Overrated and Mis-Marketed

Rating: 4/10 (18 October 2011)

The current rating for "Drive" is 8.3. Prepare for it to drop further. Once this film hits Redbox and Netflix and people can actually see what all the fuss was about, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people wanting "their 2 hours back". Granted this is not a film for the masses, but I contend it isn't a film for film buffs either.
I'm one of them. With it's success at Festival Di Cannes and torrent of critical acclaim; and because of it's trailer, I was understandably expecting an artfully crafted action thriller. I was hoping for something along the lines of "Leon", "The Limey", "Get Carter (original)" or "The Italian Job (original)". Or at the very least a driving movie on par with "Vanishing Point", "Death Proof" or "Ronin". "Drive" scarcely shares a genre with any of these films though it's marketing and title would suggest it does. It's closer to "Lost In Translation" except with less character development, virtually no memorable dialog and no humor. Actually, casting Bill Murray as The Driver might have made this film 10 times better.
Check the Memorable Quotes section. There are currently about 6 quotes and only 1 of them is actually memorable. I remember it because Gosling's "5-minute window" line foreshadows a thrilling heist film. In reality, it forecasts the only 5 minutes of driving you're going to get - 10 minutes if you include the picnic scene.
Why was "Drive" marketed the way it was? My guess is the most obvious - they wanted to sell this film to gear-heads. They wanted to encourage fans of 70's muscle car films and fans of crime noir to see it. They also wanted to cross genres and attract a broad audience - fans of Bruckheimer and Michael Bay action films. These are likely the most irate of audiences as it was nowhere near this class of popcorn movie. Mostly, I suspect the marketing people behind the campaign had no idea how to sell a film called "Drive" that has almost no driving in it. The result is a film that will ultimately anger many who will no-doubt feel that they have been deceived. This is evidenced by the frivolous law suit brought against the producers of the film for false advertising. Ridiculous, yes but baseless? Absolutely not.
I also wonder how "Drive" won Best Director at Cannes. The darling of the festival, Quentin Tarantino won the Palm d'Or for "Pulp Fiction" but not director. In fact none of his films have won Best Director but lets examine his most recent, "Inglorious Basterds". Whether you like it or not, it definitely showcases vastly superior direction to "Drive". It has pages and pages of dialog and character developing banter, written and performed in 4 languages, no less! It has an ensemble cast and hundreds of extras in period appropriate costumes. It was filmed in dozens of exotic locations in multiple countries with brilliant photography of interiors, exteriors, day and night. It has a great soundtrack of music from different periods and countries. And it has multiple action sequences featuring antique weapons, blood, smoke, fire and explosions. And yet "Drive" - a film with little dialog, absent character development, limited cast, sparse photography and a one dimensional soundtrack - gets best director. Must have been a pretty sorry pool of contenders this year.
Don't get me wrong, I liked "Drive", parts of it anyway. I can see Refn is well-versed in film and his influences show through in his direction. But this is not his best film, not even close. You want slow, brooding and atmospheric? See "Valhalla Rising". Looking for a stylized character study? Try "Bronson". These are both Palm d'Or caliber if "Drive" is a litmus test for Best Director of Cannes.