Drive (2011)

This is going to be more of a rant about style than the movie itself, for two reasons. The first is that as far as plot goes, the less you know about "Drive," the better it will probably be. This is because there are some genuine shocks in the movie that you probably won't see coming, which of course the trailer does a nice job of spoiling, so don't watch it, and I don't want to ruin anything either. The second is that the plot isn't what is going to make you want to watch this movie. What is going to interest you, if you're interested, is the fact that "Drive" is very influenced by the independent film movement, and if you like stuff like that, you're going to love it.  That for me, however, was the thing that ruined what could have been a very good film.


"Drive" stars Ryan Gosling as a stuntman who moonlights as a getaway driver for robbers and such. He's very good at it, and seems to be doing well when he gets pulled into a situation with some mobsters who are shaking down the ex-con husband of a lady living next door he happens to have a thing for. In an effort to help them out, since he has come to like them, bad things end up happening and Driver (we are never told his actual name) has to become a guardian angel for these people. In essence, it's a remake of "Shane" with intensely brutal Robert Rodriguez level violence near the back half. At least, when the film feels like having stuff happening, which for the most part it's not too keen on doing.


I think that at its core, "Drive" is a good movie. I'm just not a fan of its direction. I regret to say that I've not seen any other film by director Nicholas Winding Refn, but if this is his usual M.O., I'm guessing I probably wouldn't like much of his other stuff, either. I know he's kind of a big deal in the more hip, independent film movement, and boy does it show, because this movie has "independent" written all over it. And if that's your particular cup of tea, by all means, disregard what I'm saying here and know that you'll probably like "Drive."


What do I mean by independent? I think the easiest way to describe it is "taking its time." There are long stretches of not much, if anything, being said by the characters in the so-called "conversation." I put that in quotation marks because whether or not it counts as an actual conversation can be argued. It's not that there isn't anything being said, it's that 80% of the content is what's not being said. And that's fine, I can dig that. It means that the actors are forced to emote without dialogue, which makes for good acting.

But I can only dig that to an extent. My problem comes from the fact that as an audience, we know what is being conveyed through looks and meaningful glances pretty quickly. Is that a point in the favor of the audience for being smart or for the actors for being really good? I don't know. But the fact remains that it's never very obtuse what's going on. And because of that, it always seems like the movie is playing catch-up with me. I understand the fact that Ryan Gosling is becoming attached to the family next door to him. I don't need to see 2 minutes of him staring at them with a slight smile on his usually stoney exterior to get that.

You may think this is a static picture, but it's actually 3 complete minutes of the film.

In some ways, as heady as "Drive" is, it really seems like it looks down on its audience. After all, if this was movie for smart movie goers, it wouldn't hold our hand or brow-beat us with emotions like that. We can read faces and expressions to deduce emotions. Overly long moments of the same emotion for so long just seems to scream "DO YOU GET IT?!" Obviously, this is not what was intended, so I can only assume that "Drive" is a movie for people who really like very, very long stretches of build-up.


And why do they like it? To look smart. That's my take on it, anyways. If someone gets a heightened sense of tension or emotional turmoil boiling up underneath from it then more power to them (far be it for me to judge) but I think deep down, that's what's really going on here. "Drive" and indeed, the whole independent film movement is basically tailor-made as a direct response to the faster paced, flashy Hollywood model, and the idea seems to be to just do whatever it is that Hollywood doesn't do. And because of this I don't think that it's always done because the filmmakers are passionate about this style. They do it because it's what is expected of them. Because independent movies are smart, see? And if they make a film this way, the director is smart as well.


I totally understand the purpose behind slowing things down. You do it so that when the action does happen, it's amplified. The juxtaposition of loud and quiet is important to any effective thriller, and sometimes a movie just needs to breathe. But sometimes it can just get obnoxious, especially when you have dynamite actors popping up elsewhere in the film, reminding you of how much more interesting the villains are than the two main characters. They are absolutely blown away by Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman, who knock it out of the park every time they appear, and provide far more tension with actually doing stuff than Ryan Gosling is staring intensely at someone. Why can't we see more of them? Why can't the movie be about these guys?!


Because decent pacing is for those Hollywood hacks who aren't "smart."


This is just my personal taste and grievance with pretentious movies in general. I wouldn't go so far as to call "Drive" pretentious, it's not like it's a piece of garbage Terrence Malick self-congratulatory wank-fest, but it is loitering in Pretentious' parking lot. There are definitely some noses elevated a few degrees above normal here.


There's a good movie in here somewhere. I like the story, the action scenes are downright inspired, including an incredible opening 15 minutes, and despite my comments earlier I like the characters both good and bad. It just needed another pass in the editing booth to shave 20 to 25 minutes off the run-time that it desperately needed. 

It really does have a great cast, though. I've said that before but it bears repeating. I don't particularly like Ryan Gosling, but he was quite good at playing a quiet, brooding, borderline psychopath. Bryan Cranston also fun to watch as always, but the real gems were the bad guys, Ron Perlman and particularly Albert Brooks. The screen was on fire when they were on it. Although with Albert there was something a tad distracting...

You can't not see it...

I'm thinking David Cronenberg could have done amazing things with "Drive." It's actually not too far off from a lot of his stuff as it is. Watch "A History of Violence" or even better, "Eastern Promises" and you'll see what I mean. Cronenberg knows how to pace a film, and knows how to take his time, but he doesn't go overboard with it. You never feel like fast forwarding through a Cronenberg movie.

This one, however, I did.


THE BOTTOM LINE - If you're a fan of independent movies, this is for you. If you go into it thinking it will be a fast-paced explosion fest, it's not. Worth it for some really good acting, but know what you're getting yourself into first. Also, fans of excessive, borderline comical gore would also do well to be warned. Cautiously Recommended, with a BIG "if."