Now, I enjoy a good, shooter, bloody action movie. This however, shouldn't have been that movie. Now, I am not saying that people shouldn't die, but really? *beep* buckets of blood, that scene in the motel with the women's head exploding? It just seemed out of place and immature.
shareNo I didn't feel like it was needlessly violent. But I understand why you are saying that. Perhaps you feel that so much blood would not gush out of someone's chest by a bathtub curtain pole or by a bullet to the side of the head by a shot gun. I thought the same for a split second. The bathroom scene was over exaggerated.
But if you add the running time of violence in the film, it only adds to maybe a minute.
And if you saved up all the minutes where the characters just stood there staring off into space, you'd have enough time to redo "Gone With the Wind."
shareI honestly don't know how a person's head would react to a close-range shotgun blast because I haven't tried it. I guess someone who has will have to use their prison wi-fi privileges to respond as to the authenticity of the violence...
But the violence was necessary to the plot, so I can't agree.
"Anyone who agrees to rub their breasts live on television is obviously inexcusably disturbed."
"I honestly don't know how a person's head would react to a close-range shotgun blast because I haven't tried it."
with no snark, then i might suggest you find a friend with a shotgun, and some #6 bird shot, and a toilet. [toilets are easier to find in the spring time, in the suburbs, as they tend to 'bloom' as a lot of people tend to remodel bathrooms then. on a good day you can find 3 or 4.]
set the toilet up slightly higher than ground level, crouch down about 12 feet away, aim and pull the trigger.
the results should be ..... rather spectacular. 8D [and yes, i've seen this done]
now extrapolate that to what would happen to someone's head, which is far more fleshy and generally softer than very hard porcelain.
Agreed. It almost comes as a sadistic fetish.
shareI understand the argument of realistic violence and gore... but I feel it was a tad bit much... Best scene that shows it is the elevator scene where he continuously stomps the hitman's head. Just dont understand why any violence required excessive blood.
shareJust dont understand why any violence required excessive blood.I believe the only people who can accurately tell us whether a scene is excessive or not are medical professionals and those with an advanced knowledge of the human body.
Refn has described himself as a fetish film-maker, so that's actually incredibly accurate.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My list of films I consider good; http://www.imdb.com/list/HhtSboRgtg0/
[deleted]
It does. I don't dock it too much for that, but it certainly could have been dialed back a tad.
shareViolence in Drive is gimmicky and out to shock, because it's a hilariously overblown and boring film by a pretentious European director. Simples.
shareYeah, those damn Danes... directing films differently than Americans.
Gosling should have been a hard-ass with a quick wit, shooting off one-liners as he gunned down person after person! He would be nearly invincible! And then he'd rescue the kid, then the woman, from her burning apartment... after which he'd share a wonderful, passionate kiss with her before driving off in the sunset.
Make a note of that, Refn: come to IMDb more often so that the armchair writers can help you with your next film.
"Anyone who agrees to rub their breasts live on television is obviously inexcusably disturbed."
Great reply.
When people say 'pretentious' they didn't understand it.
When people say 'simples' they're simple.
never mind 'pretentious'.
how about 'boring as all hell'?
while this movie started out pretty well [the opening scene where he was quietly prowling and outwitting the police]it quickly lost any hope of that promise.
what i found most insulting: it was billed as an ACTION film!
it was one of the most somnolent, slow, and dull films i've ever seen in my life. the few scenes where there WAS any action were way too quick, with little payoff. after each of those scenes it went right back to snoozerville. i followed this movie a week or so later with 'fast and furious 5'.... and more actual ACTION happened in that movie in the 1st ten minutes than the ENTIRETY of 'drive'.
and don't forget.... the movie was called 'drive'! the title ITSELF implies quick action, and instead after that first promising set-up scene devolved into a simple melodrama. it was much like 'speed 2' that took place on a CRUISE SHIP, and honestly, more action occurred in THAT movie.
they could have called this film a 'drama' or possibly even a 'romance', but and ACTION film.....with nearly a complete lack of action? that's practically false advertising.
Where was it billed as an action film?
Totally agree, violence should be portrayed as the nasty thing it is. I think violence is most desensitizing when it is toned down so as to be inoffensive. Violence shouldn't be inoffensive, especially in a serious film like this.
They're advancing the wrong way! Retreat Backwards!
violence should be portrayed as the nasty thing it is
In the words of 1984's doublespeak: I give your comment a Double Plus. ;)
Take care, God bless.
+
shareI don't think it was immature, but it has the misfortune of existing in a culture which uses that kind of gratuitous imagery in a shallow sense.
The violence in Drive shocked me the first time. The elevator scene in particular made me question if it should have been that graphic. Then as I thought about it and saw the film a couple more times I came to think that the violence served a significance to the true meaning of the film or at least part of its themes.
The Driver fancies himself some noble hero, he has this idea in his head of things. Then when things actually happen they're bloody and graphic and startling and shocking, just as they would be, rather than as this neat contained thing we could rationalize as "necessary". Its harder to do that because its so graphic, and its also so good at breaking it up from the quieter slower fantasy stuff into the harsh reality of what the Driver is actually getting himself involved in.
I don't think it had more violence than a lot of other movies, but the way it was depicted was, to me, the opposite of immature.
We are used to seeing violence enacted while pumped up music plays in the background and the sounds of violence get some play over the top, however the sounds and sights of the blood and violence were the stars of those scenes in this movie.
When someone gets their head blown in with a high powered weapon that is the kind of thing you would see, when someone gets their head stomped until it caves in that is what you hear.
Hearing and seeing these things is supposed to unnerve you to some degree. Consequences and the realities of violence are not out of place, they are perfectly within context.
What came first, the music or the misery?
I agree with the OP.
I've given 'Drive' 8/10 and I did really did enjoy it (much better than the poor 'Only God Forgives') but the violence was a bit OTT. Compare this film with the original 'Cape Fear' and you'll see just what can be achieved without a head exploding.