Bookwyrm83 wrote:Octillus wrote:I'm really not trying to be a douche because it was really well made, but it's basically Transformers for hipsters.
The fact you compare it Transformers automatically registers your comment invalid; Drive bears no resemblance whatsoever. The Fast and the Furious for hipsters? Maybe, but that would also be a rather shallow comment, in my opinion. Personally I thought it was great, but I like arthouse subtlety. I have seen some of the director's previous films, so I knew what to expect style-wise.
Clearly this is a film that polarizes audiences, and that's fine, but still, you don't have to be a hipster to appreciate it.
Lawl. It's eye-candy without substance for the audience that appreciates its type of eye-candy. Don't get me wrong, I loved many of the shots and the attention to detail, but it was also empty of life or a real purpose. There's very little subtlety and it smacks you over the head with how many "great arthouse shots" it's taking. I'm all for creative cinematography, but this comes across like artistic masturbation of the highest variety. Oh, and this was a pointless Ryan Gosling performance. It wasn't calling for much, and he didn't give much in turn.
Was it trying to pay homage to older flicks? Sure, but it meandered in that.
Was it trying to elevate "low-art" to "high-art"? Absolutely, but it was crushed under its own weight of self-importance.
I, too, have seen the director's previous films and I remain unimpressed. He shoots like a music-video director, and doesn't know how to carry a narrative.
Nah, like I said earlier in the thread I liked a lot of it, but it left me cold overall.