Rush

Rush follows Morgan’s template, where he starts with some real events, finds a “timeless" theme in it and then subordinates everything to that theme. Not a thread of truth remains in this dramatization of real events, but it doesn’t matter, because the end effect is that things could have been like that and they might easily have said it like that. Which isn’t a bad approach; and he’s a dramatist anyhow. It would be a mistake to expect faithfulness to the truth from Rush, and an even greater mistake to try to find an insight into the racing car driver’s soul, Le Mans - style. And it would have been stupid to expect a sports cliché from them. Sport is only secondary in this movie. What can you expect from it, then? A drama (first and foremost drama!) about rivalry between two adversaries where one is heads and the other tails of the same coin and where each represents a different archetype of the sport; a charismatic playboy enjoying life to the full and darling of the camera with a talent straight from God while others look after his career versus the drilled, tight, precise art of a through and through rational careerist who avoided the spotlight under all circumstances. A portrait of two men where one wouldn’t have existed without the other and... A sort of racing yin and yang. In the audience-pleasing garb (and Howard knows how to sell it, no doubt about that) of Formula 1, while not being about Formula 1 at all. (03/10/2013)

Ron Howard is evidently good at making biopics. Even if you don’t grow fond of Niki Lauda or James Hunt, there is still the final scene that simply launches everything a mile high. But if you’re naturally open-minded when it comes to good movies, you will definitely appreciate that the actors who portray these two characters exactly pinpoint the meaning of the term rivalry as such. Niki Lauda or James Hunt were no idiots, but they were definitely not normal, either. Whatever was between them was something that is no longer fashionable in sports today. It was mutual hatred that was supported by a great deal of respect for one another. This movie captures this perfectly. I cannot but give it a five-star rating. Niki sure must convince you of that at the end of the movie! (12/02/2014)

Is it merely a coincidence that Ron Howard did the most masterful work of his career not in Hollywood (which would surely not have allowed so many warts and broken bones protruding from the bodies of injured racers), but in an independent production put together by several smaller studios? Rush is not flawless. You will see the awakening of the two protagonists coming in the numerous circuits, the female characters are passive and serve only for decoration, some of the “deep” dialogue is there only to fill silent gaps, and the attempt at two equally valuable character studies is hindered by the fact that screenwriter Peter Morgan put substantially more work into humanising the monster (the “horror” shots of a mutilated face border on distastefulness) than making the playboy wiser. However, the doubling of narrators and the wringing of tension out of their essentially friendly rivalry (there is no actual bad guy) comprise the main draw of this otherwise generally good but not exceptional film. Two strong characters are a guarantee of sufficient dramatic material throughout the film's two-hour runtime and it is highly probable that you will be left wanting more at the end. Morgan offers enough information about the organisation of races in the 1970s to keep even a person unfamiliar with Formula One in the picture and, at the same time, is very careful not to anger fans of either Hunt or Lauda. In comparison with the similarly structured Crying Fist, whose climax evokes much more ambivalent feelings (because it is about life), the careful manoeuvring of Rush caused me to feel indifferent to who would win, and I thus manoeuvring generally lost interest in what was happening on screen during the final act. Rush probably owes its extraordinary popularity to the fact that everyone ultimately wins in their own way. However, another key factor is undoubtedly the precision of the film’s craftsmanship, thanks to which you perceive the racing sequences hopped up with superbly tuned sound and the fetishistic close-ups of various machine parts with all of your senses. It’s not as immersive as a PlayStation racing game, but comes pretty damned close. 80% (12/10/2013)

I don’t remember them. It’s set in 1976 which is ten years before I was born. But thanks to Howard, it doesn’t matter, because he is great at intimating the atmosphere of a time when car racing wasn’t just based on math (the great closing conversation digs a lot at this fact) and when people like hunt were our heroes - knights in shining armor. A perfectly balanced screenplay that has something to say, devoted direction, precise, while it’s clear that this is a labor of love. Hemsworth has never acted so well (or he wasn’t acting and that’s what he’s like) and Brühl simply became Lauda. Rush is a picture that refuels faith in car racing, in movies about car racing and about well-told stories from real life as such. The dialogs are polished, the visuals are somewhere between a modern style and faithfully capturing seventies style, the tension can be cut with a knife and there is no chance to get bored during those two hours. I expect at least three Oscar nominations. The best movie this year so far. Zimmer risks nothing in terms of topic. P.S.: Girls will like this too, even if they don’t like racing, because the racing takes up only about a quarter of an hour of the movie. Happiness is your biggest enemy. (11/10/2013)

Howard is more like Niki Lauda - cool, calculating, like a professor with a flair for fine design. Because of this, Rush accelerates incredibly in the racing sequences and stiffens a bit where the film tries to name the destructiveness of racing passion. James Hunt looks like a poster boy (something like a gasoline-smelling pin-up boy) and the best parts aren't the wooden dialogues, but rather the moment when the heroes make a face or gesture after them. Otherwise, Rush is actually a fresh affair in terms of "sports lemonade". It is customary that in sports dramas, the hero has to sacrifice something and deny a piece of himself. Given that the film Lauda has what the film Hunt does not have, and vice versa, the final victory is in fact absolute. Everyone has their truth and their piece of triumph. The moment when, in the end, one cannot decide to whom to cheer for more is quite rare. I would like to point out that Rush idealizes the whole sport like knights, and according to them, it is not possible to perfectly reconstruct the case of "Lauda vs Hunt". I've been waiting all year for a blockbuster that pushes me into my seat and pumps me up with adrenaline. I had Rush as a black horse (don't hit me, I know it's basically on an indie budget). They did their job perfectly. [80%] P.S. Thumbs up for Brühl... Lauda has never been this cool. Cold and sharp as a razor. (25/09/2013)