Voto:
It’s an entertainment film from the 2014/2013 season and should be judged as such. It would really be tough to rate it less than 5 balls. Unlike Bartle and others above, I found the cinematography and editing exceptional; there are some shots taken from the car side that, besides being super cool, were absolutely "new" to my eyes. The soundtrack is pure adrenaline; I’ve never cared a fig about Formula One, and the film kept me glued to the chair for at least an hour and forty. I’ve never been a huge fan of Howard, but here, for three-quarters of the film, he delivers an astonishing performance, as an author more than a craftsman. - Okay, so you’re giving it five, right? - No, I’m giving it two. Which is low, very low, unfair, and almost incorrect considering the work that goes into such a piece. The problem is precisely this: it’s a beautiful work, but it’s a film that gets wrapped around itself. Up until twenty minutes before the end, everything is perfect; then Lauda retires during the Japanese Grand Prix, Hunt keeps racing, and the pains begin. The journey that leads Hunt to finish the race and thus win the championship is an epic escalation completely outside the emotional framework that the film had built until then. If it had just been the story of Hunt trying to beat Lauda, everything would have gone smoothly; that part would be perfect, worthy of being taught in film schools (seriously). But the film is something else entirely; it’s about the relationship between two people/characters and in that last fifteen minutes of film, the expectation is that the viewer shifts from "someone interested in the events of the two drivers" to "Hunt’s fan." It’s not Days of Thunder; I don’t care who wins, and above all, until that moment, the character the film tries hardest to connect the audience with is Lauda. He’s unlikable, he’s not handsome, he gets laid little when he could get laid so much, yet I felt more on his side than on that of the beautiful and damned Thor (which is a bit like saying I feel more inclined to take on the role of Dylan rather than Morrison... If you, director, can achieve something like that, damn: congratulations). The problem I found, in short, is that at a certain point the film expects the viewer to fully identify with a character when no one has done anything to make you empathize with them. I believe the issue lies entirely in the pacing: it’s a semi (I imagine) realistic story that tries to carry an epic triumphal ending. There would be nothing wrong with that; others have done the same before, but you don’t have enough time—two hours isn’t enough for such a task, you need at least three if not four (ready? Go!... with the wind...). I also didn’t like the final scene; it’s a product of the previous scene and doesn’t really fit the mood of the first hour and forty. The film is a masterpiece for being a modern blockbuster, an excellent film from a technical standpoint, but a missed opportunity if we consider what it likely aspires to be: a masterpiece. Because yes: in every damn shot there’s a footnote that says, “I’m Riki Cunningham, look how good I am,” and you’re a tremendously talented director, Riki; if I denied that, I’d be an asshole. But we’re not there yet; there is more to dare (because a four-hour film about Formula One, which Americans couldn’t care less about, means betting on a horse that has a fever). So, two for Rush, if Rush is the "superfilm of the year that blows all the films away." If we’re just considering it as a movie, well then yes, three balls is at least the minimum. But for three-quarters of the film, I was hoping and really believing, and by the end of it, I was genuinely disappointed. Regarding the review: I’ll repeat myself, but Geenoo (wherever you are), if you had placed fewer idiotic comments and left more reviews, we would all (you included) have been much, much happier. What a pen, damn it; but no, you have to poke at those who then slap you back. Such wasted (a lot
