Drive - Ryan Gosling and Nicholas Winding Refn

I could tell it was digital from the trailers - I didn't know it was Alexa, though. Honestly, a lot of the night-time driving shots with the sodium lighting s..t kind of annoyed me, but only because it was the exact same look you'll find if you watch "T2i low light test" from Joe Camera on YouTube.

I should probably amend that to: "annoyed me in the trailer." Watching the actual film, I completely forgot about the street lights and the semi-frequent yellow-blue look - god that was a great movie.

On the topic of Public Enemies, I was SO disappointed with that movie - on a completely story level, which, as Callaghan said, led me to notice how s..tty the video looked.
 
Michael Traven said:
Kholi, from what you've seen of the Alexa, do you think Refn and Sigel (ASC) handled it well?
Click to expand...

All of the daylight stuff, or ninety five percent of it, was pretty much a show of how far digital has come. Especially the golden hour shots in the reservoir. Even the night stuff was pretty awesome, and I must say I didn't notice any standout Canon DSLR shots amongst the other cameras. I think they handled every format that was used perfectly. I loved the look of the movie.

MX has always still looked "lower budget" to my eyes on large screens, so far Alexa and Epic really hit the mark as far as film alternatives, if not direct competitors in quality.
 
I finally saw this at the end of last week. I really enjoyed it, though I didn't quite love it. I really enjoyed the cinematography. I liked the "look" they gave it and thought it suited the material well. If it looked a bit low budget compared to some films in the genre, I thought that fit with what they were doing with it perfectly. It signaled that this wasn't going to be a big, glossy, car-chase-and-explosions type of film that such projects often become. I very much noticed the lights during the night scenes, but aside from noting them (probably from too much time reading DVXUser) I didn't have a problem with them.

There were a couple of elements of the story/characterizations that I didn't love. I like Gosling and thought he was good, but I thought he was almost set up as too emotionless to be really effective through much of the film. Also, his plan after finding himself in trouble doesn't seem super well thought out to me and given how competent he was before, that jarred me a bit.

Overall, certainly worth seeing and nice to look at.
 
Saw it last weekend and it was extremely enjoyable. While not perfect, it was a slow-burn of intensity, atmosphere and retribution. Gorgeously shot with an awesome soundtrack, brilliant supporting cast, and some truly inspired moments... it is a welcome change of pace.

Speaking of pace, my one complaint with this film was the dialogue pacing. It seemed like they were trying too hard to insert suspenseful pauses in every conversation. Sometimes it worked, many times it didn't. In real life, there would've been a constant interjection of "Hello??" or "Did you hear what I just said?!". The beats were just too long for comfort and believability and it nearly ruined the film for me. Thank God it had so many other positives.


To clarify, I don't think the dialogue itself is bad or that slow-paced dialogue is bad. I just think it was too slow in this movie. It crossed the line of suspense or brooding intensity and went into awkward and unrealistic.


Besides that though, I felt the deliberate pacing worked well, and made for satisfying payoffs throughout the film. The best of which was an exhilarating sequence that starts in a pawn shop parking lot. Simply masterful, and well worth the price of admission alone.

I like Gosling and thought he was good, but I thought he was almost set up as too emotionless to be really effective through much of the film.
Click to expand...

Agreed, this film was trying too hard to make him a modern day Clint Eastwood and it just didn't work. Had I not been as excited to see this film as I was, I probably wouldn't have cared much for his character. Pretty much every supporting character though had depth and weight to them, so I was able to care for them instead.
 
Last edited:
lwright84 said:
Speaking of pace, my one complaint with this film was the dialogue pacing. It seemed like they were trying too hard to insert suspenseful pauses in every conversation. Sometimes it worked, many times it didn't. In real life, there would've been a constant interjection of "Hello??" or "Did you hear what I just said?!". The beats were just too long for comfort and believability and it nearly ruined the film for me. Thank God it had so many other positives.


To clarify, I don't think the dialogue itself is bad or that slow-paced dialogue is bad. I just think it was too slow in this movie. It crossed the line of suspense or brooding intensity and went into awkward and unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it was meant to be realistic. The film is heavily stylized. It didn't bother me, personally. I viewed the film as abstract realism.
 
So after hearing a bunch of people complain about the awkward pauses during his conversations, I went back and watched the film last night and there were only two instances where there was an abnormally long pause in a conversation. Did people just think that it happened more than it actually did? I wish people would not complain about it since it was pretty infrequent.
 
Denis Haineault said:
What a great movie.

It had that Paul Thomas Anderson / John Hughes hybrid quality to it.
Click to expand...

Wow, now that is very much an original take on the movie... But I most definitely see where you are coming from with that. Now, I personally thought is was kind of a Walter Hill/Ingmar Bergman hybrid! (I know, I know Refn is Danish and Bergman is Swedish, but cut me some slack!).

I just want to throw out there, to the folks that may not have seen them, that my favorite Refn films are the Pusher Trilogy. I highly recommend, to everybody that is into movies, that you see them.

Pusher: Trailer in Danish, subtitle version available.


Pusher 2: Trailer in Danish, subtitle version available.


Pusher 3: Trailer in Danish, subtitle version available.

 
Good movie. Not quite as good as the word of mouth had me to believe but pretty cool. Reminded me ALOT of Walter Hill's The Driver though, from the title itself, to Gosling's monosyllabic main character to the spartan style of the photography, it owes a heavy debt to that film. Was fun to see Albert Brooks in a different mode. I don't think he deserves any oscars though. Beyond the novelty of seeing him cast against type, I wouldn't call it a great performance, merely a good one that does the job in an off center way.
 
It's a great example where, Less Is More. Too many writers just do not get that, they just want to talk their audience to death. I'm a writer, I painfully try to write only what is necessary to keep the story moving. Gosling is really coming on as a great actor. He can hold the screen. Rfn, couldn't read until 13, dyslexic. So am I, and it is wonderful to see someone with dyslexia forge ahead. Great film.
 
I loved Pusher, and didn't care for Drive. Drive had some moments. Definitely one of the better films in 2011, but seemed more like a mediocre film made by amazing talent. The story was trite.
 
I've had at least half a dozen people telling me to see this film in the past month. It's nice to see Albert Brooks in a role like the one it seems he plays in the trailer. Though not important to the story- Drive was shot with ALEXA cameras by Newton Thomas. Any impressions about that part?

Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
 
PappasArts said:
Drive was shot with ALEXA cameras by Newton Thomas. Any impressions about that part?
Click to expand...
Very nice look overall. Somethings were very beautiful. It combined a grungy vintage with the clean digital look. I liked it.
 
Drive makes me smile fondly everytime I think back to the film.

Everytime I... go to kiss a girl...
or think about suspicious people in lifts...
or put on some music and wear shades...
or drive...

All smiles...
 
I have the disc in from Netflix and have been watching over and over. The more I watch it the more I like the movie. The movie has some very sophisticated visuals, IMHO. For example, take a look at the framing of the shot where the Driver takes the bullet from the Kid. Gosling is shot in a medium close up, from below and framing the background is the ceiling and walls of the corner of the room. The visuals tell us that the Driver has been put into a corner by the threat on the Kid. The very next scene takes us to him setting up the hold up. That shot reminds me of the one from "The Godfather" where Michael finds out about his father being shoot and runs to a phone booth to call Sonny. Kaye is outside of the phone booth ("On the Outside") and her relationship with Michael is never the same. I love that sh*t!
 
PappasArts said:
( grungy vintage with the clean digital look ) Oxymoron in a funny kind of way...
Click to expand...
It is totally an oxymoron. But in a weird way is the shortest way to describe it, that I can think of.

You know what, the other week, I went to see 'Like Crazy' (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1758692/) and it had been printed to film, so it was dslr footage with 35mm grain and the sound of the projector. That was odd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top