"Drive" is somber, slick and earnest, and also a prisoner of its own emptiness, substituting moods for emotions and borrowed style for real audacity.
You're a prisoner of your own emptiness.
Sep 17 - 08:28 AM
The movie sucked. Sorry.
Sep 20 - 08:07 AM
Adam Di Giorgio
That's the whole point, A.O. It's criticizing and mocking American Cinema. Our entire culture is borrowed.
Sep 17 - 08:28 PM
Bahahaha, you're seriously saying that this movie was a social commentary on the state of the film industry?
You've got to be an English teacher; no one else can find symbolism and themes that aren't there.
Sep 19 - 09:54 PM
what a disappointment..same old story, same old violence, no sex and limited conversation... what a waste of talent.. I kind of liked Albert Brooks as the bad guy ..something new and different.
i agree with your reviews 99% of the time .thanks
Sep 18 - 12:40 AM
A very different film that was made by a very TALENTED, independent mind. This one did not go over my head. Glad I got a piece of cake.
Sep 18 - 01:51 AM
Your review is well written and well explained, but to argue that the film is too much style over substance seems to be missing the point. Noir is a genre of style. It's all about taking those familiar archetypes and tropes and hanging whatever directorial flare you like on them. Refn did this wonderfully and created a moody, suspensefull, and stylish modern noir. Sure he barrows from people, but so does Tarantino...and so did Godard for that matter.
Sep 20 - 12:17 AM
Noir is also about adding depth to these archetypes, exploring the dark themes brewing below the surface. And every good noir I've seen has well-developed characters. Noir is not a genre of pure style, it is a mixture of style and substance, something Drive lacked. Replicates the style of noir, but none of the depth. Watch Chinatown again to know what I'm talking about.
Jun 17 - 03:02 PM
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The Real Review * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The movie is boring, lacks dialogue, and the 'driver' doesn't have any motive to justify his life risking actions.
The main character shows no personality at all. The movie attempts to sell his blank facial expressions, and limited dialogue as some sort of mystery man. However, this mystery has no clues, nor answers, and is a huge failure. The only mystery to me is how a sub par movie has overwhelming positive review, and why I spent 10 dollars on a ticket.
The main character risks his life on several occasions for a woman he rarely talked to. A 10 second lustful stare down is suppose to be the motivation of the characters multiple life risking actions.
The ending; well, there is no ending! This isn't surprising, based on the fact the bland main character doesn't have any background, personality, motive, or facial expressions. To sum it up; there is no ending because there is no movie. There is no movie, because there is no central theme, or believable motivation.
The fact this movie has overwhelming positive reviews shows the bar has been lowered for the new era of cinematography; or, that critics get a some sort of monetary incentive to sell extra tickets.
Face facts, many people often see a movie based on reviews. There are 10's of millions to be made or lost, depending on critics reviews. When you see a bad movie get overwhelmingly positive reviews; it's safe to assume the movie invested in buying critics.
Sep 20 - 08:05 AM
Chris T.--- Breaking down your review, one point at a time.... Love justifies his life-risking actions. How did you not see that? Love is unselfish. Boring is an opinion. The lack of dialogue was intentional (which some of us appreciated). Driver has personality but the quiet beast inside is hidden and revealed slowly and more dramatically as the movie goes on (as seen in Taxi Driver). The man was a mystery because the director wanted it that way (Eastwood's Man With No Name). Mystery is often compelling. If you watch the movie again, you'll see that he cared about the girl and the child so much that he'd do anything for them, even if it meant throwing his life away. This was shown more than told in MANY ways and it was a brilliant way of getting the point across. Inner motivations are proven in action over words. It's that way in life. You spent ten bucks because you thought you were at Transformers 3 (my assumption).
Sep 21 - 09:15 PM
Calliope van Zant
Amen, brother. A greatly hyped disappointment.
Sep 22 - 11:10 AM
A.O. is spot on again. Allen B, I'm sorry you lack the depth needed to get the point others in the minority are making about this almost emotionally-bankrupt film.
DRIVE should have been named DRIVEL. Mildly entertaining and full of gratuitous gore and really sh*tty hipster 80s throwback "music". I shudder.
Want to see a good movie? Seek out MONSIEUR LAZHAR. At best, this fluff... is a rental.
Jan 30 - 12:55 AM
Allen B.'s criticisms certainly had depth, but of a different perspective from yours. You both make good points and I appreciate both sides of view. My opinion is more in line with Roger Ebert's on this one. Much of what this film is being criticized for, I believe, is deliberate artistic intent to be more abstract and horizontal...a landscape painting more than a portrait. In some ways I'm reminded up The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly....which one could argue is an awful slow moving film, constantly borrowing from other westerns, very little dialog, and arguably boring (and arguably brilliant..it makes you ask questions, either turns you off or sucks you into the zone.) I'm also in some ways reminded of the Russian 1972 version of Solaris, artistically speaking. I find the film very self-aware....maybe even to the degree of being pretentious, but what people are calling mistakes, I feel are intentional ... to get you to step out of what you think this might be, and to focus on what the director feels is more the point: To make you ask what YOUR motivation would be? Emptiness is slowly filling with symbolic motive, imho. The movie Duel is like that...hardly any background at all on the main character .... but that is deliberate. You get JUST enough to guess, but you found yourself supplying the motives as YOUR motives. You makeup reasons for yourself, if you were him, based on what little you know or see. It forces a certain level of introspection you seldom experience in mainstream cinema.
Jan 30 - 10:42 PM
A.O Scott missed the boat on this one.
Feb 8 - 02:04 AM
The most intricately written character in the film was Standard. Driver was a weak character. Irene was bland as well. Those last two make it especially tough to sympathize with a protagonist--the script offers the audience no orientation (narratively or subversively) as to why we should care about Driver or his love for Irene and her son. He lacked motivation outside of "love", making him an inescapably flat character when coupled with the overall minimalist approach he's given.
Stylistically, there were some awesome shots that recalled (and modernized) classic noir. I'm thinking in particularly of the beach scene, as Driver's standing in front of the orange lights, in shadow, and the light house's light swings by. Excellent. However, the film was styled to a fault. Minimal dialogue is fine, and can brew power and depth (i.e., The Road). The "nuance" here, though, is obnoxious. The six- or even nine-counts (and maybe higher) during dialogue were pretentious filmmaking, neither drawing the characters out or illustrating the film's stakes. All of which are a result of overly-ambitious direction. Sometimes it hit and was magical, but more often than not it missed. This, not the lack of dialogue or patient plot, killed any momentum this film could have had.
Poorly written, over-ambition, and reluctant loyalty to style sunk this movie. A shame, because the premise, the cast, and the technical work were all there.
Feb 22 - 02:30 PM