"It's one of those period pieces where you feel the emotion behind every wig and every attempt to establish its time through savvy soundtrack choices. Howard's movie never feels authentic. It comes off as some decent actors playing dress-up. And it serves up a heaping pile of romantic melodrama that sends the movie off the track and into the bleachers."
Exactly how I felt about this movie.
This review/reviewer is spot on!
The Loft does a good job of exhibiting movies. But can someone tell me why they were on the list for the past County Bond Election...the one that was cancelled? Why would tax payers give money to a business?
It seems this review drifted dreadfully off course as well, crashing and burning. The reviewers take or understanding of the movie is so flawed as to be almost pointless.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally, a critic with enough acute perspective to actually call it like it really is. Knowing the serious nature of the movie going in, the film quickly sucked me in emotionally. With questions being brought to mind early on in the movie, I was pleasantly surprised to see these questions being recognized and validated in the movie itself. For me, that lended confidence to believe that the film actually took real life considerations to what a normal, logical person might think, say, or do in that situation, even if often irrational. Unfortunately, that confidence yielded itself to the very thing I originally credited it to, the ridiculous. The film creates an entangled web of "who dun-nit," only to unravel itself into weaving a different web, a web of unaddressed questions, unnecessary or unrelated parts, and host of totally ridiculous scenes that have you screaming, "Come on now, really?!"
I have now seen Rush three times. Based upon your review, that may be three times more than you did. To call a film of Rush's caliber, overated makes one wonder how much you know about F1 and how much you know about the 1976 season. It also makes me wonder how you keep your job.
Sure Bob-the guys on the ship in foreign waters weren't the immigrants, just the ones from the country the ship was next to. Whatever you have to do to justify your fear of different people, right?
Try not to think of them as pirates or activists.
Think of them as 'immigrants'. That way they can get all the aid they need from the turkeys who omit the word illegal.
Another omission is the fact that most "pirates" the film purports to represent were not thieves but activists attempting to prevent illegal fishing and/or toxic waste dumps in their ancestral waters, a major problem in the region. One may condemn their tactics but the intent is generally not to steal but to keep others from stealing their livelihoods. Captain Phillips and his crew were likely not engaged in either activity but the events depicted in the film did not occur in a vacuum and should be framed in context.
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.
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation