Lots has been written and spoken about “Drive” around these parts. Guy fell in love in Cannes. I hopped on board at Comic-Con. And now, it’s your turn to weigh in. The film opens nationwide today, and I imagine it’ll be a big priority for many of you. Come on back here when you get around to seeing it this weekend. We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Comments
178 responses to “Tell us what you thought of ‘Drive’”
I thought it was a great. I thought the depiction of the violence was effective, non-redundant, and interesting across the board. especially loved the music choices and the beach scene
*a great movie haha
Yeah, I thought of that but I don’t fully buy it. I mean, theoretically, he could begin a new, maybe happy life in a place far away.
And the “he closed his eyes – he’s alive!” was so like an effort to relieve us because we’re supposed to feel sad over his potential death.
I think what bothered me (And there are many things I liked that I don’t mention because I think they’re obvious) was the ultimate failure of the movie to incorporate the cliched “tough guy who actually has feeling and is willing to sacrifice himself blah blah” in a more interesting and realistic context.
“I thought of that ” goes to Speaking English’s comment.
The opening scene is a masterpiece of tease and tension and makes the audience complicit with the Driver.
The elevator kiss was imagined. The lighting changed and Gosling moved like a dancer as he approached Mulligan.
Saw it last night, can’t get it out of my mind. It eats away at you. Shannon’s “gentle” murder the most chilling since Adam Goldberg’s in S Pvt Ryan.
Refn masterful, Amini brilliantly spare, Gosling magnetic, Mulligan likeable (though Baz has a lot of work ahead to turn her into Daisy Buchanan).
Question: Why isn’t it enough for him to be a stunt driver in a Hollywood film? Why does he have to go to the criminal side?
NWR: It’s something so deep in him that it doesn’t have an answer. He doesn’t get anything out of doing his criminal activity. But it’s like a movie mythology character.
Question: It’s not like he’s driven by greed or anything.
NWR: No. All that I eliminated, because I wanted to have a different side to his behavior than what you would expect. What he does in the beginning never repeats itself, until he has to do it to protect her. That’s where it goes wrong. He’s probably done this before, maybe continue to do it, because it’s part of his DNA. Why he does it is the exact reason why he does it.
He will never find the answer, that’s why he does it. It’s who he is. It’s part of movie mythology. The focus is very interesting, because it’s about movie mythology, and about people living in the movie mythology. People having difficulties of not relating to reality, but they see reality in a different way than we do.
Question: Was that the dynamic, that he was against these people who are pretty regular?
NWR: Yes, because then he becomes what they need. He represents their inner mirrors. When they need a human being, he’s a human being. When they need a hero, he’s a hero. When Bernie needs his nemesis, he becomes his nemesis. When Shannon (played by Bryan Cranston) needs his dream of buying a car with a driver, he’s his driver. He’s everything to everyone.
Question: Irene asks the Driver what he does, and he says he drives. He defines himself as a driver. What do you think driving means to him?
NWR: Well, when he says he drives, and Irene asks if he drives limousine, he says no, I drive for the movies. So he drives in the world of illusions. At the end of the film, he tells Bernie Rose he’s a scorpion, because he’s been transformed into this superhero.
I’m really baffled by the issues people are having with the violence in this film. For me, not only is it essential to the characters (for Driver it is a stimulating, emotional release and for Bernie Rose, its a way of life) but it also approaches such an exaggerated state that it almost reaches a level of camp. (I haven’t heard anyone take issue with David Cronenberg’s exploding heads in “Scanners”.)
I’ve been turned off by violence in films (most recently, “The Last House on the Left” remake) if what we see is potentially amoral, but in the case of “Drive”, I certainly don’t believe that to be the case. Really surprised to hear it, honestly.
Here’s my read on the elevator sequence: Driver needs to get Irene out of the way and into the corner…with a spontaneous kiss along the way. The normal time for this action would be five seconds; what we’re watching is a two-minute slo-mo capture (hence the dark lighting) . BTW, Ryan Gosling will be on Conan this Monday, TNT, 9:00 p.m. If you’ve seen his interviews with Letterman and Fallen for Crazy, Stupid, Love, you know he’ll be in top form for O’Brien.
@Mickey- No, no no… Mulligan makes for an ideal Daisy. I do hope they change her hair color though to stick with the actual character in the novel rather than the Mia Farrow approach. We shall see.
Anyway not to get entirely off topic… I don’t remember who said it mid-way in this thread, but I 100% agree- the marketing was way off with this film. What is with these shitty marketing campaigns that sabotage good films box office prospects (Warrior included)?! I don’t think they should have opened so wide… fewer screens opening weekend and then slowly expand. Also, bad choice on what they chose to use in the commercials. I understand the studio’s intention- to make it seem like an action flick that mass audiences would enjoy but it ended up looking very generic. Case in point, I had a friend who CONFUSED the Taylor Lautner film with ‘Drive’ :( :/ :'(
In all fairness to Film District, how do you market this film? Who do you market it to? It’s too violent for older people, too art house for younger people, which I think leaves 20 and 30 somethings as the only possible audience. It’s just such a shame that I can’t figure out how to market such a really great movie. For instance, those posters. Now that I’ve seen the movie, they are so perfect, but I can’t imagine them convincing someone to see the movie. Some films are just tricky.
I’ll put it this way – I got retweeted by Albert Brooks today and that wasn’t even the highlight of my day. The highlight? Seeing Drive.
I agree with Chase (regarding the violence). In fact, though I have several issues with the film, violence is not one of them. I found it appropriately blunt, visceral, & meaningful. And I don’t think it was overused. I DO wish there was another car chase in there somewhere. Those were hot.
Now, regarding the release of this film (2,800+ theaters opening weekend). I thought that a film’s studio makes the most money from the opening weekend gross (and studio’s portion gets less so as the weeks go on).
Now, I realize that that can’t be totally true since many big films get a small release and build. But the fact that this movie only cost $13 mill to make and is on course to make $10-11 this opening weekend … isn’t that an okay thing for the movie?
Did Ebert change his score from 4 stars to 3.5 stars? I seem to remember him giving it 4-stars earlier in the week.
This is what Ebert said about that whole thing with the star rating:
“BTW… “Drive” mistakenly received a 4 star rating online. I had earlier modified that to 3.5 stars, but the change wasn’t pick up by the web. Sorry. It’s still a first rate movie.”
Cade- I saw his rating on Thursday, and it was 3.5 so I don’t think so. The only rating I have ever seen him change is The Hurt Locker from 3.5 to 4.
I keep thinking that Tarantino must have shat in his pants seeing this movie.
Note to self: Never read comments before seeing a movie. I wish I could get to see it, but that won’t happen for a while. Got too much shit to do. I had a feeling that the Cranston character would get killed. Now I definitley know.
I keep thinking that Tarantino must have shat in his pants seeing this movie.
I thought about Death Proof too.
Elevator kiss is the point-no-return–absolutely in his head because of the lighting.
Anyway–the 50s, 70s, 80s, 90s stylistic references were so integrated in the current time period, it felt timeless. This is why I compare Drive to Pulp Fiction (or Jackie Brown)–but Drive has more humanity and less bombastic.
love, love, love. This movie.
I don’t think i have seen a movie this cool in ages. Ryan Gosling, such a great actor — you can’t take your eyes off of him and that elevator scene — that is a scene that film classes will be showing for years to come. great great movie, can’t believe that cinemascore gave it a c- — probably because of the ending, which i’m not gonna spoil her. not to be missed and one of the best movies of the year.
but Drive has more humanity and less bombastic.
More than Pulp, maybe. More than Jackie Brown? No way, not close. I wouldn’t say it draws attention to itself any less than a Tarantino film either.
http://filmworksla.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/drive-helping-put-los-angeles-back-on-screen-local-economy-back-on-feet/
I loved it. Pretty much every minute and every thing about it. It exceeded my expectations, probably because some of the divisive reactions had cooled my excitement somewhat. I honestly haven’t been that entertained watching a film in a long time, certainly not this year. All of the stylistic touches came together to create a dream like, tension filled tragic fable that I bought hook, line and singer.
One of the biggest surprises for me was how much I sympathized with the Driver. Based on what I had read, I expected to be frightened, even repulsed by the character. But oh that Gosling. As has been said again and again, he can do so much with so little. I loved that I didn’t know anything about him, not even his name. What a fascinating, mysterious figure. Gosling’s slightest glances and choices of body language told me all I needed to know about his isolation and what he really longed for. What a performance. Again, he blew me away.
I never felt the movie drag, I think mostly because of the stellar acting and music/score. Music was used beautifully to maintain tension and control scenes.
As for the two scenes or questions about which people have been debating, I don’t think the kiss scene in the elevator was a dream. As I understand Gosling’s conception of the character, Driver is a guy who is sort of living a movie in his head. He’s inexpressive to the point of being isolated and alienated. He dresses like the hero of a movie and longs to have someone to connect with, save and protect. To me, that scene happened, but we are viewing it from his perception, as if he’s the hero in his own movie, kissing the girl in slow motion with dimming lights then killing the “bad guy” to save her. But of course it all goes off kilter when she sees just how savage this quiet, stoic man can be. I thought it was a masterful scene. I’ll never forget it.
I don’t really have a problem buying that he lived at the end. And I almost feel like the question is irrelevant. Whether he lives or dies, he can’t come back and won’t come back. He’s lost Irene and the boy. Even if he lives, he’ll end up doing what he’s done, isolated, stoic, inexpressive and cut off. He’ll just keep driving and driving, like the heroes in westerns who just ride off and can’t ever settle. Roaming is like some sentence but also the only thing they know to do.
I can see why some might feel Mulligan was miscast. She certainly doesn’t look the part. But maybe that was the point. What makes her so different from the world she inhabits is what draws Driver to her, makes him want to protect her. I thought she was believable. But, again, I can see why some feel like she didn’t fit.
All the rest of the cast was great. As everyone has said, Brooks was fantastic. I’d love to see him nominated for this.
So, the movie certainly will rank among my favorites of the year. I can’t wait to see it again. Such a hypnotic spell the movie casts. I wish the general public was liking the movie more, but no matter. The movie will have a devoted following for years, I imagine, and Gosling is near iconic in it.
Funny enough, the only thing I really didn’t like was the pink, 80’s style font used for the credits. It seemed like just a hair too much stylistic flourish, but that is minor, minor quibble.
Also want to give a shout out to the underrated Ron Perlman. Loved him in Pan’s Labyrinth and the Hell Boy movies. He rocked in this.
He wasn’t in “Pan’s Labyrinth”…
Thanks, Speaking, I thought he played a certain part in it, but it appears I was mistaken. Thanks for the correction.
The violence here was not really that grotesque? Maybe it’s just me. Speaking of Pans Labyrinth, there is a scene in that movie just as brutal as the elevator scene in Drive.
Anyone here that had issue with the violence, what did you think of Irreversible?
I enjoyed the film a lot, which is saying something since I usually resent films with a robotic, emotionally unavailable protagonist. The ending wasn’t handled particularly well, I admit. SPOILER ALERT. Did Gosling’s character go to the Chinese restaurant expecting to die? If he didn’t want to die, why didn’t he guard himself better? If he wanted to die–why did he want to die? And if he wanted to die, why didn’t he die?
About the violence: it didn’t bother me at all. I thought Gwyneth Paltrow’s autopsy scene in “Contagion” was far more gratuitous and foolish than anything in “Drive.”
Frank Lee, in my reading, he knew he was likely going to die–if he didn’t before, that smile he gives at the table says yes. But I think his focus was on Brooks’ character dying so that he wouldn’t be a threat to Irene and her son. That was his focus. Otherwise, he could have just gotten in his car immediately and driven off. To me, the ending wasn’t so much about him dying or living as much as just that he wasn’t able to STAY. I’m not sure I’m making sense. To me dying and driving off are sort of the same thing for Driver.
Not to overstate the analogy to westerns, which I’m sure I am, but the scene between Brooks and Gosling at the end had a very “duel in the town road” quality to me with the closeups of their profiles, and then one draws and then the other. They both go down, but the “hero” gets on his horse and rides away. Victorious, but destined to be alone. Maybe I’m being too romantic. That’s just how I read it.
Am I in a rational universe, where people compare Drive to the unbelievably superb Pulp Fiction? I’d even say Death Proof evinces a more masterful handle of its director over dramatic structure, mood, storytelling, and numerous other cinematic attributes. Drive is a mere sketch of a film, albeit beautiful at moments.
@Dana Jones
A slow roll out would have killed it even more, I think. Some of the female audience went in imagining The Notebook as an action movie–Gosling building cars instead of houses now–and got minimalist dialogue and bashed-in heads instead. If you look at the negative twitter reaction that has surfaced so far, that’s mostly the key its in: gross and slow, they say (and that response has been predominantly female). If word had gotten out earlier that it wasn’t what they thought it would be, then maybe the film’s release stalls and those people never buy tickets in the first place.
It fits in the tradition of Hanna or The American: European arthouse genre takes marketed as straight action pics but not really. Drive’s $11 million or so puts it just a bit below those two when they opened wide.
Anyway, FilmDistrict has balls for releasing this like they did. I hope they’re around for a while longer.
@Keith
You get the win for the elevator interpretation. Makes the most sense to me.
Also, re: Westerns, in an interview with wordandfilm.com, the screenwriter stated, “originally when I wrote it, it was more like a Western. I kept thinking of ‘The Man with No Name’ or ‘Shane.’”
@Kris
Could how Nino’s death was shot have anything to do with the broken kneecap Perlman suffered while filming that scene?
Jerimedeth, you won’t find me saying Drive is equal to Pulp Fiction. I loved Drive, but Pulp Fiction is a classic and rightfully so. I don’t expect Drive to reach that status. Now, Death Proof? I love it, but I’d take Drive over Death Proof. The driving sequences in Death Proof are masterpieces and more fun than I can handle. But you want to talk about dragging? There are sections in that movie that seriously drag. If Refn fetishizes imagery, then Tarantino fetishizes dialogue, particularly by pretty, leggy girls. And Death Proof has a scene or two that threaten to kill the picture with pretty girls talking and ONLY talking but revealing NOTHING of substance about character.
I thought Death Proof came close at moments to exasperating my attention span (around the time the first group of girls meet Stuntman Mike at the bar), but I still feel Tarantino more successfully managed to build up viewer investment in the onscreen proceedings, whereas Refn (to me) seemed to avoid creating any lasting variation in the films tonalities. Every scene, including superb moments like the car chase and Driver shooting/stomping (by virtue of being so cocooned), was washed over with this inertia (arrays of shots whose lingering is devoid of signification begins to accomplish this) that prevented significant progression in the film’s dramatic effects from occurring.
Jeremedeth, I think I get what you’re saying. For me, Death Proof was a genuine B movie (not an insult, but a glorious, kiss blown compliment) car picture, as that was Tarantino’s goal, whereas Drive is more character driven. I find that ironic considering some of the criticism about how little there is to Driver. The girls in Death Proof are insignificant. Not one of them stands out as essential or important to the story (except maybe that glorious stunt double for Uma). But, again, I don’t think Tarantino means any of them to be. Death Proof is a genuine action picture. Drive is NOT. So even though they are both about cars and driving to some degree, maybe it’s not such an apt comparison. Cars/driving are the star in Death Proof, whereas they are a metaphor in Drive.
I must agree with some that the weak link is the story – the scrrenplay is pretty weak standing on its own.
Just got back from the screening. I loved it. At times, it got too romantic for my liking, but I admit the entire movie I was just sitting there totally fascinated.
I just want to point out a few things. The film does feel like a cinephile’s pastiche. It’s as if the movie itself is the director’s love letter to cinema. There’s a In The Mood For Love moment, a Pulp Fiction moment, a Mulholland Drive moment.. It’s hodge-podge-ish, but not in a bad way.
I liked the fact that it tries to capture that urban-existentialist feel in an anonymous individual (in terms of which, it reminded me of Hong Kong cinema back in the mid-80s, early- and mid-90s before the 1997 handover), and it succeeds to a good extent, I think.
And that “elevator” scene is simply beautiful and sort of sums up the movie, in that for the most part of the movie there’s an interplay between violent and romantic, and the elevator scene is like a conflation of the two.
Drive > Pulp Fiction (which is not even Tarantino’s best work. then again, I’m not a fan.)
Oooh…I respectfully but strongly disagree with you Paul…
After the 1st scene of Drive, I thought “Boy, this even makes Collateral look tired.” But I thought the heated tension sort of melted away. Mulligan felt off. She looks 14 and she has a sweet innocence that worked wonders for An Education and Never Let Me Go, but here she needed more edge. Leaves me concerned that she’ll make for an iffy Daisy Buchannan.
HOWEVER: Loved the sudden violence, Gosling, Brooks, and Cranston were great, pink titles rocked…Solid B, fringe B+ like Collateral (for me C is average).
I’d love to be a part of this discussion but Drive doesn’t open in Australia until next month. I can’t wait.
Man, Collateral is a masterpiece, even with the more conventional third act. Made up for it in spades with the way Vincent’s death was handled.
Frank lee wrote, “SPOILER ALERT. Did Gosling’s character go to the Chinese restaurant expecting to die? If he didn’t want to die, why didn’t he guard himself better? If he wanted to die–why did he want to die? And if he wanted to die, why didn’t he die?”
Thank you for addressing this, Frank Lee. It’s one of the nagging things about the movie that I share. But a lot of the ensuing responses have calmed me down, a bit.
And to anyone who is questioning seeing the film for any reason, or maybe have seen it and are conflicted about several things (as I am) … I suggest reading Keith’s very thorough, complimentary post #123. That’s a keeper.
JJ1, I’m with you in the “over my head” category. I do not get the love for this film at all. The lady next to me noticed I was drinking tea and asked if I was sick, I said no, I was just feeling a little tired after drinks at dinner and wanted to be alert for the movie. She said “I don’t think this is the type of movie that you’ll fall asleep in”, then she promptly nodded off and started snoring twice during the film and her husband had to wake her up.
I really hate the slow burn, and the whole lead actor stares in stony silence kind of deal. I just don’t feel Gosling pulls that off very well. I don’t get the love for Albert Brooks at all.
Man, I hate having a bad movie experience, especially when it seems everyone else is in heaven about it. I guess I’ll just stick to enjoying the absurdity of the Fast and the Furious! I’m not the one for movies called Drive that don’t have totally ridiculous car chases
JTag, thanks for your response. It’s never fun being in the minority (whether you don’t love a film that’s loved or vice-versa).
When I said ‘over my head’, what I meant was … the romance did very little for me. So the stares/pauses/slow burn only made me more antsy and aloof.
I admit that I liked an awful lot IN the film (some of the performances, craftsmanship, music, car chase, violence – that didn’t bother me, either). I definitely didn’t dislike the film. I am just not in the love camp.
And the whole “I’m an existential loner who’s gonna be a hero for this sweet girl and her son because I like them and I’m really some sort of suppressed psychopath who doesn’t don’t know how to feel” thing didn’t sink into me (over my head).
I think it’s great that so many viewers responded to that. I certainly observed it, but felt very little.
“antsy and aloof”. Maybe not aloof, just unresponsive to it.
JJ1, I get what you’re saying. I went with two other people and we all hated it, but the common refrain was “I admire it but I didn’t like it.” I can see what it’s going for. It’s just one of those movies for me that I can read through all these comments and go “I wish that scene worked for me the way it worked for you”. (This is pretty much my entire existence when watching the oeuvre of Paul Thomas Anderson). Absolutely nothing worked for me. I didn’t dig the performances except for Bryan Cranston (I couldn’t stand Ron Perlman’s performance), I hate feeling like I’m watching an actress like Carey Mulligan go “This part has no meat to the bone but I get to work with a cool director, so hey, upside for me!”…any movie that feels like “too cool for school” never sits well with me. I’m just not Drive’s audience.
gotcha
@ Jesse Crall:
Thanks for the respectful disagreement. I get the strong disagreement a lot more often. ;-)
I feel about Pulp Fiction the way the two guys just above me in this thread (especially JTag) feel about Drive.
Matthew Starr- I’m one who didn’t like the violence and I haven’t seen Irreversible partly because of that reason.