Drive Review

Posted by on September 16th, 2011   Filed under: Action, Drama, Featured, Movie Review, Thriller

Drive
Directed by: Nicolas Winding Refn
Written by: Hossein Amini (screenplay), James Sallis (book)
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Ron Perlman

After a summer of cheap thrills, Drive delivers thrills on the cheap. With a budget Michael Bay might have allocated for a single effects sequence in Transformers 3, Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn made one of the best movies of the year. Following Bronson and Valhalla Rising, Refn crafts his most polished, commercial work yet, while retaining all the ambiguity and unbridled aggression of his tough-as-nails art house pictures.

Bearing thematic resemblance to Darren Aronofsky’s recent output, Drive is like Black Swan in overdrive. The film pins its headlights on the dark implications of unchecked obsession and good intentions gone haywire. That dangerous duality – humanity on the razor’s edge of animal brutality – is played to unnerving perfection by Ryan Gosling.

Rightly among the most reliable names on the Hollywood marquee, the star of Drive plays a crucible of a character. A friendly, fatherly figure to his neighbor (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, he’s decidedly less so when the two are threatened. A sort of oblique, ultraviolent superhero, the driver leaps to defend the innocent with bloody determination. If the first half of Drive plays as drama, the second is straight up revenge fare.

Playing on the juxtaposition of calm and calamity, Refn keeps us on our toes throughout. Quiet moments stretch into suffocating silence, and the explosive violence that inevitably shatters it practically tears the frame in half. The audio is expertly mixed; you’ll want to see Drive loud. From its roaring engines and visceral blows to its curt dialogue, the film is an altar to the power of great sound design.

In truth, Drive isn’t pervasively violent, though its most excruciatingly effective moments leave a memory trail like tire streaks on a sunbaked highway. At the heart of the story is a compelling, surprisingly tender romance. Carey Mulligan has proved herself a similarly reliable talent to Gosling, and has worked in recent years with the likes of Michael Mann, Oliver Stone, and Mark Romanek.

Her fragile character’s relationship with the driver is subtle and nuanced in a manner atypical of thriller convention. They’re not family, they’re not even sleeping together. Drive is not a sexy film. Refn fetishizes neither cars nor women; if The Fast and the Furious is the sleek exterior curves of an automobile, Drive is the greasy, undulating pistons. And it’s utilitarian at a lean 100 minutes.

The rest of the small cast also impresses. Albert Brooks plays against type as a cutthroat crime lord, and a note-perfect Ron Perlman plays his meathead partner. Bryan Cranston of TV’s Breaking Bad has a small role too, as employer and confidant to Gosling’s character. Their relationships shuffle as lines are drawn and redrawn, but none of them comes away unscathed by the film’s end.

Drive is either the explosive end to a lukewarm summer movie season or an early autumn adrenaline rush. In machismo, it far outpaces its hundred million dollar competition, leaving overwrought tales of lesser heroes like Thor and Green Lantern in the dust. Its troubled characters, and the bonds of desperation that link them, elevate the film above its genre trappings and shield it from disposable entertainment status.

Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive is an anomaly. It’s like a 1200 horsepower hybrid. And it’s one of the best movies of 2011. – Colin

SCORE: 4 stars





  • jonatho

    Just saw it yesterday. It’s brilliant.

  • Indianamcclain

    One of best films of the year. Really reminded me of To Live and Die in L.A.

  • Good review!

    I’ll argue that the film’s strong points are definitely the direction and acting and less so the plot. From Taxi Driver to last year’s overlooked Faster (which had a character “named” Driver), we’ve seen this revenge tale before many times. The first half is the strongest one, with the drama unfolding slowly. But half-way through the revenge plot takes over (and Carry Mulligan all but disappears from the film), and that part, albeit entertaining, is a little too familiar for my taste, I guess.

    But I agree it’s far better than most of what Hollywood is churning out, no doubt about it. It’s not the Second Coming, but it’s a solid thriller.

  • Mattcave

    Good review dude. I can’t wait to see it!

  • mark

    Movie of the year.

  • Colin

    I’ll have to see it again, but I didn’t feel it was amazing as others seem to think it is.

    The one very interesting thing it did was the way it handled the “revenge” and what it chose to show and what it didn’t show.

  • Andrew

    Amazing movie. I can’t stop thinking about it.

  • Agreed. This movie was pretty brilliant at times. NWR is becoming my new favorite director pretty rapidly. He has the chops for sure. Why no mention of the amazing music in this film? I felt like that sold me in many ways.

  • mark

    @ Dane

    The music was incredible, I love the way it synced so perfectly with the actions and the story. It meshed so well together.

  • KeithTalent

    Stunning film. My favourite non-documentary film of the year so far. Mulligan and Gosling were amazing together; they both said so much without barely saying a word.

    The music was great but so was the sound overall; did such an awesome job of creating tension and kicking you in the ass when it was the time do so.

    I’m gushing. Loved the movie so freaking much.

  • csidle

    I feel weird about this movie. I went into it with high expectations and ready to love it, but while I definitely enjoyed it, I’m not sure if I loved it.

    I loved several scenes. The elevator scene, the pawn shop scene, any scene with the car, really. The sound design was incredible (the gunshots, holy shit). The cinematography was gorgeous. The acting was superb. The music was amazing and reminded me of Lost in Translation.

    So I love all the individual aspects, but it’s like the movie didn’t click for me. Really weird. I have to see it again!

  • Goon

    I loved Bronson.

    I absolutely detested this film. After a cool intro, it deflates immediately. The ambient soundtrack reflects too much upon the characters. I call bullshit on people saying these people are acting with their eyes… these performances are robotic, sterile, no personality, no charisma, just empty shells. Apparently with this film people are passing around like these blank pauses are intense, when no, they are just boring, and they were boring when Twilight attempted the same shit. Albert Brooks was pretty bad, and everyone else didn’t even show up to play.

    And then they have the nerve to play songs about being heroic and being human, and having Gosling say shit like it was great to get to know Mulligan and her kid. When exactly did he get to know these characters? Is staring at them awkwardly from a distance getting to know someone these days?

    Anyways this film combined everything I hate about art films, ambient music, and I’d even say Terrence Malick (I see it in the non-acting. At least Terrence attempts to cover up his bullshit characters with half hearted attempts at narration to create a character).

    Silence does not equal intense. Absence can just be absence, and the emperor’s nudity is just that. Nudity. Drive is naked, bullshit, the worst movie I sat through in 2011.

  • Colin

    I couldn’t disagree more. You’d have to be paraplegic not to feel the tension Refn builds. For the record, I found Bronson somewhat blustery and repetitive.

    Mainstream audience reaction to Drive (gasps in the theater, etc.) is proof that the movie works, and not just among art house clientele.

    Drive isn’t heavy on character introspection, but to insist that there aren’t characters there is blatantly ignorant.

  • Goon

    I dont see any good reason I should feel tension when I have no reason to care for any of these characters, and in fact outright reject the characters because they have no personality or humanity. They’re passionless robots, and if you want to make an apologist case for Gosling as being some autistic idiot savant or something fine but it doesnt excuse everyone else’s rancid presence.

  • Goon

    to pare it down, it’s all style, no substance. a WWE Films level script would have even been preferable to the soulless attempt at minimalism.

  • antho42

    Goon:
    To me style is just the outside of content, and content the inside of style, like the outside and the inside of the human body. Both go together, they can’t be separated.” Jean-Luc Godard

  • antho42

    Silence creates possibilities. Possibilities creates tension. In any other film the first encounter between Gosling’s character and the husband would of lead to a confrontation.

  • antho42

    “They’re passionless robots”
    That is called the existential protagonist. Nothing wrong with this trope. In fact, it is my favorite protagonist trope.

  • antho42

    “a WWE Films level script would have even been preferable to the soulless attempt at minimalism”
    Minimalism has a place in cinema. You are the problem for seeing a film aiming at minimalism — an approach that you hate.

  • Colin

    Goon,

    A lack of dialogue doesn’t necessarily mean there’s a lack of personality.

    It was clear to me that Carey Mulligan loved her kid, fell for Gosling, then felt trapped when her husband came home. She didn’t have to say any of those things. Likewise, what’s interesting about the driver (to the credit of Gosling’s portrayal of him) is that instead of being the typical badass with a heart of gold, he’s a sweetheart with a heart of darkness.

    Other than the scarcity of dialogue, your dismissal of the performances as robotic is mystifying to me.

  • antho42

    The film establishes why The Driver restrains from verbal communicating with others.

    “Research has suggested that between 60 and 70 percent of all meaning is derived from nonverbal behavior.”

  • mark

    @ Goon

    I understand what you’re saying, but It was intentional to leave limited dialogue. You never learn the main characters name. Theres a montage where he drive Mulligan and her kid in the wash and they throw stones, thats where they build report.

    But you quickly learn, you don’t even know the character you’re following when the diner scene shows this dark intensity flow through Gosling. Up until that point, his responses were very short. He was very non confrontational, and then you begin to visit the this deeper individual who was escaping something violent. Its almost like this character you thought you knew was a total stranger once he threatens to knock this guys teeth down his throat.

    You’ll probably argue that it was still boring, etc. I could care less.

  • Goon

    I’m obviously aware it was intentional.. I just think it wasn’t good, and that it’s smoke and mirrors to make people think they’re seeing something “elevated”. It’s gimmicky and pulled me out of the movie every time.

    And when they rub it in with the “hero/human” song at the end and lines like “it was great getting to know you and Benicio”, it’s just laughable.

  • KeithTalent

    Wow, I could not disagree more. I felt there was far more said, and it had far more impact, with the characters’ interactions and exchanges of glances than anything that could have been done with actual words. Little things like when Gosling was sitting on the windowsill exchanging glances with Mulligan, then he says that he’s not doing anything for the weekend (I’m paraphrasing); just a perfect minimalist scene that advances their relationship and shows Gosling’s character opening up to her. There are other scenes like this in the film and they are fantastic; the director and the actors are able to pull it off, not sure others would be able to bring the same impact from the same material.

    Also the relative lack of dialogue and the music/sound design did loads to build tension and then kick you in the ass when it needed to. I thought it was very well constructed.

  • Goon

    “Little things like when Gosling was sitting on the windowsill exchanging glances with Mulligan, then he says that he’s not doing anything for the weekend”

    And that’s an example of me scoffing at the film. And I ended up disliking Mulligan for tolerating a character who behaves the way he does, both with and without her around. Maybe this character is this blank slate you can project whatever feelings you want towards becuase he’s so silent. If you think what he’s doing is good, he’s a hero. If you swoon over Goslings Disnefied eyes, maybe you see some deep brooding humanity. I saw what was presented: not much, some robotic/autistic weirdo in shitty hipster attire, and I disliked him pretty quickly for it, and he doesn’t actually open up or do anything worth investing it. So much of the time the character seems just plain dumb.

    But you know, once you get detached from a film you start nitpicking everything, and I got detached within 20 minutes. I think it goes pretty far out of it’s way to alienate you beyond the silence, right down to the soundtrack selections, the way other characters behave (they have more dialogue but they are also distant and stilted as if they are acting in a music video… which they kind of are)… insisted upon decisions like the music playing at the party, the way he strippers just sit there as shit is going down.

    The weird behavior works for me in Bronson because we’re reflecting on a weird man in weird surroundings. Gosling’s character is also weird but in an alien/obnoxious/posed way, and they’re trying to put on some commentary on humanity and expression. If that’s the case I think the style and soundtrack of the film work completely against this idea. It feels like the soundtrack is this way just because Refn likes it… I mean it’s not all that different from the one in Bronson, but there that soundtrack served to both set a sense of time, it served as a contrast to the character, while also thematically matching that character’s detachment from reality and apathy regarding other human beings.

  • KeithTalent

    Mulligan was lonely and vulnerable and she found in Gosling a man that imbued quiet strength, but also sensitivity, which he shows in his interactions with Benicio. Those things were currently missing in her life and Gosling filled those holes, so it made perfect sense for her to fall for him.

    He is a very reserved character, but you see some of those strong emotions come out in a few places, like in the diner scene and when he meets Cook, and several other spots. The emotion comes when it’s necessary, otherwise he remains quiet, only allowing people in when he is comfortable letting his feelings out.

    You may be right; I was hooked into the movie right away, so maybe I am projecting my own set of emotions onto the characters, but I really did feel the relationships being built and I was wrapped in both Gosling and Mulligan as characters. If I had not been sold in the first 15 minutes or so, it is likely I would have started to pick the film apart, which is what happened in your case. Fortunately the tone of the film is set early and it grabbed me and I was along for the ride the whole way through.

    You didn’t like the puffy scorpion jacket? Come on, that thing was awesome. :P

  • Goon

    Douchey puffy scorpion jacket = Hipster catnip.

    No. I didn’t like the jacket.

    The more reviews I see the more I think people are projecting onto the character. One review calls him this selfless superhero; another calls him a disturbing Travis Bickle psychopath, a disturbing mirror into society; and you can keep going from there.

  • Colin

    Say ‘hipster’ one more time. You’re letting that meaningless word do your arguing for you.

  • Goon

    I tried to avoid it, just as I’ve tried to avoid the word ‘pretentious’ but ‘hipster’ as I’m using it has meaning to me, so I’m using it.

    I’m talking a specific hipster style which I’ve been explicit about, the New Yorkish electroclash Vice Magazine loving, faux-dirty hipster style, which also bleed over and meshes with the kind of distant minimalism I see in some European film. I detest it. It’s all over this film.

  • Goon

    how about this then, instead of my shorthand; “Calculatedly cool to a point of obnoxiousness”; phony

    It’s why Juno’s dialogue gets thrown into the same heap, though stylistically it’s far different. It goes from style over substance to almost presenting an argument that style is substance. It all goes back to all the same bullshit I’ve been overly angrily blathering about, this blank slate of character that people are projecting meaning upon, based in my opinion, on approval of a style that I just plain hate.

  • Colin

    Fair enough. In regards to Gosling’s character — I actually see both a selfless superhero and Travis Bickle in him. I think those are two valid and equally appreciable interpretations. The reflection of society angle is corny, but also understandable.

    I don’t think people are projecting onto the character more than any other ambiguous protagonist. Maybe the driver isn’t rigidly defined, but I still think it’s crazy to dismiss him as a mannequin.

  • Hey Goon, I feel that you are one of the only people that really understands this movie. The Emperor’s New Clothes is the perfect analogy.

  • alechs

    Goon’s got some dead-on criticisms about Drive (particularly his comparisons of the film’s aesthetics to Vice). I don’t think Refn had anything particular to say apart from style.

  • fatbologna

    I’m probably too late to the party here but I’m gonna chip in my two cents regardless as I just saw the film tonight and loved it.

    Since when is an abundance of style a negative?

    Why is it that this movie’s being judged so heavily on it’s plot and characters when it obviously deals in extreme genre tropes and archetypes as a style exercise? Noir lends itself to strong stylistic choices and broad characterizations to accommodate said style. I like Noir stories because of the familiar characters and plots. They’re predictable but it’s always interesting seeing different artist’s interpretations of familiar material. It’s like those sections in the back of comic books where several different artists take turns drawing the main character in the book.

    Speaking of style, the main character’s costuming didn’t seem ‘hipster’ to me as much as it seemed like a reference to every badass character from film history. Mcqueen wore similar jackets, as did many characters in classic driving films. Every iconic film character has a look and the look of Gosling’s character is definitely iconic. It’s pure “White Knight”.

    All of the characters here are broadly drawn to fit their roles in the Noir genre but the actors and the direction breathe enough life into them to make it all feel distinctly original within the confines of the genre. It all feels familiar and wholly original at the same time. The reason Gosling doesn’t talk a lot in the movie isn’t so the viewer can project onto him, it’s because he’s a badass in the most classic sense. Steve McQueen, Lee Marvin, Charles Bronson, Warren Oates, Clint Eastwood and most of the bigs from the 70s played roles that inhabited the face and not the dialogue and I think Gosling is right up there with early DeNiro which, to me, explains a lot of critics referencing Taxi Driver more than the slight plot similarities.

    I can see how you might be disappointed in this if you were expecting what the trailer wrongly portrayed as a crime drama but I can’t see how any film fan could discount the style, originality and craftsmanship on display here. It really is an amazingly sure-handed and deftly made film that immediately deserves it’s place amongst the greatest modern noir.

  • Mikey T

    My favorite flick of the year so far. “The man with no name” genre who is part hero part anti-hero was portrayed perfectly by Gosling. Gosling’s character was fascinating in his calm demeanor and his ruthlessness when there was a need for violence. What this film acccomplished with minimal dialogue is astounding. All of the supporting characters fit the script perfectly in my opinion. This film took me back to the Michael Mann days of the 80’s and reminded me of the classic “Theif” with James Cann or a number of crime noir films of that era. There are always some who simply won’t like it, but this film deserves the credit it is receiving.

  • Did it piss anyone else off that they used Trent Reznor score in the diner scene.

  • bMurfy

    @Gord, the screener version which leaked online included and unfinshed [yet, not unsuitable] score, which covers why mosta the music featured was lifted off other films like 28 Days Later and Social Network