Runtime: 2 hours, 3 minutes
Rating: R
Director: Ron Howard
Quick Impressions:
I still want to see Don Jon for two big reasons:
1.) Joseph Gordon-Levitt never makes a bad movie, and now that he’s written and directed one himself, I’d like to support him as thanks for all the times his little projects have saved me from a box office otherwise lacking in palatable choices.
2.) I’ve seen the theatrical trailer so many times but have no clue how the story will end, how the conflict will be resolved.
Our children are also dying to see Cloudy 2. Why did so much come out last Friday? I thought September was supposed to be a quiet month where mediocre movies are dumped to die. Are there really going to be so many must see movies this fall that they have to start cranking them so early and with so much competition? I don’t know whether to be excited for great fall movies or have a nervous breakdown trying to figure out how to see everything that interests me!
Of course, we could just see them all except for two small problems—time and money. Working within our tight budget and restricted time frame, my husband and I prioritized our choices and decided to buy tickets to Ron Howard’s Rush. I’m glad we did.
Rush is the kind of solid, carefully crafted, old fashioned entertainment that you’re never sorry you paid to see. Now these days, there are a lot of films out there that don’t fall apart in the last act. But unfortunately that’s usually because they’ve already fallen apart in an earlier act. So when you come across a gem like Rush that doesn’t fall apart at all, you walk out of that theater at the end feeling like you’ve just won the Grand Prix.
So even though I still don’t know how Don Jon ends, and I feel slightly cheated out of my chance to see Bill Hader battle adorable anthropomorphic foodstuffs, I don’t regret deciding to see Rush for a minute. It was the right choice. It’s a really good film, the kind that easily could be someone’s favorite of the year (though it’s not mine).
The Good:
Rush is a well-paced crowd pleaser. Its two hour runtime feels consistently brisk, and audience members who stick with it on its race to the finish are richly rewarded with an emotionally resonant story complete with a reasonably uplifting conclusion.
This is a well made film, perfectly solid in every aspect. The cinematography is arresting, the story is captivating, the performances are decent, and Hans Zimmer’s score sometimes seems exceptional. (I definitely liked it, though I can’t decide if it’s distinct enough from previous strong scores by Zimmer to merit an Oscar nomination.) Regardless of my (largely irrelevant) opinion, though, the prolific Zimmer always does fine work, and I think he’s not unlikely to get awards recognition for his contribution to Rush.
Screenwriter Peter Morgan also makes a valuable contribution. Compared to some of the screenplays he’s written in the past (most especially for The Queen, which I believe is a perfect film) Morgan’s script here may not be quite strong enough to deserve an Academy Award, but seeing his name among the nominees would not particularly surprise me. Also, with potentially ten spots up for grabs, a best picture nomination is not out of the question for Rush, though I’d be stunned if Ron Howard got a nod for directing. (Although I think he’s put together a fine film, part of me hopes Howard won’t get Oscar recognition simply because a nomination for him virtually guarantees that at least some of this year’s highly anticipated Oscar-season films will turn out to be disappointing misfires.)
But forget about Oscars for a minute. The most important thing about Rush is that it’s an exciting, suspenseful movie featuring actual character development as well as tons of action. Yes, the Academy might very well like it, but the even better news is that most movie goers will enjoy it, too. It’s as rousing as any well made sports movie, but it’s also a film with so much heart and thoughtful character development that it transcends the sport on which it ostensibly focuses.
If you like Formula One racing, then Rush is the movie for you. But if (like me) you could care less about Formula One racing, the good news is that Rush still may be the movie for you. At heart, it’s not just about the world of Formula One racing. It’s a character study of the kinds of people who choose to become members of that world and also an exposé (based on a true story) of what can happen to them once they make that decision.
Set in the late 1970s, Rush sets up real-life Formula One racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda both as rivals and as foils for one another. (The implication, of course, is that a rival is a real-life foil useful both for motivation and self-discovery.) The first lines of the film remind us that in Formula One, the threat of death is always real. Every year, some of the racers die on the track. Hearing this, we wonder what kind of man would take the risk of buckling into the driver’s seat of a Formula One car. To answer this question definitively, Rush presents us with not one but two skilled drivers who have given their lives to Formula One racing. Each one has completely different motives, methodology, and technique, not to mention a unique outlook on reality and his place within it.
Played by Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Brühl, spoiled English playboy James Hunt and practically minded Austrian racer Niki Lauda have kind of a Mozart/Salieri thing going on (except neither of them is as weird as either of the leads as depicted in Amadeus). Probably trying to prove that he’s more than just Thor, Hemsworth gives a fairly strong performance and makes a likable, charming leading man, and as the quietly punctilious yet tormented Lauda, Daniel Brühl mind just wind up nominated for Best Supporting Actor.
Early on, Natalie Dormer shows up, and for a moment, I thought both Hunt and Lauda were going to become romantically entangled with her. (Of course, I also thought Olivia Wilde’s character introduced herself as Suzy Fannypacksis, when really she was a friend of Alex’s, so you can’t always trust my little guesses.) While Natalie Dormer was on the screen, I was on the edge of my seat thinking, Which one of them will she choose? You know the one she picks will be crowned king of racing! After playing Anne Boleyn on The Tudors and hooking up with every king she can get her hands on in Game of Thrones, Dormer seems destined to play women who scheme to marry kings. Even in this, she’s clearly drawn to Hunt because of his status as a potentially famous racecar driver. Dormer was pretty delightful in a small role here. I wish we’d seen more of her.
Most Oscar Worthy Moment (Daniel Brühl):
If I were giving out Oscars, I wouldn’t reward Daniel Brühl. At the end of the year, there’s never a shortage of talented male actors jockeying to fill ten slots, and since Brühl’s performance as by-the-numbers Formula One driver Niki Lauda didn’t particularly dazzle me, I have no doubt that upcoming performances will eventually make me forget about Brühl’s work here entirely.
Now let me be clear. Brühl’s performance is good, perhaps even excellent. The problem is that while Lauda gradually becomes the most sympathetic, captivating character in the story, it isn’t particularly Brühl’s performance that makes Lauda so compelling. At the moments when I felt the greatest surges of feeling for Niki Lauda, I was watching either Alexandra Maria Lara or Chris Hemsworth (or, sometimes, a car). In fact, Brühl’s strongest moment in the film actually sets up a much better and more resonant scene soon to follow that belongs completely to Brühl’s co-star Hemsworth.
Peter Morgan’s screenplay works by setting up the two rivals as foils for one another. So when we’re exploring Lauda’s character, we’re also exploring James Hunt. Such a set-up is phenomenal for the overall success of the film, but at times a bit frustrating for each star since neither actor usually appears (significantly) in the scenes that give the audience the most insight into his own character.
Howard’s film also benefits from its persistent, thrilling focus on the visceral rush of racing itself. There are times when the cars and the track are the real stars of the show.
What I’m driving at here is that when we’re the most invested in Lauda, instead of watching Brühl, we’re watching either his co-stars or his car.
So yes, Brühl gives a really good (and often quite subtle) performance, but at all the moments when I experienced a deep, profound emotional connection to his character, I wasn’t actually watching him.
Still this is such a well made, uplifting film that I wouldn’t be surprised to see it honored by the Academy, and a supporting actor nod for Brühl is a convenient way for Academy members to show their appreciation for the film. That’s why I’m mentioning Brühl’s performance here even though it didn’t wow me quite enough.
Perhaps the one moment when I really did find myself focused on Brühl himself was his final answer in the press conference. That’s a strong, forceful moment that stands apart from an otherwise quiet, nuanced performance. I also liked the scene when he responds to Hunt’s attempts to liken him to a rat. (I wondered if that was an even worse insult for an Austrian born in the 1940s given all that Nazi propaganda identifying Jews with rats, but at the end of the day, I just don’t know. I’d ask the real Niki Lauda, but that seems like an awkward question to pose to a stranger.)
(It’s also worth noting that even though on paper Brühl may seem like a co-lead—i.e., Lauda narrates the story, and most of the exceptionally emotionally resonant moments involve the audience’s feelings for Lauda—I do actually think Brühl is the clear supporting actor in this piece. In Rush, Lauda is reflecting on his relationship with James Hunt. He’s telling us about how Hunt affected him, and we’re seeing how he affected Hunt. Chris Hemsworth is clearly playing the leading role here, even though his co-star’s choices seem to drive the narrative course of the movie. When Lauda’s life took a dramatic turn, I immediately felt a rush of curious concern—about Hunt and how he would react. Clearly the story is set up to showcase developments in Hemsworth’s more dynamic character. That does make Brühl genuinely supporting, so aiming for that category not only improves his chances of an Oscar nod but also does so legitimately.)
Best Scene:
After a heated press conference comes to an abrupt end, James Hunt pursues a reporter for a follow up. This was by far my favorite moment in the movie. I felt such profound satisfaction essentially because as played by Hemsworth, Hunt is a likeable character that we want to cheer for all the way, but the movie shows us very quickly just how immature he is as the story starts. Hunt’s behavior in this scene clearly demonstrates what kind of person he is, how much he has grown, and yet how his basic personality remains intact.
Most of the reason that this movie works is that it devotes itself so relentlessly to visceral excitement. For me, this scene was the clear standout because it just felt so satisfying. I cared so much about what was happening in that moment. It actually hooked me far more than any of the (compelling) racing scenes.
Best Scene Visually:
This film definitely has a distinctive look, and I don’t know how much of the credit goes to director Ron Howard, how much to the cinematographer (Anthony Dod Mantle), the team in charge of art direction, or the production designer. Perhaps screenwriter Peter Morgan even had a hand influencing the way some scenes were staged. I’m not sure.
But whoever is responsible, Rush has a pronounced fixation with askew extreme close-ups (usually of objects) that set the theme of a scene for us.
My favorite of these is the relatively early close-up of a record on a turntable in the background of James Hunt’s frustration but the foreground of the shot. Not only is the unusual angle of the shot viscerally pleasurable because of its sheer novelty, but the image of a spinning record reminds us very pointedly that Hunt is also spinning his wheels in frustration, not really getting anywhere. That the next scene offers us a toy car going around a racetrack is a delightful bonus. The visuals in this movie do so much of the thematic work. Obviously, Hunt would prefer to be driving on a track rather than going around in circles in his life, arriving nowhere.
When we get the record shot, the movie hasn’t presented us many of these odd-angled close-up views of objects yet, but as Rush continues, this kind of composition comes up again and again. After a while, the charm of the novelty wears off, but the persistence the meaning-laden visuals still effectively contributes thematically. Most of these strange close-ups very quickly establish the mood of a given scene as well as its principal thematic concerns. My husband loved a the resourceful use of a spider, and I was quite taken with the recurring focus on an object that Hunt often holds in one hand. Not only does the film’s visual focus on this object nicely highlight the contrast between Hunt’s outward manner and likely interior state, but the nature of the object itself serves as a subtle reminder of what happened to Lauda and of the burden of self-blame Hunt now carries with him.
As for the deliberately washed-out look of Rush, I’m usually not a fan of that technique but didn’t find it unduly distracting here at least.
Best Action Sequence:
During the penultimate race the movie shows us in detail, I got a painful cramp in my left hand. Only when I actually felt the pain of the spasm did I realize how much tension I had internalized while watching that gripping race. That scene also maximizes its appeal through strong visuals. And all the tension ends in such a profoundly satisfying way, one that calls to mind an earlier moment in the film and turns our existing notions of the rival characters on its head.
Least Stressful Scene:
There’s a kind of giddy joy in the scene in which Lauda first makes an impression on his future wife that’s absent from most of the rest of the movie. (Even though Hunt’s life is full of hedonistic indulgence, we always feel conflicted about watching his excesses, but this scene with Lauda and Marlene seems to be headed in a positive direction, so we can just enjoy it worry-free.)
A large part of the reason I so enjoyed this scene is Alexandra Maria Lara’s performance as Marlene. Lara is gorgeous, so beautiful but never in a showy way. Her command of her own femininity really impressed me. How in the world does she use her sexuality to such great effect? She seems so human, so real, and in many ways, so average. And yet she knows what it means to be a beautiful woman and how to use that beauty to beguile. Of course Lauda does what she wants! If she’d asked me like that, I would have given her everything in my bank account. (Of course, the joke would be on her because she’d probably come out of that deal in the red and fending off bill collectors.) Honestly, though, I’ve never been able to make such a career of being a woman. Women who can turn on such effective charm so effortlessly always fascinate me. And Lara’s performance as such a confident, quietly self-assured character really got my attention. To be honest, her performance impressed me more than Brühl’s. Of course, I suppose his well-played, seemingly natural response to her charm helped to accent her astonishing powers of flirtation.
The Negatives:
Although I like Olivia Wilde and think she’s quite beautiful, I don’t think this is such a great part for her. I understand that the film is based on a true story, and I also see that Wilde’s character is there to give us a more thorough look at James Hunt (and to highlight the differences between Hunt’s and Lauda’s personal lives). But I still think Olivia Wilde doesn’t get much of a part, and her hair and make-up aren’t the best either. I realize she’s playing a historical character, and they’re going for a certain look, but I don’t think her hair and make-up here are doing her any favors.
I also thought the ending was a touch heavy-handed. To me, it had the feel of those pointed chats at the end of 1980’s after school cartoons. (G.I. Joe and He-Man and She-Ra are probably the most well known examples of what I’m talking about, but tons of 80’s cartoons did it. “In today’s story…” “Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.”) The conversation that occurs at the end is so pointed and states things that really would be better left unsaid. We’ve already made these observations for ourselves. Of course, what would be a better way to end the movie? I have no idea. Maybe instead they could have concluded like another old favorite Reading Rainbow and offered the audience a few exciting books about Formula One racing. (“But don’t take my word for it.”)
I don’t want to mock the ending too much. It’s not horrible. But the movie has already shown us everything the characters are saying there. I do, however, really like Hemsworth’s delivery of his lines here. Seeing how the events of the movie both changed and did not change him is quite interesting. So maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the ending is just fine. But don’t take my word for it.
(See? I had to look to 80’s children’s programming for my ending, too.)
Overall:
Rush is an exciting and carefully crafted film that should not make anybody scream, “Why did I pay movie theater prices to see that?!” You’re getting what you would expect from a Ron Howard film opening in the fall. The story is exciting. The characters are engaging. The thrills are legitimate. The film looks arresting, sounds thrilling, has a great score (with a catchy main theme), an interesting (broadly) true story, and a likable cast including the god of thunder and a possible Best Supporting Actor nominee. If you’ve been sitting September out waiting for an entertaining, crowd pleasing, solid theatrical effort, now’s the time to buy tickets. Rush is waiting for you.