Rush - Page 2 - 986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners

TeamOxford · 01-31-2014, 05:00 PM

Yes, James did not participate in the 1972 U.S. Grand Prix. He didn't enter F1 until the following year. I witnessed one of his first tests in Lord Hesketh's March 731 in 1973 at Snetterton, near Norfolk UK.

I stationed myself at the bridge above the esses, and vividly remember him screaming down the straight with "eyeballs out on sticks", just before braking.

At the infamous 1973 British GP, I remember James and Niki on the grid. That was the GP when Jody Scheckter bolloxed up his exit from Woodcote and took out almost half the field on the first lap. The real stars of the show were Jackie Stewart and Ronnie Peterson. Jackie was running away with the race until he made a rookie mistake. Ronnie showed how big his "extremities" were by taking Woodcote flat. At the time, that was unheard of. Peter Revson scored a great victory for us Yanks.

Niki showed his future form by making a great (almost dangerous) start in his BRM, and James soldiered on to finish fourth.

Later on, me and my mates enjoyed a great after-GP party at a mansion in Oxford, hosted by Marlboro Europe.

Good times..................

TO

AP328 · 01-31-2014, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pothole

I gave up after 30 mins. Great slice of motor racing history? More like horrendous b movie thinly disguised by modern production quality.

Remain baffled by the love for this film. I assume because of the latent sentiment for the subject matter, but how bad would the film have to be...?

I'd love to see a great film about Hunt v Lauda. Rush isn't it.

Couldn't agree more - had to stop after about 35 minutes!

mikesz · 02-02-2014, 05:07 AM

I saw it last night and thought it was terrific. Had some exciting racing footage and an interesting story to it also.

coreseller · 02-02-2014, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AP328

Couldn't agree more - had to stop after about 35 minutes!

You guys gave up too early, it got better imo as it went on.

Rush was made to be a Movie, not a documentary about F1. It was based upon the titanic struggle between polar opposites; Hunt and Lauda. I thought for what it was and meant to be (a movie to draw maximum box office turn out) Ron Howard did a pretty good job.

schnellman · 02-03-2014, 05:45 PM

As a movie, I think Ron Howard did a lousy job. He didn't begin to catch the feeling of a Formula 1 race. Playing sappy music at times, and trying to add excitement via loud music really sucked. Having said that, it was fun going down the 1976 memory lane. Who can forget the six wheeled Tyrrell? Or, the crepes with Grand Marnier at the Paul Ricard Circuit, or climbing the trees at Zolder? I had the great good fortune to meet Niki Lauda in 1984 at Monte Carlo. He will always be a champion, at racing, business, and at life. If you have any concerns about seeing the movie, check out one of the interviews with Niki found on You Tube.

schnellman · 02-04-2014, 07:22 AM

For those fans of Niki Lauda who'd like to know more than the movie told about his entry into F1, I'd recommend "Niki Lauda: Meine Story." It's available in English and covers a lot of material the movie skims over.

Kenny Boxster · 02-04-2014, 05:59 PM

It was a pretty good movie. Really picks up near the middle.

litespeedp · 02-04-2014, 06:32 PM

In a USA media realm dominated with NASCAR and lame canned laughter TV comedy,we are damned lucky to have a movie like RUSH with its account of the greatest sport IMO.

pothole · 02-04-2014, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coreseller

You guys gave up too early, it got better imo as it went on.

Rush was made to be a Movie, not a documentary about F1. It was based upon the titanic struggle between polar opposites; Hunt and Lauda. I thought for what it was and meant to be (a movie to draw maximum box office turn out) Ron Howard did a pretty good job.

I didn't want it to be a documentary. I wanted it to be a movie. Which it was. Just a painfully crap movie.

It was utterly generic, brain dead, bland Hollywood drivel. It could have been about just about anything. I agree Hunt v Lauda is a fascinating contrast. But this infantile, cliched nonsense was so cartoonish in execution, it just became a standard off the peg yarn about the flamboyant extrovert vs the icy introvert. Yawn.

It may have gotten better. But the casting of Hunt was fundamentally idiotic, and everything about the first half an hour was so utterly cheesy and cringeworthy, the rest of the film was beyond rescue, even if it may have improved.

Sorry to be such a grouch, but this movie frankly pissed me off.

TeamOxford · 02-04-2014, 07:12 PM

Apparently, your historic knowledge, or "recollection" of a time when you weren't even born yet, surpasses that of those who were present at the time.

I do, however, admire your profuse use of colorful adjectives.

TO

Lighten up my friend, and have a pint.

pothole · 02-05-2014, 05:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TeamOxford

Apparently, your historic knowledge, or "recollection" of a time when you weren't even born yet, surpasses that of those who were present at the time.

I do, however, admire your profuse use of colorful adjectives.

TO

Lighten up my friend, and have a pint.

This is going to blow your very mind, but through the marvels of technology one can see first hand a little of what the time and people were like back then. A stunning revelation, to be sure. For instance, if you want an idea of what Hunt was like:

james hunt interview - YouTube

Not sure, who is being surpassed, but if it's the likes of, say, Lauda, saying nice things about the film, there's a very long list of reasons to take any such comments with a very large dose of salt.

Regardless of what anyone like Lauda says, the script, dialogue etc is simply crass.

P.S. This is me very much being light.

You should see me when I'm angry.

Mark_T · 02-05-2014, 06:27 AM

Sorry, dude, but watching youtube videos is most definitely not a "first hand" look at anything. I was there in the 70's (I'm told I had a very good time!) and, while you can learn about what it was like back then, nothing can replace the experience of having lived it.

That would be like me saying that I know what it was like to live through a world war because I watched a few videos about it, which would be an absolutely preposterous claim to make (not to mention insulting to those who actually were there).

pothole · 02-05-2014, 06:48 AM

You are conflating what I said beyond any sane proportion to compare it to claiming to know what it was like to go to war based on watching a video. That's just being silly.

I said, "a little of what the time and people were like back then." And if you watch a bunch of interviews of Hunt, for instance, I maintain you will indeed grasp at least a little of what the man was like. Certainly enough to know that his bearing has little resemblance to that shown in Rush.

The same goes for what life was like. Will you have a fully realised, textured and nuanced comprehension of what it was like? Of course not. Will you grasp "a little" of what it was like? Yes.

P.S. I was born in 1973 so I was in fact alive for most of the 70s.