The film might not try to do anything particularly new or unique in terms of its cinematography, but there's no doubt in my mind that the main focus of the film was its cinematography.
Having seen all of Refn's previous efforts leading up to Drive and having read a lot about his own personal philosophical approach to the medium of filmmaking, I would have to disagree with this. However, and as I understand this was merely your personal reaction to the work (and not an objective assertion on your behalf), Refn is an artist who certainly wouldn't make a piece where the main focus and concentration is the visual sensibilities.
Shots would often linger, far after they had already communicated what they were supposed to, seemingly just so the audience could concentrate on the beauty of the shot. 'Important' moments were often shot in a way that were visually striking, but didn't do the best job of communicating what was happening in that moment.
I'll be the first to state that Drive is a stylised picture and definitely much more visually orientated than a lot of other American productions. In saying that, I fail to recall any moments in the film where the shots would linger, and I thought the photographic aesthetics of the work greatly serviced the subdued, heavily European-inspired 'mechanisms' of the narrative.
I'm not sure if you've seen much European cinema (particularly German and French, which are salient inspirations to Refn), but the film is very inspired from the trademark principles of these countries set out.
I'd be interested to see if you thought there was anything special about the actual narrative of the film, because it left me completely cold.
I personally loved it. There is something very understated and almost 'secondary', for lack of better term, about the narrative. Indeed, a commonality in European cinema of the postwar period (primarily from the 60s and 70s) is this notion of breaking down our expectations of what story is and what it should be. We're often conditioned to look at the structure of narrative in a particularly familiar framework. That is, storytelling is king and presides over everything else (a concept espoused by a lot of famous filmmakers such as Spielberg and Hitchcock), and that all aspects of the filmmaking process must service the story. A lot of world cinema challenges this, and Drive is an example, albeit to a lesser degree. But that's just theory, and a bit too mundane to talk about.
In my opinion, the film tells - what can easily be discerned as - a fairly standard story in a very interesting way. Take the relationship that is formed between the Driver and Irene. There is nothing particularly unique about these two characters forming an attraction towards one another, but how it's ultimately achieved and conveyed to the audiences is impressive. Soft, ambient scoring, almost a softening of all diegetic sound in the background and some very simple yet rhythmic editing. There are many shots in the film that resonated with me. Simple, symbolic shots that strengthened the implications of the relationship. If you'd like, I could screenshot some of them and show you from argument's sake. They're very fun to dissect. I also found the protagonist very interesting. He's not charismatic, he's doesn't follow the conventions of your typical core character, and he's deliberately inexpressive and emotionally stagnant. There is a strange mystery to the character, almost reminiscent of The Man with No Name from Sergio Leone's Westerns. Indeed, he had no name, no past, no identity, no explanation to the motives of his actions - this entire dimension was left out, without exposition, and that's refreshing. It requires the viewers to come up with their own conclusions. It encourages more intellectual activity from the viewer. Sure, some may see it as too distant and detached, but, personally, I appreciated it.
Another interesting thing about the narrative is that, on paper, it's not really memorable. It's a visual film, primarily, telling its story with the language of images and sound. It's very reliant on atmosphere and mood - the first half spawns such a calm and restrained sensibility. And then, out of no where, there is this radical, bloody paradigm shift, and it's handled impeccably. It's just a great slice of unconventional filmmaking, overall.