The movie carefully omitted any discussion of the Captains possible poor conduct. Had is been included in the movie there may have been 'doubts' about the Captain's 'heroic' actions. More disingenuous bs.
How can this be called an intelligent review? The movie is about two sports rivals. In every sport, a time arrives when two interesting rivals emerge. It's not 'supposed to be about Formula One'. Therefore the complaint about not enough on-track racing seems weird. The documentary on Apollo 13 was much more interesting than the movie, but what's that got to do with anything in terms of properly critiquing the movie?
Thank goodness most people disagree with this review. It's only one bad one out of a batch of many sparkling reviews.
'(a movie) no American was asking for' - well, good! I for one like to see a movie which ISN'T just catering for American tastes, because such films are usually intelligently made. And HOW the reviewer can say there wasn't much racing footage ... well I can only assume he was watching another movie entirely!
Neurosis...you're my hero :)
Haven't seen the movie yet. I wanted to read this review because it's critical of the film when everyone else seems to want to gush over it. The opinions expressed in the review are substantive, reasonable, and intelligent. Why anyone would feel compelled to respond with utterly gratuitous animosity toward the reviewer is something you need to seriously contemplate. Seriously, I say.
This is a strange review, it opens with the statement "the big budget film about formula one" then goes on to criticize the lack of budget. As someone who was in Europe at the time I can assure you that this film accurately reflects the extraordinary racing season and the protagonists involved.
AZ/DC: Sorry to disappoint, but the wrong tag was put on the article. Still Bill Frost, who is syndicated in a whopping three publications.
Hey Grimmy! It's good to see you are doing this column again. I prefer reading your opinions over some syndicated columnist any day.
"How about just interviewing those involved with the story, splicing it all together with race footage, and calling it a day rather than blowing $40 million?"
They did that for Senna, who was the superstar of the 80s Formula 1 era. I believe the success of that film went some way into Rush getting traction into getting greenlit.
I can't say I agree with your complaint that the film has too much focus on "Hunt's blasé marriage". Both Niki's and Hunt's marriages have central importance to the movie as a stark way of establishing and reinforcing their differences - it's another chicaine in the course of their rivalry. Furthermore, it's simply wrong that Hunt's marriage is overexaggerated. It consists of precisely three scenes - one where they meet, one where they fall out, and one where they fail to patch things up. It hardly dominates the whole picture! Furthermore, these scenes don't exist for the sake of an irrelevant soap-opera subplot but all are important in tying into and further developing Hunt's character, through his determination to win and his racing obsessions. The last scene is also critical for setting the tone of the movie, it's non-judgemental nature. One of Rush's strengths is that it's determinedly not a formulaic baddie/goodie split between Hunt and Lauda (free-spirited dude vs. uptight jerk? Boorish jock vs. shy nerd? The film's not so simple). We might be tempted to drift towards assigning Hunt villain status because his marriage failed whereas Lauda's succeeded (well, until after the movie ended at least); however, when Miller concedes "you're just who you are at this point in your life" without rancour it gives Hunt the pass to continue without baggage and so quite smartly respects the actual history without letting it compromise the story.
Incidentally, with regards to the complaints about the lack of racing - it may sound counterintuitive but you really don't want too much racing in a racing movie... the thrill of screeching around a corner ebbs after the 30th bend! Try watching Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" for a film that's really all about the vroom-vroom - and an interminable and stultifying experience in tedium that I've fallen asleep while trying to watch.
Altogether, Mr. Grimm, I'm afraid I feel that you've really misjudged Rush.
DryHeatHere, you're missing the point. You have to have some premise of feel good or anyone who isn't fully interested in F1 wouldn't go see the film. The fact he was able to keep the story almost entirely intact is what makes the film good. For 10 dollars I can sit at home and watch the Korean Grand Prix tonight with some popcorn, but that's a sporting event, not a movie.
In the past 60 years there have been at least 20 "Racing" movies produced & in everyone of them "racing" is just the flimsy platform for another love story with the exception of WINNING & Grand Prix which both were littered with "love" as well .
RUSH is just another clone, Hollywood raises the flag of racing but once you've paid your money & invested your time you walk out to the Theater having seen yet another "love story".
I would expect the reputation of Ron Howard to suffer for this alternate premise film and I wish Hollywood would just once produce a Love Story premise with a racing core . This film was made for $39 million which means each minute of screentime cost $325,000.. it sure doesn't show it . Compare it to being lured to see a film entitled "Fort Knox Gold" only to discover it's a love in a vault movie using unpainted concrete blocks for gold bars . There is plenty of "GO Camera " footage on YouTube as good or better than the CGI & Action Shots here & they are FREE with NO love to distract the viewer
For $10 I can buy a 6-pack, sit on my front lawn or at the park, be more entertained & have a better time for 2 hours, and I don't have to pay another $10 for Popcorn either !
- MY PREDICTION -
RUSH will go straight to the bargain bin at WallyWorld where it will mold along with it's equals DRIVEN & DAZE of Thudner .
Ron Howard's name is worth less today because of films like this, it's sad to say .
Quite honestly Bob I think it more so comes down to the fact you have no idea of the history. If you want a straight biopic, by all means find one. This was for the people who would rather have the romance of he 1976 season played out into a watchable film. In all honesty if you wanted to have a quip with something it should have been the special effects that were forced by this meager budget. The rest of the film, up until the race at Suzuka were almost 1:1.
Wow...you Rush fans are a nasty bunch.
Richard Poole....I had meant to type "documentary" not "autobiography." I clearly made a mistake on that one. The point I was making is that the story was so amazing I would've preferred a recently made documentary rather than this movie. My bad.
"It also had me wishing that the movie was just an autobiography of Lauda, who is still alive, and Hunt, who died of a heart attack at the age of 45."
Does this writer know the difference between an autobiography and a biography?
Clearly you know nothing of the actual history. This film stays completely accurate right up until the last race, and that was only altered so people like you would go see it in theaters. Stay ignorant, Im amazed anyone would give you a job writing reviews you self righteous idiot.
Just because your a minority doesn't make it overrated. It's called an opinion, and just because everybody else's is different than yours doesn't make you right. Pretentious critic
What's with these 'professional critics' calling it overrated? It's called an opinion. Critics love the film, get used to that. If you don't, fine. Don't call it overrated just because your one of the minorities.
Tucson Weekly |
3725 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation