robertjenkins456

I have just got back from seeing the film. What can I say? It was intense and lived up to the hype.

The film has no frills, no character development, no backstory, there is no love interest and indeed there is very little dialogue. It's simply a story of essentially four small groups of people – one from the Army, RN/Army officers on the Dunkirk mole, a Royal Air Force fighter patrol and men aboard one of the little ships. I guess the Royal Navy is a fifth group as they are naturally pretty much ever present, invariably adding something to each of the stories – largely as a result of their ships getting sunk having repeatedly put themselves in harm's way to try and get the Army home.

One immediate thing I noticed was at the very start when a few lines were used to explain what was happening; it was not the Germans attacking and surrounding the French and British – it was 'the enemy'. Okay…. that seems a little silly but I guess we are all friends now so….

I was a little confused near the start as one minute it was daytime and the next it was dark or heading that way. However, it quickly became apparent that the action is not strictly chronological. By the way this way of telling the story makes it look like the RAF patrol shoots down half the Luftwaffe, but one sees some of the scenes more than once from different viewpoints. This jumbled timeline idea actually works well.

The film doesn't seek to tell the story of Dunkirk. The French are acknowledged - holding the perimeter along with a British rear-guard. Amongst the limited dialogue, there is reference to the German tanks being halted, the Luftwaffe being given the job of destroying the BEF and their French Allies, expectation that 30-45,000 British troops only are expected to be rescued, and that the RAF are trying to conserve aircraft and pilots for the battle still to come. But enough of the story is told through the trials and tribulations of the individual groups and the brief dialogue to make clear what is going on even if one knows nothing about this episode in history.

I was expecting some sort of soundtrack what with Hans Zimmer being involved but instead, during the action, there was a sort of noise as opposed to a dramatic music score. This worked really well too and added to the intensity.

How did the film fare on the trembling bottom lip front? Well there were a couple of occasions on which it was a good job I had the Kleenex on hand – I wasn't emotional you understand, I just had something in my eye….

In summary - a great job Mr Nolan!

The film is just over 2 hours long, but when it was over it seemed like I had been in the cinema about 30 minutes.

The film centres on the battle for the 1976 Formula 1 World Championship, and the rivalry between the Austrian "professor" Nikki Lauda and the British playboy James Hunt.

The two are depicted as enemies, but in actual fact they were good friends who trusted and respected each other on, as well as off-track. This bit of artistic licence does not spoil the film and is reasonable in order to make the battle between the two for the F1 crown more intense.

The film is nicely paced. We are introduced to both characters through their own narrative and scenes that leave the watcher in no doubt as to their background and philosophy on life.

The two are first seen in competition in 1970 at a Formula 3 race at Crystal Palace (where they have a coming together) and sets the scene for the rivalry throughout the film. I'm not sure if this is further artistic licence. The two definitely did race each other in F3, but I am not convinced as to whether this actual incident occurred.

After that we are given a whistle stop journey between 1973 (when Hunt came into F1) to 1975. We are shown the dangerous nature of F1 at the time with the Francois Cevert accident at Watkins Glen in gory detail – although this does not seem like gratuitous, but necessary to bring home just how unforgiving the sport was back then – and it truly was (of the top 12 points scorers in 1976, F1 cars were to claim 3, 1 ended up in a wheelchair and 1 had his career ended by a leg crunching crash).

We are then taken to 1976 and that titanic struggle for the World Crown. Only one real issue here – the British Grand Prix result, but I suspect this was simplified in the interests of time.

The casting is superb. Chris Hemsworth, an Aussie, does an excellent job on public schoolboy James Hunt, while Daniel Bruhl both sounds and looks frighteningly like the Austrian. There is little room for a supporting cast amongst the drivers which is a shame – only Clay Regazzoni has a part of any real substance. Peterson, Watson, Depailler, Scheckter, Andretti et al could have featured a little more I think. What did their contemporaries think of the two protagonists? The supporting cast is mainly required for Hunt – Lord Hesketh, "Bubbles" Horsley and Teddy Mayer / Tyler Alexander of McLaren, while the Ferrari team principals are rarely seen.

The love angle is perfectly catered for by Olivia Wilde (Hunt's first wife Suzy) and the gorgeous Alexandra Maria Lara - of Downfall fame – as the future Marlene Lauda. Both give quality performances.

The attention to detail is superb. Although the tracks are not the actual ones (for understandable reasons) the cars, the helmets, the sponsors are all authentic. The film "feels" like it's happening in the 70's.

For anyone interested in great personal stories, F1, the 70's, cars or just like to see a great film, then Rush is for you.