Not a movie for car guys.

Rating: 5/10 (30 December 2012)

Now that I live near a Redbox, I can rent movies for a day and play them on my computer. (I have a DVD player and receiver, I just don't have a TV. Bigger priorities.) One of the movies I picked up tonight was called Drive, starring Ryan Gosling.
Yeah, yeah, I know: I laughed as I clicked the "check out" button, wondering how straight-laced pretty boy Ryan Gosling was going to do in this movie. And truth be told, he wasn't the biggest detractor.
The very first scene, when the very first musical score started playing, I laughed. Somehow, someone wrangled up all of the old people who created the worst movies the 80s had to offer, and involved them in making this flick. It became the common theme throughout the film, and I'm really surprised I didn't see the women wearing leg warmers and side ponytails. And I don't mean to say the actors & actresses were doing a poor job. I'm talking about the score, the production, the direction. Even the font chosen for the credits. Or maybe it's like a bunch of 24-year-old kids watched Molly Ringwald movies back to back with car chase classics like Two-Lane Blacktop and the original Gone in Sixty Seconds, and then decided they could make a movie with the best of those worlds.
Except, those worlds are in completely separate universes.
One of the points the director tries to make is that Gosling's character doesn't say much, but when he does, it's important. Other actors can pull that off; Steve McQueen comes to mind. Quiet, reserved, but still tough as nails. But the pauses are way, way, way too drawn out. I've seen enough movies (and lived in real life long enough) to know when you pause for effect and impression, and they doubled, sometimes tripled that amount. But that doesn't mean the audience's impression is doubled or tripled - long pauses become uncomfortable or hilarious, depending on the scene at hand. I don't know if that was a director's choice, or they were trying to make a 40-minute movie take up enough time to actually be put in a theater.
The girl is cute, the supporting actors are believable enough. But putting a bunch of decent actors together does not make a good movie. (Example: 1991's Nothing But Trouble.) Even baby-faced Gosling doesn't do too horribly (although it wouldn't kill his character to show some facial expression once in awhile. He's like the male version of that Twilight chick in this movie). The only time he shows emotion is exactly when he shouldn't: When his girlfriend's husband gets shot, A. what is he even doing out of the car, and B. what were you expecting, you child? You've been using his wife as eye candy for a month, you met him 3 days ago, and him getting shot while you help him rob a pawn shop in The Valley caught you off guard? Really. Even the car chase scenes are horrible, and I've seen enough to know. I won't even get into the glaring continuity errors, I'll just say that weaving some cars back and forth on a road with different camera angles does not make a chase scene. (Well, maybe in a 24-year-old's mind it does.) Slim Jims don't work on modern cars, pretty sure you have no idea what you're doing to that carburetor, and who picked your crummy ride, the '73 Malibu? You couldn't have drove that Road Runner in the shop? Are you serious? Note to Hollywood: It would be cool if car chase movies actually had gear heads for consultants.
There's no sex but a serious amount of gore. Jason Voorhees would nod approvingly and Hannibal Lecter should bring some vintage chianti to this bloodbath. It's actually one of the more impressive parts of this movie. Sure beats out the inane love triangle plot dreamt up by a 14-year-old girl.
I give it 4.5/10, would rent again, maybe in a year or two.