Drive - Ryan Gosling and Nicholas Winding Refn

Very well done.
Although Gosling is well cast and did a fine job I kept thinking Mads Mikkelsen (who also starred in Refn's masterpiece 'Valhalla Rising') should have played the role...He has that roughness Gosling lacks...
As for the music; it was the weakest part as it took over at certain moments and made the movie music video like... Why employ silence so nicely only to have it overpowered by some music???
 
"Drive" is this month's cover story in AC. They state that the Arri Alexa, Weisscam HS-2 MKII, Canon EOS 5D MKII and the Iconix HD-RH1 were the cameras used. The lenses noted are the Agenieux Optimo, Cooke S4s and Arri/Zeiss Master Primes.
 
It was obviously digital, to my eyes, but still looked good. My first guess was Alexa in the first few minutes. That camera really does have the "it" look, man.

Here's an interview from Filmmaker Magazine with Nicolas (the Director): http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/news/2011/09/nicolas-winding-refn-drive/

My first thought, after seeing the movie, was that there was no way the script was more than sixty pages or so. Turns out...

It was sixty pages.

Can't wait to see this again.
 
It was a well made film, but nothing too memorable for me...

I hated the 80's style credits and music, and have no idea why they chose to go this way.
 
Kholi said:
It was obviously digital, to my eyes....
Click to expand...
& Yet it was obviously good storytellin' to mine.

I didn't notice that at all, as opposed the recent Michael Mann stuff...
in which I thought I was watching a History Channel re-enactment.

I say it again...weave a solid tale for the audience, and they won't care what tools you use.

Take me away to Escapismsville.
 
I don't think any audience member that's just an audience member cares about tools during any story, good or bad.

I've never heard someone walk out of a bad movie and go "Man I can't believe they wasted film on that."

Guess it's just the most popular diatribe.
 
Agree, but I will say that one of the first things I said after seeing "Drive" was about how poor the film projection looked. I mean it looked bad. Distractingly bad when you're used to seeing things projected in Sony 4K.

But other than that…awesome movie.
 
Kholi said:
I don't think any audience member that's just an audience member cares about tools during any story, good or bad.

I've never heard someone walk out of a bad movie and go "Man I can't believe they wasted film on that."

Guess it's just the most popular diatribe.
Click to expand...
...unless the focus is obviously on the tech (which happens more and more).
 
CallaghanFilms said:
...unless the focus is obviously on the tech (which happens more and more).
Click to expand...

On DVXuser, yeah.

The entire planet is not DVXuser... And, even in tech-heavy features (AVATAR) it wasn't the most talked about subject. A close second to the cookie-cutter narrative, but not the most talked about.

And, honestly, I am quite alright with being interested in the tech. I am a filmmaker, no matter how bad of one I might be, which means I should be concerned with every aspect and technical is just as high as telling "story story story".

Nobody really cares what a movie was shot on, what kind of crane, so on and so forth but those who are interested in what's behind the veil. And, that percentage is a mere fraction of the movie-goers around the globe.
 
The example I gave was Public Enemies...even the most...¿Cómo se dice?...casual film-goers said, "That don't look like a movie."
 
CallaghanFilms said:
The example I gave was Public Enemies...even the most...¿Cómo se dice?...casual film-goers said, "That don't look like a movie."
Click to expand...

I'm probably wrong about this, but I remember reading, more than twice, that it was done on purpose in regards to the way Public Enemies was shot. It's a case of someone wanting to do something different, and the result was something that didn't look like a traditional feature narrative film.

So, it seems natural that people are going to walk out and talk about how it looked... I also recall it generating a decent amount of positive press? Or, am I just remembering this all kinds of wrong.

You could say the same thing about CRANK 2, as well. It was shot with the format in mind so it didn't always look like a "movie", but they did that on purpose. It wasn't an accident.

Both cases cited, to me, aren't ones that you can look at and say "people are being distracted by the tech", because they're two out of two-hundred.
 
I'm just saying it's only a distraction if the filmmaker lets it be one.

Is it a "handicap" on some level, when compared to a Panavision 35mm?
sure, why not.

But that only means that the other elements need to step it up to compensate.

I think Public Enemies, storywise was very, very "meh'...so the digitalness was all the more noticeable.

The same crowd that you are saying doesn't embark in "tech talk" also doesn't read
Kholi said:
I'm probably wrong about this, but I remember reading, more than twice, that it was done on purpose in regards to the way Public Enemies was shot. It's a case of someone wanting to do something different, and the result was something that didn't look like a traditional feature narrative film...
Click to expand...
articles.

:beer:
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I'm just saying it's only a distraction if the filmmaker lets it be one.

Is it a "handicap" on some level, when compared to a Panavision 35mm?
sure, why not.
Click to expand...

I see. Was it that you thought my comment on noticing that it was digital was a bad thing?

Because, it wasn't. Merely pointed out that the signs were there, but Alexa--to my eyes--isn't a tool that hinders any production from achieving a look; it's a tool that packs plenty, if not just as much (in different areas) as film. I was one out of one-hundred people in the theater that immediately identified the format... and, that's because I have a vested interest in such.

Same thing as last night when attending the screening of another feature. The opening shot told me it was shot on a 7D. Just me being me, nothing else.
 
I'm saying
--as a right-brainer who ranks what camera something was shot on somewhere between product placement and background casting--
that it was the first time in a long while that I said, "Whoa, that was digital?? Cool."
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I'm saying
--as a right-brainer who ranks what camera something was shot on somewhere between product placement and background casting--
that it was the first time in a long while that I said, "Whoa, that was digital?? Cool."
Click to expand...

Now we understand each other.

Through due process, the right and the left brained can see through the same eyes.

...Cashews are nasty without Pepsi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top