>It's way more Valhalla Rising than Drive. That is to say,
>very little dialogue, tons of sensory nightmarish visuals,
>very little point other than "the experience of going through
>it," etc.
>
>I liked a lot about it. Refn's use of music, sound, and
>lighting are top drawer. Gosling does nothing here really, but
>Kristin Scott Thomas is gloriously campy and the dude who's
>the bad guy is darkly hilarious. I really like how surreal
>Refn makes the film.

It's incredibly surreal and that aspect of it more or less worked for me too. You really can't get bogged down with reality with a movie like this. IMO, the best way to approach it is to try to turn off your mind and plug into its frequency

>But again, it's pretty vacuous in terms of actual character
>development. It's not about the people in it, it's about the
>nightmare of the circumstances. Refn described it in a
>pre-screening interview as an acid trip whereas Drive was
>really good coke. Seems more or less accurate to me.
>
>People who hated Drive will HAAAAATE this. People who liked
>Drive will likely find themselves conflicted over this film's
>good and bad, as I am.

Refn's comments make sense, and if he wants to say it's supposed to be like an acid trip, that's fine. The problem I think for a lot of people is that it really does feel extremely pretentious. Some people might not care about that. But, it seems to take itself incredibly seriously and I think as it goes on and on it sort of unknowingly devolves into self-parody.

Still, from a technical perspective, holy shit. It looks fucking glorious. Every shot is framed exquisitely. The colors are vibrant and put to incredible use. It's very crisply edited. I also loved how the score drifted back and fourth from organic strings to electronic synthesizers. It was just one of many elements of contrast in the film (along with the strong contrast between blue and red, night and day, surrealism and naturalism, violence and serenity, etc.) which I guess is supposed to underscore Gosling's internal conflict. Too bad the whole is less than the sum of its parts, but I think it might be the best looking film I've seen this year.

I think it's a personal movie. I think it's Refn trying to manifest some dark corner of his psyche on the screen. I think it has a lot to do with sexual anxieties and frustrations. I also think it could have been a short film - like 45-55 minutes - and it wouldn't have lost a whole lot.

Still interested in seeing what Refn does next. If he can put his technical virtuosity to better use next time, look out.

----