|
I've seen comparisons to A History of Violence, which is appropriate because like that film, I had a problem with how straight forward the story is. There's little subtext, and not much left to the imagination; a character says he's going to do something and indeed he does. A character explains a plot point and indeed it is true. There's little reason for a rewatch. There's also the issue that it was called Drive, about a getaway driver, who drives for movie stunts, so you'd think the movie would have more driving. There's the cold open, there's a car chase, there are scenes where cars are used to make things happen, but the film betrays the guy's professions (and the "5 minutes" mantra he repeats a couple times) by the middle of the second act. Then it just sort of spirals into a standard "mafia threatens people, people die violently" film, where the early bits seem to set up a climax relating to what the character does for a living. This doesn't happen. What's the point of the setup if it never pays it off? It's well-made and well-shot, and at first I liked that the scenes lingered, setting up its own unique feel and letting you stay in the moment a little longer than most films would. But that deliberately slow pace gets tedious by the end when the story quickens, but it seems nobody told the director, cinematographer, or editor. I'm all for deliberate pacing like Breaking Bad, but that show quickens the pace when the tension mounts. The ultraviolence often feels gratuitous as well, and shows more blatant gore than even some of the Saw films. It feels out of place in most scenes, and seems to go against the quiet pace of the rest. I enjoyed the retro/modern blended tone, it has a great opening scene, some really good performances, and a few memorable scenes throughout, but ultimately I was bored of their style-over-substance posturing by the end. 3/5 Bonk fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Oct 14, 2011 |
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 18, 2024 03:24 |
|