"Rush" Movie Review

            In the 1970s, two racecar drivers, one very famous, and one starting from the bottom, start a very big rivalry that turns into something somewhat huge. Now, Rush tells the story of how it happens, and how it exactly happened because movies based on true stories always get it exactly right.

            How was the acting?

            Rush stars Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, and Olivia Wilde. I’ll start with Chris Hemsworth. First off, I wasn’t a very big fan of him in The Avengers and Thor as Thor. I did not think he spoke his lines very well. But, in this movie, he does very well as James Hunt. James Hunt was a very believe character, was portrayed well, and Chris Hemsworth did well reading the lines this time. I think he kept up with James Hunt as he changed and was good for the role. Daniel Bruhl may have done a little better than Hemsworth, though. Playing Niki Lauda, he not only was believe able, but the character was realistic, Bruhl handled the material well, and also portrayed a changing character like Hemworth did, and portrayed the character well. Olivia Wilde, playing Suzy Miller, did a good job, but I wasn’t very focused on her acting. That could be a very good compliment for the acting, but I feel that I wasn’t focused on her acting to try to go around it. All in all Wilde did portray Suzy Miller well, though. The acting overall was really good.

 

            How was the writing?

            The screenplay for this film, while sustaining momentum for a large number of aspects of the film, did seem lazily put together at times and seemed like it was made without passion and it was there to be a screenplay for the movie. I do have to say, though, it has many, many nearly great lines. There was good dialogue in the film, and some of characters’ actions were really good for the character(s) and reflected on past actions and dialogue of the character. So, what possessed me to say that I think at times it was lazily made was little-to-no passion? There were times when the dialogue was clichéd, simple, and the same as past dialogue. And, like I said earlier, sometimes it seemed to just be there to be there. Some of it was repetitive (as I said) and there was on blank scene in the script. For example, there was one scene with little to no dialogue, and no implied elements. Or, at least, I couldn’t see any implied elements. Back to characters’ actions, I said that some of characters’ actions were really good for the character(s) and reflected on past actions and dialogue of the character. Some of their actions, though, seemed crazy and out of the ordinary for the character. The character hadn’t changed, but I guess they needed this event to happen so that the film could turn out a certain way. There were some good character changes throughout the film, though. Those things made the characters seem real as the movie closes. There were also sudden changes in characters that seemed unrealistic as a minus to the film. The characters were well developed, too. That is a good thing for the movie, but it also made me think that the sudden changes in characters’ personalities were more unrealistic to the depth and mood of the characters. I did like the writing as an overall statement, though.

            Did it have an interesting premise?

            I did like the premise of the film, but it did not seem to have a twist like a premise of a film should usually have. The fact that I thought that, though, made the story of Rush much better to me. It was great that they were able to take a premise of something that wasn’t fairly big, based on a true story, and make it into a deep film with a very good story, because this film had a very-well-thought-out story. I thought the story could have gone in some better directions, but I did not have any major flaws with it other than that. It turned out to have some, but a small number of, intense scenes. Both of the main characters (James Hunt and Niki Lauda) had problems. It expressed those problems in the film, and expresses them well. I also liked most of the events of the film. The ones I did like were strong and confident and realistic. The very few I did not like seemed the smallest bit lazy, and I did not “dig” them. I thought they were somewhat weak, and did not really change the movie. This film had a really, really good story.

            Was it entertaining or boring?

            I’ve said this film has a good story, but it has a slow act and other slow scenes. That is strange, though, because there were few scenes in this film that I did not enjoy. And most of those scenes were in the last act. The first 45 minutes to hour of Rush were slow, but it develops characters deeply, and I enjoyed it. When it got more exciting, I started really enjoying it. The third act of the film, though, lost momentum after a while. I did somewhat enjoy all of it, but there were some slow scenes. It did not really have any exciting moments, but it did get close. There were some major events that I really liked, and several scenes that weren’t boring, and many enjoyable scenes, but it had my least favorite scenes of the film. It was not horrible, though. My main flaw with the movie though was the largest plot events of the movie. It was supposed to be the height of the film, and extremely intense but riveting. It was somewhat intense to be, and it was somewhat riveting, but it underwhelmed me. I did really enjoy it, but I thought that it was supposed to better and more intense than I thought it was. It did really enjoy the movie as a whole, though.

            What things did I like about it (that I have not already said)?

            Rush was a very well done film that had really good cinematography that illustrated the tone of the film and matched it very well. I also liked the directing of the film, for the most part. It had many good shots and not very many bad shots.

            What things did I dislike about it (that I have not already said)?

            The film takes place in the 1970s, but it did not really seem like it did. There was not any modern technology in the movie, but they never truly illustrated that it was in the 1970s. There were also some bad shots in the movie. Sometimes it cut off things I would have liked to see and felt that I should have seen.

            How was it overall?

            Rush had really good acting, many very good lines of dialogue, several good characters’ actions, good writing, a good premise, an incredibly good story, many good plot events, had exciting moments, was really enjoyable overall, had good directing, some good shots, good cinematography, but had some lazy elements of the script, had some slow scenes, had an underwhelming huge event, had some bad events, didn’t really seem like it was in the 1970s, and had some bad shots. Despite my flaws with the film, I really enjoyed it, and I thought it was very, very good.

            Do I recommend this film?

            I strongly recommend seeing this movie in the theater. It was not only enjoyable, but it also had other very good elements.

           

            What’s this film’s rating?

            When the film had about 10 minutes left, something happened that I really liked about the film. Then, I decided that if the ending was good, I would buy the film, and rate it “I’ll Probably Buy This”. The ending turns out to be alright, but it wasn’t quite good. I still thought about possibly buying Rush, though. I then decided I won’t buy this film.
            The film is at the top of the rating Worth Seeing at the Theater, though.
            I give the film an A- on the grading rating scale.
            And, I give Rush an 8.3/10 on the out-of-10 rating scale.