I’d say this guy is about 70% Steve McQueen, 20% The Terminator, 10% Edward Scissorhands. It’s a great character and performance for Gosling. When he’s not on the job he seems like kind of a savant, a sweet, quiet guy with a goofy smile, doesn’t talk much even when it would be socially preferable. Then when it’s time he turns steely and intense, all business. He never carries guns but sure knows how to use them when necessary. “When necessary” is not that much considering how good he is with just fists and feet or sharp metal things. Like Stuntman Mike he has a silver jacket that he always wears, even as it gets more and more bloodied. It has a scorpion on the back. He says something about a scorpion one time late in the movie, implying that it has some unspecified significance to him.

There are tense car chases, bursts of surprisingly brutal violence, and nerve-racking scenes of waiting in the getaway car, watching the front door of an establishment, hoping not to hear shots fired inside. It opens with a fuckin wallop, a great getaway scene that shows his skills as a driver, his clever strategy and his extreme cool under pressure. Its declaration of badass intent is Gosling wearing sunglasses, driving, some kind of throbbing Blondie-esque keyboard throbbing from the radio and his credit in purple with the RISKY BUSINESS font.

Alot of the style of the movie is a tribute to a rare commodity: ’80s cool, not ironic, ages well. Basically Michael Mann circa THIEF. Quiet, sparse, broody, night, Los Angeles. This is a solid new entry in the arthouse badass category along with THE LIMEY, GHOST DOG, THE AMERICAN, etc.

That might cause trouble in some multiplexes. I could’ve done without all the sighing in the auditorium. There was a dude in my row who angrily muttered at one point “There better be a gunfight after this.” Later, “I’m gonna walk out of this movie.” But he didn’t. I actually think it might’ve got him at the end, I’m not sure. It doesn’t go all VALHALLA RISING on us – I mean, it’s ambiguous about some important questions but it does build to a traditional showdown type climax, not a bunch of poetic weirdness. But at the end I heard a girl in the theater say “It was soooooooo slow!” and I’ve heard reports of this type of reaction across the country.

It’s kinda funny. Why is it that the people least open to seeing a different type of movie than they expected are the same ones that don’t know how to take 2 minutes to read what a movie is before they go see it? But it’s also kinda befuddling. I can sense that this style is gonna be challenging for certain people but I can’t really understand exactly why. I mean it’s not THE TRANSPORTER 2 but it’s not exactly LAST YEAR AT MARIENBAD either. It’s only 100 minutes long, it begins, middles and ends with a bang, it has several really interesting characters played by recognizable and good looking Hollywood actors, some strong relationships, scary bad guys, better action than is generally allowed these days (cars, guns, punching, stabbing), a couple laughs, a bunch of shocks.

But it’s quiet. That’s it. They don’t talk alot, and Refn likes to let the camera sit still and watch an actor’s face. I guess these days people can’t even wipe their ass without watching part of a youtube video, sending 3 text messages and updating their Teen Friendpalz status to “wiping ass watching part of y-tube v. & texting x3 ;p”  so to ask them to enjoy a little mood and atmosphere for more than 10 seconds is equivalent to some horrendous torture Torquemeda would’ve come up with during the Inquisition but was too timid to try it out.

I honestly believe if they took this exactl movie and just played songs from the 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS soundtrack non-stop from beginning to end that these same people would’ve liked it. But for some reason that quiet just pisses them off. They don’t want to be alone with their thoughts, I guess. I paid to be entertained, not to be entertained well.

Anyway, DRIVE chose not to use the 2 FAST 2 FURIOUS soundtrack. It’s not wall-to-wall music, but it’s really good music. It’s the second best type of soundtrack: the one where it’s not the kind of music I would normally listen to, but in conjunction with the images it gives me chills. Just hearing a clip of the opening credits song during a podcast I wanted to get up and go to the theater right then to watch the movie again. The score by Cliff Martinez is also the second best type, the moody old school keyboard type deal. (First best type is blaxploitation funk, obviously.)

Everybody’s really good in this one. For example you got Perlman, a small time gangster but a scary one, partly because he’s desperate to claw his way up to the top. I know Perlman’s played a gangster sort of like this a million times, but here the movie is more worth his efforts. So it’s nice to see him in a good role, and no 8 hours in the makeup chair.

But for sure the most brilliant casting idea is Brooks as movie producer turned underworld figure Bernie Rose (the director of CANDYMAN did this?). He’s scary, but he’s still Albert Brooks. He seems kind of nice actually, but with the underlying threat that if you cross him or if he no longer needs you there could be trouble. I kept wondering if he really would rather just be friends than kill people or if that’s just his sick way of terrorizing people. I decided he’s for real, he does want to be your buddy, but business is business.

Oscar Isaac has a similar ambiguousness as Mulligan’s husband, just back from the joint. I want to believe he’s a nice guy but I have more reason to believe he’ll want to kill our driver. I mean, nobody’s gonna be happy about the young handsome guy that’s been “helping out” while they were locked up. Careful with that one, ladies.

I kept trying to remember where I knew this actor from, and as soon as I saw his name on the end credits I remembered that’s Blue, the guy that runs the imaginary brothel in SUCKER PUNCH. Most people I know hated that movie but I hope they’d admit he was good. In that one he was clearly the villain but he makes these little speeches about how he’s doing what he’s doing because he cares about the girls, and it seems like he really believes that shit. He must be a master of playing the evil nice guy.

I guess you could say our driver blurs the line too. We like him because he’s interesting to watch, and then we start to think he’s okay because he’s obviously sincere about taking care of this girl and her son. And even her husband. But he’s a criminal, he’s a very good killer, and business is business for him too. He’s crazy. There’s a point where he wears a disguise to follow somebody, which I enjoyed because I’d just seen a 50 Cent movie that annoyed me because he kept being really obvious about following people and I couldn’t believe they didn’t see him. This guy puts in the effort to make it believable. But then there’s these great shots where he’s standing rigidly in the dark, stalking this guy, and it’s like holy shit, have I been rooting for Michael Meyers this whole time?

There’s a great moment where he does something way more crazy than we knew he was capable of, and he does it right after kissing the girl, and then there’s a long shot of her, probably still in shock, and her expression is not quite readable but not what you’d expect either. I think there are alot of ways you could read it, and I like that.

Oh shit, this whole movie is ambiguous. Might be a metaphor for Christianity’s encroachment on the Norse religions. Or it might just be understated. I’ll have to see it again to be sure.

This is the third Refn movie I’ve seen after BRONSON and VALHALLA RISING. Each one is better than the last. Like those ones it’s a serious-minded, arty type of filmatism, derivative of the masters, but I don’t see that as a bad thing. Here he has it all under control better than I’ve seen before.

Since seeing the movie I’ve heard a couple interviews with Refn, who says that it’s about a man who drives around at night listening to pop music because it’s the only way he can feel, and that it was based on Grimm’s fairy tales and that the mask part was him turning into a super hero, that he considers himself “a fetish filmmaker,” that it’s an autobiographical story about how he’d do anything to protect his wife. And I’ve read about Ryan Gosling saying that it’s about the fakeness of Hollywood and a guy who thinks he’s in a movie. And I’ve read people calling it “existential,” because if a guy is driving around being quiet you gotta figure it means he’s contemplating his existence or whatever.

I didn’t really pick up on any of those things while watching it. And sometimes I think a certain type of movie buff has to call a movie like this “existential” as a phony justification for watching an awesome movie. If it was just a normal crime movie they would look down on it but if it’s “existential” they can praise it to the sky, it seems like. But you only get one existence, pal. You oughta let loose, live your existence and enjoy awesome movies.

All those interpretations are legit, but to me the important thing about DRIVE is that it’s a great genre movie done with style, atmosphere, restraint, and patience. And with enough quiet moments in between that your brain can fill it in with whatever poetical interpretation it wants.

*

*

*

there were two clever gimmicks I wanted to mention at the end ’cause they’re sort of spoilers

1. the scene in the garage where Cranston walks past a long row of badass car after badass car while talking about the one he prepared for the kid, and when he finally gets to it it’s a Chevy Impala.

2. the reveal of his day job after the opening robbery, where he’s wearing a police uniform for a movie role, and for a second you think “Holy shit, this guy’s a cop!?”

It’s a movie that constantly impresses with ideas like that, but never nudges you and says “hey, lookit this, you see what I’m doing here?” It impresses with little details like the blase look on a hooker’s face when the driver storms into the dressing room wielding a hammer, or with brief injections of utter strangeness, like the musical scene of the scary-mask-wearing driver walking up and staring dumbly into the window of Perlman’s pizza parlor.  I don’t know why you want these people to be talking all the time. They say so much more with their mouths shut.

Before long he’s free and traveling toward “home,” wherever that is. He tells people he came from Hell, and he’s such a scary motherfucker they tend to take that literally. Actually, he doesn’t say a word, but a little boy accompanies him, speaks for him, and names him “One Eye.” “Well, you need a name,” he explains. “And you have one eye.”

The specific cause of the mass of scar tissue in place of his left eyeball is thankfully never shown, so he gets to remain a mysterious wanderer. He’s a fuckin brute but we side with him because we see the hypocrisy of his enemies. They’re every bit as savage as him, but hiding it in “God’s will” and a search for “the Holy Land.” He kind of reminds me of Lone Wolf and Cub the way he embraces being seen as some kind of demon, and lives up to it with his violence, yet consistently shows a stronger sense of honor in his actions than the non-demon-affiliated individuals around him.

The movie is divided into chapters, which I really liked because they’re like little interconnected short stories about this character. One about him being a slave, one about him running into some vikings, one about him on a boat with them, etc. The mood and atmosphere are as thick as anything I’ve seen in a year or two. Beautiful, naturally lit shots of these filthy warriors traveling through fog-shrouded land; long takes with sparse dialogue and a score that’s more simple, eerie tones than what you might call “music.” It gave me a strong feeling of being there, not just in that place but in that time, when you could travel for days on end and never see other people, and if you did it might be a problem.

Mikkelsen is supremely badass, communicating everything with his disfigured face, dispassionately bashing skulls or disemboweling guys. I like how he’s by far the scariest guy in the movie and also the one you identify with. One look at him and people know everything they need to be scared about. They see the tattoos and the scars, they know he’s not a Christian, that he’s been treated badly, that he’s not happy about that. Walking, silent revenge. A heathen that was not interested in living on the fringes of the earth, it’s not his type of neighborhood. Get the fuck out of his way.

The director is Nicolas Winding Refn, who did the PUSHER movies, and shot Tom Hardy out of a cannon called BRONSON straight into Hollywood. The only one I’d seen before this was BRONSON, and although that had that great performance and some nice Kubrick-inspired moments I wasn’t as in love with it as everybody else. But it was good enough to make me interested in what else he gets up to, and this is a good pay off. Now he’s got that movie DRIVE coming out this week, which I look forward to seeing, and he’s flirting with becoming a Hollywood guy. He was on a list of people they were supposedly considering for DIE HARD 5 (I doubt they had seen his movies if they were serious about that), and he’s been attached to a remake of LOGAN’S RUN for a while. I kinda hope he does something mainstream because he seems like the kind of director whose personality can’t be completely suppressed. You might chain him to a post but you might regret it. We’ll see what happens, I guess.

I’d been warned that it’s not really an action movie and required patience. I so much expected it to not be that type of movie that it ended up being closer to one than I expected. It’s definitely not the modern definition of action, and it surprises me that they played it at Actionfest. It seems like that could’ve caused problems. But it’s not like THE LIMITS OF CONTROL or something that builds up to violence and then skips over it. I don’t think it’s far off from the old westerns or samurai movies. There’s not any drawn out action sequences or motorcycle chases or nothin, but there’s tension and stare downs that occasionally erupt. It’s over quick, like most incidents that involve the drawing of swords or guns. But it’s there.

Of course, then it goes a little end-of-2001 on us. It gets a little more abstract the deeper it gets into Hell. I’m sure there’s meaning to alot of this that I didn’t really get. He starts doing weird things like balancing a bunch of stones on top of each other. There’s some homeless guy who does that along the Seattle waterfront – I wonder if he’s descended from vikings?

I think that structure works pretty good, but I admit I’m literal-minded enough that I probly would’ve liked the movie even better if it ended on a more concrete note. I guess if I have to interpret it I’d say it’s kind of like how I interpret the end of HALLOWEEN: he dies, but now he’s everywhere. More than that, the living spirit of suppressed religions has sacrificed himself to save the kid, his voice. But he’s still there, watching over the kid with his lack of depth perception. He is Valhalla and he is rising just like the apes, like Cobra, like the machines, like Taj, like Hannibal, etc. He can’t watch 3D movies, but he can watch you, so be on your best behavior.

.

.

.

bonus: a dumb post I wrote on an IMDb message board

The alleged candidates:

1. Joe Cornish. This is the guy that directed ATTACK THE BLOCK. I haven’t gotten to see it yet, but everybody tells me I should. He also wrote THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN with friend of the internet Edgar Wright. I have no opinion yet but I plan to see ATTACK THE BLOCK.

2. Justin Lin – FAST AND THE FURIOUS 3-5, plus that BETTER LUCK TOMORROW movie and FINISHING THE GAME. He has shown a penchant for good practical action and stuntwork, charismatic and manly characters, nice visuals and a good sense of humor. I would hope his DIE HARD would be a little more grounded than his FAST FIVE, but I think he would be a good choice. Possible drawback: could delay FURIOUS SIX. Possible bonus: could delay TERMINATOR 5: TERMINATION OF THE TERMINATRIX.

3. Nicolas Winding Refn. This kind of seems like the most interesting choice on the list, but I gotta admit I’ve only seen BRONSON and I honestly didn’t love it as much as you’re supposed to. I’ll have to check out the PUSHER trilogy and VALHALLA RISING, which I’ve heard good things about, and of course his new one DRIVE everybody is excited about. Plus I think there’s one more action movie lined up after that one.

And then it’s John Moore, who did BEHIND ENEMY LINES, FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX, THE OMEN REMAKE and MAX PAYNE. I don’t know, did anybody see FLIGHT OF THE PHOENIX? I think I might’ve heard it was pretty good. I saw MAX PAYNE and it did have a couple good parts, but not enough to imply that he could handle a DIE HARD. He did all his movies at Fox and apparently they like hanging out with him or whatever so they look at him for every big movie that comes up, like THE WOLVERINE and everything. (Then again they didn’t choose him for that one, so maybe we’ll get lucky here.)

Anyway, they’re saying this one will take place in Russia, will have McClane teamed with his son (not seen or mentioned in the series since he was a little kid), and is still unfortunately written by Skip Woods, whose best movie I’m sorry to say has gotta be THE A-TEAM. He wrote and directed the painful Tarantino ripoff THURSDAY and wrote SWORDFISH (aka Halle’s Berries), HITMAN and X-MEN’S ORIGINS PRESENTS WOLVERINE. So you see, there are alot of obstacles for McClane to deal with on this one.

Hardy seems a little self-conscious at times, but then so does the character. The important thing is that he throws his full weight into the craziness, spending a good deal of the movie naked, smeared in paint, getting in knock down fights with the screws, yelling that everybody’s a bunch of cunts. One of his main hobbies is taking hostages, even though it never seems to get him anywhere. I like when the warden asks him what he wants and he thinks about it for a second and asks, “Well, what’ve you got?” Usually his only demand is a disgusted “Fuck off,” which is too bad because I read that the real guy likes to make demands like an inflatable doll, a helicopter and a cup of beans.

They do try to play him for laughs, like in the (completely made up I guess) section where he gets out and tries to fit into society. They have a long scene of him in an uncomfortable suit trying to smile and be polite while awkwardly drinking a giant, fancy cocktail covered in umbrellas and shit. Director Nicolas Winding Refn, who did those PUSHER movies, gets a pretty good look going, very carefully designed and staged.

I guess my favorite part is when he’s in an asylum drugged up and it takes him forever to do regular physical activities. In one scene he spends minutes trying to spit at a guy, in another he slooooooowly walks across a gym floor while the other inmates dance goofily around him. They all look like zombies, but especially him.

I’m not familiar with Refn’s other movies. From this one it seems like he has chops, but like with Hardy there were times when it kept nagging me that the guy’s putting on a pose, playing dressup. Both of them mostly pull it off, there are just little moments here and there. The constant use of classical and choral music struck me as a little pretentious, made me think of that nut that did AMERICAN HISTORY X and then dressed up as Osama bin Laden in Marlon Brando’s acting class. But I guess it’s kind of a cliche to use that kind of music for an insane asylum, so maybe he’s not really trying to be arty. Anyway, it was a good move because it tricked all the critics into saying it’s like A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. I checked a couple reviews just now and was amazed that they didn’t mention a way more obvious comparison: fucking CHOPPER. Maybe that movie’s not as well known as I thought it was.

I enjoyed BRONSON enough, but I can’t avoid comparing it to CHOPPER. It’s not the exact same story, but it’s the same damn recipe: heavily buzzed film festival favorite where previously obscure actor completely physically transforms himself and gives balls-to-the-wall performance in a fictionalized, meandering first-person-narrated portrait of a real life repeat offender criminal who spends most of his life in prison and becomes a celebrity for his insane, violent exploits and unrepentant bravado, starts career as writer/artist, seems to think he’s sticking it to the man. And just by definition that means they end up having a bunch of similar content: attacking somebody to try to get transferred, getting chewed out by the warden, spinning headline montages, smiling crazily into the camera, playful filmatistic gimmicks to try to make a bunch of scenes of standing around in prison cells less boring.

That’s fine, but the problem is that I think CHOPPER’s alot better. Both live or die on how interesting the title character is, and to me movie Chopper is way more interesting than movie Bronson. See, Bronson’s real in-your-face about how crazy he thinks he is, how evil. He’s so proud of himself, so cocky, like a baby who just shat his diaper and thinks it’s hilarious. He even appears on a stage as if he’s hosting the movie, sometimes wearing clown makeup (craaaazy!) and he actually cackles.

Chopper probly wants attention just as badly, but his method of intimidation is more original. He’s a maniac too (the man has somebody cut off both his ears, for example) but he’s funny. He makes you laugh and feel bad for doing it. He threatens you by being overly friendly, making small talk and jokes. He’s a master at the fine art of avoiding the elephant in the room, and he is the elephant, and that’s the whole problem is that he’s in the room with you. He’s way scarier, and yet way more likable than Bronson.

Chopper also has more facets to him. He has remorse. He stabs people and then feels bad about it, apologizes and stays to comfort them while help is on the way. And he has his hobby of killing criminals and pretending he’s on some vigilante mission of justice, using that bullshit excuse to play the cops like a fiddle. He outsmarts everyone. Yeah, he’s cocky too, but he earns it more.

Nothing against the real guy, but in the movie Bronson doesn’t seem to have as much depth. He’s a tough bastard, but that’s about it. He does some funny crazy shit sometimes (like paint on an art agent) but he’s basically stupid, just a brat kid in an adult body, throwing a fit at everyone and everything. He’s G.G. Allin without the music career. When he gets locked up after 69 days of freedom he says he’s “building an empire,” and I actually found myself siding with the uptight warden who bluntly says, “You’re ridiculous.” And you might be supposed to agree there, and also when the guy calls him “pathetic.” But I don’t know man, earlier in the movie it really seems like you’re supposed to think he’s alot cooler than I did. And at the end you see how his life gets worse and worse from all his lashing out, but it’s like yeah, no shit. You learn that around the same time as toilet training, usually.

I guess the movie just doesn’t communicate to me what’s supposed to be special about this guy. He punched more people than anybody else in British prisons? Put him in the Guinness Book, but I don’t know about a whole movie. Maybe start with a Christmas special. The Peanuts always worked better in short specials than as movies, so that might be the same with Bronson.

But maybe I’m extra harsh on this guy because of his crimes. I don’t care about him stealing money of course, but the sonofabitch stole one of our precious American resources, the very stage name of one of the all time great badass icons. What’s going on over there, fellas? I love you British, you published my books and released the new Seagal movie. But you got this guy trying to steal “Charles Bronson” and that director last year with the nerve to use the name “Steve McQueen.” And I can tell you’re eyeing “Lee Marvin” and “Clint Eastwood.” I can feel it. So let it be known that they’re off limits. Lay off, guys.

As far as the MAD MAX issue – Variety has confirmed that Hardy is cast in FURY ROAD, but didn’t say who he was playing and made a bigger deal about Charlize Theron, which would indicate that he’s in a supporting role. But the Hollywood Reporter reported (from Hollywood) that he was replacing Gibson as Max. Using a combination of IMDb and crude math skills I have figured out that Gibson was 29 when he did BEYOND THUNDERDOME (makes you feel old, huh?) and Hardy is now 32, so the age is about right. Throw a white streak of hair on him I guess.

I don’t think he’s a bad choice but I was hoping if Gibson wouldn’t do it they’d at least replace him with another little known Australian. Or with the actual Charles Bronson (the original one from DEATH WISH), but it’s a little late for that. We’ll see how Hardy turns out. I wish Gibson would come back, but to me George Miller is more important than Gibson and I’m willing to make that sacrifice to see what he has in mind for that world. Hopefully it’ll be worth it.

Anyway, BRONSON’s okay I guess. I wasn’t as into it as I was hoping, but I sort of liked it. They might want to go the HAVOC 2: NORMAL ADOLESCENT BEHAVIOR route and just release it on video as CHOPPER 2. There’s a little bit of bareknuckle boxing so UNDISPUTED 4 would be a possibility too, but I’d rather they save that title for Marko Zaror.

[ratings]

Like

Unlike