Drive…Neither Fast, Nor Furious

It’s no wonder that Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive has polarized audiences. While it is far from being a full-throttle action extravaganza in the same vein as the Fast and Furious movies, it has strangely been marketed as such. A shame really, as people going into the film expecting to see some Vin Diesel-esque moments of heart-racing car stunts and edge-of-seat action are only going to come out angry, likely to spit vitriol about how boring and pointless Drive is.

So once again, I’ll try to clean up the mess left by the inane film marketing departments with their dollar sign eyes and tell it to you straight up; Contrary to the posters and trailers you may have seen, if you are a fan of the Fast and Furious movies, you will probably hate this film.

It gets annoying that distributors are so blinded by their “bums on seats” mentality that they try to lure audiences by misinforming them. The old “if you liked that movie, you’ll love this movie” style of marketing can sometimes be helpful, but is most often just an excuse to group one film in with a more proven, successful one. In the case of Drive, it becomes a case of good old fashioned false advertising.

If you are anything like me and think the Fast and Furious films are excruciatingly tedious, you might even run the risk of skipping Drive altogether. that would be a big mistake as Drive is, in many ways, a film for lovers of film. Brilliantly directed, exquisitely shot, beautifully acted and uniquely paced, it is easily the most interesting piece of cinema released in many months.

Ryan Gosling plays a quiet, softly spoken character. A Hollywood stunt man by day, a getaway driver for crims by night. When he strikes up a friendship with his neighbor (Carey Mulligan) and her young son, he eventually gets caught up in a world of contract killers and gangsters, one of whom is played by Albert Brooks, one of my favorite and under-appreciated actors, who gets to tone down his usual humorous persona and play a nasty son of a bitch.

Having enjoyed director Refn’s earlier film Bronson, I was prepared for anything when I walked into Drive. Bronson was a hardcore and wholly original piece of work and while Drive has a more subdued tone throughout, it certainly has moments of shock and intensity. Most of all though, Drive exudes an understated cool vibe, the likes of which I have rarely seen done successfully since early Tarantino.

Deliberately slow in some parts, increasingly violent in others, this is a meticulously shot film with some truly great sequences. Those who found the story lacking and Goslings near mute performance undercooked and annoying have, in my opinion, seriously missed out on experiencing something incredible.

Such high praise cannot come without one or two nitpicks though. I could have done without the “in your face” 80′s synth pop soundtrack and the retro pink titles at the beginning of the film. It didn’t ruin the movie for me, but I just didn’t see the need to place what I thought was an original and challenging piece of cinema in an 80′s “Pretty in Pink” style aesthetic. Maybe it’s a small thing, but in this world of endless remakes, re-dos and rehashes, Drive seemed original enough to not have to revert to the retro thing.

You think I’m nitpicking? Yeah, you’re probably right.

Having said that, the film undoubtedly conjured up memories of similar films from the 70s and 80s, but unlike Tarantino’s Death Proof for example, it also felt new and original enough to stand on its own two feet.

While many have accused Drive of being slow and boring, I would disagree and call it Hypnotic and endlessly interesting. Whatever side you are on, one thing is for sure, a movie that creates such broad opinion and debate can’t be such a bad thing. Dammit, that’s what I love about movies.

Red State….Smith’s fresh slate

It is becoming increasingly difficult to know where to stand on the topic of Kevin Smith. Once the superstar of indie film who brought us edgy, breakthrough movies like Clerks and Chasing Amy, now an endlessly outspoken director who often promises the world but rarely delivers.

Being a fan of his earlier work, I breathed a sigh of relief when Smith announced his next film would be a more serious, straightforward horror. Even his most devoted followers seemed to be growing tired of his dick-joke laden films (Zack and Miri make a Porno, Clerks II) and his misfired attempts at mainstream acceptance (Jersey Girl, Cop Out).

Walking into Red State felt a little like sitting down to dinner with the boy who cried wolf. Too often have I walked into a new Kevin Smith film with high expectations only to walk out disappointed. This time though, I knew better than to be swept up in the mans self-manufactured hype. I’d heard the controversy over the distribution of the film, and the now infamous Sundance screening, but really had no idea what to expect from the movie itself.

A million miles from his usual slacker comedies, Red State came as a complete surprise. The plot involves three teenagers getting trapped in a fundamentalist compound in middle America and explores themes of religion, bigotry and life in post 9/11 America. It could well be the best-looking Kevin Smith film yet. Less clunky and more skillfully shot than his previous films, Red State looks great. The script still contains elements of a Kevin Smith script, with touches of vulgarity and slacker humor scattered throughout, but there is more sophistication and a looseness here that we haven’t seen in his other films. The actors seem to have been given room to breath and perhaps to improvise.

What is most rewarding about Red State is its ability to surprise. There are some genuinely impressive plot turns throughout the film that offset its several lengthy, dialogue-driven scenes. The cast is solid, with Michael Parks given a showy, but breakout role as the religious leader, John Goodman once again flexing his dramatic chops, and another great performance by the always impressive Melissa Leo (who wins this months “Rose Byrne award” for seemingly appearing in every movie released these days).

Kevin Smith fan-boys will kneel at his alter no matter what film the guy chooses to make. Others who can step back and judge his work on its individual merit should be pleasantly surprised by Red State. It may not be a strong enough film for us to forgive him for his Jersey Girl/Cop Out/Clerks II deviations, but it looks and feels like a movie from a man with a new agenda. It would be a shame if his plans to quit directing after his next movie should come to fruition, because it is just when the guy is getting interesting again.

It’s true to say that Red State is essentially a B-movie, but as B-movies go, it is a deliciously entertaining ride from a film maker some of us almost gave up on.

Battle: Los Angeles…wake me when it’s over

Whilst watching Battle: Los Angeles one question kept repeating over and over in my head. How can something so visually spectacular be so intensely, mind numbingly BORING? I would gladly sit through a four-hour French experimental art film showing nothing but a goat standing in a plain white room chewing grass to the sounds of fingernails being dragged down a chalkboard than to sit through Battle: Los Angeles again. At least the goat wouldn’t insult my intelligence, and as the sound of the screeching chalkboard penetrates my ears I would grin and thank the lord that I didn’t have to endure the agony of the horrendous dialogue from Battle: Los Angeles for a second time.

Seriously, who is actually watching a film like this and loving it? The thought that there are individuals out there with Battle: Los Angeles posters on their wall, wearing their Battle: Los Angeles t-shirts, taking a break from their Battle: Los Angeles part 2 online campaign, only to mark off another day on their full-color, glossy Battle: Los Angeles calendar in countdown for the Battle: Los Angeles limited edition blu-ray release, scares me to my very core.

Forgive me fans of Battle: Los Angeles, but the movie you love is the largest pile of overblown, undercooked and almost unintelligible nonsense this weary eyed film geek has ever had the misfortune of having to endure. If I may, please allow me to also add that your beloved film is, in my humble opinion, the very essence of what is wrong with the modern-day Hollywood blockbuster. All spectacle, no substance.

The only compliment I could muster for the film is that at least it isn’t a remake. Beyond that, there really is nothing positive to take from the experience of watching this tripe. It was loud, dumb and dull. What a crime it is to pump so much money into a feature film only to be left with something so forgettable. It defies belief.

With such a killer premise, good actors in place, and a budget to go to town on, Battle: Los Angeles should have been at least entertaining. Instead, we were left with a tedious, flag-waving American propaganda film masquerading as an action sci-fi blockbuster.

Oh, in case I haven’t made it clear, I give Battle: Los Angeles a big thumbs down.

Source Code…Groundhog Jake

Duncan Jones burst onto the scene a few years ago with his standout debut feature, Moon. It was a movie filled to the brim with mind-twisting ideas and cool sci-fi concepts. Source Code sees Jones aiming at a more mainstream audience and with an undoubtedly more significant budget at his disposal.

While the move into mainstream waters can often dull the intensity of a filmmaker’s arsenal, it is a credit to Jones that he has kept Source Code within the confines of its minimalist concept. Lesser directors may have expanded the movie into a non-stop, high-octane special effects-driven action extravaganza, and while Source Code is no slouch in those departments, it is still essentially a basic one or two location film.

In what can loosely be described as a Groundhog Day for sci-fi fans, Jake Gyllenhaal plays a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man on a commuter train and has eight minutes to diffuse a deadly situation. When those eight minutes are up, he must start again and relive those moments over and over until he succeeds in his mission.

Source Code moves at a steady pace and never feels boring. Some may argue that the film crumbles under close scrutiny and will no doubt pick it apart at the seams after watching it, but I would argue that such analysis and philosophical discussion sparked by Source Code only confirms the strength of the film. Sure, it may have its flaws plot-wise, and the less said about the cop-out ending the better, but it is the kind of movie we should all be campaigning for. It’s entertaining, intellectually stimulating, and prompts hours of post-viewing discussion over coffee and biscuits.

Special mention must go to screenwriter Ben Ripley, who manages to keep the edge-of-seat tension throughout Source Code. With only a handful of characters and locations at his disposal this is no small feat and a credit to his writing talent.

Source Code is far from a perfect film, but it raises itself head and shoulders above its competitors to be a skilfully made and intellectually stimulating science fiction thriller.

Paul…difficult to Pegg

It’s always difficult when the bar is set so high for a comedy to perform to expectations. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost carry the burden of having a damn good strike rate with movies they have been involved in. Being a fan of these guys also makes it difficult to declare that Paul was a bit of a letdown.

All the elements seemed in place, Edgar Wright may have decided not to be involved but the director replacing him, Greg Mottola, has been producing the goods himself of late, with Superbad and Adventureland being two fun movies, not to mention his work on several episodes of Arrested Development. So the fact that Paul fell short was a double blow.

It isn’t that Paul is a bad movie, it has plenty of laughs, some good characters and a decent enough storyline, it’s just that it feels a little weak coming from these guys. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were such wild, comedic rides that we all expected it to be taken up a notch with Paul. Instead, the film feels like a strange left turn.

Ok, let’s get the obvious out of the way. I know many will disagree, but the casting of Seth Rogen as the voice of the alien was to me, an almost fatal flaw. It isn’t only that I completely missed the boat on the appeal of Rogen and still scratch my head as to what exactly makes this guy so adored as an actor, it’s more that his voice just didn’t seem to fit. Yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking; How the hell do you know what aliens sounds like? Fair point. I just believe that having a less obvious voice would have lifted the film. This was just cheesy stunt casting and every time that damn alien spoke, all I could picture was Seth Rogen standing there. If nothing else, it detracted from the impressive alien CGI in the film.

Another strange element to Paul was the unabashed anti-Christian sentiments scattered throughout. Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Christian and was in no way personally offended by what was said (if anything, I sided with Paul on most of it), but it simply felt a tad out of place in a laid-back slacker comedy like this. I’m guessing most of the audience who shelled out their money to watch Paul weren’t expecting to be served up a religious lesson. It just felt awkward that’s all.

On the plus side, there are some good scenes and some genuinely funny pop-culture references in Paul that succeed in getting it over the line as an inoffensive and agreeable night at the movies. Pegg and Frost are lovable lugs who have an effortless chemistry and know how to sell the gags. Less pedantic fans of comedy will no doubt find this a barrel of fun. For the rest of us, we will unfortunately have to mark Paul down as somewhat of a misfire.