Drive

Drive wants to position itself as a film standing outside the mainstream of its genre. It does not want to be just a cheap or even an expensive popcorn movie that relies on effects, budget, and stars. It is a poser who cares about image and enjoys being seen in the company of those who consider themselves refined aesthetes, experts in true art, and not mere consumers of entertainment. It succeeds to some extent, mainly thanks to the hypnotic music and slow camera, which create tension and a suggestive atmosphere. However, if you take the trouble to strip Drive of its flattering coat, you will find a mundane story, surprisingly unoriginal and perhaps even trivial, with characters who try to be cool at the expense of their credibility and internal logic. Of course, Drive's "coolness" has nothing to do with how, for example, Transporter: The Series understands "coolness" for a more popcorn-friendly audience. Ethically questionable is the obvious aestheticization of brutal violence and, above all, the fact that the creators perceive their protagonist as a positive counterpart to powerful villains and their henchmen, as a protector and a kind of romantic character from the underworld. From my perspective, the Driver looks and acts more like an exemplary psychopath - his inability to experience and share human emotions, the eradication of ethical barriers, the tendency towards antisocial behavior, and outbursts of violence clearly expose him. In Irene's place, I would rather fear my admirer. The behavior of the main antagonists is fully in the grip of rituals, but unfortunately, they are constructed by the screenwriter rather than emerging from the reality of the American underworld and the nature of the conflict between film characters. Overall impression: 60% for the film's appearance, not its content. (05/31/2014)

This could have been such a calm and melancholic film. A nice methodical approach to life, no disturbing elements. And then the driver rides in an elevator with the cute neighbor and it all turns upside-down. Nicolas Winding Refn took a fairly typical pulpy, though still quite high-quality, screenplay, and transformed it into a meditation on the life of a not-entirely-normal driver/stuntman. Breathtakingly shot in nighttime L.A. (almost like my favorite, Mann), the glow of neon lights is framed by 1980’s style electronic music, but Refn flirts primarily with the noir genre, although this is a sunlit version, as absurd as that may sound. Blood spatters, engines roar and the silent, inconspicuous scenes involving the two love birds appear surprisingly significant. The cast is perfect. Gosling is surprising in the role of the silent Driver. Carey Mulligan is completely believable as the main protagonist’s fragile/strong motivation. And Bryan "Heisenberg" Cranston is an absolute chameleon. An inconspicuous hit that will grab your attention if you let it. You know the story about the scorpion and the frog? (09/18/2011)

I haven’t seen a better film in the cinema this year. A dreamy, sad artsy gangster flick with an extremely charismatic protagonist and a perfect soundtrack. It gave me goosebumps, and more than once. Drive is basically a compilation of Refn’s previous films (I’d dutifully watched them all before). It’s like Pusher shot with the same slick cinematography of Valhalla Rising, spiced up with a blend of the music and the images of Bronson, and mixed with the ambiguous atmosphere of Fear X. A film that can be easily described as “beautiful”, even if fingers are smashed with a hammer, heads are shot and throats are cut. For me, a masterpiece without any flaws, but, as it’s been said, it’s certainly not for everyone. I’ve been playing “A Real Hero” on repeat for an hour. (09/16/2011)

Drive is a boring film. A long, drawn-out, empty and uninspiring bore that offered its best at the beginning (the scene of hiding and dodging police cars) and then didn't come up with anything I would call interesting. I think we can agree that the story is dull and boring to the point of shame, but I can’t say that it was filmed in such a way that it would stop bothering me. The fault is probably with my receiver, but I didn't see anything special. In fact, I didn't even hear it - the much-vaunted soundtrack consists, in my opinion, of only a few extremely strange and unpleasant songs, the title track being particularly repulsive. What's next in the film? Just the violence. A head shot, a head smashed, a head crushed, a fork in the eye, a knife in the throat, a razor in the forearm... And the camera shows everything. So? What of it? I feel that Nicolas Winding Refn is just a perverted guy who revels in these brutalities, and while the violence in the previous film, Valhalla Rising, had its purpose (although it really didn't have to absolutely show everything), here it was totally unnecessary, and I would even say purposeful. The last nail in the already very thoroughly hammered coffin for me was the unsympathetic Ryan Gosling. A big disappointment. (03/13/2012)

It’s hypnotic (almost everyone talked about the soundtrack after leaving the movie theater), clings to details (cinematography, sound), and constantly goes against established audience expectations. When I got up from my seat, sweat was pouring off me and it wasn't just the heat in the movie theater. (09/14/2011)