Drive

[72teeth]

I rewatched it, and i really want to love it, but i can't. But i did catch a lot more of what Gosling was doing, it's just not a character i can get behind...

i saw it in IMAX-Lite ripoff, XD, and man oh man it was pretty.

[MacGuffin]

FilmDistrict Sued Over 'Misleading' 'Drive' Trailer
A Michigan woman was disappointed with the Ryan Gosling film, having expected "Fast and Furious" style thrills.
Source: THR

Ryan Gosling's crime drama Drive may have been a hit with critics, earning a score of 93% on Rotten Tomatoes, but one Michigan woman was so unhappy with the film --she's suing.

Sarah Deming has filed a lawsuit against FilmDistrict claiming that the distributors, "promoted the film Drive as very similar to the Fast and Furious, or similar, series of movies."

The film, directed by Nicolas Winding Refn, sees Gosling as an unnamed stunt driver by day who moonlights as getaway driver by night. While the movie features a few impressive car scenes, the story centers mostly on the Driver's relationship with Carey Mulligan's character and several gruesome casualties along his journey to protect her family from harm.

"Drive bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film... having very little driving in the motion picture," the suit continues. "Drive was a motion picture that substantially contained extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith, and thereby promoted criminal violence against members of the Jewish faith.

Deming is seeking a refund for her movie ticket, in addition to halting the production of "misleading movie trailers" in the future. The plaintiff intends to turn her individual case into a class action lawsuit, thereby allowing fellow movie-goers an opportunity to share in the settlement, reports Detroit's WDIV-TV.

[Jeremy Blackman]

She had me until this...

Drive was a motion picture that substantially contained extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith, and thereby promoted criminal violence against members of the Jewish faith.

[Stefen]

She had me until this...

Drive was a motion picture that substantially contained extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith, and thereby promoted criminal violence against members of the Jewish faith.

She's crazy. If anything, Fast Five was the Holocaust of all-time cinema.

[pete]

fast five was pretty awesome.

[Stefen]

If you're watching a showing that starts past 11:59pm, definitely.

[Reel]

first Tree of Life, now Drive? Retarded cinemagoers can't seem to catch a break.

[squints]

Ravi and Matt just shared this hilarious Illustrated Review of Drive on fb.

CAUTION: Adorable Spoilers.

[©brad]

Holy christ I loved this. Jeremy is so right though. The trailer ruins everything. If I were Nicholas Whatthefuck I'd be water boarding my marketing department right now. Why can't we just do short, artful teasers and leave it at that?

[Robyn]

I'm glad I haven't seen the trailer. Looking forward to this.

[socketlevel]

I don't think the trailer ruins it. the greatness of this film is in the execution, not the story.

[Jeremy Blackman]

I don't think the trailer ruins it. the greatness of this film is in the execution, not the story.

We both know that at least half the spoilers I'm talking about are visual spoilers (not plot spoilers).

Moreover, I think what you just said is absurd. And I think the whole "spoilers don't negatively affect the experience" theory is also absurd.

The filmmaker included revelation as part of the experience. Spoilers deprive you of that part of the experience. It's that simple. If those revelations didn't matter, or if you don't care about them actually working, you have an anemic understanding of the film and little respect for the filmmaker.

[pete]

yes - how good can a film be if you don't care about what happens next?

[socketlevel]

I don't know who you're quoting, but either way you might be calling me a subscriber to this 'theory' prematurely. You've taken one thing i said and lumped it in with a philosophy on cinema... ok... I think that spoilers do affect the experience, and 99% of the time I'd agree with you. but if you've made a masterful movie, it really shouldn't matter because you've drawn the audience into the experience.

your response assumes I consider these plot reveals in the trailer spoilers to begin with. maybe I don't. but for the sake of the argument, who's to say that leading an audience into the cinema with cliches and archetypes so that you can deliver (or take away) these devices, and cast a new light, is not beneficial? Your brash way of reacting to this very fact is ironically anemic because you think you're rushing to the director's defense, when in fact maybe it does have a positive effect. A trailer is a hype machine and you can do whatever you please with it. If you decide to give away the entire story, maybe that was the point. So when the audience makes it into the theatre, you can build or destroy their expectations that you planted in them with the trailer. Whether or not this was the intention of drive's trailer (and I doubt it was), it still has the same effect.

Shakespear used to have people come out before each act and tell the audience exactly what was going to happen, including character deaths and etc. The art was in the depiction. But i guess his choice in doing this was an anemic understanding of theatre and had little respect for his craft.

Everything about this film is a fairytale, and trailer or not, 20 minutes into the film - if you've ever seen a film in your life - your mind is already playing out the possible ending. So the rewarding part of the movie is all those moments that surprise how you're mind set it up. Not by taking the story a different direction but depicting what you expected with different motivations and emotions.

This is one of those films that is self aware. It is aware that this story has been told a million times. The genius in the film is how even though it is self aware, it resists winking at the audience; therefore existing somewhere between parody and genuine love of the genre.
The trailer doesn't ruin it because it doesn't give away these details. The fact that you learn plot in this trailer is immaterial because you're thinking about it as cliche. When the moment in the film actually comes, the rhetoric is playing with that preconception.

[socketlevel]

yes - how good can a film be if you don't care about what happens next?

It's not about caring what happens next, it's about knowing what happens next. Am i the only one that sees these two things as mutually exclusive? are you suggesting that we only care about characters because we don't know their fate?