Wooden acting, weak dialogue, and a story that's more like a forced drama than anything else.
I would give it maybe a 7 and that too for the setting and the snazzy depiction of the era. Maybe a refreshing escape from the superhero crap we get these days. But that's as far as it goes.
Deservingly snubbed from the oscars.
An 8 sounds about right.
I liked the story and the style that it was told in.
Great sound and video too during the race scenes.
I don't know. It's a very Hollywood film with cliched dialogue. I was gonna give it a 7 but the fictional journalist assault scene brought it down to a 6.
shareI absolutely agree, OP. I've just now paused it halfway through and came here to see WTF is going on with the IMDb rating. I don't always agree with the ratings, but usually I can at least see why some people are in awe of some things I'm not. This one just baffles me.
This is the same cliched, Hollywood sports biopic we've already seen a dozen times or more. I guess it's a formula that keeps working well, and audiences have short memories.
With dialog like: "When do we start?" "Whenever you're ready." "I was born ready," you know the screenwriter is just ticking off boxes on his list of tropes to include.
As soon as Hunt met Olivia Wilde and had that line about his parents wishing he'd get married, I literally said out loud: "Smash-cut to their wedding," and boom... church doors open, people throw rice on the happy couple. Movies should not be this predictable.
I'm not finishing it.
"This is the same cliched, Hollywood sports biopic we've already seen a dozen times or more" Not even close. Hunt's family life is little more than peripheral really.
share[deleted]
The acting is GOOD. Totally natural.
Please, do you really think bad actors are part of such films? Is Ron Howard going to be ok with wooden acting? Come on. Probably you just didn't like the characters.
The dialogues are not memorable, that's true. But I wouldn't say weak. They're just simple, basic dialogues that people can have.
The screenplay is well written. It goes somewhere and has a structure.
The protagonists and their dynamics are interesting (well I admit that's subjective, let's say "are well developed"), the story is moving without being cheesy (I didn't see anything forced, the drama even remains sober), and at the same time it has action and all it needs to be riveting.
The direction is GREAT.
Sure, the story isn't mind-blowing, it's not off the beaten path, it's not original in its themes. But it has that thing that is quite unexplainable, that makes simple stories become classic films. Kind of like Lagaan. I guess you just didn't feel it.
I'm rating it 9. It's a very good movie. What more can you ask from a classy movie that has a story blending smoothly drama and action, a beautiful direction and charismatic actors?
Also, superhero movies can be very good.
I fully agree with you. It wasn't terrible but it is nothing more than a 7/10 for me.
shareAll the rates based on our own opinions, right? I enjoyed acting and screenplay, so I like the film and not surprised by high-rates, if you dislike it, the only thing you can do is to deal with it and try to avoid this film, because you will not persuade anyone it is not good if someone likes it. Everyone has got his taste, ain't it?
shareHe didn't say that he didn't like it. He said it was overrated. There is a huge difference.
Anyway, it's a tad overrated. Something around 7.8 would be more appropriate but there are worse movies on top 250 so no complaint here.
The reason why is not because of any film award category, but because of the human qualities portrayed, which really were displayed. This is about hard-edged physical courage, and the very major difference between this and Lone Survivor is that Hunt and Lauda and the others had a choice, as the film shows.
shareYeah, I gave it a 6. I thought Daniel Bruhl's performance was great and I think it would have been a stronger movie if it focused more equally on Lauda than on Hunt. Hemsworth was not engaging in the least bit and the way the movie turned into a standard sports cliche movie in the end, it's like Howard expected us to be cheering on Hunt when I couldn't care less about him winning. Also, some of the decisions like making the vote appear one-sided were just non-sensical.
shareThe movie did not make the vote appear one-sided. The movie communicated that there was a delay in the decision. The delay added to the ending tension in the movie. The historical fact was that Hunt thought he had lost the race. And this was presented in the movie.
Whether or not you care about any of the actors only removes you from enjoying the movie. The characters were presented clearly as people who: (1) could not make friends, (2) or in Hunt's case, he made sexual acquaintances, but he admitted that he only treated some parakeets "honorably". So, given their limitations and rivalry, we have an interesting movie. This movie and many others do not use "heros" that the audience has to personally "like". The joy in the movie is to follow their limitations through some tough times and wind up succeeding at the end.
Some religious people may not want Hunt to succeed because he was a Playboy. So, these people cannot enjoy the movie. They are passing judgement during the movie. Those who can imagine what it must be like to have so many "girlfriends" will enjoy and fantasize themselves being Hunt.
Perhaps Hunt reminds you of someone at school you did not like. Well, you cannot enjoy this person in a movie. So, your "6" grade of the movie doesn't reflect the quality of the movie, it rather reflects your limits on accepting people as they are. You don't have to become them, but you can find a place to enjoy the pitsfalls they go through. In other words, perhaps you can enjoy the fact that Hunt got divorced. Or you can enjoy the fact that his car broke down so many times. You know, the Playboy gets bad luck.
But it is clear to me that other people simply saw good in both Hunt and Lauda and cheered both on to success. The bad part that the audience saw was partly dismissed. We all have some bad in us.
Get a proper writer to help the wooden dialogue. Just because that's how it happened doesn't mean that's how the world wants to see it. Put some life into it! I think they did have a 'proper' writer. It's just that not everyone talks like they're in an Aaron Sorkin script. And if they used more license with the dialogue, there'd rightly be more criticism because the movie does not represent the people portrayed. How many other biopics have been panned because of inaccuracies and being too liberal with the truth? Can't win either way.
I thought it a terrific movie without being a big fan of F1.
It's 8+ because it's a great movie! Easily my favorite of 2013. It shows the good taste of the IMDb community, who seek out good movies, even if they didn't do well at the Box Office.
"I. Drink. Your. Milkshake! [slurp!] I DRINK IT UP!" - Daniel Plainview - "There Will Be Blood"
Oh yeah? And you'd agree to all the other choices in 250? Face it, last few years there's an increasing number of oddballs in the 250 and legendary movies losing rating because they're being watched by the wrong audience.
Rush is another example. Just finished watching, and while a good movie, it's just NOT REMARKABLE. Seriously name ONE AREA where it excels. It just doesn't. NONE of the movie shines, making it "just a good movie". A +8 score in Imdb imho isn't one reserved for "good movies", it's for great movies.
So yes, I'd say Rush is overrated. It's about a 7.5 movie, so not by a large margin, but still.