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.
Plus that sister was completely covered up the whole time. I contemplated waiting for the tit and ass shot as a reward for sitting through the movie but then I remembered I have the American Apparel ad. And left.
I thought De Niro and Pfeiffer were completely mismatched. I hated hated HATED the daughter. One minute she's telling her brother how she just beat up a girl in the bathroom, and the very next he's asking her, "What's the first thing you notice about a guy?" "His eyes," she says, shoehorning clichéd and out-of-place dialogue down our throats. Also, didn't anyone find it weird that these kids are beating a lot of people up without the principal getting involved? And that everyone in the town magically speaks English without any of the American characters trying to speak a word of French? I walked out after forty minutes.
Ha! Yeah...the Normandy thing baffled me as well.
Lasted less than 30 minutes. You only need to know two things.
1. Michelle Pfeiffer and that hack accent.
2. Mafia relocated to Normandy?
Back in 1961, Newton Minnow, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, you know, the folks that 'used' to regulate broadcasting, made a speech to the National Association of Broadcasters declaring that television was "A Vast Wasteland'.
At the time, he blasted them for the mindless drivel that passed as entertainment and the blaring commercials that interrupted all too often to cajole the viewer into buying something they didn't want or need.
Many years ago, I read a sci-fi story that posited that aliens invented television to dumb down the populace and make them docile. Hm, I wonder if that author knew something?
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation