ST Alpha - "I gave Rush a C+ because I was let down by the amateurish-looking cinematography. There are far better rivalry/sports/love of cars movies." (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 153

I gave Rush a C+ because I was let down by the amateurish-looking cinematography. There are far better rivalry/sports/love of cars movies.

Posted by Max Sep 30 '13, 10:29

The cinematography approach seemed to be "zoom in on everything because we can't afford to prep a background for the shot. Aside from split second moments shot from the grass as cars passed, and the crash in Japan shot in slow motion, I didn't get any sense of speed (it really looked like the cars were being driven at 40mph and correcting direction in some track locations where they should have been going four times that speed smoothly). I didn't feel anything urgent about the championship or the risk until the very last race. And I didn't feel any real love of cars or racing from the movie. Days of Thunder is better in pretty much every one of these categories.

Responses:

Let's hope Need for Speed is one. I really liked (BBad spoils) - Dr.Vermin Sep 30, 10:35 1
- That movie looks bad. Like what would happen if Fast and the Furious starting taking itself too seriously. -- nm - Inigo Sep 30, 10:38
and it may have been the projection in my theater, but the lenses appeared to be fuzzy crap. -- nm - Max Sep 30, 10:30

Post a message top

I gave Rush a C+ because I was let down by the amateurish-looking cinematography. There are far better rivalry/sports/love of cars movies.

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.