How To Train Your Dragon - Review

My film viewing habits sometimes follow a somewhat curious pattern, and this is one such example. Over the past few weeks, I've watched The Thing (prequel) and The Human Centipede 2 (Uncut), followed by Happy Feet and How To Train Your Dragon. That's quite an extreme contrast in viewing material.
Human Centipede was graphically shocking as you might expect, but I don't really get my kicks out of watching body torture or rape scenes, so I have to say my Winter might have been better off without it. The Thing prequel was a poor attempt at milking the success of the 1982 John Carpenter horror/thriller, which was a remake itself. The new 2011 film can't decide if it's a remake or new chapter in the series, and it's better off ignored. Anybody who says it's as good as (or better) than the Carpenter version is quite clearly an imbecile.
Happy Feet, on the other hand, surprised me by being a thoroughly enjoyable family-friendly animated feature about a penguin colony in dire need of fish. The voice acting was good, particularly Robin Williams, and I can safely say Australian director George Miller's talent spans beyond making Mad Max movies. Yes, I must be reaching old age prematurely, for I'm openly admitting that I enjoyed a family animation more than seeing several people stitched together end to end. Who would have thought it? (sarcasm)

The real highlight though was How To Train Your Dragon. I didn't really expect too much from it, as it was just something to watch with the missus on a bank holiday weekend. But it turned out to be the best film I've seen recently, and almost definitely the best animated feature I've seen in a very long time. For someone like me, it's no issue to admit that Toy Story brings back fond memories of family cinema trips and the early days of Pixar's CG films, and the sequels were eagerly anticipated as the long awaited conclusion to a series I'd grown up with. But for me to say How To Train Your Dragon is probably better than any of the Toy Story movies (surely not!) - now that's serious talk. And in terms of Dreamworks animated movies, yes it's also better than anything Shrek related. Let's face it, I might aswell just say this movie has become my favourite 3D animated film, with Pixar's UP being close competition.
There are a few cheesy moments for the sake of the children (the main character is called Hiccup for example), and there's the whole 'cute creature' element that sells the package to its feel-good family audience, but these are things that should be expected from this type of family animated adventure. And apart from these minor gripes it's all positive. Good voice acting, superb animation, a stunning music score, a song by Jonsi from Sigur Ros, a story that's far from original but holds up well within the film's concept. And there are dragons ofcourse, and Vikings. You can't go wrong with that combination, and when all those elements come together in perfect measure, you get a number of spectacular scenes that really leave the competition for dead. There's no formula for scenes like that in a movie. Occasionally, all the right creative influences are at work and it just happens.
Despite it being a film suitable for children, with no violence, profanity or gore in sight, once you get that cinematic buzz from those perfectly crafted screen moments, it's a film that's impossible to dislike. It's definitely in that 'feel good film' category, and it seems to bear a few similarities to Avatar regarding a scene or two, but in every way How To Train Your Dragon beats Avatar at it's own game, and it does it at about half the running time and half the budget. Amazing.

Retrospective - Stargate

Kurt Russell as Colonel Jack O'Neil (Stargate, 1994) 

For many of you, the mention of the word Stargate might bring about thoughts of Richard Dean 'Macgyver' Anderson travelling to various destinations across the universe with his SG-1 team, smart mouthing his superiors and getting himself out of ridiculous situations with just a tub of moth balls and a roll of tin foil. Or it might remind you of the later series Stargate Atlantis, or even the recently cancelled Stargate Universe.

But for me, the mention of Stargate brings about thoughts of the distant and mostly disregarded 1994 movie, directed by Roland Emmerich at the highest point of his career. Unlike the TV show, the 1994 movie featured a rather restrained Kurt Russell in the role of Colonel Jack O'Neil. James Spader (Boston Legal) is Daniel Jackson, a role later taken over by Michael Shanks. There is no sign of Samantha Carter here, or the loyal Jaffa Teal'c. Infact, the only actors to appear in both the Stargate movie and the SG-1 TV series are Alexis Cruz as Skaara and Erick Avari as Kasuf. Everyone else is either absent or recast. So for those watching the film for the first time after seeing the TV show, it won't feel much like familiar territory, but the same underlying formula is all there.

Stargate was quite successful on its initial release, launching Emmerich and co-writer Dean Devlin into the mainstream, and presenting them with the opportunity to make more widely recognised movies such as Independence Day in 1996.

Richard Dean Anderson as Colonel Jack O'Neill (Stargate SG-1)

It's no wonder Stargate spawned a TV spin off that ran for 10 years and 10 seasons. The film was rich with ancient conspiracies, Egyptian mythology, new age 90s digital effects and well structured action with a sweeping music score by newcomer David Arnold, who had apparently been working in a video store before he was hired for the movie. All of these elements seemed to spark the imagination of its audiences, and the Stargate itself was the plot device responsible for literally opening up a whole world of franchise opportunity. Quite a number of real Ancient Egyptian historians believe in the existence of a Stargate, some having published extended texts aiming to prove their theories. Others think the pyramids were built by aliens, and all of these theories form the basis of the film, with the character of Daniel Jackson being the voice for these historians and their far flung ideas. It's a movie that answers so many 'what if' questions, and due to a very enthusiastic level of research on the part of the writers, it pulls it off in a convincing fashion.

Patrick Tatopolous' Anubis guard design

But in my mind, there's a far more obvious reason for the success of the movie. The narrative features a team of United States Airmen travelling to a desolate desert world to save its primitive inhabitants from the clutches of an oppressive overlord. Now is that tapping into the mentality of American audiences still sore from a Middle Eastern conflict or what?

The movie's Horus guard design

If I'm completely honest, I prefer the movie to any of the subsequent television adaptations. The film feels much more grand and cinematic, as you would expect. But in addition to that, the concepts are presented much more believably, and the integration of ancient Egyptian cultural reference gives it much more focus than the amalgamation of ideas presented on the show. The realisation of the Horus and Anubis guard costumes by Greek designer Patrick Tatopolous ranks as one of the most memorable and ridiculously cool costume designs in movie history, and Spader and Russell still feel like the definitive versions of their respective characters even after all these years. It's the character progression within the movie that sells them, depicting a Colonel O'Neil tackling the loss of his son by going on an apparent 'suicide mission', while Dr. Jackson is ever the face of optimism despite seemingly insurmountable odds.

Ra's original alien form before the
TV show abandoned the concept

Disappointingly, when adapting Stargate to the TV format, there were a number of changes made that create noticeable inconsistencies between the film and SG-1. In the movie, there were no such characters as the Goa'uld, who are represented in the show as host stealing parasitic worms. In the 1994 feature, Ra is depicted as a bipedal 'Roswell' type alien and described as the last of a dying race who takes human form through possessing a selected host. Other discrepancies between the film and series include various unexplainable character name changes, and a new arrangement of stargate symbols that almost completely re-engineers the gate dialling concept from the film. As you might expect, these inconsistencies have been integrated into the series canon via explanations by fans and extended fiction, but they're still there as a reminder of the original concepts set in motion by the 1994 film.

The Goa'uld parasite as depicted in SG-1

But despite these minor problems, I'm still a fan of SG-1. The first seasons in particular were excellent, with their plot lines expanding upon the themes touched on in the movie. Although the differences between Kurt Russell and Richard Dean Anderson's take on Colonel O'Neil(l) are enormous, both versions of the character are entertaining to watch. But as the series went on, things became overcomplicated, and a noticeable shift from the thematic material of the movie distanced a lot of viewers, including myself. But it could hardly have run for 10 seasons without introducing new concepts along the way, so this was inevitable.

Interestingly, Dean Devlin has explained that he always intended for Stargate to be a trilogy of films, but the rights were snatched up by MGM and rolled into a TV show before they had chance to put a second movie into production. He's now stated as recently as July 2011 that he intends to see the sequels made in an alternate continuity to the TV series, and apparently MGM is interested. Now that Stargate has run its course on TV, perhaps a new movie from the original creators is not such a far fetched idea?

How would you feel about another Stargate movie? Is it too late to resurrect the original cast? Should it be a sequel to the TV shows? Or should it be left well alone?

Sequels, Remakes, Reboots and Re-adaptations

The same origin story twice within 10 years

Every time I read an article on the Internet discussing an impending remake of a beloved classic from 80s cinema, I scroll down to see comments like 'Hollywood has run out of ideas.' With all respect to the comment author, this is simply not true.
I totally agree that current film is overcrowded by sequels, remakes, reboots and re-adaptations. But a lack of originality is not to blame for the derivative and cyclic nature of the film industry. We are.

There are thousands of original ideas and potentially groundbreaking screenplays out there waiting to be adapted into films, but they never get made. From the perspective of a film producer, who is investing millions of dollars in the production of a film, it's much safer to throw money at something that already has an established name, and therefore an existing audience and a guarantee of revenue. Think about it. Even if you're disgusted that your favourite cult movie is being given a fresh coat of paint, you'll go and watch it anyway out of curiosity, therefore selling a ticket that another original movie won't.

Therefore the only 'original' films that get off the ground nowadays are usually funded by independent investors, and although these producers have a much more limited budget, they have a more artisitic agenda and are more likely to support up and coming filmmakers. But unsurprisingly, these films rarely do well at the box office, suffering from a low marketing budget and lack of commercial exposure.

With all things considered, it's worth remembering that although the Hollywood machine delivers an abundance of terrible movies, the franchise/remake mentality has also generated material like Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight and James Cameron's Terminator 2. But franchise films of this quality are few and far between, and usually the product of a master director with a good footing at the studio.
But money is still the driving force here, as although many big name directors started out as artistic independents, they soon became household names and reliable marketing tools for the studios to sell their films with (Tim Burton I'm looking at you). Think of how many movies you've been to watch because the director was responsible for another film you already like, and think of the motive behind the slugline on the poster that reads 'From the Director of...'
When it boils down to it, there are many consistent ways that Hollywood markets it's films nowadays, such as with a big name director or producer, a big name star, or by selling us a sequel or a remake of something we already like. But it's all about selling a product, not high art.

The latest pointless prequel

So essentially, it's quite simple. The film industry supports films they think will fill seats, and refuses to support those that don't. So if you're so fed up with all the reboots and remakes, don't watch them, and instead spend your hard earned money watching a lesser known film from a more deserving director. It's us - the viewers - that decide the popular trends in this massive industry, but we all seem so obsessed with seeing the same material reinvented over and over again.

Game Reviews - November 2011

Being a fan of video games, I both love and hate this time of year. I love it because all of the game publishers in the world see fit to shower us with their finest interactive offerings in time for the christmas rush. I hate it because there's no way anyone human could afford all of these games, let alone find time to play them all to completion, or even just long enough to absorb what they have to offer.
Over the past months, I've played a number of these pre-christmas titles, and here I will attempt to briefly review four of them.

Gears of War 3 was the first game bought this Winter season. I can start by saying it's the best entry in the Gears franchise by a substantial margin, and although I was initially hesitant to pick up a 3rd game in the same series (as with movies, one would like to indulge in something more original once in a while) it was still worth the asking price. Despite its reluctance to stray too far from the formula laid out in the previous two games, a solid campaign wraps up the narrative in a satisfying way, and the frantic and violent multiplayer returns with some new features and an enhanced levelling and unlock system. Horde mode has been given a fresh breath of life with a set of constructible fortifications and upgrades that allow you to defend strategically alongside your teammates, and a range of additional competetive multiplayer modes increase the carnage to epic proportions. Not only that, it's one of the best looking games to run on my Xbox 360, and it's a riot in both local splitscreen modes, across the web with friends and with random opponents. The local multiplayer option for both Horde and Campaign definitely adds to the value of the package for me, making this game a viable contender for party game of choice. But all in all, it is just more Gears, and I'd be lying to you if I said there was anything groundbreaking here. If you're happy with a sequel that regurgitates the same idea, but refines it into a package which is the most focused and enjoyable in the series so far, then this is highly recommended. 7/10

Batman: Arkham City is a vast improvement over its predecessor. Rather than restrict the player to the confines of Arham Asylum as in the first game, this time the playground is a run-down area of Gotham City consisting of abandoned police department buildings, dark streets, gothic churches, crumbling subways and towering city blocks. Many have claimed that with this sequel, developer Rocksteady have made the game a free-roaming experience, but infact they've just taken the construct of Asylum and expanded it over a larger area. The game still consists of Batman villains occupying certain locales across the map, randomly generated gang members populating areas inbetween, and invisible boundaries keeping the player within a smaller-than-expected wedge of Gotham (try gliding down from the wonder tower without hitting an invisible barrier and you'll see what I mean). The 'free roaming' element of the game was a minor disappointment in that respect, however there is much enjoyment to be found stepping into the shoes of the Dark Knight in the Gotham City environment, and there is plenty to do within that space. The true star of the show is the game's refined fighting mechanic, and swooping down from a rooftop to dispatch a band of thugs with a puff of concealing smoke and a flurry of fists is an experience that is almost entirely unique to this game, mainly because it makes you feel like Batman. The game also looks great in terms of both graphical quality and artistic interpretation of characters and Gotham scenery, and although the gameplay here is purely designed for the single player, there is plenty to do even when the gripping main story missions are completed. For me though, the longevity of a game like this is questionable, as even an abundance of side-quests and trophies can't prevent me from seeking some multiplayer violence and online progression. To conclude, Arkham City is a great game, but it could have been better with a more living and populated world as the setting for Batman's crime fighting antics. I'm not saying in the next installment of the series I expect to be driving the Batmobile around the city with Joker's thugs plastered to the bonnet. This is no GTA clone and I never want it to be, but I would also never be naive enough to say Arkham City was the definitive Batman game, as there's cleary still room for improvement. 7/10

Battlefield 3 hasn't been done any favours by the big talkers at EA, who have been very busy telling everyone how much they want to knock Call of Duty off the top of the sales charts, and thus building an expectation that BF3 is the new and valid alternative to Call of Duty when infact it's a different type of first person shooter entirely. Not only that, but this competitive mentality has caused the game developers to create the weakest and most derivative portion of the game - the short campaign, which tries too hard to be like Call of Duty, but fails in almost every way to be entertaining at all.
Now that Call of Duty has been released, it's clear that Activision's title will most definitely be holding onto that top sales slot for yet another year. But I strongly believe that, although Battlefield 3 may not demand to be played with the immediacy of MW3, it almost certainly has a longer life expectancy in terms of replayability and the durability of its new game engine.
Battlefield's strength has always been in its multiplayer modes, and it's here that the game succeeds undeniably. Featured are huge matches with sprawling maps and high player counts, the inclusion of ground sea and air vehicles, a sandbox style physics destruction engine that forces players to change tactics on the fly, and a squad based mechanic that encourages teamwork and support based actions. A huge array of weapons and upgrades are here, perhaps managing to top the vast arsenal presented to players in Call of Duty. But in Battlefield, weapons handle more uniquely, with no limitation of which attachment can be assigned to which weapon. If you wish, you can put a red dot sight and tactical flashlight on a sniper rifle and try your luck blinding people and hitting them with a close range one shot kill. Unlocking the next weapon or upgrade is genuinely satisfying and leads to lots of weapon experimentation, and there's plenty to keep the most committed players focused for quite some time.
BF3 can hardly be called realistic, but it distances itself from the simulation genre and injects just enough action game design to convince the player they're involved in an factual depiction of warfare, without the mundane accuracy sometimes employed in games like Operation Flashpoint. But while steering away from ultra realism, Swedish developer DICE also know not to indulge themselves too much and create an almost arcade-type experience in the vein of Call of Duty, reducing the formula to a simple question of 'who should I shoot next?'
Battlefield can be played any number of ways, allowing you to become the top scoring player in a match by sniping accurately from afar, by jumping into the fray with close range weapons, by booby trapping buildings and roads for the next unsuspecting passer-by, by aerial bombardment, by support actions such as medication and repair, by armoured assault and so on and so forth.
Before you assume that I'm an entirely biased reviewer who's going to take every opportunity to throw dirt in the direction of Call of Duty, I can tell you that Battlefield 3 isn't a perfect game. To get the negative points out of the way, the game has some irritating bugs, and release week saw a number of server related issues that probably lost the game a lot of potential fans. In addition to that, BF3 has been promoted entirely using footage taken from the PC version, which looks incredible. The current generation of consoles are nearing the end of their lifespan now, and this is clearly demonstrated by the need to install HD textures to the gaming platform's hard drive to see the game in highest quality. I can tell you the game doesn't look quite as good on an Xbox 360. This is fair enough, as Battlefield was bred for the PC platform and it's only fitting that the game gets a PC version that breaks new ground in the visual department, but the resulting console release receives graphics which vary from 'stunning in terms of console capability' to 'downright ugly.' This doesn't mean it looks awful. It could more than hold its own against the likes of Call of Duty on the console. The dynamic lighting from flashlights and explosions, the visual presentation of flaming wreckage and the finite detail on weapon models is very impressive, and all generated in real time by an engine that seems to put the Xbox 360 hardware to the test. The overall presentation is polished and detailed, and special mention must go to the sound design which is possibly the best I've heard in a video game to date. But in terms of graphical draw distance, slow buffering of high resolution textures and the obvious compression of distant objects, the console version suffers considerably. Anyone expecting to see visuals as represented in the trailers should go for the PC version, but those interested in playing on that platform will have made that decision already. (NOTE: Subsequent patches and expansion packs have improved the visuals of the Xbox version of Battlefield 3 significantly, but the consequence of the existing HD texture pack and all these updates is now a mandatory hard drive install of nearly 13 Gigabytes.)
This Winter season, I bought Battlefield 3 and not Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. I intend to get MW3 at a later date, but for now, I'm entirely happy with my decision. Battlefield is a unique experience in that it allows a personal approach to every single battle. If you want to take a fighter jet and ram it facefirst into someone's battle tank at full throttle, your mastery of piloting that aircraft might come into question, but you've still been permitted to approach that situation as you saw fit. And the game encourages you to make these decisions, rather than force limitations upon you that funnel you into a narrow and repetetive pattern of run and gun gameplay. Its a game that doesn't assume you just want to kill things in vanilla fashion, but that you want to kill things in the most artistic way possible, and in between killing actually have time to consider that all important and drastically overlooked word in the FPS arena: strategy!
BF3 provides you with the battleground and the tools with which to ensure your team victory, and then it lets you go about your business. 9/10

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim is difficult to sum up in one short article. That's partly because it's a rich open world game with numerous approaches to the gameplay, and a customisation system that ensures that no two people's game experiences are the same. It's also partly because I'd much rather be playing it than writing about it.
Skyrim has received universal praise across the board from both critics and gamers alike, and while I think it's an incredible game, I can't admit to believing it's perfect in every way. And i'm not saying that just for the sake of opposing popular opinion - I genuinely do love Skyrim, but for all the times I'm telling people how incredible the game is, there's an equal measure of time that I'm cursing the clunky combat system and the supposed 'quick' inventory system that isn't quick at all. There are bugs in the game which break missions and force you to reload previous save games, and minor visual flaws which involve mammoths falling from the sky. I'm well aware that technologically, this game is a giant leap forward from the likes of Fallout 3, and even moreso from the last Elder Scrolls entry, but if this were any other game, you'd be disgusted at such immersion breaking problems.
Yet despite this, these bugs and annoyances aren't at the forefront of my mind. What I keep thinking about is the open world of Skyrim - the beautiful open landscapes, the unique locations and characters inhabiting them, and the thought of what I havn't explored yet and what might be round the next corner. Skyrim presents a world in its entirety - places, people, myths, beliefs and a rich history. There are hundreds of books scattered throughout the map, each providing a fresh insight into the world you're exploring and a slice of game enriching detail, and reading some will earn you skill enhancing knowledge. They are but one example of the care and attention invested in this world, but I could name so many others. You don't play Skyrim, you become part of its world until the minute you cease to play. It's escapism in its purest digital form.
And that is the reason for Skyrim's success. It offers one of the most detailed fantasy worlds in any contemporary medium - perhaps even rivalling Tolkien's Middle-Earth for unbelievable attention to detail. When taking all that into consideration, the bugs seem like minor flaws in a much broader picture, and aren't the part of the game that will leave a lasting impression.
I bought Skyrim with the intention of working my way through the quests slowly, at my own pace, leisurely exploring the world and levelling my character to a point where I could tackle enemies with ease. Unfortunately, my partner - who rarely plays video games at all - has developed quite a liking for Skyrim, created her own character and outlevelled me in a matter of days. While this is quite upsetting, it's also shown me how different another player's experience of the game can be, with her character sharing almost nothing in common with mine, having tackled an entirely different range of side missions and NPC encounters. And it demonstrates how wide reaching the appeal of Bethesda's new creation really is, with the most non-typical gamers enthusiastic to play. Although the experience is hardly flawless, it's more than enough to keep us all occupied until the studio releases more content, or their next overwhelmingly immersive open-world RPG title.
9/10

Drive - Review

As I left the cinema following the closing credits of Drive, I realised I'd just experienced an incredible piece of filmmaking - the likes of which only comes around very, very rarely - and I couldn't stop talking about it. Remarkably, within 10 minutes of the film's opening sequence, I'd already decided it was my favourite film of the year, but by the time the credits rolled, I knew without a doubt that it was a potent anti-blockbuster that would develop a cult following within no time. The movie unfolds with a tense and realistic getaway chase that places the viewer in the passenger seat of an escaping vehicle, followed by a pop-noir styled main title sequence edited to a pulsing 80's style soundtrack. It was clear to see why Drive had left with the best-director prize at this year's Cannes film festival.

I had high hopes for Drive from the outset. Not only was it under the control of Danish Director Nicholas Winding Refn, who managed to launch Tom Hardy to ultimate stardom in the unlikely role of Bronson in 2009, but it was also the action vehicle that was tipped to launch actor/musician Ryan Gosling into the public eye. Originally pitched as a blockbuster action title with Hugh Jackman attached to star (which seems an impossibility once you see Gosling in the role), the script eventually changed hands and was redefined as a lower budget film that could appeal to both fans of mainstream genre films, and those who enjoy a more alternative, art-house approach to their cinema experience.

Drive tells the story of an un-named 'Driver,' who uses his expert skill behind the wheel to take work as a stunt man and race driver during the day, and getaway driver-for-hire by night. He has a set of rules which define his operation - no guns, no helping the criminals run it down - he just drives. After becoming involved with the plight of his neighbour Irene and her son, the Driver develops feelings for her that change his situation entirely, and he gets inevitably drawn into her conflict.

Drive doesn't really spend any time exploring character origins or specific details, and certainly doesn't feel the need to explain anything we don't really need to know. Dialogue is also fairly sparse, and the conversations that do take place do so with a natural flow. There are many telling smiles and awkward glances that tell as much story as the words themselves do.

The overall plot isn't exactly revolutionary, and revisits ideas seen in many similar genre pieces, but with artistic and unique directing choices, it manages to feel fresh and inventive regardless of it's well worn formula. To those complaining that Drive is weak on plot, narrative detail wasn't the focus here anyway. The subject of Drive is the un-named protagonist and his character arc, and a fascinating character he is. At the beginning of the movie, he is almost shy and reserved, and we know very little about him. He comes across as gentle and caring, and hardly the violent type. His refusal to carry a weapon reinforces our belief that the driver is of a more peaceful disposition. Then as the film escalates into violence and Irene is endangered, the Driver suddenly becomes more and more brutal as he dispatches one would be assailant after another in an attempt to protect her from harm. The brutality of his actions reaches a peak during the latter part of the film that culminates in the elevator scene, and the violence reaches a shocking climax. As we look on the Driver through Irene's eyes, we wonder how a character who was so gentle at the beginning of the movie could be transformed so dramatically into a remorseless killer, and in that moment we realise it's because of his feelings for her, and the scene immediately tells a whole story within itself. The collision of violence, romance and suspense in this pivotal sequence is quite staggering, and the entirety of it is told without a single line of dialogue, clearly displaying Refn's unique and powerful directional ability. In Drive, actions do indeed speak louder than words.

Credit must go to the casting department, for there isn't a single bad casting choice here, and it seems that everyone knew they were involved in something particularly special. Brian Cranston of AMC's Breaking Bad is well cast as the Driver's partner and mentor, Carey Mulligan is appropriately vulnerable as Irene, and Albert Brooks is far more than a two-dimensional villain stereotype. Even Ron Perlman - who has garnered a reputation over the last few years of signing onto one terrible film after another - turns in a brilliant and unexpected role and gets some fantastic dialogue.
Director Refn seems to present these potent characters so effortlessly, that all other details feel inconsequential, and I was thoroughly absorbed in their world. I'll be greatly anticipating his next film, Only God Forgives, and it's interesting to see Gosling attached to star here too.

Drive is in equal parts thrilling, romantic, violent and nostalgic. But essentially it's a tragic love story, described by Gosling himself as a Romeo and Juliet for the modern era. The nameless hero of the story is so selfless in his defence of Irene that he sacrifices all personal desires to ensure that she is safe. The song by College fills in on the soundtrack where the dialogue is void, describing the Driver as a 'real hero, and a real human being.' It's the Driver's selfless acts that subconsciously resonate with audience members, and perhaps this is the real human being that so many of us wish we could be. Thankfully, Drive is an incredibly well balanced movie, and the love story doesn't force itself upon us, instead letting the emotional themes simmer beneath the stunning visuals, the sound of squealing tires, and a crackling 80's electro soundtrack.