Drive

[Lord-Barrington]



I might be the only one in this thread who is not sold on this movie. I mean it was beautiful, from the way it was shot to the way it was cut and mixed. But for whatever reason, I could just care less about anything that was going on. Having said that, the opening heist had me so tense. Actually, this movie had a number of great, tense, holy **** scenes and moments. The elevator scene was ******* amazing, and not just for the violence.

I don't think Drive was The Maltese Falcon or Chinatown or an otherwise seminal noir (or in this case, neo-noir) but it was a pretty damn movie. I think most film struggle to deliver anything resembling the bravado and balls that Drive does, yet it's never seems to be over the top or trying too hard.

 

[WhoKnewI]

I don't think it was either, and it obviously played on archetypes, but the plot was just so thin and the big reveal had Chekhov's gun all over it. again, a very pretty, stylish, tense film that should be seen, but I could care less about everyone in it.

 

[Ace_Face]

You're not the only one who wasn't completely sold on the movie. I felt like it was a bit of style over substance and didn't really feel like there was any way to identify with any of the characters. Maybe it's a grower, but I wasn't blown away by it.

That first scene was really good though.

 

[Imhoff]

Just saw this film. Wow. What a gripping film. Absolutely was enamored with the score. The cinematography was beautiful, especially in the dressing room. The motel room scene didn't have me blinking once. A really great film and would recommend anyone to see it.

 

[billsayers]

An interesting movie...not grand in scope but told with conviction.

Anyone know where I can find some analysis/write-up on the movie, especially regarding the heist? I am a bit confused on one detail but don't want to ruin it for those that have not seen the movie yet.

 

[Harold falcon]



You're not the only one who wasn't completely sold on the movie. I felt like it was a bit of style over substance and didn't really feel like there was any way to identify with any of the characters. Maybe it's a grower, but I wasn't blown away by it.

That first scene was really good though.

"It's not what a movie is about, but how it's about it."

That non-speaker less-intellectual part of Siskel & Ebert wrote that.

 

[Ahab]

http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/entert...ing-style-fashion-costume-design/drive-jacket

Good movie. I liked the boots.



I try to avoid jean jacket and jeans but he pulled it off well.

 

[boogaboogabooga]



You're not the only one who wasn't completely sold on the movie. I felt like it was a bit of style over substance and didn't really feel like there was any way to identify with any of the characters. Maybe it's a grower, but I wasn't blown away by it.

That first scene was really good though.

I'd say the rest of the movie is the same as the opening, mechanically. We aren't drawn to the character because we've developed a long rapport (at least by a more typical means, Gosling's acting and characterization and the use of parallelism tell us a lot about the character) or even shown how similar (is that the point of identifying? If that's the case why do I have to be just like someone to empathize with them?) we are with him. We understand that he is the protagonist of the film, understand general narrative conventions, and the tension is then created via situationalism. Why a film that doesn't ask us to identify with the characters (in fact, there are scenes immediately post-hotel room and post-elevator that can only be meant to amplify the Driver's more horrifying characteristics) is being knocked for your criticism is like thinking a baseball game wasn't any good because no one scored a touchdown.

 

[boogaboogabooga]



An interesting movie...not grand in scope but told with conviction.

Anyone know where I can find some analysis/write-up on the movie, especially regarding the heist? I am a bit confused on one detail but don't want to ruin it for those that have not seen the movie yet.

Ask in a spoiler and we'll try to answer in a spoiler.

 

[WhoKnewI]



I'd say the rest of the movie is the same as the opening, mechanically. We aren't drawn to the character because we've developed a long rapport (at least by a more typical means, Gosling's acting and characterization and the use of parallelism tell us a lot about the character) or even shown how similar (is that the point of identifying? If that's the case why do I have to be just like someone to empathize with them?) we are with him. We understand that he is the protagonist of the film, understand general narrative conventions, and the tension is then created via situationalism. Why a film that doesn't ask us to identify with the characters (in fact, there are scenes immediately post-hotel room and post-elevator that can only be meant to amplify the Driver's more horrifying characteristics) is being knocked for your criticism is like thinking a baseball game wasn't any good because no one scored a touchdown.

IMO, there have been a number of other films similar to this, both plot and character-wise, where both the story and characters were much more interesting and better developed. Gosling's characterization reveals very little, which I am sure is intentional, but it ultimately left me not caring about his character. My friends left the theater wondering if he

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

survived or died at the end

and my response was, "who gives a ****?" I dont have to be like a character to empathize with him either, I just have to be intrigued in one way or another. Maybe I'm just spoiled by good television where a character's arc spans several seasons. Oh well.

 

[Master-Classter]

hm, never would have even looked twice at this one but the trailer looks solid. I think I'll go check this one out.

 

[billsayers]



Ask in a spoiler and we'll try to answer in a spoiler.

So my question regarding the heist is

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Why did Nino plan for a double robbery? Did he really need to send the others to the pawn shop? Wouldn't it have been sufficient if Nino just let Standard and Blanche finish their robbery and turn the money to Cook? The only person that could tie him to the robbery was Cook, not the driver, Standard or Blanche.

 

[Imhoff]



So my question regarding the heist is

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Why did Nino plan for a double robbery? Did he really need to send the others to the pawn shop? Wouldn't it have been sufficient if Nino just let Standard and Blanche finish their robbery and turn the money to Cook? The only person that could tie him to the robbery was Cook, not the driver, Standard or Blanche.

Maybe possible reasoning behind question...

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I think what happened was Nino took that money from another mob member from Philly. The guy from Philly was going to invest that money into some sort of investment front and then start operations in the same town of Nino. So Nino didn't like that. So he hid the money at the pawn shop. His thinking was that he was going to rob himself (well, rob Driver, Standard, and Blanche) so it looks like the money is gone and he is in the clear. Just my thoughts.

 

[burningbright]

Answer to billsayers question:

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I thought the guy from Philly was coming out there to set up business so he hid the money at the pawn shop until he could get things going. And all that Nino was doing was trying to steal it because he found out it was there. I'm also very willing to admit that I could have missed something though while under the hypnosis of the scorpion.

 

[WhoKnewI]

Imhoff got it right.