Drive Very frustrating film, since I loved Albert Brooks as the mob boss; any scenes without him flat out sucked. And while the murder in the Pizzeria was brutal and effective, the wrist-slitting was simply not convincing at all; I've seen student film violence handled better, and so has everyone on this board, even if they prefer to kid themselves. You know a director doesn't quite have what it takes when the emphasis is 100% on gore, 0% on pain. I admire the intent; there is indeed a certain calming atmosphere to night driving, but the way Refn goes about it is somewhat shallow. The opening car chase is ridiculously disappointing, anyone who praises it is reaching for the stars big time. Here's a hint about existentialism and atmosphere: it doesn't work unless the audience has something to care about. They have to wonder what will happen next before any kind of atmosphere can sink in, which is why plot-heavy films capture the feeling much better. This film would be torture the second time around, a terrible bore; but Albert Brooks kept me watching the first time.

A few more moments that came across as amateurish: the "family dinner" (?) scene, the final battle in the parking lot (?????), and the romance shallower than that in either Thor or Green Lantern.

I'm so shocked you didn't like it. I guess those who liked it can just hope for your level of cinematic insight, someday.

PS -- I have NO problem with you not liking it; but the insulting of people who disagree with you is getting old and was always lame. Still, I'll try:



Pretty sure I'm not kidding myself, but I found that scene wonderfully handled in tone and acting and thought it was shot nicely. It was appropriately pathetic and sad to me.



I agree with the statement in general here, but I strongly disagree that it applies to this film. To me the whole movie is about pain.



I don't care about car chases enough to rank the first one in terms of its peers, but I think it set the tone of Driver's abilities and style well, and I loved how it interspersed the Clippers game. And again, I agree with your statement about existentialism, but I don't see how there's not people and decisions in this story to care about. It's not the most complex film I've ever seen from a character standpoint, but it creates a few wonderful ones -- we can argue to what level that's due to script and to what level it's due to performance, but it worked for me.

I've seen it twice now. Very good the first time, excellent the second time.

Me neither, but I have no problem calling it the least complex I've seen this year. Perlman and Brooks were effective; that's it.



No, what gets old is blind adherence to anything that seems new and/or different, while ignoring response to specifics. That's all I'm trying to insult, as I have no personal problems with anyone. Insulting that mindset will never become old for me, because I only see it getting worse and worse, and as an aspiring filmmaker myself, I find it insulting. Here's another reason to find it insulting: as I said, I found the Albert Brooks performance to be genuine and powerful in its own way, even it is shallow. Praising the rest of the film does a disservice to his performance, which stands high above anything Refn has to offer.



I hope so too, but it's fairly doubtful with silly, meaningless statements like:

Am I or others doing that with Drive? Who's praising it for being new/different? What specifics are being ignored?

You seem to be saying that anyone who likes the film can only do so by overlooking violence handled on a student-film level, that there's no characters to care about, that the romance is shallow, etc etc...but I don't buy any of those premises. You can hold those opinions and feelings, but I think you're wrong. And my taste (as yours, I believe) is high and informed. There's nothing in my opinion on this film that's swayed by masses, critics, whatever; I know I'm capable of succumbing to those things as we call can at certain times, but in this case I'm confident that's not the case (not least because I read hardly anything on the film before seeing it). An affection for Refn since Pusher drew me to the film and I liked it very much.



Ed doesn't need me to defend him, so I'll just hope that you're joking here.

I really don't have any technical complaints with De Palma, and his admittedly derivative style isn't of issue, either. However, most of his films have as many peaks and valleys as some director's careers. While this makes him a thrilling director by definition, it also renders his career in retrospect as consistently muddled. He is capable of extremely powerful cinema, such as the amazing first half of Casualties of War, but on the flip side, he is incapable of sustaining that power (case in point: the aforementioned film falls apart at the end, capped with a ridiculous final scene). If anything, Carrie and Scarface have enough memorable moments to feel consistently interesting despite flaws, and would be, in my view, his best works. Stuff like Dressed to Kill or Snake Eyes has either no identity (the former) or is almost completely style over substance (the latter). No matter what your opinion of his style is, using the word consistent as a descriptor for De Palma is almost unthinkable. Though, as much as I dislike the acclaim Untouchables receives (even proponents for the film denounce Costner's performance as drab and De Niro's as scenery-chomping), I don't hold the same antipathy towards it that you seem to. It's certainly better than Mission to Mars and, I'd argue, most of his other works (I found both The Fury and Sisters to be silly, and Carlito's Way to be well-done but tedious for stretches) - it's just a bit soft for my tastes and more than a little contrived (the rooftop scene is an excellent example of villainous mugging gone wrong and simply too obvious in execution).

You ask what specifics are being ignored, then offer another paragraph in which you fail to present any for your own argument. It's okay to disagree with my opinions, but you refuse to address my specific examples; you're content to disagree with my generalizations. The crux of my argument lays in things like this:

Great/Good Scenes
- Bernie's horrific murder in the Pizzeria
- Some of the master shots, like the acquisition of the first car in the beginning, the cop/stunt joke the next day, etc.
- The murder on the beach is a pretty decent noir homage, marred partially by the pointless reappearance of the mask. Reminds me of a theatrical production when an actor asks the director if he can drop his prop in the next scene and the director can't make up his mind.

Poor Scenes
- The dinner scene is absolutely ridiculous, with Standard telling a story about how they met; what the hell is the point?
- The pointless close-ups of the kid, as if he matters.
- The scenic(?) drive through a gutter...

- Gosling's final profile in the sunlit window that went on for about 3 hours; I thought it was just a stupidly protracted death scene, a'la Dead Man, but it wasn't.

I guess it didn't count when I specifically addressed the wrist-slitting and the opening chase that you mentioned?



- The dinner scene is all about how Driver & Standard interact and feel each other out. The story itself is neither the heart nor the point of it; all that matters is that Standard is in his mind testing Driver, seeing if he can draw some clue about Driver and Irene. Plot-wise, it leads to why Standard is willing to share with Driver his troubles.

- I actually agree that the close-ups of the kid weren't essential, but I disagree that the kid doesn't matter. If the kid isn't involved, I don't believe Driver gets involved with Irene at all; he serves as a buffer of sorts, and is a person Driver feels comfortable relating with. In their first meeting inside Irene's apartment, as Driver leaves, he nods to the kid as a goodbye, and it's just about the most normal Driver ever seems. He's got no guard there. He's certainly attracted to Irene all the way, but the kid breaks things down and lets Irene see him more.

- The gutter scene is an exercise in style and nothing more. I won't defend it; it worked for me in context but it's not memorable in any real way.

I think it's fundamentally amateurish to play around with time that way. It just doesn't work.

Your point about the dinner scene is good, except the Refn fails to execute it the way you believe he intended. Driver and Standard never react to each other during this scene in the slightest bit. They are never once shown to make eye contact, gestures, or anything like that, so how exactly are they feeling each other out? Sometimes it's hard to detect good direction unless you know how to watch for bad direction, and this is a textbook example of bad direction. It also happens that Standard's story is mildly interesting and amusing, so it becomes the centerpiece of the scene when Refn fails to effectively execute his intent.

I'll add one more thing that I realized after reading a review. There's such a thing as aesthetic morality; when the director makes a moral choice that's more elemental than plot or story. This is a complex thing, but it has to do with how he/she uses the actors, and the way they visualize violence. Morality on this level is part of what has made Spielberg so popular; think about Munich, and the one guy's regret about leaving the female assassin in a humiliating posture. On that note, Refn's visualization of is an insult to both the actress and to the viewer's inherent, morally based interpretation of her role in the film. To put it another way: would anyone want to see the rape of, say, Grace Kelly or Ingrid Bergman in a movie, whatever the circumstance? Of course they wouldn't. Directors like Refn, and fans of that style, do not understand why that is, but it's really just one of those...if you don't know, I can't tell you type things.

The conversation itself doesn't need to have a point. This family has a life outside the story, which is informed by the fact that Standard doesn't just talk about his present problems like they're the only things that have ever happened to him.

Why wouldn't he? The story is ostensibly for his benefit. Examining individual shot choices is pointless unless you examine how they contribute to the larger entity of the sequence, and the effect here seems to be that while Standard is addressing the whole table, his words are meant for one recipient in particular. The same goal could just as well be accomplished in a number of far clumsier ways.

Common trope: the "getting to know you" musical montage.

Note: tropes are not bad.

I'll address this in reverse.

1. What you and your friends did for fun at age 9 is none of our business.

2. The intercutting takes the scene out of time. It juxtaposes one thread (presumably optimistic) thread with another (tragic). Dramatic irony is the oldest trope in the book, but, again--say it all with me, friends--tropes are not bad.

I'll time it next time I see the movie. I am fairly confident it does not go on for anywhere near three hours.

I can't impugn your take on it at the purely experiential level, but my experience disagrees. Characters who are dead in the future can still talk in the past. My brain did not reject this instance of non-linearity at any level.

The Driver has received information in a very narrow way throughout the film, and I'm not sure why that would change for this scene. I believe it is intentional that he and Standard exist in separate psychic spaces, because neither one of them is really the kind of person who would interact with the other. They're not really people to one another. Driver represents something to Standard and Standard represents something to Driver, but they don't connect personally. This is the effect that this sequence has, and it's entirely deliberate.


Of course. Nobody wants to see anybody get violated. But such things have a place in art, and most people, if they're receptive enough, don't stick to that knee-jerk reaction in all circumstances. The way this particular scene was handled was in keeping with the violence of the whole thing--sudden and quick, like a blunt instrument. It doesn't spare you the ugly sights, but it doesn't dwell on them, either.

I must admit I am completely captivated by the recent comments regarding Drive. I enjoy learning about movies and technique, and the comments, whether for or against the film, have been enlightening. This is exactly what I love to read in these forums.

That said, I do have a question. I'll try to explain my thinking first.

From my understanding, the way a movie is written and directed will have an impact on the viewer. There should be an impact for completely uniformed viewers, moderately informed viewers (I'd like to think I am in this category,) and very informed viewers. The impact is more often than not an emotional one. I know film literacy has significantly depreciated over the years, resulting in some increasingly stupid "amusement park rides" as some have called them. However, I think a film that is well made can and is still appreciated by all three categories I mentioned above.

Getting to my question now... I was emotionally impacted by the film Drive, and by the specific scenes that are under discussion. I am also not aware of the different directing techniques that Refn got wrong, according to MGamesCook. Wasn't the directing effective in some way, since I completely understood the meaning and/or themes, and was impacted emotionally? Or does my ignorance of "proper" film technique cloud my judgment and make my feelings invalid? Is there any room for creative license in film making, or do certain techniques need to be followed to the letter?

Okay, that was a few questions. I ask in sincerity; I'm not trying to be sarcastic. Although my purpose is to continue this debate a little bit.

I disagree strongly. "The effect" you have a problem with implies there's a rule where I don't think there is one. I do think that often playing around with time is an amateur/lazy move, but I don't t think that fits here at all.



So would "good direction" consist of zoom-ins on Driver's eyes, then Standards, then their hands...etc etc? Is there no room for subtlety? They are feeling each other out, as I said, through the story and Driver's reaction to it, through the way they both interact with the kid and Irene, through Standard's unspoken challenge to Driver that Driver doesn't bite on. There's no element of bad direction here at all. Perhaps it didn't work for you, but that doesn't mean it was poorly directed.



I've heard much made of this concept with this and other films, and I think it's total bullshit. Every artistic facet of my being rejects this outright. I'm certainly not saying that it doesn't happen, but the idea that who a performer is should affect what can happen to them, or how, is the opposite of artistic integrity. I agree that each director should bring their own level of morality to their work and should not exploit beyond it, but holding back because of who an actress is is insane to me. If people can't handle what happens in Drive or seeing Kelly or Bergman raped, that speaks to what they want to get out of film (i.e. expected entertainment without anything going against the grain) much more than any level of morality.

The bolded part is very true. Now, in some cases, increased film literacy can result in increased enjoyment and appreciation, but no film requires it; the idea that one must have cinematic literacy before they can appreciate a challenging film is simply inaccurate on every level.



Yes. Now, sometimes direction is effective because it's actually good and sometimes it's effective because it plays on emotions/manipulates. I think it's the former in this case.



Your ignorance does not cloud things at all. Of course there's room for creative license and I don't think even MGames would totally disagree with that, although it seems he prefers things that stay within established bounds. Also, he said at one point:



Of course, maybe in two years he'll completely change his mind.

I feel Drive. I absolutely love it. Somehow, that film is in tune with my feelings at this point in my life.

They're not bad, but they are relative. Why do you enjoy Refn's trope, but criticize the flashback of the dad's death at the beginning of Green Lantern? Come to think of it, you may have just stated Refn's thesis; that tropes at this point are only a good thing. For example, the hammer scene taken from Casino, the final confrontation ripped straight out of No Country. At the same time, I think you guys are accepting these things as above average because you don't expect movies to be GREAT anymore. You are content to set the bar lower and lower each year because it's either that or admit that no new movies will be that great, in all likelihood. I'm on the edge of my seat to see when JB will finally give up on waiting, and decide that it's time for another 4 star review.



There's also such a thing as morality on the part of the viewer. The great directors exploit the fact that many viewers have a sadistic side where they want to see violence. But the directors deliberately hold something back in order to sort of guilt-trip the viewer. There's a reason gorefest movies aren't taken seriously, and that's a big part of it. If a modern viewer watches the quasi-rape scene of Mann's Man of the West, their first thought would likely be that Mann took it as far as he could for 1958. But that's unfair, because it assumes that he would have gone all out in the 1970s. But another possibility is that Mann had a very deliberate respect for the relationship between viewer and character. Another great example of morally conscious filmmaking in this sense is the painful striptease sequence toward the end of Nashville. Maybe Refn goes for the same thing, but if so he does it incorrectly. None of his gore is realistic; it's entirely over the top, and reminded me of the anime sequence in Kill Bill. It is insensitive and a bit silly.



Two years? I give this film two months before it's completely forgotten. To respond to my comment, it has not in fact become a huge sleeper hit like Illusionist or Into the Wild or something. It has done reasonably well for its budget, and that's all.

To jnice: your taste is perfectly valid, but watching more films will, or should, gradually narrow it. You'll learn to accept that most movies have both good and bad scenes, and that Drive is no exception. It's one thing to accept the gutter drive as a trope, but how can you then watch Brooks' maniacal Pizzeria murder and accept that the film has a consistent plane of quality (it doesn't). A film based entirely on the Brooks and Perlman characters and their racket would have been amazing. Refn's direction is poor in the sense that he fails to focus on the elements of his story that are most interesting (the genius of Spielberg).

Nice argument we've got going here.

I didn't see Green Lantern. For all I know, the Dad's death is fucking awesome.

No, I didn't. All I said was that tropes are not bad. It's not enough to call filmmakers out for repeating a device used in previous stories; that is by absolutely no means a demonstration that they are wrong for doing so.

Casino was released in 1995. The Crow (comic miniseries), which involves a hammer as a weapon in the end scene, was completed in 1993. Therefore, Casino is bad for using a hammer. I win!

...No Country had a final confrontation?

Would it really damage your worldview that much to admit that people simply disagree with you and actually liked this movie, full stop?

Furthermore--not that it's here or there--do you understand that, beneath the bar set by the greatest films of all time, there are still plenty of slots open for movies that are far more than average, even if they don't quite achieve a space next to the great masterworks? That it is possible for a movie to impress, to be truly remarkable, even if it doesn't reach that standard? Here, take a look at this. You may find it informative.

It is a completely different can of worms to argue that there will no longer be any masterpieces of cinema. It may be true, but--I repeat--different can of worms.

Yeah I legitimately liked Drive. I often go into hyped-up movies ready to dislike them because I'm annoyingly iconoclastic like that, and yet I found the score and mood seductive, the depth of character compelling, the violence refreshingly violent, and the arc perfect. It wasn't a perfect film, but it was a very good one.

Look, I know how you feel--it reminds me of the dark days in Summer 2008 when the world went mad over The Dark Knight--but trust me, I'm the last person to think a movie is good just because I'm supposed to. Drive is a very good film.

Yeah, don't you remember? "I'll let the girl live, but I can't offer you the same." In No Country, it was more like: "I won't say you can save yourself, because you can't."

Ken, your link is a paraphrase of what I said: most films have good and bad scenes. THAT is the right way to look at it, not some films are great, some are just good, some are really good, some kind of good etc. What Hawks said long ago still applies: three great scenes, no bad scenes, makes a great movie. So what you're really trying to say is: it's okay for a movie to have some bad scenes if it also has some really good scenes. And with that, I agree. I'm glad I went to see Drive because the Brooks scenes lived up to the hype. But I doubt I could sit through the Carey Mulligan scenes again.



I find this situation to be a bit different, and I'll emphasize again that Refn is a far better director than Nolan. While Dark Knight's hype was totally uncalled for, Drive's is understandable. It's September, there's nothing to see, and yes, I'd pay for Drive over Contagion or Ides of March any day. But it's still just a way to make the time pass before we get to the holiday season. Drive would be an enormous relief, and a pretty good film, at a film festival, that's for sure. But in the great sea of 2011 movies, it's just an amusing diversion. Come 2012, nobody will remember this (wait for Dragon Tattoo; then we'll see some really refreshing violence).

If nothing else, it certainly has potential as a trendy movie. And as far as trends go, I'd take this over the Nolan, Greengrass, and Reitman any day.

I found Drive to be a very good movie, not a great one. Among the September releases I've seen I'd rank it ahead of Straw Dogs and (way ahead) Abduction. But below Contagion. Is it an action film with more depth than let's say most Jason Statham movies? Yes. In some ways it's a throwback to the 70s model action movie that includes The French Connection. Another obvious connection is with Walter Hill's films most notably The Driver.

I was about to say as an existenialist film it isn't as effective as say Blade Runner or Apocalypse Now. but those comparisons don't really work. A more accurate frame of reference would be to the films i referred to earlier. Drive is an effective throwback to those films. But it's not as effective as the French Connection or even some of Hill's better films. On teh other hand it's better made and far more memorable than let's say Killer Elite or the latest seqeul to Crank/The Transporter.