...nope.

I loved it. Then again, I recognize all of the myriad weirdnesses. It's possible much of my initial "oh hell yes" was sheer refreshment.

Nope.

I agree with Teague on this one. This movie is old-school cinema, pure film history. It's as if Michael Mann and Walter Hill had a beautiful, angry baby. The mystery of the main character is in fact the point.

We don't know the name of Clint Eastwood's character or where he comes from in those classic Westerns, either. That doesn't automatically make it a bad movie. It's a deliberate choice on the part of the filmmakers.

Edward Norton has no identity in Fight Club. He's only referred to as "Jack" in the credits, which of course is a reference to a running joke in the book/film. The Joker in The Dark Knight is another example. The movie even points this out, specifically. Not only does he have no ID, he has no fingerprints, no social security number. They even suggest his suit is custom-made, since it also has no label. What about Tom Cruise in Collateral? Sure, he SAYS his name is Vincent, but he could be lying, and what else do we really know about him for certain? The killer in Se7en burned off his own fingerprints and is only identified in the credits and film proper as "John Doe".

No Country For Old Men? Are you kidding me? THAT'S your example? These elements you consider failings are simply a part of the story they're trying to tell. That would be like complaining about a movie being shot in color, or worse, an aspect ratio.

Hey, if DRIVE didn't work for you, fine. If you didn't like the story, or the execution of that story, okay. But I feel like you're more trying to state opinion as fact, which seems odd and counter-intuitive to me. I think the film worked for about 99% of its running time. I feel they stayed true to their tone and intentions within their genre and premise. It's a Neo-Noir at its core, with just a hint of Western archetypes. Perhaps the book is better, I don't know, but I recognized the film for what it is, and in that context, I think it was achieved beautifully.

To each their own, I guess.

Last edited by johnpavlich (2011-10-19 08:26:58)

Fair enough.

I still disagree with the argument that the character isn't developed. The characters and story are defined, just simple, but they're supposed to be.

Okay. I loved this movie as well. Before you go trashing it, realize that this was supposed to be a Hugh Jackman vehicle from the director of DOOMSDAY and CENTURION. Just keep in mind what this movie was supposed to be, and what it became instead.

Also, the main character of NO COUNTRY isn't Josh Brolin. It's Tommy Lee Jones. The movie isn't about whether or not this guy will get away with the money, it's about how this series of events changes the way an old school cop looks at his job and the world.

-  Branco

I don't even think you have to do that much legwork to understand the characters.  It's all right there for you.

- Branco

I don't think that's true at all. TLJ is a peripheral character who appears in the film less than both Josh Brolin and the villain, possibly even less than Woody's Harrelson's character! It's like trying to argue that Darth Vader is the main character of Star Wars OT and not Luke. And TLJ doesn't really change how he looks at his job and the world either...

Drive is much more Taxi Driver than Fast and the Furious.

That image so requires a caption, such as GEORG'D or something to refer to being made "special" according to George's re-imagination.  However, I've just consumed enough pizza to have depleted my brain to a metric notch above 'zzzzz'...

It isn't called "No Country for Guys who Steal Money".

The whole point of the movie is how different things are from the past and how it's a struggle to keep up.  That's all Tommy Lee Jones ever says in the flick.  Almost every scene has a line or two where he complains about how fast the world is changing around him.  It's specifically set in 1980 to highlight the turning point between small crime along the border, and the massive organized drug trade.

We don't even see Josh Brolin meet his end.  We see it through Tommy Lee Jones eyes as he drives up to the crime scene minutes after the shootout.  It's all about how he can't keep up.

Even the end of the movie is Tommy Lee Jones talking to an older family member (maybe his uncle?  I forget) about how the times are changing.  The Uncle tells him that times changed just as much between their generations.

The movie is not about drug deals and shootouts.  It's about recognizing when your time is up and moving on, as well as the regret one may feel because lives were lost when they didn't recognize that soon enough.

- Branco

I totally agree with Branco about No Country. Even better, there's a scene in there where TLJ effectively solves one of the mysteries of the case and doesn't even realize it. His brain is saying "NO YOU FOOL! The guy you're chasing isn't using a gun!" and he just sits there eating his eggs and wondering why that thing about the cows popped into his head.

Hell, blink and you'll miss anything fast, though there's plenty of furious.

Also, didn't we already have a thread for this film?  I could have sworn I wrote up a whole thing...

Also, it's high time DIF took on the Coen Bros.; I see talent, but I just don't understand how to appreciate whatever it is they do.

And that's fine, different people have different minimum requirements for being interested in things. And they're different things, at that.

No one movie is gonna hit everyone, even if a lot more people like it than like some other movie.

I liked it.