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.
