Despite terrific reviews, a strong leading man, a great novel from James Sallis, it looks like DRIVE has stalled at under 40K. Did you see it? If so, what do you see as its weakness in terms of doing better business?
In an interview with Keith Rawson, Sallis, in September, expressed delight in the production. Almost everyone liked it but....
Did word of mouth hurt it? It did a third of its business opening weekend.
Does the public spurn literary noir? Was it too violent? A similarly noirish film, WINTER"S BONE, was more successful but it had a sympathetic protagonist. Driver was not exactly that.
Did it need a larger advertising budget?
What movie's lackluster performance at the box office surprised you? I am constantly surprised by what the public likes and what it doesn't. I could never be an odds maker.
18 comments:
Patti - Oh, I would be a horrible odds-maker, too. I admit I haven't seen Drive so I can't speak for why it didn't do better. It is amazing, I think, what people choose to flock to and what they eschew...
I really wanted to see Drive, but my wife is a bit sensitive when it comes to violence, and I understand there are some brain-on-the-floor scenes. So, yeah, the grittiness kept me away, unfortunately.
I really enjoyed it though I don't think it's a as fantastic as people make out. The violence is pretty strong, though. Even I thought so.Good, effective film with some really good scenes in it and some very good acting.
The violence was strong but apparently timewise it only added up to a few minutes of the film. The one scene, Loren mentions, was awfully hard to take. But overall it was a good movie. I thought Carey Mulligan was miscast though.
I loved it. Seemed different than most everything I've seen recently -- more patient, more concerned with atmosphere and style. Though I'm not surprised at all that it didn't do well. It's probably too slow for the average viewer.
I saw it on a Friday night at a Regal multiplex in Union Square. It was a packed house. The audience was so damned confused by the movie. Lots of nervous laughter and other hesitant reactions. Afterward, I listened to people discussing the movie, and most of what I heard was negative.
There's no getting around the fact that the movie is very avant-garde stylistically, and the narrative is not conventional, either. Despite the known actors, it is hard to hide that it is an esoteric arthouse flick.
I enjoyed the movie and thought it was very funny, but the humor isn't obvious.
I loved the novel. And I liked the movie a lot, but the director isn't Michael Mann. There were some great performances and some perfect scenes, but everything didn't gel. And even if it did, the audience for noir these days is small.
I think $40 mil on a $15m budget is respectable and it will do well on DVD.
I wish it would do really well for Jim Sallis's sake. He is such a talented writer and a wonderful fellow.
I like the pace and think it was one of the reasons the violence was so effective, even for someone as jaded as me. But it was obviously not going to be a mega hit unless they marketed it as 'The Not Very Fast & The Occasionally Furious.'
I haven't seen it yet so can't comment on the quality. I liked the book, a lot. Comments I've heard and read talk about the violence and 'style' so maybe those were factors. Also, it may be harsh to say but it seems you have to really dumb things down to get the mass audience these days. Maybe if he was texting while driving it would have done better....
Jeff M.
I guess it was kind of arty, Cullen, thinking back on it. I saw it in St. Louis the day it opened and the audience was composed of Phil and me and a couple other guys who looked like Bouchercon people. Maybe that's whom its audience was.
I'm pretty much all indie, all the time. Unless something really interesting pops up.
The pace was slower than most flicks. I think it would have done better with more car content and a happy ending.
I've seen a couple other movies by Refn and the slower pacing, brutal violence, and extended, quiet passages is the way he tells stories.
I can see why some people were put off by the violence. It was pretty rough. And I think the ad campaign didn't help. It was presented as something it wasn't. The performances were great, though, and so was the look of the film.
Haven't seen this, so have no idea why it wasn't more popular, but am very surprised that "Moneyball" hasn't done better business. It got generally good reviews and has Brad Pitt, but it doesn't appear to be tearing up the box office either.
The book, of course, was terrific. The movie was too, but it ALMOST seemed like it was from another book altogether. It didn't play quite like the book did. I think this is due to the art-house nature of the production which Cullen correctly pointed out. Lots of closeups, spare dialogue, a relentless sense of danger...all for the good, IMHO.
The violence? Well, when you're dealing with the characters in Sallis' novel, you're in a violent world. You'd better be ready to see some blood.
Direction, acting, pacing, script, all top-drawer, with Gosling a standout. One of the best films noir of the last few years.
I liked the movie, though it wasn't as good IMO as some people have rated it. I loved the artiness of it, and it's pace, and the excellent performances.
I averted my eyes during the violence because I don't care for it. I can see where this would put a lot of people off.
That one scene was simply horrific. But I guess it did tell us a lot about Driver, and what he was capable of.
Post a Comment