Ron Howard’s Formula One blockbuster Rush opened this past weekend across the country to generally very positive reviews from the critics and rather lackluster box office receipts. Most people, particularly Hollywood cognoscenti, will take that to mean that straight up racing films remain box office poison and that films about the Euro-centric world of F1 are particularly lethal. The thinking will be that unless you have Paul Walker and Vin Diesel blowing things up and destroying the bad guys in stolen hot rods while crashing them into jet liners, the general public is just not going to go to a straight racing movie no matter the high profile director or the technical virtuosity on display amongst all that vroom vroom.
That’s all fine and good but the real issue is: Is Rush any good as a racing film, period? One can make a cult classic that does not attract great popular success and yet still have made something special, exciting and valuable to the cult itself. To truly evaluate Rush one has to compare it with arguably the only other really good racing film Hollywood has ever made, John Frankenheimer’s 1966 Grand Prix. (Obviously, the documentary Senna is indisputably fantastic but we are talking dramatized portrayals). Unfortunately it has to be said that in comparison Rush falls short, not on narrative but on the basis of visceral excitement.
Looking at footage from the two films is instructive of the difference between them. The trailer for Rush:
