Hacker Cinema
Drive Angry
2011 · Film · 104 min
Directed by Patrick Lussier
Milton is a hardened felon who has broken out of Hell, intent on finding the vicious cult who brutally murdered his daughter and kidnapped her baby. He joins forces with a sexy, tough-as-nails waitress, who's also seeking redemption of her own. Caught in a deadly race against time, Milton has three days to avoid capture, avenge his daughter's death, and save her baby before she's mercilessly sacrificed by the cult.
1 positive1 negative1 mixedfrom 3 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
4 comments on Hacker News
The market hasn't really shown that. It has shown that viewers are indifferent to FAKE 3-D movies, which is what studios troweled out as fast as they could... ruining a major opportunity.
Most people have seen maybe three real 3-D movies from among: the Avatars, a Pixar movie, Hugo, The Hobbit, the Transformers one where they tore up Chicago, and... yeah, I'm hard-pressed to name another movie right now that was shot in 3-D... oh, and Drive Angry. Which no one saw.
The vast majority of movies offered in "3-D" were post-processed junk.
He really, really knows how to make giant fireballs explode in time with a rocking soundtrack though.
I had forgotten about The Rock, but recently rewatched it - and halfway through I had to check, and sure enough. Michael Bay.
Also, for a more recent cheesy movie (with Nicholas Cage), Drive Angry is surprisingly good. In a bad way.
"The movie industry got stuck in a terrible place with 3-D as an "add on" to a regular movie"
Well, they didn't just "get stuck" there; they put themselves there. That was a choice. They should have shot in 3-D when they wanted to release in 3-D, and refrained from post-processed fake 3-D in all cases.
Seth Rogan said that he and... I don't remember, maybe the director of Green Hornet wanted to shoot in 3-D and the studio turned them down. After it was done, the studio changed its mind and made it into fake 3-D.
And yes, there's a misperception that "action" and "spectacle" movies are the best for 3-D. Wrong. The coolest 3-D pictures I've shot are often indoor scenes with lots of objects; for example, a long dinner table set with dishware and glasses, with an open door in the background revealing a cobblestone street.
Most people scoffing at "3-D" have probably seen almost none of it. Many people have only seen one legitimate 3-D movie: Avatar. Otherwise they might have seen a Pixar movie rendered in 3-D; or if they're lucky, Hugo. Or the Transformers one where they tear up Chicago. Most did not see Drive Angry.
Beyond that, I'm hard-pressed to name a modern movie shot in 3-D.
I truly believe 3D can be a massive plus for the theater experience. But there hasn't been a match of "good movie" and "good 3D" yet. Not outside of animation. DRIVE ANGRY had good 3D. PRIEST has good 3D. But they aren't good movies. THOR was a decent film with awful 3D.
A big part of it is experience, too. DRIVE ANGRY was the second 3D film for its director. PRIEST is like the millionth 3D film for its cinematographer.
The time will come. I'm sure of it. I just hope it comes while people still see 3D films.