"Drive" catches a lot of flack for not being "The Fast and the Furious", despite the fact that it's a way better movie than Vin Diesel will probably ever come into contact with for the remainder of his career. Hate on "Drive" if you want - I suspect it might have to do with the fact that actual driving makes up less than 30% of the movie. But that's not your fault or the filmmaker's. It's the fact that the movie was basically sold as an ACTION DRIVING MOVIE. Hilariously, this even resulted in lawsuits, which just proves that we the people choose our victims poorly. (I mean, I wanted to sue the makers of "Highlander 2: The Quickening" for ruining a film i love retroactively, but then the "reasonable" part of my brain kicked in...) But at least I see what was going on: "Drive" was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a typical movie. And it certainly could've been sold as something odder, darker, moodier,... and STILL have kept the action beats and promises. But selling it as an pure action film.... SOMEONE had to have wiped the sweat off their brow in the marketing department the way it was sold, and just said "Maybe it'll recoup its costs the first weekend, and then whatever. We've done all we can". NO. Stop that. Just don't. It's like making a movie called "Troll 2" that doesn't have any Trolls in - Oh wait, that's been done too. Yeah, "Troll 2" is an easy target. But come now, in a similar vein, you really haven't seen a movie that promises an actor you love is in it, and they appear for all of 10 minutes total? Mostly on the same set? Did you expect Angelina Jolie to be in most of "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow"? (About 10 minutes, if even.) You certainly expected The Rock to have a pivotal role in "The Mummy Returns", right? (Er, ten minutes if you count some dodgy CGI based on him. A bit.) But they had top billing, didn't they? Or got promoted to it on the video cover. The funny part is, most people who would just see a movie, like, say "The Mummy Returns" just for The Rock wouldn't care if he only had a small role. But if you're gonna top bill him next to the lead, they might be a bit upset when he's in under 10% of the movie. It's not a perfect world. I don't expect films to advertise that they're bad, or not funny when they should be. But howabout pitching to the correct audience, or giving that cameo, say, cameo billing? Wouldn't hurt.... On that note, you know what does hurt....?
In a parallel universe where game shows' final jackpots and consequent fortunes depend on knowledge of obscure music trivia and Jon Pertwee/Tom Baker Doctor Who episodes, I've probably gone rich, insane, and am now a powermad despot. But happily we're not there, so I'm actually rather pleasant. Really.
