Things worked out so great last time I brought up Drive, I thought why not do it again, so here’s my review of the film for MSN Movies. Enjoy! Weigh in! And all that!
"Drive," I said
You May Also Like
What I've learned, plasma display repair division
What I've learned, plasma display repair division
So. As regular readers of this blog know, as of the middle of July my…
Glenn KennyOctober 24, 2010
Talking to film students about "Green Book"
Talking to film students about "Green Book"
I teach two recitation sections for a “Language of Film” class at NYU’s Tisch School…
Glenn KennyMarch 2, 2019
The current cinema, 8/12/2018
The current cinema, 8/12/2018
Bruno Cremer, Manuel Zarzo, and Jacques Perrin in The 317th Platoon. For the Times: The…
Glenn KennyAugust 12, 2018
“The thing that makes action-packed but intriguingly enigmatic action films such as that or ‘Bullitt’ so seductive is that they don’t spend too much time telling you how terse and elliptical they are; they just are terse and elliptical.”
Word.
Word, indeed. I am really amped to see this, strangely moreso now than before I read this review. Reading about that centerpiece…boy howdy. I’m in. I’ll take the hit on the rest, the bad stuff (if indeed I think it’s bad, too) if that one bit is as good as you say.
I watched the Bullitt Blu-ray recently and was surprised at how much its terseness and ellipticalness (ellipitude?) reminded me of Melville’s films. I had seen the film 8–10 times before, but it was never as compelling as seeing it in this context.
Been reading alot about Mr. Gosling’s elliptical terseness, Ms. Mulligan’s slumming and Mr. Brooks’ contagious delight in having dirty hands but next to nothing about Mr. Perlman, very much one of my favorite character actors who’s been killing lately in pretty unlikely contexts, e.g. SOA, channeling Gunnar Björnstrand in SEASON OF THE WITCH, &c., &c. How’s Hellboy in this?
Wasted, I’d say. It’s a nothing role and Winding Refn is content to frame him in Mount-Rushmore-esque closeups, to signify how intense and awesome he is.
Saw it last night Quelle Frommage!
Whodathunk Albert Brooks would get cast as the key killer in a slasher flick.
Lackaday, though grant Nick his appreciation of the Beast’s intense awesomeness (& vice versa), to say nothing of his capacity to fill the frame monumentally. That’s one graven cat, where not straight-up pre-hominid. Add his gravelly line readings, delivered so far behind the beat he’s like Ginger on more smack than usual, and if I were more of an academic film studiesist, I’d suggest Mr. Perlman’s a festival of the absolute, or some such shit. Yes. I’m a fan.
Not seeing DRIVE till Friday, but I’m also weary with movies that are so self-conscious about how hard-boiled or edgy they are (haven’t run into the self-consciously elliptical ones yet). Although it’s not the only thing, again, that separates POINT BLANK from PAYBACK, for example, the latter constantly telling you how hard-boiled it is stands in sharp contrast to the former, which just is hard-boiled, and for me, all the better because of that.
I’m with bill upthread – seeing this one for sure this coming weekend, and I’ll sit through the bad stuff to get to the gold, like any genre fan does pretty much every time they head to the theater.
This movie is so hetero it’s homo.
In its dream, Mr. Bloch.
There isn’t a frame of this thing that doesn’t scream “Oh I’m SO HIP aren’t I?”
I like Ryan Gosling enormously, but he’s not Lee Marvin, and the film’s attempt at passing him off as Lee Marvin is pathetic.
Come on, David. Ryan Gosling cut his teeth singing ditties for Disney; Lee Marvin fought in the Pacific Theatre of Dubya-Dubya-Too, killing Japanamen with his bare hands. I’d say they are both equals in the taciturn badassery dept. I mean, the eyes don’t lie, and Mr. Gosling has black coal burning behind those peepers. I can only imagine the horror he has seen.
It’s called acting.
And can all you Amateur Hour Michael Madsens get over the whole “so-and-so isn’t a REAL BADASS like Lee Marvin”/“They don’t make ’em like they used to!” thing; For a group of guys that loathes Big Hollywood type macho pronouncements, movie geeks sure are quick to fall back on the “Leo/Matt/Ryan/Jake’s a candy-ass, viva The Duke!” sensibility. It really is vaguely annoying how new male leads have to earn their “macho” stripes with male movie geeks– every time a new Cooper, Timberlake, Gosling, Gyllenhaal type comes along, they’re subjected to this infantile/protesting-too-much bullying from male online geeks (truly a macho bunch if ever there was one) that’s akin to the 11th grade running back fuming over his sister’s Teen Beat centerfolds.
It’s also basically the same argument as any chick clamoring for “MORE REAL WOMEN INSTEAD OF STICK FIGURES!” in discussing beautiful actresses, or some slob guy bemoaning how no one in movies looks like Abe Vigoda or Vic Tayback anymore. It’s a lost cause, just give it up…
Next thing you know, you guys’ll be asking for a return of pubic hair.
SONS OF ANARCHY has not yet reached the kind of cultural status whereby it can referred to recognizably by only an acronym, and I certainly hope it never will. Has nobody yet noticed that Ron Perlman can’t act, that there’s nothing much going on beneath that cartoon face? I’d call him the modern-day Rondo Hatton, except that Perlman’s persona (apart from the face) is sort of soft and new-agey, so there’s even a disconnect there.
And yes, Lex, some of us do belong to the Feech La Manna school on the subject of pubic hair. Deal with it.
Public hair has never gone out of style, Lex. At least as far as I’m concerned.
Bradley Cooper and Justin Timberlake do nothing for me, Lex. Whereas I’m all over Ryan and Jake like a cheap suit.
Neither, however, is as smokin’ hot as Louis Garrel.
There’s a word for females with no pubic hair (and miniscule labia): “children”
All right, that’ll be enough of THAT, thank you.
Oooo, I’ll take that bait! In fact, I think if you look at RP’s work in THE NAME OF THE ROSE, CITY OF LOST CHILDREN, THE LAST SUPPER, ENEMY AT THE GATES and I SELL THE DEAD alone, those are five distinct, accomplished performances – I’d really like to discover how someone who can’t act pulled them off. That certainly doesn’t include his iconic Del Toro work or SOA which, Mr. Bowie’s dearest hopes notwithstanding, had its most watched episode for the season première last week. The latter is absolutely my favorite soap opera on television, just as MELROSE PLACE was some two decades ago and for much the same reason – it’s ridiculously campy, albeit with slightly more bloodshed. Slightly.
Lex/Todd:
Since you’re the guy who has spent the last couple of years proclaiming your impotence across the Interwebtrix, I think that disqualifies you from discussing anything having to do with masculinity and who’s faking it and who’s not. Of course a tulip like Bradley Cooper seems manly to you.
Gosling doesn’t seem that tough to me (his name alone is just so damn adorable), but I think that he’s no wussier than Ryan O’Neal–a.k.a. the original “Driver.”
Long as I’m working the room:
Christina Hendricks isn’t hot at all. Carey Mulligan is WAY sexier because she’s more girly and DEMURE and NON-THREATENING.
Plus redheads kinda suck.
Piss off. JANE ASHER!
James, I’ll concede some camp value to SONS OF ANARCHY … it’s the people who take it seriously who scare (or just disappoint) me.
Great, now we have to deal with Lex’s schtick on this site, too. Get a new piece, bro. Your gimmick isn’t that deep. You should be able to expand it pretty easily.
“Great, now we have to deal with Lex’s schtick on this site, too.”
Wow, gee, sorry you’re so put out. But I’d wager it’s more effort for me to un-see your INCREDIBLY STUPID name than it would be for you to skim over anything I say. Also don’t call me “bro,” bro.
But have no fears, “ENVER,” I don’t usually post here, as I’m keenly aware that I annoy Glenn and his readership. I just wanted to talk about “Drive,” and since Showtune Poland has me banned, and the unsettling cabal of Criterion Bullet Belt Nazis on Wells have sworn to unveil my drag-queen girlfriend and Blue Magic empire to the world should I ever post on HE again, seemed as good a place as any.
Didn’t realize this blog for Some Came Humorless. Like, how do you guys watch all those old movies with comedy in them, yet have NO sense of humor whatsoever?
Stephen, a good, way non-cinephilic pal of mine who is as largely unenthused with SONS as you are made invidious comparisons between it and GLEE, which provided something of an epiphany for me and drove the point home where my not-entirely rational love of the show is concerned. And Ron be damned, but Katey Sagal rules the universe, or an immodestly huge proportion of the cable dial, on it.
Lex, you’re nuts – Ms. Hendricks’ hotness approaches the brutal and I’m completely hysterical. But, great goodness gosh, post away, sir. Never can understand the hostility you engender here – did you hurt Jeffrey Wells’ feelings, or something? The Criterion Collection’s, maybe?
Well, senses of humor differ.
But seriously, Lex, I got your back. Up to a point. I know from experience that rocking an “internet persona” can be pretty amusing, but every now and then you wanna kick back and get real a bit and just talk movies in earnest, and then you find you’re carrying this baggage with you that just sets off this reflexive hostility in people and you haven’t even SAID anything. Or anything THAT BAD.
For what it’s worth, I don’t think the fault with “Drive” lies with any of the actors or their work, with the exception of Mulligan who, as Robert Christgau once said of that Steely Dan singer who WASN’T Donald Fagen, fits in like a cheerleader at a crap game. And I like Ron Perlman, and think he’s a fine performer, but as I said before, he’s mostly used just for presence here.
As for Gosling, it’s funny. For some reason part of me keeps waiting to just hate him in something. And I never, ever do. The kid’s very good. That’s all there is to it.
FWIW, big fan of “Sons of Anarchy” here, though S3 represented a pretty huge drop-off with that endless Ireland plot… Perlman and Hunnam are solid gold, as is the Rich Man’s Michael Fassbender known as the mighty Kim Coates… Sometimes you can kind of see the acting limitations and catch some awkward false moments when some of the supporting casts steps outside the diligent HEY BROTHER posturing, but I never have that problem with Perlman on the show…
But… I know Kurt Sutter’s a bad-ass and probably NO ONE on that show or FX wants to tell him anything other than how great it is he’s carved this primo role for his wife Katey Sagal… but it’s her stuff that DOES border into ludicrous camp. Peg Bundy vamping in her apparent one black outfit camping around town with scaffolded hair making mugging faces while talking smack to tough guys left and right… Between her and Ally Walker (or Polly Walker, whatever it is) Sutter’s trying to go for this Tough Dames hard-ass mode, but it comes off as the Real Housewives of Charming, and puts the show into Bravo network camp mode.
Lex: I’m Turkish. My name might sound silly to you, but I’m sorry about that. My parents are from Turkey. My grandfather’s name was Enver. And I do have a sense of humor. However, you’re not funny, so why I should laugh at what you say doesn’t make any sense. You are loud, though. I will give you that. You have managed to figure out a way to be heard over the din, and you should pat yourself on the back for such an accomplishment. You are very loud. Congratulations.
Is Armond White posting under the pseudonym Lex now?
Lex calling someone else humorless.…it’s like he does this on purpose!
The treatment Lex gets around here is a disgrace.
Without giving too much away (not that word isn’t already out there), Albert Brooks’ role in Drive bears little resemblance to his Out of Sight character, who spends almost the entire movie being shaken down and intimidated. The revelation here isn’t Brooks-as-sleazeball but Brooks-as-[SPOILER]-who-[SPOILERS]-someone-with-a-fucking-[SPOILER].
On the subject of “unveiling”, I do hope Lex is going to reveal, as promised, how I’m the puppet master of some grand internet conspiracy to ridicule him (as if any external help were needed).
What, GK, no spirited defense of redhead honor?
Studio Audience: Oooooooooooooooo!!!
I think maybe the “I wear their scorn as a badge of honor” approach might be called for here…
My take is similar to yours http://outlaw.tumblr.com/post/10307677670/fragmentary-train-of-thought-post-drive
But am I the only one who thought the degree of graphic, splatter‑y violence seriously undercut Refn’s alleged minimalism? Herschell Gordon Melville. Jesus. Insane misjudgment.
I was disappointed in DRIVE, which struck me as a Beat Takeshi movie crossed with a cologne ad. Yes, that action centerpiece is great, and Albert Brooks has a juicy role (though not as fun as in OUT OF SIGHT.) But, the story is crap. And the courtship of the Denny’s waitress is laughable. Gosling plays these scenes with a goofy serene grin and long awkward pauses. How did Refn turn a bonafide hearthrob into such a mute, low-charisma stiff?
I thought maybe Glenn and Rosenbaum were showing their age a bit with this one, but their assessments of DRIVE strike me as dead on. And I say this as a kind of admirer of VALHALLA RISING as a fan of the novel on which the film was based and on the draft of the script that got the deals made – the one just before the director did an apparently drastic, uncredited and ill-advised production rewrite. The film lacks a context for its violence and strangely spends more quality time hanging out its characters than the book or the better prior draft of the script did, but to less effect – without making us know them any better or care anymore. The director seems to fixate on certain visual ideas – the jacket, the mask, the design of certain scenes – to the detriment of the whole. The faux humanism that appears to drive the love story turns out to be just another inflection of hyper-romantic style. This project had a lot to offer and a lot of talent going into even such a flawed result. It’s too bad because if the director had played it straighter, had simply done his best to tell the story as it existed, focusing on the mechanics of scenes as he does in the pawn shop heist or the strangely compelling cat-and-mouse opening anti-car chase, this film would be a worthy successor to THE DRIVER.
I quite enjoyed this, and I thought it was pretty clear that Gosling’s “Driver” was supposed to be pretty unhinged, not a Lee Marvin hero (the “Real Hero” song feels totally ironic, like something that would be playing in his head). He’s a shark, and there are no good sharks.
Also, I know that Glenn criticizes it in his review, but I find that elevator scene simply stunning in it’s Wilder-quality dramatic construction. The establishing of characters, motivation, the confined space and the “situation” and how it resolves itself is one of the highlights of the movie year for me.
“Herschell Gordon Melville” – HA! To live outside the law, you must be honest. And funny. Bravo, outlaw!
I was relieved that the Frog & Scorpion tale was merely alluded to, not actually retold in the film (though if it had been retold, it might have been the longest bit of dialogue in the movie).
Not that the film was exactly a documentary, but did anyone else find Albert Brooks’ final action a bit improbable (specifically the location and time of day), especially given that he was set up pretty clearly as an intelligent, logical, non-impulsive villain?
I got the impression that he probably owned the restaurant.
I’m referring to what happens in the parking lot outside the Chinese restaurant, “The Great Wall,” in broad daylight (the pizza restaurant never seemed to be open for non-criminal business, so I’ll give them that one)
I know, I got the impression he owned that one as well, since he was able to clear out the main eating area for a sit-down. I thought he could do the same for the parking lot too.
You know, right, that if video stores (remember them?) had a section called “Realism,” “Drive” would not be shelved there? Right? (I suggest reading Jim Emerson’s piece at his Scanners blog.)
I know, I know. As I said, I wouldn’t treat Drive as a documentary on L.A. crime (especially since the film portrays the city as having only a dozen or so criminals, all of whom seem to keep crossing paths). Still, it’s often those little points that bother one more than all the big issues.
The first half of “Drive” is superb: moody and suspenseful, with an existential vibe that few American movies have captured. Then the parade of killings start, and after a while it becomes monotonous.
Another problem I had with the film: Are violent criminals really all white men in their 50s, as shown in “Drive”? After a while, the movie seemed to be pandering to Gen X audiences by having the young hero butchering a series of middle-aged, balding (or badly toupeed) bad guys. It seemed like symbolic killings of one corrupt father figure after another.
At least the lonely, existential mood returned in the last shot.