Brilliant movie after watching it properly this time.

Really like the dialogue or lack of it between Gosling and Mulligan. Their gestures or smirks/smiling and awkwardness, it's just really quaint and fun. The deliberate prolonged camera shots of scenes with Gosling and Mulligan work.

It has those really low-key moments and then contrast it with the bloody violence

So simple yet hits the mark!

Hugo Stiglitz wrote: as if he was internalising a complicated situation or wondering if Monique thought he was dumb.

Nice.

Had a lol at Kate Rogers gushing over this on Film3 for her top 10 of the year. She said something like "Ryan Gosling says so little but at the same time manages to say so much". Umm, no. Ryan Gosling says so little and that's it. There's absolutely no depth to his character at all. There's pretension to depth - but no actual depth.

And that in itself, like, says so much!

Murakami wrote: There's absolutely no depth to his character at all. There's pretension to depth - but no actual depth.

What do you constitute as depth? Having a character talk a lot?

He's playing an archetype, excessive dialogue would've ruined that. As Refn himself says:

Quote: As an actor, he has many talents, but one of the most unique is that he's one of the few performers who can say a thousand words without saying one word of dialogue. Expressed emotion just pours out of him without even doing anything.

Or even Bryan Cranston:

Quote: For a kid who is so young, Ryan has a depth and a gravitas to him, a grounded ness, that is not only necessary for the character but for the working conditions, too.

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/f...refn/274/page_2
http://pictorialgosling.net/Dentrie...ium-drive3.html

I hear there is a lot of exploding heads...

Sounds like a good movie.

Some big edits going down in this thread.

At first I made a flippant response but then I realised just how off-base I though your comment was so I expanded my answer.

I don't think that he says a thousands things using his emotions really. He just seems to be a smirky silent type. Depth comes from well written character, instead there are a few superficial things like his coat, his chewing a toothpick, and maybe the way he listens to the ball-game during the initial chase.Refn had the opportunity to expand on that character but instead chose to keep him fairly two-dimensional. As I said, there are hints of him being an actual person at the start, but it's never really expanded on. It instead devolves into a brutal symphony of ultra-violence, and stuff like character and plot is kind of thrown out the window.

Well I think that your initial comment was correct anyway. As the film stands, it doesn't require a protagonist with depth.

I don't think they had any interest any creating a conventional "actual" person like some bog standard Hollywood drama - all along they said it was basically a fairytale, mythic, heightened reality. All you need to know is he's a violent man that does violent things - in the name of love/justice. If there had been some cheesy scene where he revealed some backstory to her it would've been too phony. Imagine if Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name had delivered an impassioned monologue about how his family had died horribly and he was looking for revenge, the mystique would be ruined.

There's no doubt Gosling can deliver the sort of performance you're talking about (choose pretty much any of his past movies) - but they were going for something very specific with this film. And I don't think his lack of dialogue meant his performance lacked depth, nor do I think the scenes of violence (of which there are actually only 3 explicit ones - the hotel room scene, the elevator scene, and Cranston's death) meant an abandonment/devolvement of the plot or character at all. They were integral to the piece as a whole. Just watch Gosling in the hammer/bullet scene: when talking on the phone to Nino he repeats the same lines he has used before, but see how Gosling lets the Driver's adrenaline and emotion kick in here, the cool demeanour he exhibited previously struggles to assert itself in the face of the actions he carries out. Or take the diner scene where the guy approaches him and he tells to leave him alone or he'll shut his mouth for him - just watch his reaction following that outburst. Or yet another example, that long slow shot in the hotel room as he moves backwards out of frame, his eyes wide, processing the shock of gunfight. That's all character.

Gwarden wrote: I don't think they had any interest any creating a conventional "actual" person like some bog standard Hollywood drama

yeah, instead they tried to connect with all the socially inept stoners out there who are gagging for a relationship to just "happen" for them

That's a pretty black and white way of looking at it. So I have to settle for a paper thin plot and character development? You don't need cheesy Hollywood scenes in order to reveal backstory or even hint at it. That's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one.

I don't know. The first 1/3 of the film was pretty good in terms of character development. All of that seemed to get chucked out the window when the mean Mexicans turned up and contrived a way for Mr. Driver to commit morally dubious acts in the name of his special girl. "REAL HUMAN BEING.....AND A REAAAL HERO..."
That smashes other peoples heads in.

This film was much more interesting when it was restrained and menacing. Like that bit in the diner where he threatened to stab some guy in the face with a fork?

This film isn't novel, there have been plenty of other minimalist crime thrillers coming out over the past few years with conflicted protagonists who don't say much. It's no coincidence that most of them are coming out of Europe. The director of Drive is Danish iirc. The difference with Drive is that it has a retro - dare I say it, hipster - soundtrack and Ryan Gosling. So naturally more people are going to watch it. The other difference with Drive is that there isn't much too it.

This is a essentially a stylish Statham film. Toned down, hyped and gored up, and more stylized. But really, at the end of the day its content and contribution to the medium of film is about the same as Transporter. That is to say, both are cool films and have kickass stars but are ultimately pretty disposable.

Badsight wrote: yeah, instead they tried to connect with all the socially inept stoners out there who are gagging for a relationship to just "happen" for them

Where do you keep getting that this film is for stoners? This is as far from Cheech and Chong as you can get.

Murakami wrote: You don't need cheesy Hollywood scenes in order to reveal backstory or even hint at it. That's a false dichotomy if ever I saw one.

No, in the context of a film where before shooting they purposely went through and excised the entirety of The Driver's dialogue, a longwinded, backstory-building monologue would be jarringly out of place. Its all about deliberate stylistic choices.

Murakami wrote: But really, at the end of the day its content and contribution to the medium of film is about the same as Transporter. That is to say, both are cool films and have kickass stars but are ultimately pretty disposable.

The only difference being Drive will still be watched in 20 years time. I'm not arguing that this isnt just a wee genre film done really well, so making big calls about its "contribution to the medium of film" seems just a tad facetious.

I don't really see the weed connection either.

It's not so much what you're saying; it's more about what I was hoping for and what some some of the critics are selling it as.

Gabe nailed it like usual

Quote: What is there even left to say? The cinematic Tumblr darling of 2011 was great. We would like to see it again soon. We do think it got a little bit too MUCH credit, insofar as the Internet was acting like this was some kind of touchstone film that was more innovative than it was, when really it was a crazy good soundtrack, a very handsome cast, and a dark and brooding plotline that was about as thin as something that is very thin. It was really an exercise in aesthetics more than anything else, but that’s fine, because this thing had TERRIFIC AESTHETICS. We’re just saying that it’s not the next Pulp Fiction or whatever. It had nothing to say, and it didn’t make any structural or cinematographic breakthroughs. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t just the most fun to watch and that we aren’t still listening to “Real Hero” on a regular basis.

http://videogum.com/437551/favorite...s-of-2011/list/

Good list apart from Another Earth. That was a terrible film.

Murakami wrote: I don't really see the weed connection either.

because you would have to be an eaisly impressed idiot stoner to think this movie had characters worthy of admiration

Badsight wrote: yeah, instead they tried to connect with all the socially inept stoners out there who are gagging for a relationship to just "happen" for them

says a lot about ur character when u start criticizing this films fans for no reason

u mad bro? go watch tin tin

Just watched this last night, thought it was pretty meh. Whole movie just felt lost.

Duck wrote: Just watched this last night, thought it was pretty meh. Whole movie just felt lost.

Quentin?

Gwarden wrote: Quentin?

nope

Bit late to this convo, but I think the character is deliberately left understated so that the audience puts themselves into the character. Worked well for me, anyway.

The best parts of this movie are the cinematography, and Albert Brooks.

Oscar Nominees announced yesterday.

Best Picture:

The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse

Where the **** is Drive?

Moneyball? WHAT?

Extremely Loud And Incredibly Close has gotten terrible reviews...

Would've been nice to see Brooks get a nom.