Drive

Drive

93%

Critic Review - New Yorker

In grabbing our attention, [Refn] diverts it from what matters. The horror lingers and seeps; the feelings are sponged away.

September 20, 2011 Full Review Source: New Yorker | Comments (99)
New Yorker
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 - 07:50 AM

David Z.

David Zhang

Just copy and paste the same thing on every negative review. Do it a couple more times and I'm sure it'll sway my opinion on this movie.

Sep 21 - 05:54 AM

Nic Corneloup

Nic Corneloup

Haha very well said sir. This Chris guy probably has a severe lack of imagination, and since he didn't get this movie, no one should be allowed like the film. haha, just figured it out, he's a Ron Paul kinda guy.

Sep 22 - 02:11 AM

Lization LaBalomia

Lization LaBalomia

Who is this Nic C turd who thinks that someone who dislikes a true failure of a movie on all fronts lacks an imagination? I suppose I did lack an imagination, being unable to imagine myself somewhere else during this god-awful student hipster film that says NOTHING.

Sep 23 - 02:19 PM

John Ross

John Ross

Hey don't talk bad about Ron Paul. He's more man than you'll ever be. Gives the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Something a close minded sheep like yourself wouldn't be able to grasp.

Mar 28 - 09:42 PM

sbjungle

Josh Dokulil

you're such a loser, Chris T. all you do is troll around for comments on the reviews for this movie and write the same thing over & over. ok, so you didn't like a movie that a majority of people (& critics) seem to like...we get it. who fucking cares?!? nobody cares about your opinion or your poorly written review anyway. and for that matter, why do YOU care so much?!? is it ruining your life that this movie is generally well received? did Gossling bone your gf or something? it's perfectly normal to find fault, or flat out dislike, a well reviewed movie...don't know why you're making such a big deal out of it. I thought "The King's Speech" was the most overrated movie I've seen in the better part of a decade...doesn't mean I made a point to spend all my time writing as many negative comments on RT reviews as I could. just shut the fuck up & move on already, you douche.

Sep 21 - 01:09 PM

Nic Corneloup

Nic Corneloup

HAHAHAHA I love it! This might just be my new favorite movie of all time....... but after reading Chris T's same review over and over, he's swayed me. This movie sucked hard because the credits are in pink. How juvenile. psssh, so damn junior college. BEST MOVIE IN ONE HELL OF A LONG TIME!

Sep 22 - 02:17 AM

Jamie Eldredge

Jamie Eldredge

this movie rocked my socks off....finally an honest and true action film in the past decade that pays homage to great genre, it does this without having to oversell a narrative that could have easily gone over the top, or turn into a CGI laden picture that brings the unimaginative and personality deprived movie goers that flock to see the Michael Bay cluster fucks of past.

Oct 2 - 03:00 PM

Bazza

Barry crean

Christ what were you watching??

Oct 13 - 07:19 AM

David P.

David Petruzelli

"The Real Review?" Are you delusional? Did you
keep sending manuscripts to The New Yorker
and after ten years the rejection slips started coming back with "You suck" written on them,
and now you're like, uh, bitter? Everybody who liked the film was bought off by the film producers? You have no idea what you're talking about. And by the way, I'm not some hardcore fan of the film who's coming to its defense. Drive has its brilliant moments, but some of over-the-top violence turned me off; I agree with alot of what Lane says. But "boring"? "Lacks dialogue?" Next time bring someone along who can nudge you awake when the coming attractions are over.

Sep 21 - 05:55 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:52 PM

Sean D.

Sean D

Yeah there was. The Driver avenges Standard and Shannon. I think you mistook this for 'Drive Angry.'

Feb 4 - 11:36 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

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 diaglogue 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 - 08:14 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

The above was for Chris T.

Sep 21 - 08:14 PM

Robert Payton

Robert Payton

Maybe Chris T should've watched Abduction with Taylor Lautner to give him a nice hard on instead of watching a film like Drive which seems clearly too complex for SOME people to interpret.

Sep 26 - 01:24 PM

Greg Lind

Greg Lind

More copy and paste. You're as lame as Chris T.

Oct 3 - 08:56 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Don't worry Chris... I just got of the phone with Refn and he said that for the director's cut, he'd add more explosions, double crosses and an hour's worth of exposition on what Driver's life was like when he was a child. Just for you, buddy!

Sep 21 - 09:18 PM

Hamid Saify

Hamid Saify

Chris T didn't have an imaginary friend growing up. Nor can he imagine that anything occurs in a movie character's life that he doesn't see. For example, a women gets pregnant, then has a baby. But Chris isn't convinced. He didn't see 9 months of gestation on screen, therefore, fuck that baby. Get a brain dude.

Sep 22 - 03:58 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Bravo-exacto. ;)

Sep 22 - 08:16 PM

David Allen

David Allen

Chris, Really?

All I can say is you missed that one. Maybe you weren't in a movie frame-of-mind when you watched it. Drive is a great movie.

Ryan's lack of emotion and non-verbal communication was the most impressive part of the movie. He was really able to sell it. It reminded me, not as good, of Client Eastwood in Unforgiven. If you remember, Client didn't say a whole lot in that movie and it received 6 Academy Awards.

Sep 23 - 01:41 AM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

It's a great movie if you like a love movie, with no love, no emotion; and a main character that rarely talks, and just stares at people for an awkwardly long time; like some type of creep. The movie should be called "THE STARING CONTEST" wins the staring contest, but that is about all the movie wins. If you though the man of little words was deep, you were wrong. The guy ends the movie leaving the only two slightly developed plots. He leaves the million dollars on the street, and he leaves the girl. All those long blank stares were not of a deep character. They were just that, long, blank stares. Rename the movie: THE NON LOVE STARING CONTEST STORY

Sep 23 - 12:37 PM

andrea m.

andrea moore


This was one of the most boring movies I have ever seen.....and the staring thing is really lame..the music was HORRID..they should have paid me to sit through this crap

Sep 24 - 06:52 AM

Alex Paschen

Alex Paschen

Andrea, coming from someone who gave "Alice in wonderland" thumbs up, you've lost all right to judge movies. Guess its back to J'lo videos on youtube and gawking at johnny depp some more! Enjoy!

Sep 26 - 10:25 AM

Ataeres Notnil

Ataeres Notnil

Andrea M. it's hilarious that you said that, I felt exactly the same way. I saw it for free and was pretty peeved that they didn't pay me to watch that dribble. I swear it's the "emperor's new clothes" syndrome. I get complex, but it just wasn't so many things. Not saying that the movie didn't have moments, but overall it was just awkward and the script was lazy.

Sep 30 - 08:51 PM

A Z.

A Z

LOL...so true. No intensity...just blank stares! What a lame movie!

Sep 29 - 11:09 AM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

Staring contest...

The film is loaded with subtext.

possible spoiler...

During Irene's husband's homecoming party, the driver walks out of his door and finds Irene sitting in the hallway...

Irene: Sorry about the noise.
Driver: I should call the police.
Irene: I wish you would.

They're expressing serious heartfelt emotions in a playful flirtatious way. You can't help but get caught up in their gittiness.

Sep 29 - 03:06 PM

Mike L.

Mike L

Ummm... there is nothing special about that interchange. I don't understand what's got you excited.

Nov 12 - 07:01 PM

Arlene Kelly

Arlene Kelly

Actually, It's "giddiness", and I easily resisted "getting involved" in it.

Chris T. nails this movie. It is a Dead Dog Bore, for all of the reasons mentioned.



Feb 5 - 05:22 AM

Alessandro Furriolo

Alessandro Furriolo

go watch the smurfs, maybe that's a movie you can understand.

Oct 2 - 02:58 PM

Lization LaBalomia

Lization LaBalomia

What do you get if you feed a projector student actors, pseudo-intellectual hipster romance kibble, all the boring moments of life where no one is talking, and music that sounds like a coma? 100 minutes of diarrhea dog shit running down the screen that they're calling DRIVE, starring Ryan Gosling.

Yes i have hated other movies with fervor, but the difference is that this one is getting good reviews. It's baffling. Watered down globs of ridiculously convenient plot points that serve as a medium for its true purpose--pretending that long, overly drawn out, purposely awkward scenes of pauses and bad acting is avant-garde. I'm sure we are supposed to be "like, oh my god, that's like, so unusually realistic", but... there's a reason they usually cut that out of scenes. It's BORING.

I'm sure there will be people who say 'oh you just don't get it', but what is annoying about this is that there is nothing to get. The supporting characters over-deliver corny lines and the main ones stand, smile slightly, and say nothing, and you're supposed to believe some big, metaphysical connection between them. 'Oh but he speaks only when necessary'--that's the lamest excuse I have ever heard to cover up a lack of ability on all fronts. There is no substance here, and those of you comparing the gore in the few tolerable seconds to Tarantino are not only just wrong and uninformed but insulting to someone who doesn't use cheap devices and actually takes time on character development. By the way, this kind of comparison is as deep as when someone tells you that you look like Felicity because you have curly hair.

This film was garbage.

Sep 23 - 02:20 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Boring is ONLY your opinion. The pacing and limited dialogue are completely intentional. It made the reveal of his inner person more dramatic and hard-hitting. It also reminisced of Eastwood and McQueen as a strong, silent type. So, because you didn't like the music, the director fucked up? Really? The film did have a Tarantino approach to the violence and that's a very fair comparison. Not enough dialogue? There've been many times when I wished I could've handled a situation communicatively the way that Gosling's character did, because it commands more respect. People that talk too much are afraid of something or are very unaware in everyday life. Say ONLY what needs to be said, was the approach and it was all the better for his character to be that way. Obviously. The acting was bad? Where? I love good acting. "There Will Be Blood" is pretty much my top fave movie, namely because of D.D.L. knocking it out of the park. Drive was lean, patient, beautiful and hypnotic. I really don't care if you hated it. You also didn't produce any viable argument as to why it was a poorly made film, which it wasn't. It just isn't your style. Boo-hoo.

Sep 23 - 07:28 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

"...as THE strong, silent type."

Sep 23 - 07:30 PM

Arlene Kelly

Arlene Kelly

Actually, it is obviously NOT "only" his opinion. Read the original review and the crique with Christ T. and see how many people agree with him This movie is a BORE.

Feb 5 - 05:26 AM

John McGillicuddy

John McGillicuddy

This made me laugh so hard. I completely agree.

Oct 7 - 06:51 PM

Benjamin Snider

Benjamin Snider

I feel cheated for reading your drivel. You are full of yourself.

Jan 6 - 12:32 AM

George Messier

George Messier

I agree 98%. I don't think people are bought off. I just think people are stupid. As such, their cinematic standards are rediculously low. The holes in this picture are enormous.

Sep 25 - 07:06 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Yes George. I believe you and the small handful of people who don't like the movie are among the smarter of the human race even though you spelled "ridiculously", "rediculously".

Sep 25 - 03:44 PM

A Z.

A Z

Commenting on a misspelled word (and going after anyone who doesn't like the movie)? Really? You're obviously a genius!

Sep 29 - 11:13 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

It doesn't bother me that he didn't like the movie, but if he's going to point the finger at "stupid people", he should spell right.

Sep 29 - 07:47 PM

Jason Moore

Jason Moore

I agree a ridiculous amount.

Jan 29 - 05:50 PM

simon m.

simon modica

I disagree with your review. I don't care that you did not like it, but what is offensive is that this has to be one of the worst written reviews I have ever read. You really need to learn how to write.

Sep 25 - 08:52 AM

Double.Dubs

Edward Stymest

i wholeheartedly agree with chris on the basis of [some] flaws in the writing of characters in this film (gosling's character is very bland and his acting is terrible, but the direction and plot give him depth. dark shots in the beginning and a suicidal job show how lonely he is and how, as a mysterious figure, he is essentially a nobody to the world, due to the secrecy of his primary occupation, and to himself. family appears where he fits in. sees is dysfunctional. very close to being functional. friends are also killed after he watches disintegration of family. k, got it. thanks. but ill agree that the wife had no character at all; she was just a plot device.)

however, that does not justify the dismissal of its suspenseful pacing, expert neonoir shots, well-thought out plot, great action scenes, and overall innovation.

i was pleased that for once there's a revenge flick that actually has class (QT's revenge flicks are sadistic stylistic rides that are so well made we cant help not loving them; he grabs you by the balls and we beg him to not let go. this film gives you more time to breath and has more leverage in its scenes; we have more time to think and to appreciate the ambience.)

boring? in the beginning very, but it was necessary for the film's transitions.

lacks dialogue? the shots speak for the characters and drive the plot.

no motivation for the driver? it's subtle yet still there in fine print.

Sep 26 - 09:07 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:54 PM

Simon Vincent

Simon Vincent

There was no ending?
Well...let's see...
He walked away from the money and the girl and took off.....
to save her life.
That was basically the point of the whole movie. He finds meaning in this fragile, innocent relationship to the girl and her son and he risks his own life in order to save them.
And in the end....he accepts the ultimate consequence of leaving it all behind....not taking the money...not contacting her anymore....to save the lifes of her and her little son.
Didn't get that?
Pretty much the most classic, smart ending you can imagine. And if you disagree with that you simply don't like the same movies most people would regard as classics. which is okay, by the way.

Jan 3 - 05:20 PM

Nicholas Panzarino

Nicholas Panzarino

I agree with Chris. I saw this with 4 good friends and everyone hated it. A half hour into the movie some one yelled out "what the hell are we watching". In general almost every one in the theater hated it. Chris is right. Any critic that liked this movie was paid off. There was not one redeeming quality to this film. In fact, I will go so far as to say that this was the worse movie I have ever paid for.

Sep 27 - 05:49 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:53 PM

John Drinkwater

John Drinkwater

Reading these comments, it seems to me this is one of those movies that separates the wheat from the chaff or the smart from the dumb. Idiots hate this movie. Intelligent people love it. Sorry dumb people. You lose.

Mar 15 - 11:18 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

The Palme d'Or (English: Golden Palm) is the highest prize awarded at the Cannes Film Festival and this was presented to the director of this film for this film because they felt his directing WAS JUST THAT GOOD. He deserved it, period. Are you now going to say that the Cannes film festival is bought off too in addition to critics on this site? How absurd it is when you don't understand a piece of art's greatness, you say that official people are bought off. How insanely ridiculous.

Sep 27 - 11:50 PM

Jarek Green

Jarek Green

This did not win the Palme d'or.
The Tree of Life did.

Jan 7 - 08:36 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

To all the arrogant assholes who insist that RT critics have been bought off to praise this movie: Did Refn & co. buy off the Cannes film festival too when he won the Palm d'Or prize for best director because of Drive, which is THE HIGHEST prize at one of THE most famous and prestigious film festivals in the world?

Sep 28 - 12:09 AM

Transik S.

Transik Sebator

Small talk and a million bucks are worthless to all true heroes. What motivates action is quite often detrimental to the man who acts heroically; in fact, one might almost go so far as to argue that this is prerequisite to heroic action--I know I certainly would. He doesn't speak unless there is something to say and, as in life, there almost never is--he defines the limitations of his contractual obligations; he acknowledges an invitation from a child and reciprocates with a gift; he helps those who seem most in need of what small help he can offer. That he is in possession of resources beyond our ability to know is what makes him an interesting character. He has a past about which we know nothing except that through it he has come to this efficient place of silent command and disconnection. I consider this movie very much in the same line as another that was given not nearly as high praise--The American--minus the more obvious (and weaker) redemptive shenanigans. The violence in Drive has its precedents and each of its occurring scenes forwards something entirely different about the Driver than the one that precedes it. The gratuitous nature of others' violence expresses the core around which their lives are organized; for Gossling's character, the concluding barbarity of the elevator scene marks the opposite pole of what he is capable in distinct contrast to the epiphany that immediately precedes it. I hate to admit that I watched this as a bootleg, and in the version I watched, the final scene--what I assume became the credits rolling as the soundtrack played the hero/human Tangerine Dream tune--all I could see was darkness, as if the driving just continued in my mind with glimpses of dimly lit roadside going by. No credits, nothing. It was pretty cool and would be by far the best way to end this movie. For what it's worth.

Sep 28 - 08:07 PM

Transik S.

Transik Sebator

Small talk and a million bucks are worthless to all true heroes. What motivates action is quite often detrimental to the man who acts heroically; in fact, one might almost go so far as to argue that this is prerequisite to heroic action--I know I certainly would. He doesn't speak unless there is something to say and, as in life, there almost never is--he defines the limitations of his contractual obligations; he acknowledges an invitation from a child and reciprocates with a gift; he helps those who seem most in need of what small help he can offer. That he is in possession of resources beyond our ability to know is what makes him an interesting character. He has a past about which we know nothing except that through it he has come to this efficient place of silent command and disconnection. I consider this movie very much in the same line as another that was given not nearly as high praise--The American--minus the more obvious (and weaker) redemptive shenanigans. The violence in Drive has its precedents and each of its occurring scenes forwards something entirely different about the Driver than the one that precedes it. The gratuitous nature of others' violence expresses the core around which their lives are organized; for Gossling's character, the concluding barbarity of the elevator scene marks the opposite pole of what he is capable in distinct contrast to the epiphany that immediately precedes it. I hate to admit that I watched this as a bootleg, and in the version I watched, the final scene--what I assume became the credits rolling as the soundtrack played the hero/human Tangerine Dream tune--all I could see was darkness, as if the driving just continued in my mind with glimpses of dimly lit roadside going by. No credits, nothing. It was pretty cool and would be by far the best way to end this movie. For what it's worth.

Sep 28 - 08:09 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:52 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:53 PM

Julie Crowley

Julie Crowley

Agreed

Oct 7 - 04:27 PM

Chris Kaczmarsky

Chris Kaczmarsky

So like Chris T, which I am assuming is short for christina or christine correct? So like every movie like doesn't like have to like have a dialogue driven script just so like you can like understand exactly what like each character is like thinking at all times. Sometimes, things like don't like have to be like said out loud to just like understand what emotion they are like trying to convey. So like, just because like the main character does not like say that he like not only feels bad for like her and her kid, he like also feels a certain level of like attraction towards her.

Listen ma'am, there is much more to a movie then what each character verbally expresses towards each other. While I am sure that not everyone that watches the movie is automatically drawn to the relationship that overwhelms the movie, the beauty of a newly formed relationship is very evident and heavy dialogue is not necessary to convey this. The actors take care of that for you. If you had trouble following this, you either need to watch this movie again OR LIKE TOTALLY GET SUBTITLES GIRL.

Nov 6 - 07:50 PM

Brian McQuiston

Brian McQuiston

chris t well said. this movie sucked.

Jan 16 - 08:19 PM

Evan Reavey

evan reavey

Drive is an incredible work of art. But that is the problem, art films do not appeal to everyone. I think the chemestry between the Driver and Irene is very shy and quiet, I love it. I also disagree with your opinion on the ending. The Driver left the money not because he just left the movie, but because he hates money. It is in his nature to stay away from the money, just like he never asks for a share while assisting the husband or when Shannon offers him half minimum wadge at the garage. He leaves the money because he had already saved Irene. No one else would be looking. The Driver even offered her the money before the amazing elevator scene. The Driver left the money because he risked his life for others with nothing in return. That's what a hero is, someone who gives for nothing and risks his life for other's safty. Just like the music track at the end states, he is a real hero, a real human being.

Jan 23 - 08:59 PM

Arlene Kelly

Arlene Kelly

Ridiculous...If he "hates money" why did he moonlight as a "getaway" driver for criminials?

He left THAT bag of money to indicate to "the family" that Irene and her son were uninvolved in the Pawn shop incident and that the Albert Brooks character was at the heart of it.

Feb 5 - 05:31 AM

Evan Reavey

evan reavey

Very True My suggestion was his views on money are different. I believe he hates money in that he thinks its extremely dirty and can lead to horrible things.

Feb 8 - 10:09 PM

Jason Moore

Jason Moore

I'm going out on a limb here Chris, but I'd have to guess the lack of dialogue might have to do something with the main character showing no personality or vocal communication.

Jan 29 - 05:46 PM

Roger Willey

Roger Willey

I think you're missing some key stuff here. He is additionally motivated by the kid, and by not being an asshole. The character doesn't really need to have a background, we are thrown into this world and are participating in it as a random passerby, and the lack of extensive details enhances that experience. If you want to spoon fed every little scrap go see an Adam Sandler movie. This movie requires you to just suspend reality and enjoy it. If you can't do that then you have no business watching any movies.

Feb 10 - 03:56 PM

Pascale Claus

Pascale Claus

Boy, what a relief to find someone who saw the same movie as I did. Thanks.

Feb 15 - 06:14 PM

jten

Jordan Trenholm

As far as the main character's history/personality, the movie has clues but no definite answers. I think you expected the movie to do more work developing his personality/motivations than it did, and the movie expected you to do more work figuring out his personality/motivations than you did. A simple misunderstanding occurred.

There's no way for me to explicitly say that you are in the wrong about that, but what little hints were given seemed to be enough for the majority of moviegoers to understand the character, and like the movie.

I've got my own theories concerning the main character's motivations, but they're all just projections of my personality and philosophy.

Feb 16 - 09:32 PM

Anita blowjaab

Anita Hanjaab

I kept hearing about how awesome this movie was...jesus christ this movie sucked!!!! I've never been more conned into watching a flick because critics think that a main character that stares in to space and hardly says a f**king word that it somehow means its a good movie. This movie sucked the cheese off my ball sack, I can't believe how boring and flat this movie was. I mean seriously, how did this piece of sh** movie get high reviews? If you guys want to watch a good movie, go watch The Dark Knight!

P.S. you f**ing critics owe me the 30 dollars I wasted at the theaters after reading your stupid reviews!! Christ Almighty this movie sucks more wang than Jenna Jameson at a hot dog contest.

Mar 19 - 12:57 AM

Neil Leardi

Neil Leardi

Fuck you..this movie was awesome..your a fucking faggot...I'd kick your teeth in if I saw you..you fucking cunt twat

Apr 1 - 02:23 PM

Priscilla Madeira

Priscilla Madeira

LOL

Jul 14 - 11:16 AM

Movie Person

Movie Person

Deep breaths, deep breaths....

Jul 25 - 03:22 PM

Kohl Truax

Kohl Truax

u mad bro?

Sep 11 - 07:53 PM

JC Martel

JC Martel

Leardi knows what's up.

Sep 22 - 04:24 PM

Mykyle Scapinello

Mykyle Scapinello

This movie couldn't make up it's mind. Was it a car movie, mob movie, a study in psychopathic killing? The soundtrack was hip but I just couldn't believe that the Driver was realistic. I mean he's supposed to be a simple heist driver and then later on in the movie he turns into professor Moriarty, out planning and out maneuvering every bad guy he faces. Plus what's up with Carey Mulligan she loves him, then she hates him, then she loves him again. As if she was completely oblivious to her boyfriend being a crook and was so turned off by the fact that the driver stomps a guys head into pulp. It was an okay movie but there was lots of loose ends.

Oct 30 - 08:20 PM

Andy Hughes

Andy Hughes

Dear Mr Lane,

Yes, I agree with some of your opinions on Drive and it's shortcomings to establish a real emotional connection with the main character. Portrayed as a strong silent type, Gosling's character clearly lacks the social skills to pull off the task of having the likability needed of a main character. How long does it take to think up an answer to: "How was your day?"..Awkward pause.. I mean this guy is the king of not responding to questions he's asked so it's no surprise that he has no friends. His quiet but nice persona quickly takes a 360 degree turn when he extorts a confession of the setup from the redhead, and he continues his path of destruction with the true genius of a psychopath as he hunts down and kills every player in the heist before they find Irene and her son which is his only clear motivation at this point. Anyone who hadn't deemed him insane yet would have their chance when the audience witnesses him consider pounding a bullet into the brain of Niro using a sledge hammer. You said at the end of your article that we were deluded into learning the pain of losing our best friend, job, and commiting a series of "highly" intricate murders. The only person worthy of any emotional sympathy was Irene whose innocence and naivety only surmount her struggles as a single mother in LA.

Sep 21 - 11:42 AM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

There's a lot of talk about the driver archetype... The strong silent type or the man with no name... the mysterious loner archetype. I think Gosling adds a new twist to the loner archetype by infusing it with an emotionally stunted, awkward innocence. Basically, the Driver character is an amalgam of Lars from "Lars and the Real Girl" and any one of Melville's existential loners.

Sep 29 - 04:26 PM

m s.

m swen

Just wanted to point out, a 360 is a circle, leaving you right where you started- I think you meant 180, which would point you in the opposite direction.

Feb 3 - 02:12 PM

Benjamin Roden

Benjamin Roden

I think this is a pretty reasonable review by Mr. Lane. Kudos

Sep 22 - 08:15 AM

niall29

Niall Dargan

What an up its own arse review. And boring, nearly fell asleep reading it. And it seems the moronic troll Chris T has gone to ground. What a spanner.

Sep 23 - 06:47 AM

Zap Rowsdower

Zap Rowsdower

People are complaining about this Chris T, but he's giving his opinion of a film, on a film review site. So who is wasting their time? He paid money like most of us did and was disappointed.

This film is the modern art of film in the worst possible way. It's the tattoo that does not become defined until after the fact. You can tell there was no vision or heart behind this movie. It's lazier than paranormal activity. Because of how blank it is, people claim to "get it" making it synonymous with genius filmmaking.

It's a movie made by a hipster. That's it. If you are not intelligent enough to understand that, then you probably will end up liking this film or thinking "it's the best film I've seen this year". Maybe it was, but what the hell did you see? This argument will of course be met with "you just don't get it". Oh, we get it.

We were actually laughing in the theater (weren't the only ones), at the dialogue, line delivery etc. I felt like I was watching a nearly 2 hour long, short/student film shot on a 7D using the soundtrack of an all chick band in Williamsburg that records their music on old yamaha PSR keyboards straight to cassette. Or was that Stacey Q?

I got it exactly, and there are those of us who do get it and hate it because it is a hollow film, full of non characters (aside from Ron Perlman, who was set up as a video game villain for some reason. Which deliberate or not was just awful). Whether it's meant to be bad in an ironic way I have no idea, but it's bad horror, bad thriller, bad romance, bad drama. There is nothing compelling about this film other than the positive reception. It did nothing to stimulate my brain or change my perspective. I'm sure people will find the ever present "hidden meaning" that was never there nor intended to be.

I still have yet to read a positive review or just general audience review that has been able to fully articulate what makes it a good movie. It's basically a non-story, non movie that for some reason people think is genius.

My critique is based on every element as I sat there trying really hard to like it going by each minute. The film says nothing about anything. The film itself felt apathetic, as if the film itself was self-aware. Again, even if this were the intended outcome, it makes me hate it even further.

I agree that the bar really has been lowered, or at least very very crooked and confused. It's a cute experiment, but to me it ultimately sucks and is overrated. Today's general audience watches people sing karaoke on television with pepsi cups floating all over the place. So if you have any taste for anything, and expect an intelligent reception from the majority, forget it.

At the very least I'd love to see peoples top films that have given this such a positive review. They might be the same if not even lesser experienced than people who spend their time viewing movies from the "top 100 films" lists. They are probably the same that think Dark Knight and Inception were incredible and claimed "300" was their favorite film at the time. I'm basing that just on my own personal facebook friends.

I don't always go to new movies, but there is also something about a lower standard of people who see every film just because it's coming out or new. Just because it's a new film doesn't mean it's saying something new. Sadly so many pieces of art get forgotten and swept under the rug thanks to pieces of shit like this.

Sorry for the redundant ranting, but this is really meant to get my point across to people who will feel the same way. It's also why I'm posting it on a negative review, unlike some of the comment goblins.

Sep 23 - 01:44 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Again, you're just someone who didn't like the style of the filmmaker. That's fair, but it was a film that hit the mark that its director intended, exactly. Emanual Levy, Roger Ebert and Peter Travers loved it and I see why they did. These are people who've seen more films than you or most people. They know what they're looking at. My top films? There Will Be Blood, Donnie Darko, American Beauty, Kill Bill 1&2, Jaws, The Dark Knight, Scarface, Magnolia, Inception, Boogie Nights, No Country For Old Men, The Road Warrior, The Social Network, Pan's Labyrinth, etc......

Sep 23 - 07:39 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace....

Sep 23 - 07:41 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Taxi Driver...

Sep 23 - 07:44 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

The Terminator, Schindler's List, Black Swan, Taken, Minority Report, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.....

Sep 23 - 07:47 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

AND THIS MOVIE.

Sep 23 - 07:47 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

The Matrix, The Thing, The Fly....

Sep 24 - 04:19 PM

enohp660

Derrick Clark

I'm with you on 99% of what you're saying, but Takers sucked ass dude.

Nov 6 - 07:22 AM

A Z.

A Z

Totally agree Zap R, people were laughing at scenes that were meant to be intense and serious!

Not in the same league as Taxi Driver, Allan! Not even close!

Sep 29 - 11:20 AM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

There many reasons people laugh. People laugh in horror movies to release tension. People laugh when they're nervous or put in uncomfortable situations. I have to admit I laughed at first...at the awkwardness and nervous energy... the film was trying to make me feel something I had no business feeling in an gritty action flick. Until i figured out what this emotion was. It feels like first love. There's a childish wonderment in their performances... like it's uncharted territory for both of them but they're both elated to be there.

Sep 29 - 04:43 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Absolutely in the same league as Taxi Driver. It instantly reminded me of it. Loner with a heart unleashes his demons.

Sep 29 - 07:52 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

With a slow reveal. Loved it.

Sep 29 - 07:54 PM

Alex Marshall

Alex Marshall

You have to understand, these are the same people who'd cum out of their pants watching Vin Diesel and Paul Walker race each other in muscle cars because they have no sense of story or character comprehension unless it's shoved in their faces so they don't have to think for themselves.

Oct 11 - 09:01 PM

Chris Truth-Patriot

Chris Truth-Patriot

T * H * E * R * . W * A * S . N * 0 . E * N * D * I * N * G

Oct 3 - 12:55 PM

Aladdin Sane

Aladdin Sane

I saw this when it was called 'Thief' and starred James Caan. THAT is a way better flick-this sucked.

Apr 21 - 12:07 PM

Alex Ruhsenberger

Alex Ruhsenberger

While I respect your opinion...

Sometimes the best art is ambiguous, or just tells the simplest of stories. It is a common misconception that "art" is always rooted in meaning. It often is not. This movie impressed people, because it was art, it was real, it was ambiguous, it may have lacked in originality, but it was beautifully shot, and had a lot of authentic value to it. In short: it felt very human. It mesmerized and grew on you in that way.

May 29 - 08:48 AM

Kassem Jaber

Kassem Jaber

You think going on every page and attacking people is expressing an opinion? No, Allan B is just defending of movie he likes. You're a fucking retard, Die in a fire!

Jun 28 - 03:57 PM

Kelton Williams

Kelton Williams

Zap R, having come late to this party and just watched the film, I noticed your rather extended critique. Honestly, I'm still making up my mind about it.

What I find intriguing is that you wrote such a negative opinion of the film, yet you wrote so much. Do you write such extended reviews for every film you see? To declare the film to be so insignificant, while at the same time expounding on it so much seems contradictory. In that vein, the greatest hardship for anyone who creates (be it aesthetic, narrative, or structural), is the absence of response.

That the film ignited an impulse for you to read so many reviews, and then to elaborate so extensively and eloquently suggests that you were more affected by it than, perhaps, you realize. I invite you to watch the film again and consider why the story inspired such a visceral response.

Jul 6 - 09:01 PM

Doug M.

Doug MacIsaac

For somebody who makes inflammatory claims about the intelligence of the audience that liked this movie, you seem to lack some of the characteristics of a competent critic. I can boil down your argument into four points: the characters were flat, performances were poor, the movie was apathetic, and people that like this movie are stupid.

As to the first point, this movie tries to, and succeeds at developing characters with situations rather than dialogue. A well placed pregnant pause can tell us so much more about a character than an unnecessary conversation. You put yourself above those that liked this movie, yet you lack the attention/sophistication to pick up on the most important structure of the movie, and that is your own interpretation of the characters. Drive allows you to build these characters, rather than shouting character traits at you through thinly veiled dialogue.

Secondly, dialogue. You think it was poorly delivered? Fine. Your opinion, I can't really do much other than disagree.

As for accusations of the movie's apathy, what are you trying to say? Are you arguing against a plot, that the movie would rather just be a character study with a loose cluster of events? You don't really articulate your point, you sort of just use a word that I can't fit into the grid of this movie. Further, you say that the film is apathetic as if it is self aware. Aware that it is a movie? Aware that its apathy is its defining feature? Again, you don't really pose an argument here, you just say a thing.

Fourthly, you spend MOST of your "review" on ad hominem attacks against people who have a different opinion of this movie than you do. I really feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but arguing that the argument "you don't get this" isn't valid is horribly, ironically self aware.

I loved this movie, and I can explain to you what it was that made it a good movie all day long. You are allowed to not like this movie, but you aren't allowed to site stupid, shitty reasons, and be a fuckhead about it at the same time.

As a side note, you called this a hipster movie. Seriously, fuck you and everybody else who uses that word as an argument. It makes you look like an idiot, and it is an empty insult that has lost all of its meaning.

Aug 18 - 06:43 PM

Alex Marshall

Alex Marshall

I want to make sweet love to this review.

Oct 11 - 09:05 PM

Alex Marshall

Alex Marshall

Have you even read Peter Travers' review of it?

Either way, there's little to refute in your argument because all you seem to do is attack any opposing opinion with ad hominem. You understood this movie? No, you didn't. You liked this movie? You're unintelligent, so what you have to say doesn't matter. The point is, anyone can pull the same argument against you, and it would be just as ineffective.

I understand if you didn't like the movie, its characters, its style, whatever, but don't go attacking the people who liked this movie and trying invalidate their opinions by calling them unintelligent (unless, of course, they make unintelligent statements like "THIS IS THE BEST MOVIE EVAR!!" which offers no real reason as to why they think so), because in the end it will only make you look more childish.

You can say that the people who liked this film "didn't get it," but then again, you're fighting the opinions of a group of people who have been watching these movies WAY longer than you have and have much more experience reading into characters and the aesthetics of a film, which doesn't invalidate your opinion, but it causes it to hold much less water.

Personally, I found the film to be dazzling. Refn is clearly inspired by Scorsese here, namely from films like Taxi Driver, and his cinematography is top notch, using many of film's many aesthetics to peerless detail. The script is also taut and well made, each line feeling realistic and powerful at just the right times, especially with great visual storytelling which is sadly absent in most films. Ryan pulls off a great performance as the Driver, his silence and lack of emotion making him a threatening force to be reckoned with while also retaining a lot of the humanity that allows an audience to relate to him. The soundtrack is a top-notch nostalgic spin on the 80's synthpop from films of past with a modern twist.

You can try and invalidate my opinion all you want, but at the end of the day, it's just an opinion, and your words will hold no power over mine and vice versa.

Oct 11 - 08:57 PM

flip_torveldt

Daniel Llewellyn

Nice review. I saw this movie early, it's kind of depressing but predictable to see how stimuli starved the critical profession is that they fall for this pap.

Worse still, that deceptively empty acclaim "understated" is doing the rounds, to add further insult the claim the simply wrong. Quiet, quiet, quiet VIOLENT VIOLENT VIOLENT is hardly understated, it's a gaudy and jarring clash - it sticks out like a sore thumb. Gosling is a cypher, until he "becomes" a brutal head stomping maniac. But he also likes the nice girl and her well-mannered kid next door so uh, ok now he's "ambiguous".

Also Gosling's face is not so pretty that it bears constant scrutiny, perhaps that was intentional, but if you are made to look long enough he actually looks a bit like a gibbon.



Sep 23 - 03:16 PM

Luke Unger

Luke Unger

holy fuck you're an idiot.

Sep 16 - 03:21 AM

George Messier

George Messier

I read this review. It is a bunch of nonsense and general pontification from some literary blow hard. I have no idea whether he liked the movie at all. I certainly learned a lot about a bunch of other movies from the past.

Sep 25 - 07:08 AM

RomanP

Rom An

The movie is pure kitsch: a collection of effects without any causes. The director Refn looks like he spent too much playing Grand Theft Auto and watching Kill Bill. He makes Gosling looks like a ventriloquist dummy with a leather glove and nice a watch. James Bond would make minced meat of him.

If you don't understand kitsch, try comparing this to Heat, The Way of the Gun, U-Turn, Man on Fire, and A Country for Young Men. Those films bring you into a world of motives, reactions, and actions.

The elevator scene sums it up: let's have a Levi's kissing commercial scene followed by a pumpkin smashing contest. Oh, and don't forget the "Real Human Being" song in case the audience didn't 'get it'. Half the audience was laughing at my theater.




Sep 25 - 08:09 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Everyone who doesn't like this movie says that half their theater was laughing or critisizing. Yawn. Look at the score. These are people all over the place coming here to vote. Truth in numbers.

Sep 25 - 03:37 PM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

There many reasons people laugh. People laugh in horror movies to release tension. People laugh when they're nervous or put in uncomfortable situations.
I have to admit I laughed at first...at the awkwardness and nervous energy... the film was trying to make me feel something I had no business feeling in an gritty action flick. Until i figured out what this emotion was. It feels like first love. There's a childish wonderment in their performances... like it's uncharted territory for both of them but they're both elated to be there.

Sep 29 - 03:58 PM

Luke Unger

Luke Unger

whats a country for young men please reply soon idk plz? smd?

Sep 16 - 03:22 AM

antonego

Sukesh Patro

Your attention is easily grabbed by the wrong thing Anthony. Refn did not make the movie for the attention of someone as dimwitted as you. You suck...almost as much as Chris T.

Sep 25 - 06:42 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

The Palme d'Or (English: Golden Palm) is the highest prize awarded at the Cannes Film Festival and this was presented to the director of this film for this film because they felt his directing WAS JUST THAT GOOD. He deserved it, period. Are you now going to say that the Cannes film festival is bought off too in addition to critics on this site? How absurd it is when you don't understand a piece of art's greatness, you say that official people are bought off. How insanely ridiculous.

Sep 27 - 11:50 PM

Transik S.

Transik Sebator

Small talk and a million bucks are worthless to all true heroes. What motivates action is quite often detrimental to the man who acts heroically; in fact, one might almost go so far as to argue that this is prerequisite to heroic action--I know I certainly would. He doesn't speak unless there is something to say and, as in life, there almost never is--he defines the limitations of his contractual obligations; he acknowledges an invitation from a child and reciprocates with a gift; he helps those who seem most in need of what small help he can offer. That he is in possession of resources beyond our ability to know is what makes him an interesting character. He has a past about which we know nothing except that through it he has come to this efficient place of silent command and disconnection. I consider this movie very much in the same line as another that was given not nearly as high praise--The American--minus the more obvious (and weaker) redemptive shenanigans. The violence in Drive has its precedents and each of its occurring scenes forwards something entirely different about the Driver than the one that precedes it. The gratuitous nature of others' violence expresses the core around which their lives are organized; for Gossling's character, the concluding barbarity of the elevator scene marks the opposite pole of what he is capable in distinct contrast to the epiphany that immediately precedes it. I hate to admit that I watched this as a bootleg, and in the version I watched, all I could see in the final scene--what I assume became the credits rolling as the soundtrack played the hero/human Tangerine Dream tune--was darkness, as if the driving just continued in my mind with glimpses of dimly lit roadside going by. No credits, nothing. It was pretty cool and would be by far the best way to end this movie. For what it's worth.

Sep 28 - 08:15 PM

Transik S.

Transik Sebator

Oh, and by the way, Diva is the influence.

Sep 28 - 08:27 PM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Absolutely brilliant review. You'd be an excellent critic.

Sep 29 - 01:53 AM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

There's a lot of talk about the driver archetype... The strong silent type or the man with no name... the mysterious loner archetype. I think Gosling adds a new twist to the loner archetype by infusing it with an emotionally stunted, awkward innocence. Basically, the Driver character is an amalgam of Lars from "Lars and the Real Girl" and any one of Melville's existential loners.

Sep 29 - 04:22 PM

Mike Morris

Mike Morris

your an idiot.

Sep 29 - 11:12 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

And you're totally smart. Everyone looks up to you and knows that you have things all figured out. I could tell just by your pic that you're rad. Totally rad and flawlessly cool. I believe that I speak for everyone here when I say, Mike, getting your approval and maybe a high-five would turn most people's worst day right around. Keep up the good work. We're all behind you.

Sep 29 - 05:09 PM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

"...the feelings are sponged away"

wow...I felt exactly the opposite. I wrote the follow for a positive review, but I think it's more appropriate here.

I think the reason this film is getting so much praise is director Nicholas Winding Refn unique take on a standard Hollywood genre: the 80's teen love story. In an interview, Refn mentioned that he wanted to remake Sixteen Candles. Most people took this as a facetious statement, but I think he was serious and Drive is his version of Sixteen Candles crossed with the car chase genre like Bullit. More specifically, the plot feels like Bullit but the emotional core feels like Sixteen Candles. There is a honest emotional core to this film... a soul. The love story is tender and deftly told. There's such a gitty energy between Goslin and Mulligan that they can't hide their affection for each other. The soundtrack, if you can get passed the kitsch, feels like failing in love for the first time. There's a feeling of innocent love, an intense longing... completely unsexualized. The love story is the foreplay, the sex is the violence. Without one, the other feels empty.
By the end of the film when the driver is driving away and the 80's inspired synthpop blares, there's a longing... to be a better man. A longing to be a father and a husband. A longing to overcome his dark nature. As lrene knocks on the driver's door and realizes he is not there, there's an intense feeling of her wanting to be with that better man.
I think this was the director's personal statement. Literally what "drives" him. That's probably why they gave him all the awards and positive reviews.

Sep 29 - 01:56 PM

Shibumi

Neo Shibumi

"...the feelings are sponged away"

Wow...i felt exactly the opposite. I wrote the following for a positive review but I think it's more appropriate here.

I think the reason this film is getting so much praise is director Nicholas Winding Refn unique take on a standard Hollywood genre: the 80's teen love story. In an interview, Refn mentioned that he wanted to remake Sixteen Candles. Most people took this as a facetious statement, but I think he was serious and Drive is his version of Sixteen Candles crossed with the car chase genre like Bullit. More specifically, the plot feels like Bullit but the emotional core feels like Sixteen Candles. There is a honest emotional core to this film... a soul. The love story is tender and deftly told. There's such a gitty energy between Goslin and Mulligan that they can't hide their affection for each other. The soundtrack, if you can get passed the kitsch, feels like failing in love for the first time. There's a feeling of innocent love, an intense longing... completely unsexualized. The love story is the foreplay, the sex is the violence. Without one, the other feels empty.
By the end of the film when the driver is driving away and the 80's inspired synthpop blares, there's a longing... to be a better man. A longing to be a father and a husband. A longing to overcome his dark nature. As lrene knocks on the driver's door and realizes he is not there, there's an intense feeling of her wanting to be with that better man.
I think this was the director's personal statement. Literally what "drives" him. That's probably why they gave him all the awards and positive reviews.

Sep 29 - 01:59 PM

Josh Klose

Josh Klose

Drive is refreshing to say the least. Movies nowadays try to push so much character development, dialogue, 'exciting' scenes, that they forget that sometimes less is more. Because it's pacing was 'slow' and the dialogue was slim, I felt like I was holding on to each word the main character said to someone. I actually put forth the effort to pay attention to each scene because it wasn't hitting me in the head with visual noise. This film is a good reminder that not every movie is going to need to pile on the noise. Overall, it was a nice change of pace from the recent films that have been coming out in the US.

Sep 30 - 10:54 AM

Allan Bowman

Allan Bowman

Totally agree.

Sep 30 - 06:39 PM

Kaitain J.

Kaitain Jones

Yup. Absolutely right.

Jan 10 - 10:24 PM

Michael Ferrari

Michael Ferrari

you just didn't get it... that's fair

Sep 30 - 09:17 PM

ipchuk i.

ipchuk ipchuk

While Chris T's review is far from eloquent, he has a point.
I desperately wanted to like this film, based on the premise of a lone-wolf type of character, in the same vein as Jeff Costello in Le Samourai and The Driver in, well, the The Driver. Rather than emulating the subtlety of these classics, it cheapens them with a sort of cheesy romanticism set against a backdrop of pointless gore.

It started off almost identically to Walter Hill's The Driver with the anonymous hero picking up a fast ride, parking it close to where the heist is taking place, opening the back door to make the robbers' lives that bit easier and driving off confidently into the nocturnal darkness of the city. I nodded in approval, thinking the director has all the right influences.
But as the charming affection between the Driver and Irene descended into conventional lovey-doveyiness, and the ‚??he‚??s a human being‚?? song started playing, I cringed in disappointment. From the sublime to the ridiculous in no time at all. Not that I dislike tenderness and affection in film, on the contrary ‚?? I love it when it‚??s effective. But what effect is produced here? The song is terribly out of place. So he‚??s not just a hero, but a real human being as well? Using this method to render your characters believable is taking the path of least resistance. Pure laziness on the director‚??s part.
#
Did Melville do that? Did Walter Hill do that? No, because these directors understood that to make a love affair, or an implicit romance work in such films, you need more than sweetness and sacrifice. You need detachment. Cool, crisp detachment, so that tension builds incrementally, much like the characters‚?? immorality. In Le Samourai, you wait and you wait and you wait for the moment when the Jeff shows some sort of humanity. When he‚??s shot and tending his wounds, it stings and hurts and he contorts his face in pain. These precious little moments of humanity are what makes the film so effective.

But when you have Ryan Gosling‚??s character driving around with Irene and her kid on an empty racetrack, all sun-drenched and happy, with this mushy pop song playing in the background, you have all subtlety gone down the drain, along with the promise of a good noir film.
And as far as laconic professionals go, Ryan Gosling‚??s Driver is ok, at the most. He looks like Ryan O‚??Neal from The Driver, but he hasn‚??t got that poised, self-confident air about him. He‚??s got the Steve McQueen haircut, but doesn‚??t have his soul. And he‚??s no match for the ice-cold archangel Alain Delon. What is he then? He‚??s a human being, the film‚??s misplaced tune would have you believe. Just an ordinary guy with an extraordinary talent, and some cool jackets, which get more screen time than the cars.

Roger Ebert said that the film has a ‚??respect for knowledgeable moviegoers‚??. How may I ask? How can a film in which the drama is spoon-fed to the viewer rather than tactfully intimated impress a person who has seen Jean Pierre Melville‚??s films? Why does the Driver smash that hitman‚??s skull in the lift, right before Irene‚??s eyes? To counterbalance his hitherto pleasant, kid-loving persona? Hidden depths of despair? Hidden psychopathic tendencies? Or is Refn simply trying to convince himself and us that he can do it like Tarantino can?
This sort of gratuitous violence is incredibly self-indulgent and ultimately, pointless. It should have instead been channelled into more quality car chases, if anything to at least stay true to its genre and not be a messy collage of recycled themes and personages.

But it‚??s more about his character than the driving, you‚??d retort... I‚??m sorry but what character? He speaks only when he has to; he drives only when he needs to? He ‚??sacrifices‚?? himself for this family but miraculously lives after being violently stabbed in the abdomen? And then the ‚??he‚??s a human being‚?? song pops up again to round up its predictability with an extra portion of cheese.

I wonder if Refn didn‚??t say to himself after he completed the film, ‚??hey I may not have quite got the drama right but it must have some sort of effect at least‚??. And that‚??s the problem. When you substitute the desire for a grand vision with the timid hope to achieve some sort of ‚??effect‚??, you know you haven‚??t done your job properly.

Oct 1 - 04:49 PM

ipchuk i.

ipchuk ipchuk

While Chris T's review is far from eloquent, he has a point.
I desperately wanted to like this film, based on the premise of a lone-wolf type of character, in the same vein as Jeff Costello in Le Samourai and The Driver in, well, the The Driver. Rather than emulating the subtlety of these classics, it cheapens them with a sort of cheesy romanticism set against a backdrop of pointless gore.
It started off almost identically as Walter Hill's The Driver with the anonymous hero picking up a fast ride, parking it close to where the heist is taking place, opening the back door to make the robbers' lives that bit easier and driving off confidently into the nocturnal darkness of the city. I nodded in approval, thinking the director has all the right influences.
But as the charming affection between the Driver and Irene descended into conventional lovey-doveyiness, and the ‚??he‚??s a human being‚?? song started playing, I cringed in disappointment. From the sublime to the ridiculous in no time at all. Not that I dislike tenderness and affection in film, on the contrary ‚?? I love it when it‚??s effective. But what effect is produced here? The song is terribly out of place. So he‚??s not just a hero, but a real human being as well? Using this method to render your characters believable is taking the path of least resistance. Pure laziness on the director‚??s part.
Did Melville do that? Did Walter Hill do that? No, because these directors understood that to make a love affair, or an implicit romance work in such films, you need more than sweetness and sacrifice. You need detachment. Cool, crisp detachment, so that tension builds incrementally, much like the characters‚?? immorality. In Le Samourai, you wait and you wait and you wait for the moment when the Jeff shows some sort of humanity. When he‚??s shot and tending his wounds, it stings and hurts and he contorts his face in pain. These precious little moments of humanity are what makes the film so effective.
But when you have Ryan Gosling‚??s character driving around with Irene and her kid on an empty racetrack, all sun-drenched and happy, with this mushy pop song playing in the background, you have all subtlety gone down the drain, along with the promise of a good noir film.
And as far as laconic professionals go, Ryan Gosling‚??s Driver is ok, at the most. He looks like Ryan O‚??Neal from The Driver, but he hasn‚??t got that poised, self-confident air about him. He‚??s got the Steve McQueen haircut, but doesn‚??t have his soul. And he‚??s no match for the ice-cold archangel Alain Delon. What is he then? He‚??s a human being, the film‚??s misplaced tune would have you believe. Just an ordinary guy with an extraordinary talent, and some cool jackets, which get more screen time than the cars.
Roger Ebert said that the film has a ‚??respect for knowledgeable moviegoers‚??. How may I ask? How can a film in which the drama is spoon-fed to the viewer rather than tactfully intimated impress a person who has seen Jean Pierre Melville‚??s films? Why does the Driver smash that hitman‚??s skull in the lift, right before Irene‚??s eyes? To counterbalance his hitherto pleasant, kid-loving persona? Hidden depths of despair? Hidden psychopathic tendencies? Or is Refn simply trying to convince himself and us that he can do it like Tarantino can?
This sort of gratuitous violence is incredibly self-indulgent and ultimately, pointless. It should have instead been channelled into more quality car chases, if anything to at least stay true to its genre and not be a messy collage of recycled themes and personages. But it‚??s more about his character than the driving, you‚??d retort... I‚??m sorry but what character? He speaks only when he has to; he drives only when he needs to? He ‚??sacrifices‚?? himself for this family but miraculously lives after being violently stabbed in the abdomen? And then the ‚??he‚??s a human being‚?? song pops up again to round up its predictability with an extra portion of cheese.
I wonder if Refn didn‚??t say to himself after he completed the film, ‚??hey I may not have quite got the drama right but it must have some sort of effect at least‚??. And that‚??s the problem. When you substitute the desire for a grand vision with the timid hope to achieve some sort of ‚??effect‚??, you know you haven‚??t done your job properly.

Oct 1 - 04:50 PM

ipchuk i.

ipchuk ipchuk

While Chris T's review is far from eloquent, he has a point.
I desperately wanted to like this film, based on the premise of a lone-wolf type of character, in the same vein as Jeff Costello in Le Samourai and The Driver in, well, the The Driver. Rather than emulating the subtlety of these classics, it cheapens them with a sort of cheesy romanticism set against a backdrop of pointless gore.
It started off almost identically as Walter Hill's The Driver with the anonymous hero picking up a fast ride, parking it close to where the heist is taking place, opening the back door to make the robbers' lives that bit easier and driving off confidently into the nocturnal darkness of the city. I nodded in approval, thinking the director has all the right influences.
But as the charming affection between the Driver and Irene descended into conventional lovey-doveyiness, and the "he‚??s a human being" song started playing, I cringed in disappointment. From the sublime to the ridiculous in no time at all. Not that I dislike tenderness and affection in film, on the contrary ‚?? I love it when it's genuinely effective. But what effect is produced here? The song is terribly out of place. So he‚??s not just a hero, but a real human being as well? Using this method to render your characters believable is taking the path of least resistance. Pure laziness on the director‚??s part.

Did Melville do that? Did Walter Hill do that? No, because these directors understood that to make a love affair, or an implicit romance work in such films, you need more than sweetness and sacrifice. You need detachment. Cool, crisp detachment, so that tension builds incrementally, much like the characters' immorality. In Le Samourai, you wait and you wait and you wait for the moment when the Jeff shows some sort of humanity. When he‚??s shot and tending his wounds, it stings and hurts and he contorts his face in pain. These precious little moments of humanity are what makes the film so effective.
But when you have Ryan Gosling's character driving around with Irene and her kid on an empty racetrack, all sun-drenched and happy, with this mushy pop song playing in the background, you have all subtlety gone down the drain, along with the promise of a good noir film.
And as far as laconic professionals go, Ryan Gosling‚??s Driver is ok, at the most. He looks like Ryan O'Neal from The Driver, but he hasn't got that poised, self-confident air about him. He‚??s got the Steve McQueen haircut, but doesn't have his soul. And he's no match for the ice-cold archangel Alain Delon. What is he then? He‚??s a human being, the film‚??s misplaced tune would have you believe. Just an ordinary guy with an extraordinary talent, and some cool jackets, which get more screen time than the cars.
Roger Ebert said that the film has a "respect for knowledgeable moviegoers". How may I ask? How can a film in which the drama is spoon-fed to the viewer rather than tactfully intimated impress a person who has seen Jean Pierre Melville's films? Why does the Driver smash that hitman's skull in the lift, right before Irene‚??s eyes? To counterbalance his hitherto pleasant, kid-loving persona? Hidden depths of despair? Hidden psychopathic tendencies? Or is Refn simply trying to convince himself and us that he can do it like Tarantino can?
This sort of gratuitous violence is incredibly self-indulgent and ultimately, pointless. It should have instead been channelled into more quality car chases, if anything to at least stay true to its genre and not be a messy collage of recycled themes and personages. But it's more about his character than the driving, you‚??d retort... I‚??m sorry but what character? He speaks only when he has to; he drives only when he needs to? He 'sacrifices' himself for this family but miraculously lives after being violently stabbed in the abdomen? And then the "he‚??s a human being" song pops up again to round up its predictability with an extra portion of cheese.

I wonder if Refn didn't say to himself after he completed the film, ‚??hey I may not have quite got the drama right but it must have some sort of effect at least'. And that's the problem. When you substitute the desire for a grand vision with the timid hope to achieve some sort of 'effect', you know you haven‚??t done your job properly.

Oct 1 - 04:55 PM

ipchuk i.

ipchuk ipchuk

While Christ T's review is far from eloquent, he has a point.

I desperately wanted to like this film, based on the premise of a lone-wolf type of character, in the same vein as Jeff Costello in Le Samourai and the Driver in well, The Driver. Rather than emulating the subtlety of these classics, it cheapens them a sort of cheesy romanticism set against backdrop of pointless gore.

It started off almost identically to Walter Hill's The Driver with the anonymous hero picking up a fast ride, parking it next to the where the heist is taking place, opening the back door to make the robbers' lives that much easier and driving off confidently into the nocturnal darkness of the big city. I nodded in approval, thinking the director has all the right influences.

But as the heart-warming affection the Driver and Irene descended into conventional lovey-doveyiness, and the "he's human being" song started playing, I cringed in disappointment. From the sublime to the ridiculous in no time at all. Not that I dislike tenderness and affection in film, on the contrary I cherish it. But what's going on here? The song is terribly out of place. So he's not just a hero, but a real human being too? Using this method to render your characters believable is taking the path of least resistance. Pure laziness on the part of the filmmakers.

Did Melville do that? Did Walter Hill do that? No, because these directors understood that to make a love affair, or an implicit romance work in such films, you need more than sweetness sacrifice. You need detachment. Cool, crisp detachment, so that tension builds incrementally, much like the characters' immorality. In Le Samourai, you wait and you wait and you wait for the moment when Jeff shows some sort of humanity. When he's shot and tending his wound, it stings and hurts and he contorts his face in pain. These precious little moments of humanity are what makes the film so effective.

But when you have Ryan Gosling's character driving around with Irene and her kid on an empty racetrack, all sun-drenched and happy, with a mushy pop song playing in the background, you have all subtlety flushed down the drain, along with the promise of a good noir film.

And as far as laconic professionals go, Ryan Gosling's Driver is ok, at the most. He looks like Ryan O'Neal from The Driver, but he hasn't got that effortless poise about him. He's got Steve McQueen haircut, but doesn't have his soul. And he melts before the ice-cold angel of the dark street, Alain Delon. So what is he then? He's a human being, the film's misplaced tune would have you believe. Just an ordinary guy with an extraordinary talent, and some cool jackets, which get more screen time than the cars.

Roger Ebert said that the film shows "respect for knowledgeable moviegoers". How may I ask? How can a film in which the drama is spoon-fed to the viewer rather than tactfully intimated impress a person who has seen Jean-Pierre Melville's work? Why does the Driver so brutally smash that hitman's skull in the lift, right before Irene's eyes? Hidden psychopathic tendencies? Or is Refn simply trying to convince himself and us that he can do it like Tarantino can?

This sort of gratuitous violence is incredibly self-indulgent and ultimately, pointless. It should have instead been channelled into more quality car chases, or anything to at least stay true to its genre, not bastardize with a messy collage of recycled themes of personages. But it's more about his character than the driving, you'd retort...
I'm sorry but what character? He speaks only when he has to; he drives only when he needs to? He 'sacrifices' himself for this woman he supposedly loves but miraculously lives after being stabbed in the abdomen? And the the 'he's a human being' song pops up again to round up its predictability with an extra portion of cheese.

I wonder if Refn didn't say to himself after he completed the film, 'hey I am not have quite got the drama right but it must have some sort of effect at least'. And that's the problem. When you substitute the desire for a grand vision with the timid hope to achieve some sort of 'effect', you know you haven't done your job properly.

Oct 1 - 05:27 PM

ipchuk i.

ipchuk ipchuk

While Christ T's review is far from eloquent, he has a point.

I desperately wanted to like this film, based on the premise of a lone-wolf type of character, in the same vein as Jeff Costello in Le Samourai and the Driver in well, The Driver. Rather than emulating the subtlety of these classics, it cheapens them with a sort of cheesy romanticism set against a backdrop of pointless gore.

It started off almost identically to Walter Hill's The Driver with the anonymous hero picking up a fast ride, parking it next to the where the heist is taking place, opening the back door to make the robbers' lives that much easier and driving off confidently into the nocturnal darkness of the big city. I nodded in approval, thinking the director has all the right influences.

But as the heart-warming affection the Driver and Irene descended into conventional lovey-doveyiness, and the "he's human being" song started playing, I cringed in disappointment. From the sublime to the ridiculous in no time at all. Not that I dislike tenderness and affection in film, on the contrary I cherish it. But what's going on here? The song is terribly out of place. So he's not just a hero, but a real human being too? Using this method to render your characters believable is taking the path of least resistance. Pure laziness on the part of the filmmakers.

Did Melville do that? Did Walter Hill do that? No, because these directors understood that to make a love affair, or an implicit romance work in such films, you need more than sweetness and sacrifice. You need detachment. Cool, crisp detachment, so that tension builds incrementally, much like the characters' immorality. In Le Samourai, you wait and you wait and you wait for the moment when Jeff shows some sort of humanity. When he's shot and tending his wound, it stings and hurts and he contorts his face in pain. These precious little moments of humanity are what makes the film so effective.

But when you have Ryan Gosling's character driving around with Irene and her kid on an empty racetrack, all sun-drenched and happy, with a mushy pop song playing in the background, you have all subtlety flushed down the drain, along with the promise of a good noir film.

And as far as laconic professionals go, Ryan Gosling's Driver is ok, at the most. He looks like Ryan O'Neal from The Driver, but he hasn't got that effortless poise about him. He's got Steve McQueen haircut, but doesn't have his soul. And he melts before the ice-cold angel of the dark street, Alain Delon. So what is he then? He's a human being, the film's misplaced tune would have you believe. Just an ordinary guy with an extraordinary talent, and some cool jackets, which get more screen time than the cars.

Roger Ebert said that the film shows "respect for knowledgeable moviegoers". How may I ask? How can a film in which the drama is spoon-fed to the viewer rather than tactfully intimated impress a person who has seen Jean-Pierre Melville's work? Why does the Driver so brutally smash that hitman's skull in the lift, right before Irene's eyes? Hidden psychopathic tendencies? Or is Refn simply trying to convince himself and us that he can do it like Tarantino can?

This sort of gratuitous violence is incredibly self-indulgent and ultimately, pointless. It should have instead been channelled into more quality car chases, or anything to at least stay true to its genre, not bastardize with a messy collage of recycled themes of personages. But it's more about his character than the driving, you'd retort...
I'm sorry but what character? He speaks only when he has to; he drives only when he needs to? He 'sacrifices' himself for this woman he supposedly loves but miraculously lives after being stabbed in the abdomen? And the the 'he's a human being' song pops up again to round up its predictability with an extra portion of cheese.

I wonder if Refn didn't say to himself after he completed the film, 'hey I may not have quite got the drama right but it must have some sort of effect at least'. And that's the problem. When you substitute the desire for a grand vision with the timid hope to achieve some sort of 'effect', you know you haven't done your job properly.

Oct 1 - 05:32 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile