Idiot Woman Sues Distributor Of 'Drive' Because It Wasn't 'Fast Five'

by Oliver Lyttelton
October 9, 2011 2:37 AM
40 Comments
  • |


We've all had that feeling where we walk out of a movie and realize that we've been sold something quite different from the finished product. It's particularly prevalent with more "difficult"' projects; distributors will play up the sexier, genre-led elements in order to bring in the crowds. It's a fact of advertising, and one that most people are accepting of -- we've certainly never been left particularly angry by a trailer that feints one way, and a movie that goes another. In a world where so few surprises are left, it can actually be kind of exciting. But not for Sarah Deming.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Deming, a spectacularly thick Michigan woman, has launched a lawsuit against FilmDistrict, the distributor of "Drive," claiming that the trailers sold a "Fast and the Furious"-style actioner, when the film is anything but. The lawsuit states that the company "promoted the film "Drive" as very similar to the "Fast and Furious", or similar, series of movies. "Drive" bore very little similarity to a chase, or race action film… having very little driving in the motion picture."

Furthermore, Deming, who has the time to file frivolous lawsuits, but apparently not to Google a review of the movie she's about to go see, also claims that the film is anti-semitic, an attempt to rile up the audience into committing violence against Jews, saying "Drive was a motion picture that substantially contained extreme gratuitous defamatory dehumanizing racism directed against members of the Jewish faith, and thereby promoted criminal violence against members of the Jewish faith." Deming, who, despite appearances, is a real person, and not a character on "The Simpsons," hopes to have her ticket refunded, as well as bringing an end to misleading Hollywood advertising, and hopes other quote-unquote victims will join her in a class-action lawsuit.

We'll deal with Deming's second complaint, about the anti-semitism, below, but for the moment, let's do a quick compare and contrast. The trailers for "Fast Five," the summer hit in the "Fast & The Furious" series, and the clip FilmDistrict cut for "Drive," are below.


Hopefully, you, unlike Deming, are able to spot the differences here. Not a lot of opera in that "Fast Five" trailer, is there? The curious thing is that the five-star moron has picked a pretty bad example to launch her crusade; FilmDistrict actually do a very good, honest job in representing "Drive," with about the same proportion of car chase to other stuff as the finished film. Maybe there's someone that Deming can sue for giving her shitty taste, but it doesn't really seem to be anyone else's fault.

And as for the anti-semitism? The word 'kike' alone doesn't make Nicolas Winding Refn the next Leni Reifenstahl. There's one character stated as being Jewish, Ron Perlman's villain (it's possible that Albert Brooks' character is as well), who uses the racial slur once, in the context of complaining of his anti-semitic treatment at the hands of the east coast mob. It's certainly not condoned, and *spoiler* when Perlman meets his end at the hands of Ryan Gosling's protagonist, it's not because he's Jewish, it's because he's the bad guy. We can't actually believe we have to explain this.

All in all, Deming, who has somehow managed to go through life without sticking her wet fingers into a plug socket or opening the emergency exit on a moving airplane, doesn't appear to have a chance, and it's unlikely that the case will ever reach trial, but we hope FilmDistrict manage to wring every penny of their costs out of her. In the meantime, might we suggest that Deming lower her blood pressure by checking out Pixar's latest charming family tale, "The Human Centipede?"

  • |

More: Films, Film Studios, Drive, Fast Five, FilmDistrict

You might also like:
Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

40 Comments

  • Chris | February 4, 2012 5:53 PMReply

    I would sue too. BUT for it spoiling the movie. It's like 2 minute recap of the movie. I hate when they do that.

  • M | October 20, 2011 9:08 AMReply

    I'm sorry, the correct quote was "spectacularly thick."

  • M | October 20, 2011 9:06 AMReply

    Oh. Oh, my god. Really people? Oliver, I'm pretty sure that the people who thought you called her fat were refering to where you called her "particularly thick." Oh, the irony...

  • Wm | October 12, 2011 5:09 AMReply

    Henry's complaint about the movie is 100 times more pretentious than the movie even approaches. That's the irony of people who love to snark about things they find "pretentious".

  • mike | October 10, 2011 12:55 PMReply

    the author sucked. they ruined the entire storey with their predgiest feelings and their stupidly remarked statmenets, not to mention calling the lady fat at this point may get you sued yourself or your company. thing about it. if she's dumb enough to sue over a badly set film advertisement (that usualy only some women or lesser men may understand and yes it was fausly advertised as it did produce a moving from the trailer that looks to be an action packed style.) then what do you think she will do to you guys when she reads this article. In short, your as idiotic or moronic as the women suing..... thank's for screwing up a nice news article with your crappy comments.....

  • brandi | October 10, 2011 12:05 PMReply

    Oh God of course she's from my home state.

  • Jane | October 10, 2011 6:35 AMReply

    It's not about "to know exactly what you’re getting when you go to the movies". It's about movie-style.

  • Erik McClanahan | October 10, 2011 5:55 AMReply

    Man, it would be great if people actually read and understood the articles. Where the hell did this fat comment come from? Very confusing. More than anything though, I will never understand this culture of wanting to know exactly what you're getting when you go to the movies. Where's the passion for discovery, and finding something different in cinema? I love when I get something I wasn't expecting. Even if a film doesn't work in the end, at least it surprised me (if it goes against my expectations), which is more than I can say for 90% of all movies released every year. Guess I'm in the minority there. In the end, I know most audiences will not take to Drive like we have, but I just wish more people were open minded and willing to meet a film halfway.

  • Kathleen Walsh | October 10, 2011 5:41 AMReply

    @Henry AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH (pause) HAHAHAHAHA. Oh you win comment of the day, and not in a good way.

  • Jane | October 10, 2011 5:40 AMReply

    That what bad marketing did. Of course she quite right at some points. Trailer must represent movie to us exactly as we will see it in cinemas. If you're made an art-house project don't show us action-style trailer.

  • Kyle | October 10, 2011 5:38 AMReply

    I'm sure this is some sort of stunt, I refuse to believe anyone is that stupid, but stunt or not, the really sad part is she's allowed to officially file this suit.

    The system should be set up that something like this doesn't even make it past the first stage. People like that should just be laughed out of the filing office.

  • scribe | October 10, 2011 5:29 AMReply

    Oliver! Awesome article, just plain hilarious.

  • Oliver Lyttelton | October 10, 2011 4:16 AMReply

    I honestly don't understand; where do I call anyone fat?

  • Henry | October 10, 2011 3:56 AMReply

    she's right. the movie sucked. it should have been called "Hipster's Paradise," not Drive. It was more like an experiment on how to make a trip-hop music video last 2 hours than an actual film. 93% of critics must be writing their reviews from the comfort of a latte house on their macbook airs while listening to some obscure band i've never heard of....

  • Tommy | October 10, 2011 3:43 AMReply

    Wow. When did the Playlist start giving TROLLS their own online article beat? So Oliver Lyttelton, the OTHER guy is FAT and a MORON, eh, NOT YOU!!! This may start a new trend. Speaking of trends: Hey, if someone can sue because of Hollywood bait-and-switch, can I sue because of Hollywood "reimagining" "rebooting" "prequeling" "hiring kids to play adult roles" and just generally remaking the same movie every five to 15 years over in a franchise: i.e. Batman, Superman, Star Trek. Hollywood knows I love watching RERUNS, so keep retreading stories and cutting out plot and overdoing the video game CGI. Yes, that's what I must want? The same.

  • Mike | October 10, 2011 3:26 AMReply

    I loathe bait and switch campaigns, because they attempt to grab a coupe extra million on the opening weekend only to ruin the film's reputation because they courted the wrong audience/expectations. Like when they tried to sell the American as a spy thriller instead of a borderline silent contempative drama with a few scenes with guns. Drive's trailer didn't make it look like Fast Five, but the TV spots were a hell of a lot closer to that.

    All that said, this woman is ridiculous, as are any people who go in knowing far too little, you don't need to read all kinds or articles or reviews but have some sense, especially when you drag small children to the year's most violent film like the parents of the year at the screening of this I went to.

  • smile from The Lower East Side | October 10, 2011 3:03 AMReply

    This reminds me of the time I wanted to sue Pixar because Monsters, Inc didn't have anything to do with Halle Berry being explicitly fucked by Billy Bob Thornton — smile

  • Eric | October 10, 2011 1:19 AMReply

    Mike, if you are going to rant about someone being an idiot, could you try to use a little better grammar and spelling? You sound like a much bigger idiot than the author or the moron filing the lawsuit.

  • alexandra | October 10, 2011 1:03 AMReply

    I feel this woman has nothing else better to do that critique. If she wanted to really put her word out she should become a film writer and post that way rather than suing. She is more likely to lose money on contesting it.

    Many people get offended by films. Remember the episode of Seinfeld where Elain goes to see the English Patient and totally hated it. She just told people how boring it was and people became set apart from her and she lost the guy she was seeing.

    She didn't go run and sue them because it was offensive to her or make such a huge statement.

    This lady is about to get it worse and is now about to be publicly humiliated and deserves it. She probably has been suing for so long she's been supplementing it for a paycheck every month.

    She's a damn right Idiot Fool

  • jingmei | October 9, 2011 12:59 PMReply

    and agree: for the really innocently stick to trailers matched with films audiences, maybe better to catch The Human Centipede.

  • jingmei | October 9, 2011 12:54 PMReply

    what a kind of "smart" potential advertisement made by the distributor about the trailer and the real content of the film itself, and thus go on with even what's up to by some didn't-get-the-point audience who actually promoted this film as well. so of course this piece of news does the same result: makes me more willingly to watch this film whose real content damn attracts me for real, not just about it's genre.

  • Erik McClanahan | October 9, 2011 12:39 PMReply

    @Ty

    Whoa, whoa, whoa not intelligent?! Depressing?! We must have seen two different movies. I hear what you're saying, but you're completely wrong. Oliver does a great job proving how dissimilar the trailers are from each other in the post. Sure, if you look at the surface of the Drive trailer, it maybe seems like a thriller/action/car chase movie, but the trailer is actually a mostly fair representation of the film. In fact, it basically hits every beat in the story in 2.5 minutes, which seems like a spoilery, stupid thing to do. But then when I saw the film, I realized that Refn's interest in the plot is minimal, it's but a means to explore the nature of heroism, falling in love, genre movies (while also dissecting them), fairy tale mythology, missed opportunities in life, this current wave of 80's nostalgia we find ourselves in pop culture at the moment. It also works as a piece of film criticism: nearly every character in the film is striving for something they can't attain, for whatever reason, and they all are "playing a role" within the film (that is, their characters put on a facade, they want to be something they are not). And it's also one of the most romantic fucking movies I've seen in years. How can that be depressing? Better yet, when is great art ever depressing?

  • Ty | October 9, 2011 9:56 AMReply

    Im also not surprised. The movies is completely different than what you get in the trailer. Instead of a good intelligent action flick (no its not an oxymoron) you get a morbid, slow, depressing wannabe Gosling's acting centered movie. For me it was a horrible letdown.

  • Gill | October 9, 2011 8:12 AMReply

    Reading reviews about movies that you've never heard of is difficult! It requires only the most elite of educated minds to do so! Heaven forbid you pay for a movie that you didn't read up on first and *gasp* it isn't what you wanted to see! I laughed when the author suggested to see Human Centipede. Not exactly the type of movie you'd initially expect from hearing 'Pixar'. Very well written article.

  • Mark Zhuravsky | October 9, 2011 7:45 AMReply

    @Zack, couldn't agree more. It reminded me how ugly that word is and added a new dimension to Pearlman's character.

  • Lily | October 9, 2011 7:09 AMReply

    We unfortunately live in a "sue happy" society. I'm in the legal field and frivolous lawsuits don't surprise me anymore. Loads and loads of lazy idiots trying to "get rich quick", smh.

  • Sara | October 9, 2011 6:22 AMReply

    I always heard that americans sues everybody by everything.... some exemples and I thought "no, it's impossible".

    Now I know it's true.

  • dhaa | October 9, 2011 6:09 AMReply

    Maybe she thought it was going to be the Neil Marshal/Hugh Jackman version :)

  • Justin Hughes | October 9, 2011 5:47 AMReply

    @Tristan Eldritch - HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That was good:)

  • Ken | October 9, 2011 5:29 AMReply

    @AS

    Maybe if he wore a Hitler mask while he killed Nino, I would understand her point

  • AS | October 9, 2011 5:19 AMReply

    That's hilarious! I'm cracking up at the idea that the reason Driver brutally executes people is because they're jewish. Too funny. I believe in capital punishment for this woman.

  • Wes | October 9, 2011 4:55 AMReply

    Drive wasn't nearly what I thought it would (more chases, etc) but I'm not stupid enough to file a lawsuit.

  • Tatnyc | October 9, 2011 3:40 AMReply

    Hey, I'd like to get a refund for every bad Jen Aniston movie I was forced to go see. And what about the Halle Berry stinker BAPS. Those trailers got my hopes up. Ding dang, y'all!

  • Nick | October 9, 2011 3:18 AMReply

    I am Sarah Deming.

    Use commas.

  • Zack | October 9, 2011 3:03 AMReply

    Nick=Sarah Deming.

  • Nick | October 9, 2011 2:52 AMReply

    This article was pathetically unfunny.

  • Christian | October 9, 2011 2:50 AMReply

    This news is so embarressing. What the kind of culture are we living in? We have officially reached a new low: Now quality films get sued because they're not dumbed-down for mass audiences or the MTV segment? This is truly, truly sad. "Drive" deserves to be compared to the films of Melville, Scorsese, Tarantino, etc. - not brainless crap like "Fast Five". R.I.P. clever cinema.

  • tristan eldritch | October 9, 2011 2:47 AMReply

    Most blatant case of false advertising since The Neverending Story.

  • HIH | October 9, 2011 2:45 AMReply

    What an attention seeking idiot.

  • Zack | October 9, 2011 2:43 AMReply

    I know if morons could understand context, they wouldn't be morons, but the scene where Nino says "kike" made me sympathize with him more than anything else. Frankly it pisses me off that she'd just throw in an accusation of something as serious as anti-Semitism when her only real agenda is to get paid for her butthurt.

Email Updates