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.
What makes this movie so good is the logically continuous tight dialogue and scenes. There is not a spare word in the whole movie. There is not a "hole in the movie" wherein confusion could fester. The movie communicates all of its symbols clearly. The symbols it uses are clear, unambiguous. The Characters are developed to a level wherein we know why they are motivated to do what they do. We do not need more than this. We do not need the childhood experiences of James Hunt for example. What we have is all we need. The time and places are clearly labeled. Everything is clearly understood the first time by intelligent people.
A great movie clearly communicates the first time. It must have this quality. "Rush" has this quality in spades. Variety's review agrees with me. Go read it.
The characters in the movie consist of an intellectual, perfectionistic driver who does not have the personality of a salesperson. He is not a "people person" who warms to people easily. You call this "wooden acting". Niki Lauda could be said to have a "wooden personality" when compared to other personalities. This is not a personality that easily attracts friends or makes audiences like him. He's a mechanic and driver, not a brush salesman. And because he is a mechanic, other mechanics who worked under him got his directives. He made himself their boss. This would not make mechanics like him. He's a serious guy who bosses the mechanics around and wins World Championships. Lauda doesn't need their friendship; he needs their work. Lauda makes a division between friends and professional associates. James Hunt, on the other hand, tries to be liked by everyone. He buys everyone drinks, rides on planes, rides in limousines...well such a giving person should attract alot of acquaintances. To James Hunt, having friends is wealth.
This movie is a great movie because it teaches a morale. Few movies do this. This movie is a great movie because it did pull the viewer in to the pains of Niki Lauda in the hospital scenes. This is proof that Ron Howard can do this if he wants to. He also pulled the viewer into the driver's seat of the car. At times I felt like I was the driver. Few movies do this.
If a movie does not have clear communication with the viewer, the viewer becomes negative about rating the movie. Rush doesn't have any unclear scenes, symbols or communications. Therefore, it should be rated very high.
Now whether the movie touches your soul and speaks about God and the afterlife, well, there is no requirement that a great movie do this. However, Rush did touch viewers with their own mortality when it depicted the accident scenes.
In order for you to understand that this movie clearly communicates, you really need to discuss the scenes word by word, action by action. Broad stroking the movie and saying that it has "wooden acting" is well, an unclear argument. So, because you are unclear, I have to try to understand "where you are coming from".
I have been a professional photographer, I directed stage in college and this gives me more insight to the workings of a movie. Rush deserves all its awards, and it should have been nominated for an Oscar. It is a crafted movie at a very high level. Perhaps you are negative about the movie because "it is just about racing, not some higher subject." What Rush is is great entertainment. It just makes you feel good, too. It is a motivational movie that says, "Do it". Perhaps you don't see that. You aren't with the positive messages in the movie.
Trying to dissolve a movie down to a number is alittle unfair. And I think you should see that. I think you should see that so many other people think highly of this movie for other reasons that you do not see or consider. I think you should give this movie a higher number because it simply touches all those other hearts and minds.
This is one of those movie that I don't care for and will never watch. There's a reason it tanked: Who cares?! Who cares about Lauda and his rival? What a dull, meaningless issue to make a movie about.
shareThis is one of those movie that I don't care for and will never watch. There's a reason it tanked: Who cares?! Who cares about Lauda and his rival? What a dull, meaningless issue to make a movie about.
Boy, you said it Chewie.
And when I have understanding of computers, I shall be the supreme being!
I'm a car guy and I only gave it a 6. I was shocked to come here and see it in the Top 250. OK film, but no need to ever watch it again. A good movie garners repeats. 6 is OK, but one and done. 7 is good and will watch again. 8 movies will be in your library. 9 movies will not only be in your collection, but will be replaced periodically by technological advances. There's no such thing as a perfect movie, so there are no 10s. If all people here voted like that, this movie would be rated no higher than 7.5.
Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png
I don't mind your system Wild_Cobra and work on a similar basis.
For me 0-4 = unwatchable, 5 = watchable (barely), 6 = ok, 7 = good, 8 = very good, 9 = excellent, 10 = perfection and there is no such thing.
I gave this an 8 an felt it thoroughly deserved it. I not only enjoyed the movie but felt like it was one I would watch again. I am no car racing fan but knew of Nikki Lauda (didn't know about Hunt). I felt like the film gave me an interesting insight into two very different personalities and how they 'drove' each other to excel. I didn't care about the historical inaccuracies - I only cared about the story and I found it very entertaining.
"They who... give up... liberty to obtain... safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
For me, 1 is unwatchable. It's kind of hard to have varying levels of "unwatchable". ...2-5 are levels of how bad a movie is. And you know the rest of my rating scale. Just remember one very important thing. Rating movies is highly subjective. Even movies that are just plain poorly made, and anyone remotely educated in the film making process knows that standards weren't followed, will still have people who enjoy it. It has nothing to do with intelligence either. The smart, artsy fans will say the movie was "outside the box", or "stretching the boundaries". While everyone else will just call it cr@p. I like people who call someone a philistine because they disliked a certain film. Or tell them to go watch "Tranformers". Just for the record, I've never watched any of the Transformer movies and probably never will.
Example of senility.http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/2779/paintx.png
I am going to concur. I gave it a 6. I was 13/14 years old back in '76. I have recollections of the rivalry going on at the time and what boy of that age wasn't obsessed with cars back then.
Now, my reasons for rating this a 6 -
I was expecting a different movie, more focused on the racing and less soap opera.
The acting was fine but script was lacking. I did think Hemsworth and Bruhl had a good chemistry.
The race scenes left me very underwhelmed. I watched this on a decent 50 inch screen with good surround sound. I was expecting to be wowed but I just went "meh".
This movie did inspire me to order a bluray copy of McQueen's 1971 Le Mans, a great movie about racing.
"If you didn't screw the cow, she's not your cow."
- Ellen Burstyn
Agreed. I'm wondering the same thing myself. Bored out of my mind and they took far too many liberties with the actual story/rivalry.
They were FLAT MATES! Why not show that?!? That would've ADDED to the tension, the rivalry between them.
Not to mention it was hard to be happy for Hunt at the end because they didn't really show any sort of motivation for him! Why he was self destructive, more about what it meant to him, etc. Boo, Ron Howard. Boo!
<---- Bella's Kiss Me Face
I'm wondering why the OP gave it a seven, having not particularly like it, and then feel astonished that it's got 8.4 or whatever it is now.
I thought it was great. Hold on, I'm going to check what I gave it...
I gave it 8.
I think I may go back and 10 it out of spite!
NO, what am I saying? This is an eight. Anyone who differs from my opinion, giving this a higher score, is far too generous and must not know what a really good film is. On the other hand, anyone who voted less than me must be a cretin.
OK, I'm pleased we've cleared that up.
As a huge F1 racing fan, I hoped this movie would be better.
The Lauda - Hunt storyline is amazing...unfortunately the poor "made for TV" like direction spoils it for me.
Also, I thought the racing scenes were not very exciting at all.
I recommend Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" and the documentary "Senna' if you are interested in F1.
It's a bit of a crowd-pleaser, in the way Warrior, Forrest Gump, A Beautiful Mind and Shawshank are (all inexplicably rated highly). Although that said, I really liked this film, gave it a 9. It has better writing, strong characters, it was directed very well, in my eyes better than the other films I just mentioned with high ratings. You can't ignore the crowd-pleasing element to this film, but there's more to it than that as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What would you do if I died today?
I'd die tomorrow.
[deleted]