in 2017 and I can't recommend it enough.