[Déjà Bru]

And here is a review of the movie, also from The Athletic:

‘F1 The Movie’ review: Fast, loud, very Hollywood — but will race fans love or hate it?

By Luke Smith and Madeline Coleman



Formula One has been riding the “Drive to Survive” wave for several years, but now it’s truly stepping into Hollywood.

Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer behind the “Bad Boys” franchise plus many other action hits, and “Top Gun: Maverick” director Joe Kosinski have teamed up for “F1: The Movie,” a redemption story co-produced by seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton and starring Brad Pitt that gives fans a glimpse inside the pinnacle of motorsport.

The Athletic’s Luke Smith and Madeline Coleman attended a media screening of the film during the Canadian Grand Prix last week, ahead of its cinema release at the end of the month. Here are their takeaways, including who this movie is for. Warning, there are spoilers included.


Was it a good movie? Who was it really for?

Smith: Leaving the theater after the media screening, I felt lukewarm about the film. Parts of it made me take a deep sigh, or even cringe a little bit. I didn’t feel much connection to any of the characters, and the storyline seemed a bit predictable — nothing that happened truly shocked me.

After sleeping on it, I felt a little less lukewarm, appreciating the remarkable visual experience and incredible score and soundtrack, even if my feelings about the characters and script remained unchanged. And there was a big, big thing to recognize: they didn’t make this for me. Bruckheimer even pointed out that we’d be watching it as “work”, not like a normal moviegoer.

I find “Drive to Survive” a little odd to watch, given it’s within ‘my’ world, and there was a similar feeling about the movie. But I know this film isn’t trying to pitch to people who know Formula One inside out (let alone cover it for a living), nor is it a documentary. It’s trying to show the wider world just what a remarkable sport F1 is, and why people love it so much.

That said, it doesn’t excuse some of the film’s core weaknesses, such as one-dimensional characters and an at-times cheesy script. No matter the prior knowledge of F1, viewers may struggle with that.

Coleman: I went into the screening with a mostly open mind. Having witnessed the “Drive to Survive” effect firsthand as an American working in this sport, I recognize the power this movie could have with expanding Formula One’s fanbase and exposing new audiences to the sport we all love. But there were some parts that felt too Hollywood-y, as well as scenes that reminded me of real moments in F1’s history. I laughed in a few scenes and enjoyed it overall, but “F1: The Movie” felt like a predictable, classic story that slipped a bit into clichéd territory.

Overall, the movie was OK. As Lando Norris told us on media day during the Canadian GP weekend, “It’s a cool movie that includes Formula One.” And he’s right. The visual and sound aspects are strong and show audiences what it’s like to compete in the sport (to some extent). Some plot points were left unexplained, though, and the redemption theme didn’t completely hit for me. The only character I mostly liked and resonated with was Kate, the APXGP team’s technical director (emphasis on mostly, not entirely). I was disappointed with the vast majority of the character development, but I did enjoy some of the cheesiness as a casual moviegoer.


(Spoilers ahead.)




Was it the most authentic racing film ever made?

Smith: One line we have heard regularly over the past two years from the minds behind the movie is that they want this to be the most authentic racing movie yet.

Visually, they have achieved this, thanks to the use of CGI to get the APXGP team’s cars into real-life race footage and on-car cinematography. The people you see in the film are the actual team principals, mechanics and engineers who are all part of F1’s traveling circus. That degree of realism must be applauded, and F1 deserves a lot of credit for opening its doors.

However, there are a few aspects of the film that undermine its authenticity and may disappoint new fans who then watch an actual race.

In real life, drivers aren’t able to deliberately crash into other cars while being lapped without serious punishment (a scene we’ll get to) — such scenes don’t reflect F1 in a great light. And other key parts of the plot were genuinely impossible under the sport’s current rules.

The producers ensured there was a real-world example for all the crashes and incidents that happen in the movie. The accident that seemed to end Sonny Hayes’ (Pitt) F1 career when he was a youngster echoes Martin Donnelly’s crash in the 1990 Spanish GP, while his teammate Joshua Pearce’s (Damson Idris) dramatic Monza flip draws inspiration from Alex Peroni’s accident there in F3 in 2019 and Romain Grosjean’s Bahrain fireball the following year.

For F1 fans who do know the functions of the sport inside out, there are going to be cringe-worthy moments — as current Williams driver Carlos Sainz put it, “a couple of icks” — such as a car being developed for “combat” and that turning the season around.

Parts of the film will leave F1 fans saying: “Well, that would never happen!”.

Then again, isn’t that the point of a Hollywood movie?


How did the movie feel?

Coleman: “F1: The Movie” had a similar vibe to the “Top Gun” franchise (Kosinski directed “Top Gun: Maverick”), immersing the audience into the action.

The imagery is crisp, and the audience will feel as though they’re inside the cockpit as Hayes and Pearce navigate the races, with cameras placed to show a similar view to that of the drivers. It’s impressive how they were able to capture the footage. And then there’s the sound, which Hamilton helped ensure was accurate.

As for the score, I am not a Tate McRae fan, but I did have her song, “Just Keep Watching,” on repeat while writing this review. The film’s soundtrack is catchy and stacked with megastars across multiple genres, including Ed Sheeran, Doja Cat and Chris Stapleton, and was produced by Kevin Weaver (Barbie, The Greatest Showman).

From a Hollywood movie perspective, the film was strong, with its sound and visual components, but the storyline made it feel a bit predictable.

The ultimate goal of the movie was to give fans “an inside look into a world you’ll never be a part of,” Bruckheimer said, and they did just that, with a Hollywood flair.


Realism vs. accessibility

Smith: F1 is an incredibly technical sport by nature, reaching far beyond the cars. Conveying that to an audience with no prior knowledge of F1 may be a challenge.

That doesn’t stop the film from delving into some of the more finicky minutiae, such as explaining DRS and virtual safety cars without alienating a more “normal” movie audience, which probably wouldn’t care whether a driver has fitted medium or hard tires, or understand why scoring a single point means so much to a team.

“It’s threading a needle,” Kosinski says. “We have (actual F1 commentators) Martin Brundle and David Croft doing the commentary in the film, and what you notice is if you listen to their commentary (in the film), very subtly, they do cover the basics as they call a race, so that if you’re tuning in for the first time, you’re getting those fundamentals.

“But at the same time, if you’ve been watching a long time, you’re getting the detail and the specificity that engages the fans that know it all.”


The “cheating” storyline

Coleman: The movie’s approach to racing was scrutinized after motorsport media saw the movie in IMAX during the Canadian Grand Prix weekend — and understandably so. While Hamilton helped create an authentic film, Kosinski says they spoke with the seven-time F1 world champion about where “the line” was on how far they could push the boundaries.

“We never wanted Sonny to cheat,” he adds. “We wanted to find: How far can you push it so that you can get right to the edge?”

During one of the races in the film, Hayes deployed “Plan C,” which created chaos. He intentionally wrecked and caused safety car periods, helping Pearce advance through the field.

It’s a plotline that resembles the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, the race that later became known as the Crashgate scandal. Renault driver Nelson Piquet Jr. claimed he was told to intentionally crash, helping teammate Fernando Alonso secure an unlikely victory. The FIA’s World Motor Sport Council ruled the incident deliberate and penalized Renault, the team’s managing director Flavio Briatore and engineer Pat Symonds. The scandal is still in the court system, nearly two decades later. But race manipulation is rare, and this is the most extreme example in recent F1 history.

While scenes and ideas might have authentic origins, they do have a Hollywood-dramatized flair. After all, this isn’t a docuseries. However, when it comes to extreme instances, coupled with the desire to expose the sport to new audiences and fans, it raises the question of whether promoting this style of hard racing is going too far.





The female representation

Coleman: “F1 The Movie” left me with mixed emotions regarding women in motorsport and how this demographic was portrayed in the film.

The romantic subplot is a staple in Hollywood. But creating a romantic relationship — though brief — between a driver and the team’s technical director was… a choice.

Kerry Condon’s character, Kate, was a strong presence, her wit and technical savvy evident. She eventually made a point about professionalism and how she wouldn’t sleep with a team member, only for her and Hayes to kiss and spend the night together later in the film. The changes she made to the car, which made it competitive, stemmed from Hayes’ suggestion of preparing it for “combat”, and the subplot ended on a half-hearted note, with Hayes moving on to his next racing adventure.

But multiple people, including myself, left the film thinking, “It could have been worse.”

Progress is being made to bring more women into motorsport, not just from a driver perspective but in various areas across the sport. You can see the shift within the grandstands (around 40 percent of the F1 fanbase identify as women) and the paddock, but there is still work to be done. When rumblings emerged that Hayes and Kate would sleep together in the movie, concerns naturally arose about how she and any romantic subplot would be portrayed. In a way, it was done in a respectful manner towards Condon’s character.

Not every movie needs or benefits from a romantic subplot, even if it could help with box office numbers. Rather than an integral part of the plot and helping with story or character development, the romantic subplot felt like more of a minor detail.

The more troublesome portrayal of women in motorsport was the storyline of Jodie, the team’s only female mechanic. Her story felt incomplete.

Jodie, played by Callie Cooke, made a costly mistake during a pit stop in an early race, leaving her wheelgun in the wrong spot, and Pearce’s car ran over it. Hayes stepped in to defend her after the race, and she made a comment later asking him not to do that again. After that, she drifted more into the background, not making another misstep. While the film aimed for a sort of growth storyline, Jodie just came across as incompetent. It begs the question as to why this was part of the movie’s plot — and why it featured the only woman on the pit crew.

Women are actively engaging with the sport, whether it be through online content and discussions, merchandise sales or attending race weekends. They’re building communities within F1 and hold strong purchasing power — something brands have taken note of and started targeting. You can’t discount or dismiss this demographic.

While “F1: The Movie” features women across multiple roles, including as a press officer, more attention could have been given to how women were being portrayed in the film, making sure it’s in a manner where young girls feel empowered and see that it is possible to work in this world. Representation is powerful — one of the ways a seed of a dream is planted.


The next steps to capitalize on fresh interest

Smith: “Drive to Survive” did wonders for F1’s popularity in the United States by opening up the sport to the mainstream. One of the big questions up and down the paddock in the past couple of years is whether this movie will have a similar effect.

There is the obvious appeal of having big-name actors and the team behind “Top Gun” being part of the film, meaning a lot of traditional movie fans will be curious. The challenge is converting them from people who enjoyed an F1 film to those who actually watching the sport.

The commitment to realism should make things easier to digest when watching a real race, as there’ll be at least some understanding of elements such as tire strategy influencing what happens on the track. And because the action itself is so well done through use of actual footage from races, that again should make it easy to keep fans interested.

One anecdote that the film’s makers have regularly shared is that, in a focus group used for a screening, only one out of those 20 people had watched F1 before. But after viewing the film, all 20 raised their hands and said they would like to see a race.

“There’s this perception that ‘Drive to Survive’ turned America on to F1, but I think there are just so many more people out there that don’t know anything about it,” says Bruckheimer. “So there’s a lot of potential still there. And the best selling point for this film is the film. When people see the film, they love the film.”

F1 knows the movie should provide a nice bump for its global standing — the question is whether numbers quickly reduce in the coming months and years or if new fans can be successfully retained.

As Stefano Domenicali, F1’s CEO and president, told The Athletic earlier this year, it’s about staying relevant and keeping fans engaged, which is arguably going to be more important than ever in the coming months to capitalize on the boost in interest.