We saw this movie yesterday and highly recommend it!
That said, a few words of warning;
If you think this is the typical action film with lots and lots of car chases and crashes, you would be wrong. Yes, there are some - but certainly not what you might logically suspect from the title of the film.
If you think this is a good guy/bad guy film with the predictable shoot-em-ups, you would also be wrong. Some good guys ain’t so good, some bad guys ain’t so bad, and guns are seldom the method of choice for some rather grisly, graphic deaths. Parts of this film are not for the squeamish.
If you think Ryan Gosling is hot, well - you would be right. Granted, he has about 78 words of dialogue in this very non-chatty film, but Ryan’s character, like his body, is well-developed.
The film is very much film noir - meaning lots of great cinematography, sparse dialogue, lots of mood oozing out that speaks volumes.
So, this is not a mindless, shoot-em-up, car chase, car crash film. It is somewhat graphic when the bodies begin dropping, but nary a fake slo-mo, high-karate kick to be found.
Very good film, but not the stereotypical Hollywood action film by any means.
If you like watching a guy drive, slowly, at night, through the street of LA, this is a movie you’ll love.
I’m really not sure I could recommend it. I spent the whole movie waiting for something to happen, I think the drive home afterwards was just slightly more entertaining.
I found the film to be slow and moody. It does a good job building up tension, but the resolution is a let down. There isn’t enough driving for it to be a car movie, and there isn’t enough murder/mob for it to be a mob movie. I tend to enjoy moody flicks, but in this case the events of the plot fail to justify the mood. Overall I found it not to be worth the price of a ticket, and I doubt I will be sitting through it again if it comes on on TV.
Just got back from watching this movie based on it’s status as a critical darling.
What a piece of shit this thing was.
Pros:
The acting was pretty good. This is saying a lot since the movie has no character development and no plot.
The cinematography was good.
Cons:
Everything else. I don’t understand why this is getting a pass by the critic community.
There is no plot to speak of. I kept waiting for SOMETHING to happen. ANYTHING. But it was a dud.
There is little to no development of the meager plot that does exist.
There was a lot of driving, but it was all slow cruising around town driving that just bored me to tears. The 2 chases in the movie are incredibly short. The one where he is driving the mustang made no sense at all. For some reason he decided to e-brake and flip around to drive in reverse for a minute for no detectable reason whatsoever.
In fact, one of my biggest complaints about this movie is that they never do anything to convince you that this guy is an exceptional driver. The movie is called Drive. It focuses on the Driver. They should at least spend a little time showing some of what he is capable of.
The relationship with Irene was nonsensical as well. He broods the entire time he’s around her and then all the sudden he is carrying her son and putting him in bed.
All in all this is one of those movies that you are supposed to rave about and tell people you really loved when inside you feel like it made no sense and sucked but the artsyness gives you movie-cred.
I really enjoyed it and thought it was a good film. I had some small quibbles, but overall it was a fun experience at the movies. Albert Brooks was terrific. It’s funny that he is in it, since a few of the driving scenes made me think of Taxi Driver, where he also played a small part. (Bigger role in this film.)
One thing I agree with CubsFan is that the film should have done a better job of showing what a great driver he is. A few more jobs would have really shown it. The one that started off the movie was really cool, I think they should have interspersed a few more of them throughout to show us how great he was.
Oh man. That violence came out of the blue for me. And, once it started it just kept coming.
I saw it last night and promptly declared it movie of the year. It’s a style film, just chock full of style, and if you’re not sucked in by the style, you’ll be bored. If you are, it’s riveting. I think it’s best described as a movie for male movie nerds. It’s going to suffer from the marketing, which is pitching it as an action/driving movie, and that it is not.
I liked it but I can easily see how most people wouldn’t. I would describe it as “Lost in Translation” or “Somewhere” punctuated with moments of extreme, graphic violence. Lots of long, awkward pauses and extended scenes of people staring.
I agree with all the good reviews here and elsewhere, and my insides liked it as much as my outside.
It is an “art film” and as such will bore and/or infuriate some people. Those people should stay away from the director’s last film, Valhalla Rising. I saw that in the theater and walked out with my mind properly buckled and boggled. Its complexity and obtuseness makes Drive look like a simplistic episode of the Teletubbies. I haven’t yet seen Refn’s Bronson.
I don’t agree. I think that opening was more than enough to drive home the point of his skill and intelligence. THAT’S what he was good at. He was a good driver but he was effective at evasion and that’s why they paid him the big bucks. Once that was established, then the rest of the movie could get along fine without pounding us in the head with redundant HERE, SEE? HE’S GOOD…LOOK, HERE AGAIN, HE’S GOOD…ONE MORE TIME, HE’S A REALLY GOOD DRIVER, SEE?..OH, BETTER GIVE THE INTERNET GUYS SOME MORE WHIZ-BANG DRIVING SKILZ SCENES…HERE’S ANOTHER ONE FOR THE FOCUS GROUPS…ONE MORE, JUST SO PEOPLE GET THEIR MONEY’S WORTH…
Booooo. That’s the worst description I’ve heard. For one thing, it’s not just for males. And it’s not just for females who want to oogle Gosling. It’s for males and females who like interesting, unusual movies. Some females won’t like it, but then, some males won’t either, as this thread shows.
It’s like someone said (not here) that Attack The Block was a “guy movie” and to leave the girls at home. Fie.
Yeah, i completely disagree as well. I know way more girls than guys that like this movie. Even when both sexes got bored, the ladies will still drool over Ryan Gosling.
As I said I liked the movie. But, I do think showing more of how good he is at his job and how he accomplishes the task, instead of constantly telling us how good he is would have improved the film. It has nothing to do with focus groups or placating people on the internet.
Some background on him would have been nice. His jacket, for example. It looked like something you’d buy in the Far East. I’ve seen those satiny quilted jackets on guys back from Viet Nam and even on WWII vets.
The heist at the start of the movie put me on the wrong track for awhile. His car was identified by the police as the robbery was in progress, so I thought it was a setup and I didn’t trust Cranston.
Driver’s driving skills didn’t impress me all that much. He was evenly matched with the driver of Perlman’s car. But I did like that he was so cool under pressure. (Reminded me of Hannibal Lecter, without Lecter’s chattiness.) That’s his strength, that he doesn’t get rattled.
He was an interesting character, and maybe more than a little bit nuts.
I thought it was horrible. Pretentious and indulgent. It seemed to be trying for ‘european art movie’ but failed horribly. Music, titles and script - horrible and vapid. (Well shot though!) I found it very boring and only kept watching because of the excellent supporting cast who (Albert Brooks aside) were given nothing to do. What a waste of Mulligan and Hendricks - jeez!
Haven’t seen Gosling before and can’t really judge on this performance as he seemed to be playing a standard movie sociopath; so how on earth Carey Mulligan is meant to fall for him is beyond belief.
It left a bad taste in my mouth that meant I came looking for a thread on it in order to cleanse my palette. Ych a fi!
I’m going to primarily agree with Equipoise’s summary. I thought it was quite good. Very engaging.
I did think the development of the relationship with the wife and her kid happened a bit too quickly and oddly, but once I accepted that for what it was, I thought they played it out pretty well.
Boy was there some graphic violence. I have a friend that likes to give “exploding heads” warnings on films, but I did not actually expect to see a head explode. Seems like the foley artists were having a grand old time with this one, too.
Question: when Gosling found Cranston’s character dead and turned his face over, was that simply putting him into a more respectful position? Or was he looking at the tattoo on Cranston’s neck (I missed what the tattoo was – was it a scorpion as well?)? Or was there some other significance to that scene that I missed altogether?
That’s hilarious. It IS a “European art movie” that just happened to be set in America and star Americans. The Director, Nicolas Winding Refn, is from Denmark. He’s known for quiet, moody, puzzling, violent and sometimes very bizarre movies. Drive seems almost mainstream for him, but it’s still got his stamp all over it. It was not meant to be The Fast and the Furious. It’s a love story and a crime story and a warped redemption story. I understand you didn’t like it, but it certainly didn’t “fail” as a European art movie, unless you only like Europeans in your European art movies. That is, if you watch European art movies.
If you watch the trailers for his other films, you’ll see that Drive is very (toned down) Winding Refn.
Of Refn’s movies I’ve only seen Drive and Bronson, and thought they were both pretty great, though definitely not for everyone. But Equipoise, I would definitely think you would like Bronson.