The story of the epic Formula One rivalry between James Hunt and Niki Lauda in the ’70s is full of seemingly impossible twists and turns.
Rush, Ron Howard’s film chronicling that rivalry, doesn’t serve this incredible story well.
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.
Rush is supposed to be about Formula One racing, yet the performers spend surprisingly little time behind the wheel. The focus is on their lives off the track, and while that warrants some interest, come on. Show us more races, and less of Hunt’s boring marital woes.
Hemsworth keeps his Thor hair to play Hunt, a superstar car-racing English playboy who is tearing it up on the tracks when egotistical rich boy Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) buys his way into the sport. It turns out Lauda happens to be a decent driver, and their rivalry eventually leads to Formula One competition, where the two push themselves mightily during the 1976 season.
It was on a rainy day in Germany when Lauda crashed his car in a near-fatal accident, suffering major burns to his head. The wreck also damaged his lungs in a life-threatening way. Amazingly, Lauda came back to race only six weeks later, his head covered with bloody bandages, to try and preserve the lead he had before and after the crash.
So, with a premise like that, a crazy real-life scenario that astonishes on all levels, it would seem a movie based on the events would kill. Let it be said that Bruhl, saddled with some pretty big false teeth to physically resemble Lauda, is excellent as the obsessive Austrian. His Lauda is easily the film’s most compelling character, even when his storyline goes into Lauda’s humdrum love life.
Hemsworth’s Hunt is everything to be expected, and little more. He likes to party before and after races. He likes to vomit before races because he’s “really” stoked. He likes to wield his mighty hammer and save the human race from invading alien forces. OK, that’s in The Avengers. It’s just my wiseass way of saying what he does here isn’t far removed from his performance as Thor.
Hemsworth actually catches the mannerisms of Hunt quite accurately; a look at footage of the real Hunt shows that Hemsworth manages a pretty good impersonation. That said, Hunt comes off as a predictable dullard in many ways. Fault the screenplay for that.
Howard allegedly got just south of $40 million to make this movie and this, perhaps, accounts for the surprising lack of sustained racing sequences. That’s not a lot of money for a movie that demands a lot of vroom-vroom. This would probably be the reason why too much screen time is spent on Hunt’s blasé marriage to model Suzy Miller (Olivia Wilde, so very good in this year’s Drinking Buddies).
Miller left Hunt and ran off with Richard Burton. There was some talk that Russell Crowe would play Burton in this movie, but the character wound up being cut from the film. That would’ve been a great cameo.
Howard ends the film strangely, with Bruhl’s Lauda narrating over footage of the actual Lauda and Hunt, including the paths their lives took after the movie. To have the actor talking over footage of the character he just played strikes me as a little odd.
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. The story is so amazing, and footage of the crucial racing events exists.
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? As it turns out, the BBC did a documentary on Hunt and Lauda for their Clash of the Titans series. It’s available on YouTube, along with a few other documentary looks. They cover all the bases, and render a viewing of Rush moot.
In the pantheon of racing movies, Rush actually ranks high among a rather meager field. It’s much better than Tom Cruise’s Days of Thunder and Sylvester Stallone’s Driven. It’s also better than most of the Fast and Furious movies.
Howard is capable of great moviemaking based on actual events. Apollo 13 is easily his best film, with Frost/Nixon and Cinderella Man ranking in his personal top five.
As for Rush, it stands alongside the likes of Howard’s The Dilemma and The Missing. It’s a poser movie with a great premise but the tires go bald well before the finish line.
This article appears in Oct 3-9, 2013.
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.
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
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.
“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?
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.
Wow…you Rush fans are a nasty bunch.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Neurosis…you’re my hero 🙂
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!
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?
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.
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.
“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!
I totally agree. When you sit down in an armchair before screening, rest your elbows on arm rests and the lights get dimmed, what you expect to happen is getting blasted into your seat. Well, nothing like that happens throughout the movie. Plus, the portrayal of Lauda is so overdramatic that it borders on ridicule. There might be a few good sequences but on the whole the movie fails to make you care. And this is what moving pictures are all about.