PlotRyan Gosling is an unnamed driver - performing stunts on movie-sets during the day, and at night driving getaway for criminals. He becomes enmeshed in the fallout from a failed heist due to his 'relationship' with his pretty neighbour, Carey Mulligan, and her son. Hilarity ensues. I mean, revenge tale ensues.
Feelings about the film
Incredulous, angry, bemused. 1 star out of 5.
Good things
Yes, it was certainly directed with finesse. Calm, clean and stylised. It was a good looking film.
Bryan Cranston as the drivers' eager but downtrodden 'pimp'. Ron Perlman was excellent. The only believeable piece of casting, relishing his thuggery, and wearing his menace comfortably.
Bad things
Casting. Casey Mulligan as a white-trash single mum? Sorry no. Albert Brooks as mob? Even Gosling as someone likely to stomp a guy's face in? Me thinks not. Rather than find these choices arty and challenging, I just thought they were bad. I love me some Ryan Gosling as much as the next person, which seems to be everyone at the moment, but even his angsty look-off-in-the-distance troubled-hero expression seemed hokey, and frankly, half-arsed. A quick perusal of the intramanet tells me most people thought the cast was superb and smart - playing against type and all that. For me, I thought the casting choices were ridiculous.
Cinematography. I know I said it looked good, but it just tried so damn hard even this pissed me off. Yes film school graduate, we get that you can set a shot and light it well - now what?!
Sound. Melons being hit with a baseball bat, really could the Foley artists have been any more over the top. And the soundtrack! One 80's electro-synth on repeat....he's a 'human man', we get it.
The Mask. WTF?! An afterthought defying logic, maybe to remind us he is supposed to be a Hollywood stunt driver?
And where did they dredge that Paintshop font from used in the main titles (Mistral for my two readers)? So try-hard retro-chic. Much like Gosling's wardrobe during the film: satin scorpion embroidered jacket slung over skinny jeans, and Italian leather slim-fit boots....it's all just style over substance. Cool for cools sake. I would have thought a pair of Adidas tracksuit pants ... and a different face .... would have been more appropriate.
Story.
And all these problems are rendered impotent against the most significent flaw of this film which is that it is not a film. Artfully composed shots strung together does not a film make. Rather it is a messy hodge-podge of clumsy self-aware scenes with no discernible plot or characters. Really this should just be a pop video. Before the gore-porn started, I was merely bored. After the failed heist, I was pissed off. Man, this was a crap film. Made even more appalling because everyone seems so pleased with it - four and five star reviews everywhere. What did I miss?? Because the film I saw could have been written - and story-boarded - on a postage stamp. Nothing happened, except periodic bursts of violence - which only kicked in about an hour into the 'film'. And there was even less dialogue, unless you call swiveling a toothpick whilst clenching your jaw dialogue.
So to summarise the bad points. Everything.
Perhaps the point I missed was that this was a satire? Was Drive a big joke?
I didn't mind this film, but I remember thinking when I was watching it that the actors were the key to whether it succeeded or failed. As in, the story was… I don't know, quite straight-up, nothing special, and it really needed great performances to lift it. And I remember feeling like the actors did lift the film, although I don't care enough about it to fight anyone who disagreed. Worth watching, but nothing timeless.
ReplyDeleteIt was a good cast, though. This is only the third Gosling film I've seen, after Half Nelson and Lars and the Real Girl, so I wouldn't say I'm in the fan club, but he showed his worth in those. I was more excited to see Bryan Cranston and Christina Hendricks turn up. Used to love Ron Perlman, but after watching Sons of Anarchy I now just want to punch him in the face every time I see his Cheshire grin. And I've watched Finding Nemo so many times that I can't disassociate Albert Brooks' voice from Marlin the Clown Fish anymore, so I found it quite hard to accept his character, but thought he was still pretty menacing.
Re: the 80s aesthetic. I hate almost all music and fashion from the 80s—what a revolting waste of a decade—and I dislike 80s nostalgia even more. I guess it's good we're all different, makes life interesting, but my. Anyway, as much as I dislike the 80s, I think Mistral was a good choice to set the film's title in. Even though it was released in the 50s, it feels so 80s—though not as much asQuicksilver does—and it evokes the classic car typefaces of earlier decades, such as Raceway and Magneto. And the hot pink rounds it off. Is it horrible? Absolutely. But is it appropriate? I'd say yes.
One final point: while watching Drive, the excellent Collateral kept coming to mind for some reason, and I kept having the urge to turn Drive off and put Collateral on. Maybe that says all I need to say about how I really felt about Drive. :)
Actually, I was discussing the whole 80s thing in Drive with Hutch this morning and he pointed out that the film isn't actually set in the 80s. This seems obvious in hindsight, but I think I'd kind of just subconsciously assumed it was. Despite no one listening to Walkmans. Or wearing Choose Life t-shirts. So this, to me, makes all the 80s stuff seem a bit affected. Like, as you say, it's all very self-conscious, self-aware and betrays, I think, a preference for style over substance. I mean, yes, our main character does dress like he's from the 80s, but is this reflected in or does it influence his character at all? Or is it just, "Hey, you know what would be cool for RyRy to wear?"
ReplyDeleteWhao! Hatred! These are all extremely valid points and I'm hardly objecting to anything you've noted here (if anything I'm a little more aware of a lot of the things I'd overlooked in the film), however I didn't dislike it as much as you or your Mistral-identifying partner did.
ReplyDeleteIn brief, I enjoyed the constant sense of brooding discomfort throughout the whole film in the same way I enjoyed a History of Violence. No, it wasn't that challenging, but I kinda enjoyed not having things spelt out through excessive dialogue and what little definition of the character (might want to check out http://www.popcorntaxi.com.au/2011/12/uncategorized/ryan-goslings-driver-from-drive-actual-psych-profile/) was on hand was kind of refreshing in a simplified way.
This of course goes back to your remark about cool for cool's sake— which a lot of this movie is, and it definitely slots comfortably in this current era of over-pastiched (more so than satirised), nostalgia-infested celluloid (immediately thought of Sleigh Bell's Rill Rill clip whilst watching it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP_ChuxYg8o) but I didn't find it that hard to appreciate the 'style' in its own semi-intentionally tacky sense. Fingerless gloves are the bomb, man.
But yeah, Mulligan was completely mis-cast, but perhaps I'm missing the point with Mulligan all together. (I didn't really rate 'An Education', even if she was sitting in front of me when we saw it at MIFF). I didn't think the rest of the cast was that mis-placed though… Perlman was great.
I always thought they used celery and not melons for the foley. Enjoyable review though, keep it up!
So, Em, I'm guessing you won't be taking out a subscription to Empire any time soon: http://www.empireonline.com/features/2012-oscar-injustices/p2
ReplyDeleteGuy Shield (if that is your real name), thanks for that popcorntaxi link. I enjoy nerdish things like that.
Yes, both Collateral and History of Violence came to my mind whilst watching as well. Both great films in their own way.
ReplyDeleteI hear you about not having things spelled out, but I just felt like this particular film was half-arsed and they didn't spell anything out because they frankly hadn't thought past the fingerless gloves. And that Empire link ["After all, a nod for Drive might finally have made the Academy look cool, hip and in touch with the kids."] pretty much typifies my overarching problem with this film. It thought it could be a great film by casting great actors and setting shots well - that the confronting violence and edgy mis-cast would give it credibility - instead of the credibility coming from a great film. It knew it would be 'cool, hip and in touch with the kids' not because of the quality of the story/acting/directing - but because of the trendy leads, wearing cool clothes, and being all-edgy-like. It says, if you don't like me - you're not one of the cool kids. You mustn't 'get' me. I'm important you know.
Finally watched Blue Valentine last night, now that was a great film. Do yourself a favour if you haven't already.
Thanks for the conversation guys - I appreciate it!