RUSH. REVIEWED.

Rush (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 2 hours 3 minutes

Directed by- Ron Howard

Written by- Peter Morgan

Rush was a film that I was only interested in after hearing how good it was from others. Before that I had no motivation to see it as I’m not a huge fan of F1, the Hunt/Lauda rivalry was before my time anyway and Chris Hemsworth and Daniel Bruhl aren’t enough to make me want to see a movie. But I did go to see it based on word of mouth alone and I’m very glad I did. Rush is a brilliant movie and here’s why.

The film is a depiction of probably the greatest F1 rivalry of all time and quite possibly one of the greatest across all sports. But you don’t need to know anything about that to enjoy the film; I had very limited knowledge of it going into the film and I still loved it. Why? Because the film, beneath the surface, really isn’t about that. The fact that the film is based off real life events holds little bearing to what makes this film good; it is all about the two central characters. It doesn’t matter that they are representations of real people, the essence of the film lies in how the two characters develop and evolve because of their relationship with each other. The feelings of the two characters towards one and other are mutual throughout the film; it starts out as jealousy, then hatred and finally respect. With the overall moral being that you can gain just as much from your rivals as you can your best friends, if not more. This is something that is true in real life and this film depicts it perfectly.

Given that the film is largely based on the characters’ relationship with each other it was vital that the acting of Hemsworth and Bruhl was of a high standard or this film just wouldn’t work and, fortunately for Howard and co, it was. I went into the film with a somewhat negative opinion of Hemsworth as I had only ever seen him portray the character of Thor, who I don’t like, so I was pleasantly surprised while watching this film as he was brilliant. He was, without doubt, the shining light of this film. He played the character of James Hunt so well; the good-looking, confident jock with deep lying problems regarding his fears and relationships. I think this film shows that he can break away from the role of Thor whenever he wants to and still be highly regarded and popular amongst cinema goers; he can easily avoid being typecast if he chooses. But Hemsworth’s brilliant performance didn’t overshadow the greatness of Bruhl as Niki Lauda as he was also very good in this movie. He wasn’t someone I knew an awful lot about, I recognised him from Inglorious Basterds (2009) and I enjoyed his performance in that but this film showed to an even greater extent what a fine actor he is.

Overall, I feel that Rush is a film that F1 fans will love and that everyone else will love as well. The representation of the real life events will win the admirations of racing fans and the brilliant performances and character development will appeal to pretty much everyone. All in all, a very good film.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

E-mail:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com

PRISONERS. REVIEWED.

Prisoners (2013)

Rating- 15

Running Time- 2 hours 33 minutes

Directed by- Denis Villeneuve

Written by- Aaron Guzikowski

Prisoners wasn’t a film I had heard much about. I knew it was about a kidnapping of some kind and that it starred Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal – that was the extent of my knowledge. I looked up the running time of the film before going to see it and, I have to say, the fact that it is over two and a half hours long left me a bit sceptical going in. I hold a strong belief that films should only be as long as they need to be and that there are too many films, particularly in recent times, that are unnecessarily long (Man of Steel (2013) for example). But Prisoners doesn’t fall into the category of ‘unnecessarily long’ as its length was justified.

I often sit through films like Man of Steel and think “that scene could have been cut out” or “that shot was held longer that it should have been” but with Prisoners I can’t think of a single moment like that. Every scene had its purpose within the narrative which ensured that the audience’s attention was always focused on the story. I’m not going to lie and use the cliché of saying ‘the film may have been long but it didn’t feel it’ because it was noticeably long but that doesn’t mean it ‘dragged’, it was simply just slow-paced which is fine as long as it grips the audience’s attention throughout. The one section of the film that did seem to become a little sluggish was the latter half of act two but I feel that this was intentional as it seemed to perfectly reflect the characters’ positions; they were in a rut because they weren’t making any progress with the kidnapping case and seemed to be just ‘going through the motions’ waiting for something to come up that looked increasingly more unlikely to ever materialize. So, the length wasn’t an issue.

The best quality of the film is its intensity. It becomes apparent from very early on that it is a film in which anything could happen at any moment and we are left guessing what might come to pass and that leaves us on edge throughout the movie. There is a scene that is so intense that I saw many fellow audience members squirm and wince as they were watching it, it carries an air of unpredictability about it which makes something that you would think is never likely to happen very possible and when teased with it we are left open mouthed.

The one other main positive of the film is the characterization of the two central protagonists. Jackman’s character’s actions are sometimes questionable to say the least but you still find yourself empathizing with him because of the situation he is in, you are left with the question: ‘would I do the same thing in his shoes?’ And even after the film had finished I still didn’t have an answer. His actions remain an ambiguity throughout and that’s why his character is so good’ he represents the ‘everyday man in extraordinary circumstances’ and is a good portrayal of how someone can change so dramatically due to the situation they find themselves in. Whereas Gyllenhaal’s character appeared to be the cool and calm detective that can solve any case and do so without breaking a sweat. So when the case starts to get the better of him he slowly begins to lose his collectiveness and becomes a figure of pure frustration causing him to do things he wouldn’t normally do. The two characters are both people we are unlikely to share many similarities with and yet they are surprisingly easy to identify with which is a credit to the writing; they manage to make us care for characters that haven’t really earned it.

So, all in all, it is the writing that makes this film so good. Mainly apparent in the fact that the mystery of the kidnapping is truly puzzling; it wasn’t until very near the end of the film that I had any real clue as to who kidnapped the two girls. The writers’ do the obvious thing of introducing a couple of red herrings but because of the way the film’s narrative progresses you begin to wonder whether they were red herrings at all which is how all good mystery/detective movies should be; you should always be second guessing yourself and be in a constant state of genuine confusion.

Overall, Prisoners is a very good film that I would highly recommend seeing. It requires plenty of attention but rewards you for it. It contains all the elements of a great detective thriller while also exploring how difficult scenarios affect people in different ways. It is, in my opinion, one of the best films of the year so far so make sure you watch it, if you haven’t already.

Final Rating. Four Stars.

Facebook:- https://www.facebook.com/TheBlabberingInferno?bookmark_t=page

Twitter:- @VelcroFace

E-mail:- theblabberinginferno@gmail.com