Review: Rush


Rush is the quintessential Ron Howard film; it has his greatest strengths, and his worst weaknesses. On balance, I recommend the film, because when we’re on the race track, it’s thrilling.

Howard’s first film was Grand Theft Auto, and at the time it was “Opie is directing a movie?” I remember him on the Mike Douglas Show, showing Mike how he used toy cars to block out scenes. I wonder if he still used toys in Rush–probably not, there’s probably a computer program for that now–but Howard’s boyish enthusiasm for racing is on display in Rush. The racing scenes are really fun, giving us a sense of what it’s like to drive a 450-horsepower automobile at speeds close to 200 miles an hour.

On the other hand, Howard is an anti-auteur. None of his films take artistic chances, and settle for the lowest common denominator. He’s the poster boy for a kind of middlebrow, cliche-based cinema. With a weak, exposition-riddled script by Peter Morgan, Rush has many face-palm moments that reek of market testing.

Rush is the story of the rivalry between Formula 1 race drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. The action mostly takes place in 1976, when Formula 1 was actually a major sport. When I was a kid, I knew who Niki Lauda was, but when I looked at the list of today’s Formula 1 drivers, I didn’t recognize a name. Formula 1 is much more exotic, romantic, and jet-setting than the more popular NASCAR, and in the ’70s, the best drivers were treated like rock stars.

Hunt (a very fine Chris Hemsworth), was a British playboy who was financed by a member of the peerage. He was hedonistic and loved to fuck almost as much as he loved to race. He had an endless string of women–he theorized that women were attracted to his closeness to death. He married a model (Olivia Wilde, looking as beautiful as I’ve ever seen her), whom he eventually lost to Richard Burton.

Lauda, on the other hand, was Teutonically ruthless in his ambition. With rodent-like features, he didn’t care if anyone liked him, and was brutally honest. But he was also a genius with cars, and eschewing his family fortune, he got a bank loan on his own to finance his entry into Formula 1. From their very first race, Hunt and Lauda hated each other, but in the way that was good for both of them–each spurred the other on to greatness.

This is a great story, but Peter Morgan’s script is simple-minded. He assumes, rightly so I expect, that most of the audience doesn’t know Formula 1, but almost every line is exposition. It’s as if the script had footnotes, and he and Howard are looking back at us, ready to stop the film and explain if we didn’t get it. There’s also a lot of oatmeal psychology going on here, with chunks of dialogue about why they risk their lives and so on.

Most of the film documents the 1976 season, when Lauda and Hunt battle for the championship. Though it’s a real story, I don’t want to spoil what happens, but suffice it to say there’s a gruesome accident (Lauda computes that every time he races he has a 20 percent chance of dying). So we get kind of a Seabiscuit story, with one driver coming back from injury. The final race, in a rainstorm in Japan, is pretty exciting, but Howard gives in to his basest instincts by throwing in cliches, such as Wilde watching on TV.

The leads are very good. Hemsworth, with his Bjorn Borg hair, naturally embodies the look of a dilettante playboy, but Daniel Bruhl as Lauda steals the show. He’s the kind of guy who, when asked why he is such an asshole, gives an honest, rational answer. But, deep down, you can see the vulnerability of the man, especially in his relationship with his wife (Alexandra Maria Lara).

The racing scenes are why this movie should be seen. The editing is superb, and there’s a fantastic sense of speed. The true test is that after leaving the theater, I imagined I was driving home on a Grand Prix track. Luckily I did not spin out.

My grade for Rush: B-.


About Jackrabbit Slim

Location: Vegas, Baby! I’m much older than the other whippersnappers here, a baby boomer. I tend to be more snobbish about film, disdaining a lot of the multiplex fare for “cinema.” My favorite films: Woody Allen’s oeuvre (up until about 1990), The Godfather, The Graduate, A Hard Day’s Night, Pulp Fiction. Politics: Well, George McGovern was my political hero. I’m also a prickly atheist. Occupation: Poised to be an English teacher in Las Vegas. For many years I was an editor at Penthouse Magazine. My role on this blog seems to be writing lots of reviews and being the resident Oscar maven.

5 responses »

  1. JS’s comments on Howard as a director remind me of a very interesting debate a couple of writers had on Howard’s career on the The Dissolve website recently (link here). What I got from it is how hard is career is to categorise, so variable in content and themes and in quality. He’s a professional, capable director to a certain level but what else can one say about him even after three decades work?

    I haven’t seen that many of his films, although I did like ‘Parenthood’ and ‘The Paper’ quite a bit (didn’t care for ‘Night Shift’ though) and one of the strengths of these two films that they had a serious undercurrent to them, but didn’t slip over the line into heavy-handedness and pretentiousness. I suspect that in recent years too many of his films have been overly determined to prove how serious and worthy they are – that was one of the main problems I had with ‘Frost/Nixon’.

  2. I’m usually not a big fan of Howard’s movies, but he surprised me here. Not only did he make this as exciting and as compelling as you could get with a racing movie, but he also had us care for everybody involved. Nice review.

  3. Howard is an interesting director in that he’s made a lot of good films (Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Frost/Nixon, among others) but has no style. In a way, he reminds me of Michael Curtiz, though not as talented. Curtiz was a hired gun who made films in almost every genre: Casablanca and The Adventures of Robin Hood and many other great films, but didn’t have a distinct style, either.

  4. On comparing Howard to other directors I was trying to think of a better comparison than Curtiz because – as JS says – Curtiz’ best work is of a better standard than Howard’s.

    The best one I could think of would be Mark Robson – he had a lengthy, successful directing career in mainstream Hollywood films for over 30 years. He worked in multiple genres and didn’t really have a distinct style. He directed several critically acclaimed films (Robson got several Oscar noms) but has never been ranked as a great director & is a generally forgotten figure today (Howard will prob be remembered more for his acting work).

    And completing the comparison, Howard/Robson had close to their biggest hit with their most reviled film (Grinch Who Stole Xmas / Valley Of The Dolls).

  5. I thought this was pretty pedestrian all around, including the racing scenes, which didn’t seem at all remarkable to me. In fact, I can’t even remember much about them, and I can’t say what Howard did differently than what anyone else would have done with them. The best I can say for the racing scenes is that it’s not hard to follow them (imagine a Michael Bay F1 movie that just cuts randomly between cars without any spatial coherence). But that’s just minimal competence – essentially he duplicates what we’d see watching an F1 race on TV.

    I’ll agree that Bruhl was good, but he’s the only actor that has more than one note to play, so I suppose he’s bound to come out ahead.

    This is a pretty dull affair overall.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.