A Hollywood stunt performer who moonlights as a wheelman for criminals discovers that a contract has been put on him after a heist gone wrong.

This film is about an unnamed driver, a mysterious Hollywood stuntman, who works at a garage fixing cars. He also does some getaway driving to earn extra cash. He gets close with a family, who is his neighbor. The husband gets released from prison and and owes some people money, so the driver . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Drive torrent reviews

Brian R (nl) wrote: Bad story if you just broke up with your cheating lying ex... prob deserves 4 stars but I complained through it and my friend wouldn't let me finish it... gonna watch it after he leaves.

Christine S (mx) wrote: I just loved this movie! Of course, I wish the ending was a bit more indulgent, but ultimately I am glad it did not cop out. Tim Blake Nelson was just superb. What an enjoyable film!

Evan T (gb) wrote: It felt like an episode of Goosebumps but with gore.

Jennifer A (jp) wrote: [size=2]I'm beginning the rather lengthy task of entering into the database every film I have seen, at least those I have a decent memory of. Some may have the briefest of reviews while many will just have a number. Those films that I consider personal favorites and/or those that have some historical signficance I will add later when I have time for more lengthy reviews. [b]Bird[/b], directed by Clint Eastwood, stars Forest Whitaker as Charlie "Bird" Parker in this biography. Forst Whitaker is excellent and Eastwood does a fine job directing. The film also stars Diane Venora. [b]Lean on Me[/b], directed by John Avildesen, stars Morgan Freeman as the principal of a tough, inner city school. The story is formulaic, but it's watchable mainly due Freeman's presence. This was an early starring role for him. [b]Against All Odds[/b], directed by Taylor Hackford, is part romance, part Post Noir, and part sports story. It's a flawed film with enough strong performances (Jeff Bridges, James Woods, Rachel Ward, Richard Widmark, ALex Karras, Saul Rubinek) to make it watchable. [b]Immediate Family[/b], directed by Jonathan Kaplan, stars James Woods and Glenn Close as a middle-aged couple desperate to have a baby. Since they cannot concieve themselves, they enlist 17 year old Mary Stuart Masterson who doesn't think she and boyfriend Matt Dillon can care for the baby. The couple take Masterson in and all bond, but Masterson begins having second thoughts about giving up the baby. With a great cast like this, it's a watchable film, but it ultimately fails by trying to be to sentimental. [b]Fandango[/b], directed by Kevin Reynolds, is a decent coming-of-age/road movie about five buddies who face an uncertain future in 1971. Features a then unknown Kevin Costner, Sam Robards, and Judd Nelson. It's an interesting, albiet not great film. [/size]

Jason S (fr) wrote: 80's classic family movie

Andrew (mx) wrote: I'm surprised this has such a low rating. It's an excellent film, with decent production values for its time. A very realistic story about a boy who has to take over and use his wits and stamina when the adults around him are injured.

Forrest P (it) wrote: While it can have a lot of trouble keeping up with its own characters' stories it sets up, Airport is nevertheless an enjoyable disaster film featuring some entertaining performances by Burt Lancaster, Dean Martin, Helen Hayes, and Maureen Stapleton. The film garnered ten Academy Award nominations in nine categories, though winning only one. But, does the film hold up? Airport tries really hard to tie in multiple storylines in an effort to make the audience care about all the different characters in the film. The effort is admirable, the result is a rather unfocused and meandering picture that seems to lose track of its own plots as it continues. Furthermore, this film, it should be noted, is a disaster film about a plane that is bombed and must be landed safely. Unfortunately, this plot device is not followed very clearly during most of the picture, even though much of the film tries to focus on preventing the disaster rather than surviving it. But in spite of a troubled plot and story structure, Airport is otherwise very entertaining. The characters, when we are able to follow their stories, really are interesting enough to hold the story together. Combine that with some very good performances and what our audience gets is a overall entertaining film. Burt Lancaster turns out a fine performance as a strong-willed airport manager, but Helen Hayes steals the show as a conniving, clever, and manipulative stowaway who cons her way onto flights. Still, aside from the actors and some fairly clever direction, the film does lack a lot of substance that is necessary to turn out a successful disaster film. Obviously this film struck home with some audiences because Airport is still the 42nd highest grossing film of all-time (when adjusted for inflation, ahead of films like The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King, The Towering Inferno, Batman, and American Graffiti). So, what is it about this film that struck such a chord with the 1970 audience? It isn't full of great visual effects, isn't particularly thrilling or aesthetically pleasing, and, as I have said, has a rather unfocused plot. I suppose that I must attribute the success of Airport to the unpredictable storyline, fun characters, and some strikingly real human drama. And in these regards, Airport does work as a film. No, it doesn't really hold up--especially when one considers the fact that its spoof, Airplane!, was not only a better film, but also had the more satisfying emotional payoff and is ultimately the more memorable film. I can't really say that I recommend Airport. It is one of those movies that, while I enjoyed it to some extent, I cannot see people I know caring for it much. It is not a must-see and really does not offer much insight to either the disaster genre or to the art of film in general. Sure it was a little enjoyable. But then again, so are many, many films that have become forgotten by time without consequence. 6/10

Byron B (kr) wrote: The title boat holds a microcosm of WWII personalities. Steinbeck wrote the short story for a magazine. On all the marketing materials I've seen Hitchcock and Steinbeck are promoted as the authors of the picture. Jo Swerling received the official screenplay credit though and Ben Hecht assisted in changing the ending. The opening credits appear over the smokestack of the sinking steamship on which most of the lifeboat passengers were traveling. This hot, steaming, pressurized thing is a good symbol for the drama in store for us amongst the survivors. Slowly we are introduced to the company. Tallulah Bankhead is Constance Porter, the opinionated, world traveling journalist, who is used to the finer things in life. John Hodiak is Kovac, a crewman on the ship from a lower-class background. Hume Cronyn is Stanley "Sparks," a ship engineer, who with Mary Anderson as Alice, a British military nurse, assists injured William Bendix as Gus, another crewman from the ship, aboard the lifeboat. Stanley and Alice are the youngest couple and they form a romantic bond. Henry Hull is the extremely wealthy and democratically minded Brit "Ritt." Canada Lee is Joe, the porter, who most everyone mistakenly thinks is named George. Joe helps save the traumatized Heather Angel as Mrs. Higgins along with her already deceased baby. Finally, Walter Slezak climbs aboard as Willy, a survivor from one of the German submarines that sunk the steamship. This random bunch of survivors face death, power struggles, the elements, and their own best and worst selves. I have read a number of Steinbeck's novels and have long thought that he has quite a knack with dialog, so I'm surprised he didn't write more often for the stage or screen. As I alluded to earlier, I'm not really sure if Steinbeck's famous name was a marketing ploy, or if he really holds responsibility for the conversations and conflicts between the passengers. The effects make you believe they are stuck on this small boat and though it is not one of Hitchcock's more sinister suspense plots, there are plenty of thrills.

Eric B (it) wrote: Far from essential Hitchcock, "Saboteur" is another jaunt through the director's favored "wrongly accused" scenario. The film was shot during wartime, so naturally the central crime is in a related sphere, allowing the script to slide in a patriotic speech here and there. Robert Cummings is accused of bombing the aircraft factory where he works, framed by the young Norman Lloyd (remember him on "St. Elsewhere," decades later?) in his feature-film debut. This leads to an erratic hitchhiking trip across the country, full of bizarre episodes (I'm guessing this is the only Hitchcock film with Siamese twins in its cast) and implausible transitions. Eventually, a high-society ring of terrorists emerges. Cummings' love interest is one Priscilla Lane, who can roam the roads for days without showering or a clothing change and yet sustain immaculately styled hair. Otto Kruger steals the movie as a slick, subtle villain who never drops his charming smile and speaks only in subtext. The climactic confrontation atop the Statue of Liberty is a classic Hitchcock scene, but not enough to save the film.