Drive - Ryan Gosling & Carey Mulligan [** SPOILERS FROM POST 219 ONWARD **]

NunianVonFuch

Action scenes were great, everything else was pretty much filler. Characters were bland and uninteresting. Dialogue trite or absent. I felt for the first half like we were slowly getting inside his skin, which was interesting but just a copy of Taxi Driver in the way it was done.

Like their "dates" where he just cruises around town. Except for some reason that worked this time round. Probably cos the porno theatre was left out.

It felt very much like the George Lucas way of portraying dating, where it's two beautiful people, they're smiling, we see them together, they must be in love! Their scenes felt contrived rather than anyway realistic.

Once things kick off it quickly becomes a one man v mob movie and loses that earlier appeal as his character becomes Mr Avenging Angel and suspense is lost.

The main problem with all the films it's being compared to is that every single one of them is far FAR better than Drive. I think the praise being lavished upon it is more of a "thank god the predictable blockbuster season is over" rather than the film being worthy of it. :pac:

OutlawPete

Seen this last week and all I can say is that who ever cast Ryan Gosling in this should be shot. It's a very good performance from him, but he is just not believable in the slightest way, as a tough guy loner. Alan Carr would look more authentic chewing on a toothpick than Ryan bloody Gosling did.

Audience at the screening I went to laughed at many of the serious moments. Moments that were intended to be shocking, but Gosling just made them look like skits from Saturday Night Live.

Not that he was the only one mis-cast, there were others.

Other than that, I quite liked the film, with a well chosen cast, it could have been a classic.

LeixlipRed

I completely disagree. I think the fact that it is Ryan Gosling playing the driver that makes this movie so interesting. He looks like a normal if somewhat introverted chap, Gosling himself has remarked that he was a loner as a kid, he was partly home schooled, etc. The first half of the movie builds him up as this vunerable kind of character and then the scene in the cafe where the chap who worked with him before approaches him and he threatens gives us a glimpse into the darker side that dominates the rest of the movie.

If the character looked badass at the start of the movie I don't think the sweeter scenes at the start would have ever been believable.

briany

I thought Gosling was fine. He was a little bit melancholy seeming but altogether he carried it off. I personally didn't see the need for any type of love story. Him and Cranston's character seemed to have more basis for a bond that you could become invested in and the storyline could have evolved from that. Also, it would have made for a less hackneyed plot thread.

Even though I like Albert Brooks as an actor, I thought he was a bit out of place. He's more suited to the grouchy but nice deep down guy, not a cold hearted mobster. He's just too cuddly. :P

human repellent

OutlawPete wrote: »

Seen this last week and all I can say is that who ever cast Ryan Gosling in this should be shot. It's a very good performance from him, but he is just not believable in the slightest way, as a tough guy loner. Alan Carr would look more authentic chewing on a toothpick than Ryan bloody Gosling did.

Audience at the screening I went to laughed at many of the serious moments. Moments that were intended to be shocking, but Gosling just made them look like skits from Saturday Night Live.

Not that he was the only one mis-cast, there were others.

Other than that, I quite liked the film, with a well chosen cast, it could have been a classic.

Wow, really? I don't think you get the movie on so many levels

He's not meant to be a 'TOUGH' guy, if he was then this character wouldn't work, the whole normal/quiet guy introverted and secluded from the outside world would be a TOTAL mis-cast.

What works so well about this movie is the shock factor, we realise he's had a bad past we just don't know how bad until he ignites in the cafe, with a tough guy this would all be expected.

I think it was a perfect casting.

WHIP IT!

For me, Gosling doesn't come close to pulling this off. I was, in the main, disappointed with the film. Opening scene - good; Music - good; Brian Cranston - good... Story - bad; Gosling - bad; 'Standard' character - bad; Silent, wooden scenes of main character watching cartoons with neighbour's kid - bad.

The mobster goes round knifing people in broad daylight then just washes the murder weapon and returns it to its display case... Hired hitman watches his target(s) passionately kiss for about 60 seconds in the corner of an elevator and then somehow allows himself to get blindsided.... hmmmm

Ending - pretty rubbish and cliched... I didn't hate it - certainly not - but I can't see myself watching again.

OutlawPete

human repellent wrote: »

Wow, really? I don't think you get the movie on so many levels

He's not meant to be a 'TOUGH' guy, if he was then this character wouldn't work, the whole normal/quiet guy introverted and secluded from the outside world would be a TOTAL mis-cast.

I 'get' the movie perfectly fine, which is why I said in my post that it could so easily have been a classic. You'll always get people who think that, what Gosling brought to the film, is just exactly what was needed for the role, I'm just not one of those people. I don't care how many tooth picks the guy sticks in his mouth, he just was not right for this role and I feel others would have done a far better job, as they would have made it believable. That does not mean that I would want the essence of the character to be something different from what was written on the page, quite the contrary, a young Lee Marvin in the role is not what I am suggesting here, just an actor with more range than Gosling, as I feel the story was deserving of it.

When you want an audience to believe that a man can go from to polar extremes of emotion and behaviour, as this character does, then you need to cast an actor that can translate that onto the screen, give a performance that the audience will feel and will be shocked sure, but ultimately one where thay won't doubt the authenticity of the character's descension (whatever that is), which is why Scorsese had De Niro play Bickle and Kubrick had Nicholson play Jack, rather than whoever the 70's Gosling was at the time . Not sure I'd hold either of those two films in quite the same high regard had Warren Beatty for instance, played either role - but no doubt, had such awfulness befallen either picture, there would still undoubtedly be those who would say that Beatty was perfectly cast, as what he brought to the role, is what ultimately made the film.

And they would be right of course, partially at least, as what he would bring to the film, is what would make the film what would turn out to be but that is precisely why I feel Gosling was completely wrong for this role, as what he brought to the film, almost destroyed it. My guessing would be that on watching the dailies back, they could see Gosling just wasn't coming across as believable. Let's face it, he looks like a dork and a very preppy one at that and I would say that that is what the toothpick was all about (perhaps I'm wrong, could have been in the script long before he was on board). Of course, there could be an argument that nerdy, preppy types can snap too and that's true, but a nerdy preppy type would not walk around as if he thinks he's Steve McQueen, especially if he's had a life that this character must have had, to end up the way he has.

Another thing I wanted to mention ..

Why was character (and all that we are supposed to believe about him) walking around in this getup ..



A guy who is a loner and seemingly, the last thing he wants is to draw attention to himself, is wearing a silver 'look-at-me' cutesy jacket and not only that, but an armed robbery he's about be the getaway driver for?

Laughable.

expectationlost

style over substance,

are they both pyschos, why did she start flirting with a guy when she must have known her husband was coming home soon, did she know he was no so good and wanted to find someone to help but also put the person in deep trouble?

Hogey007

The Soundtrack was by far the best thing about this film, having read the synopsis i was really looking forward to watching it but found that despite some good scenes the film as a whole was very drawn out and Gosling seemed very wooden. Disappointing.

Broads.ie

These are the parts that annoyed me. If anyone would like to tell me if I interpreted them incorrectly then feel free:

I'm not putting a spoiler tag around my whole post, so here's the warning:

***SPOILERS***







1. The main character was totally boring and unbelievable. He is a hipster with skinny jeans that can take on armed gangsters. He barely had a script. I fell asleep every time the camera focused on him.

2. How in the hell did that woman fall in love with him? He came into her house and acted like a total weirdo. Just standing around with a dumb smile, behaving like somebody who was sectioned or had some sort of brain damage. She agreed to go on a date with him, which was just driving around town all night, not saying a word to eachother.

3. Too many scenes in the movie that were just like a coldplay music video. I'd love to see the script, as somebody said earlier it must have been only a few pages long.

3. After the pawn shop robbery, when he's in the motel, two guys try to break into the room. So he effortlessly GRABS A CRAPPY FLOPPY MATTRESS to shield himself from the shotgun blast. WTF. Then he puts the mattress against the door to block it. We see the gangster opening the door but can't get in because the floppy mattress is in the way. A fcuking mattress. WTF. Then Gosling incapacitates the other gangster that came in the bathroom window by simply holding his shoulder. What the fcuk was that a vulcan nerve pinch?

4. The elevator scene. When Gosling turned around to kiss the lady, all the lights dimmed except for one spotlight which highlighted the two of them kissing. Was there a power outage? And you see him drop the hand... did he try to finger her? Meanwhile the hitman is just standing there like a dunce. What is he waiting for? Then Gosling turns around and knocks the hitmans head off the wall. The didn't smash his head off the wall, it just seemed like a slight knock. The hitman falls onto the floor and just stares at Gosling like a mong, waiting to be killed. Sure enough Gosling kicks his face in. Worst fight scene ever. Cool head exploding though.

5. The mask was pointless.

6. Gosling gets stabbed at the end. It was a really slow stab too, he should have seen it coming. After killing all these armed gangsters as if he was the Five Fingers of Death, he turns his back to the main kingpin and gets stabbed with a tiny little swiss army knife?!?! WHY.

7. The trailer advertised a totally different film.























.

I think that to enjoy Drive you have to approach it not as a conventional narrative but rather as a fairytale. Gosling's character is either the classic man with no name archetype or most likely he's autistic which would wxplain his odd mannerism and the way he interacts with other character.

I don't see the relationship with the girl as a love story but rather two lost people who found someone who they could relate to. The relationship with the kid is more of a big brother looking out for a younger brother relationship.

I'm sure I'll have more thoughts about it once I see it again, this time in the cinema. Been a long time since a film has haunted me so much. I constantly find myself thinking about the film and over the past week or so have lay awake playing it over in my mind.

Broads.ie

Broads.ie wrote: »

3. After the pawn shop robbery, when he's in the motel, two guys try to break into the room. So he effortlessly GRABS A CRAPPY FLOPPY MATTRESS to shield himself from the shotgun blast. WTF. Then he puts the mattress against the door to block it. We see the gangster opening the door but can't get in because the floppy mattress is in the way. A fcuking mattress. WTF. Then Gosling incapacitates the other gangster that came in the bathroom window by simply holding his shoulder. What the fcuk was that a vulcan nerve pinch?

I actually loved that. Have you ever tried to open a door after a mattress has got in the way? It's incredibly difficult to do as the mattress springs absorb the shock of the door opening and I can't think of another film (off the top of my head) that used that technique.

Broads.ie

Deleted User wrote: »

I actually loved that. Have you ever tried to open a door after a mattress has got in the way? It's incredibly difficult to do as the mattress springs absorb the shock of the door opening and I can't think of another film (off the top of my head) that used that technique.

Watch the film again. The way the mattress is laying against the door it would be so easy to get in. In fact, the bad guy already had the door open but he kept on kicking it for god knows what reason. He could have just walked in.

And by the way... it is incredibly difficult to open a door if it's blocked with a mattress? Really? I would day it's a slight annoyance. The mattress would just fall over when you open the door.

karma_

Broads.ie wrote: »

Watch the film again. The way the mattress is laying against the door it would be so easy to get in. In fact, the bad guy already had the door open but he kept on kicking it for god knows what reason. He could have just walked in.

And by the way... it is incredibly difficult to open a door if it's blocked with a mattress? Really? I would day it's a slight annoyance. The mattress would just fall over when you open the door.

It's not meant to block the guy breaking in, it's just to buy some time and to be fair is more than plausible.

nix

Jesus Pete, its like you just want to hate the movie and are nitpicking. Perhaps he liked the jacket? Perhaps it was a gift from someone he loved and lost? What clothes should a getaway driver wear? dress like a burglar all in black? as that would draw more attention from the poooolice if ya ask me :rolleyes:

Also the pic ya showed hes got his left hand slung in the pocket to support it from the injury he sustained, maybe thats the only reason hes wearing it, good enough for ya? jeez

And he didn't pick up the mattress to block the shotgun blast, he used it to block the door from the guy with the pistol to take out the guy with the shotgun who he led into a close combat position to disarm him, he done everything right in that scenario.

Perhaps hes always quiet because hes always thinking/planning? Maybe hes the kinda guy who thinks talk is cheap? Would you have preferred him to be a sarcastic loud mouth?

And regarding scoring the bird, she knew he had a good heart from what she saw of him and hes a good looking chap. Wouldnt be too hard for him to do without saying much :rolleyes:

The mask was kinda pointless ill give ya that, perhaps he was just worried he would be recognised when going to the diner and was just extra cautious, which he was alot of the time in the movie.

And the elevator scene, the lights did dim, but time also slowed down, i liked the scene, the calm before the storm, kinda added more surprise to the extreme violence which shortly ensued..

Frankly i liked the movie and was interested from start to finish, all characters were interesting in their own way and the dialogue was believable/fun, i had a good cinema experience as a result, ergo it was a good movie.

e_e

The way people are criticizing the movie it's as if they wanted Tarantino to take over and make Mulligan and Gosling have 25 minute conversations about McDonalds, drugs and old kung-fu movies.

Not all people are fast-witted motormouths, y'know? It's refreshing to see an action movie where the characters can just share a contented silence from time to time.

Broads.ie

What do you call people who like artsy farsty stuff? Art farts? Well there are a few of them here.

And nix, with all these problems you are just making up your own back story to fill in the gaps. YOU CAN'T BE DOIN DAT.

You say he wore the mask because "perhaps he was just worried he would be recognised when going to the diner and was just extra cautious"... well why didn't he wear the mask for his other jobs? You have to admit that some parts are pointless and there is no explaining that can save it.

johnny_ultimate

e_e wrote: »

The way people are criticizing the movie it's as if they wanted Tarantino to take over and make Mulligan and Gosling have 25 minute conversations about McDonalds, drugs and old kung-fu movies.

Not all people are fast-witted motormouths, y'know? It's refreshing to see an action movie where the characters can just share a contented silence from time to time.

There are only a handful of film-makers who can do thoughtful silence well, most of which tend to radically divide audiences. Sofia Coppola springs to mind.

However, the biggest problem with Drive are many of the parts that aren't thoughtful silences. When there's emphasis on actual narrative momentum it IMO actually lost momentum.

Broads.ie wrote: »

What do you call people who like artsy farsty stuff? Art farts? Well there are a few of them here.

When you have to resort to calling people 'art farts' to make your argument, unfortunately you lose whatever credibility your argument might have.

nix

Broads.ie wrote: »

What do you call people who like artsy farsty stuff? Art farts? Well there are a few of them here.

And nix, with all these problems you are just making up your own back story to fill in the gaps. YOU CAN'T BE DOIN DAT.

You say he wore the mask because "perhaps he was just worried he would be recognised when going to the diner and was just extra cautious"... well why didn't he wear the mask for his other jobs? You have to admit that some parts are pointless and there is no explaining that can save it.

Well he wasn't sneaking up on people who were expecting him to murder them for his other jobs

I aint making up ****, i just put two and two together, why else would he wear a mask

And i wouldn't call this film "artsy fartsy" in any way :rolleyes:

e_e

Broads.ie wrote: »

You have to admit that some parts are pointless and there is no explaining that can save it.

1. No I don't.
2. Yes there is.

e_e

...and I don't like Drive because it's "arty" (whatever the feck that means), I like it because it reminded me why I love watching movies and put me in a good mood for the rest of the day.

Sad Professor

nix wrote: »

And i wouldn't call this film "artsy fartsy" in any way :rolleyes:

I wouldn't either, but the art-house label isn't unjustified. The film was independently financed and made its name on the festival circuit. The current studio system isn't particularly receptive to films like this anymore, so it can't really be considered mainstream. There's a certain degree of summer blockbuster-crapiness or Oscar-baiting that is associated with Hollywood films. When a film is good without displaying either of these characteristics, there's always someone who will describe it as "art-house". I remember Kermode describing Batman Begins as a big budget art-house film which I thought was hilarious.

And I agree with Broads about one thing: the film is nothing like the trailer. It's far, far better than the film suggested by the trailer.

Tigger

If, like me you read books and looks for a visual and auditory artistic treat from film every so often then it's a great film

Not one I'd reccomend to friends but I enjoyed it.

Broads.ie

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

When you have to resort to calling people 'art farts' to make your argument, unfortunately you lose whatever credibility your argument might have.

...but that wasn't meant to be offensive. Some people love being art farts.

johnny_ultimate

Broads.ie wrote: »

...but that wasn't meant to be offensive. Some people love being art farts.

And an equal amount love wallowing in crap and misinterpreting criticism as pretension, and mocking those who have, you know, different tastes.

OutlawPete

Deleted User wrote: »

Gosling's character is either the classic man with no name archetype or most likely he's autistic which would wxplain his odd mannerism and the way he interacts with other character.

Good lord, this is really scraping the barrel now. The character must have been autistic, what?? I mean, why not just accept that Gosling was simply just not up to playing a character such as this? Why add elements to the story, which are not there?

If Gosling (in an effort to appear like a brooding loner, that has had a difficult past and so likes to do his own thing, not drawing much attention too himself) ends up coming across like he is autistic (Hollywood's definition I take it) then isn't isn't that a big neon sign that he was just simply wrong for this part and it was beyond his abilities as an actor? I mean, had Steve McQueen's performance in The Getaway veered somewhat close to being Charlie Babbit esque, I'm not so sure that Peckinpah would have been too happy about it, nor would the audience.

Look, the character was not autistic, there is nothing in Sallis's book to even suggest it. The mannerisms that you speak of, are what Gosling brought to the role in his effort to play this loner who ultimately snaps. Sallis of course is riding the wave of publicity on this film, applauding all aspects of the film but that's just the nature of things, he's thinking about future book sales at this point I would imagine and he can be forgiven that. I do agree with him that much of the film was excellent though but it needed a well chosen cast also, and in my opinion it did not have that and that was and is it's main failing.

nix wrote: »

Jesus Pete, its like you just want to hate the movie and are nitpicking. Perhaps he liked the jacket? Perhaps it was a gift from someone he loved and lost?

"Wanting to hate" the movie. Perhaps you missed where I said, but for the cast, it would have been a classic. I not only don't hate this movie, I don't even dislike it.

nix wrote: »

What clothes should a getaway driver wear? dress like a burglar all in black? as that would draw more attention from the poooolice if ya ask me :rolleyes:

We are asked to believe that this guy does not like attention, that he wishes to keep to himself and that he was seemingly so traumatized by events in his past, that he ultimately snaps to the point of ..

.. stamping on a guy's head until it explodes.

Yet, we are also then supposed to believe that the same guy would walk around in a silver satin jacket, with a giant scorpion on the back of it, please .. and that's before to even take on board that he's wearing the damn think to an armed robbery no less.

nix wrote: »

Also the pic ya showed hes got his left hand slung in the pocket to support it from the injury he sustained, maybe thats the only reason hes wearing it, good enough for ya? jeez

It's not that he's simply wearing a jacket and I have needlessly taken issue with it. It's that it is a silver satin one with a giant scorpion on the back, which was hardly needed to support his hand. The point is that (for me watching it) it took away from who were being asked to believe this guy is and what he is about.

They wanted to include some aspects of the fable of the scorpion and the frog (no issue with that) but there were a hundred ways they could have done that. They could have had him wearing a chain with a scorpion pendant even. Any other way of referencing that fable would have been better than asking an audience to believe that a deeply troubled and effected loner like Gosling's character would walk around wearing a silver satin jacket with a foot long scorpion on the back.

OutlawPete

OutlawPete wrote: »

Good lord, this is really scraping the barrel now. The character must have been autistic, what?? I mean, why not just accept that Gosling was simply just not up to playing a character such as this? Why add elements to the story, which are not there?

If Gosling (in an effort to appear like a brooding loner, that has had a difficult past and so likes to do his own thing, not drawing much attention too himself) ends up coming across like he is autistic (Hollywood's definition I take it) then isn't isn't that a big neon sign that he was just simply wrong for this part and it was beyond his abilities as an actor? I mean, had Steve McQueen's performance in The Getaway veered somewhat close to being Charlie Babbit esque, I'm not so sure that Peckinpah would have been too happy about it, nor would the audience.

Look, the character was not autistic, there is nothing in Sallis's book to even suggest it. The mannerisms that you speak of, are what Gosling brought to the role in his effort to play this loner who ultimately snaps. Sallis of course is riding the wave of publicity on this film, applauding all aspects of the film but that's just the nature of things, he's thinking about future book sales at this point I would imagine and he can be forgiven that. I do agree with him that much of the film was excellent though but it needed a well chosen cast also, and in my opinion it did not have that and that was and is it's main failing.

Just because it's not in the book does not mean that it can't be in the film. Like all adaptations there are numerous changes made to the material. Knowing two people with autism there are striking similarities between the manner in which they act and the mannerisms of Gosling's character. Until either Gosling or the director comes out and states that it was simply the classic liner who snaps then people ate perfectly entitled to read into the film and many myself included recognises characteristics of autism in the manner the character was played.

Comparing the character to McQueen's in The Getaway is unfair. McQueen played a psychotic career criminal who would as easily kill a friend as he would a fly. In Drive the character reacts to violence with violence he rarely instigates it but when he dies he does so to protect those he cares for.

If Sallis was disappointed by the adaptation I doubt he would be telling people how much he liked. The world is full of writers who gave vocally criticised adaptations if their work, hell the public fight between the author of The Keep and Michael Mann is legendary.

shadowcomplex

I saw Drive in Gate in cork, it seems to have gotten a limited release nationwide, for example there are 15 cinemas listed on entertainment.ie for cork and only 2 of these have drive , these were gate and mahon point, how sad is that? especially when muck like Taylor Lautner ****_e is being shown nationwide, by the way I think drive is absolutely brillant

Broads.ie

OutlawPete wrote: »

Good lord, this is really scraping the barrel now. The character must have been autistic, what?? I mean, why not just accept that Gosling was simply just not up to playing a character such as this? Why add elements to the story, which are not there?

This is exactly what I was saying. There are flaws in the movie, and some people here are making up backstories and side plots to polish over them.

He was a shyte character. Extremely boring. End of story.

Broads.ie

Broads.ie wrote: »

This is exactly what I was saying. There are flaws in the movie, and some people here are making up backstories and side plots to polish over them.

Anyway... different folks...

A quick look at various forums and a lot of people are recognising autism in Gosling's mannerism. I find it rather amusing that people seem resistant to the idea that the Driver was autistic simply because no one explicitly states it in the film. What happened to watching a film and coming to your own conclusions? great cinema is open to interpretation and people can have drastically different takes on what they saw.

Did people going in to Drive think that it was going to be a 90 minute action film like the Transporter series?