Review of Rush (2013) by Michele P — 12 May 2015

Richie Cunningham sure knows how to make a good movie. Now...while Rush mightn't be in the league of Nightshift or Splash, it's certainly his most compelling film in years...probably since Apollo 13. He's really in his zone with the recent-history bio-pic stuff, far better than that Dan Brown crap. He's not a flashy "wow look at that" director, you'd never know he was there really - but that's a gift in itself. He's workmanlike, efficient, detailed, very sharp, story-focused - and with Rush - character-focused as well. That story and characters - the REAL story and actual blokes that Rush is based on, are gold. Really compelling material. It could work just as well on different terms within a well-made doco, and it's a wonder that the story wasn't snatched up years ago by a major studio. It's also a wonder that Richie C had to settle for independent financing and distribution on this. Maybe the major studios were scared off because it's not Ricky Bobby redneck style car racing. Their loss. On a relatively modest budget, Howard has worked wonders - the mid-70s verisimilitude is absolutely outstanding in almost every scene, and every sense (ok, granted, a FEW of the shag-do wigs look fake). The editing required to communicate the complexity of the F1 environment - and the races themselves - if extraordinarily efficient - calling on old sports movies tropes as commentary and scoreboard subtitles, yes, but it's really well done. Even an F1 novice will know what's going on. The racetrack scenes were certainly the hardest to mount and edit, compare to the character-dialogue scenes, but both types of scene are equally impressive, and merge together seamlessly. The structure of the script is perfect, although - perhaps my main issue with the film - the dialogue is sometimes bland, occasionally trite, and rarely memorable. Yet the perfs - generally - overcome this - particularly Bruhl as Lauda. Of course, Bruhl is given more to work with than Hemsworth, and given a more dramatic "comeback" arc. But - given what I've read about James Hunt, he indulged in LOTS of debaucherous, entertaining antics that could've been included in this film, to.

Make it more fun, make the character more fascinating and rounded. Yes this "sex - breakfast of champions" aspect of Hunt is present in the film, and yes, the MAIN theme of the film was the two men's rivalry. Yet in many ways, Hunt's story - his struggle to balance his baser desires to party hard with his commitment to become champ - could be just as evocative as Lauda's more standard stuff. It makes me wonder - of course Richie Cunningham is going to shy away from the less "family friendly" aspects of the tale - the sex and drugs - but what if this story had been placed in the hands of someone unafraid to portray (without judgment) the darker sides of both men, and the industry - someone like Scorsese or PT Anderson. I'm not complaining - I still love Howard's take. Just wondering. The true story seems so rich here - and while Rush admirably portrays neither man as hero or villain - but simply competitive, driven men...I wanted more. But it's still a rush.