awful film

Really? I'm glad that Refn went for the soundtrack he did: it's actually a refreshing change of pace from the usual cheesy pounding rock music or the overtly dramatic orchestra music. It's a movie where the music isn't supposed to be the device that evokes the emotions from the viewer, nor was it bogged down by an actual soundtrack. The three actual songs that were played were during the intro, during a moment where it truly fit thematically, and then the ending. The rest was just ambient background music that put out a vibe and nothing more.

"Anyone who agrees to rub their breasts live on television is obviously inexcusably disturbed."

Thats not an answer. You still aren't explaining why its awful. I can hate almost all of The Notebook and give you a play by play commentary on why it sucks the whole way through.

The film was not bad. You may not have liked it, but that doesn't make it a bad film.

There are plenty of really good films out there that I don't particularly like. But I recognize they are very well made and executed movies. I just don't care for them much. It's important to separate preference from objective criticism.

Even if this film takes hints and homages from past pictures; it is, still, a different take on a genre that, IMO, hasn't being refreshed since Pulp Fiction

The hand of a revisionist director its clearly seen all throught this film, from start to finish

Yeah, I do think the ending seemed a bit flat, but perhaps that's because we're so used to climactic finishes. Perhaps flat is not the right word, I didn't intend the negative connotation. I was very happy with the ending being different from the norm, I always appreciate when a film doesn't hand you the final outcome in plain bold lettering.

As far as the money, I didn't really take the lead to be the average guy on the street, I feel there could be many reasons he left it, one of those reasons could even be that he didn't even think of it; it was never important to him. And I also think he felt he'd offended the mum when he originally offered her the money, as well as wanting to stick to what he said wbout not seeing her again.

Anyway, this is not my defence of the film, just the thoughts I had at the time while watching.

"But he/she should know they are in the slim majority by almost every metric (IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, etc)"

Remember that people starve for something else so when something else is presented peopl swallow without waching the details...

The method of character development in this film was unconventional to say the least, but I think it would be a stretch to call them uninteresting.

The lead character for instance, on whom this film hinges, made me care for him and his future without speaking so much as five words during the course of the entire film. That is not something that has ever happened to me before and hence I must tip my hat to some great acting.

Through subtle facial ticks and other gestures Ryan Gosling gave us a portrayal of a troubled character with just the appropriate amount of emotion, mystery and grit to make him interesting. The use of no backstory in my opinion lends itself to the character rather than taking away from it as it a) Allows our imagination to run free, b) Gives the character an air of mystery which adds to his persona.

So yes, it wasn't the typical methodology used to develop a character but from my viewpoint it worked.

As to plot and script writing; the plot was simple yes but I didn't see many glaring holes (it has been a while since I watched this so feel free to correct me). And the script again lent itself to the feel of the film which was raw, basic and mysterious.

Don't think it deserves a 7.9 but a 7 or a 7.2 would be quite reasonable.