Great film, definitely worth seeing on the big screen in a high quality cinema just for the sound alone. There is a great balance between off and on track action. I do have a few questions though about the story and want to know how much of it is Hollywood or how much actually happened.
Did Hunt really vomit before every race?,
On his comeback race Lauda was in his Ferrari along with Regazzoni and his replacement Reutemann, were 3 car teams allowed then and how common were they?
And my final question. Did Lauda really just pull out of the Japanese GP gifting Hunt the title?[/spolier]
Having just returned from the cinema after seeing rush, I have to say it was an enjoyable film with some great race re-creations but on the whole it left me annoyed. 76 was such a bizarre season that if you couldn't make up some of the things that occured. That said, why did the writers feel the need to do that.
The scenes of Lauda coming back from his injuries were very well handled and there were a lot of good things about the film but if you know a lot about the story it drops the ball a bit for me. Also, it misses a lot of the friendship that Hunt and Lauda shared as well as the fact they were rivals. You would have thought that they would have shown the moment on race day in Japan when Lauda marched into Hunts room dressed in his full race gear at some early our of the morning and proclaimed to a half awake hunt "today I will win the championship" before marching out again leaving Hunt telling Lauda where he could stick his prediction.
Took Mrs Bones to see it yesterday, and thoroughly enjoyed by us both (though the lung-vacuuming scene made for very uncomfortable viewing).
Historical inconsistencies aside, I thought the characterisations were excellent - There were times when Chris Hemsworth really looked like Hunt, and those little tight smiles he pulled when taking the piss with the media were spot on, I thought. Daniel Bruhl's Lauda was, if anything, even better - epsecially when he was in full "scar" mode. The final scene was quite beautiful too.
As a piece of entertainment, it did everything right - if you want historical accuracy, watch a documentary.
Don't know why but I really have no desire to see this. I was much the same with the Senna movie and when my family bought it for me I left the room for the last 45 minutes. Probably wait until it's on TV and then moan about it then.
Road of Bones, I don't want historical accuracy so much as to know that they haven't just made up F3 races to show one was a playboy and the other a proffesional.
They could have showed Hunt kicking off (that actually happened), they could have shown Hunt wining the 75 Dutch GP and the entire Hesketh team hanging off the back of the flat bed taking the winners around the track on a victory parade and seen them swilling champers and flicking V signs at the rest of the paddock (that actually happened), If they wanted to show how popular Hunt was in the UK they could have shown the fans throwing stuff on the track and staging a sit in to get Hunt back on the grid at the 76 British GP and then show his subsequent disqualification (that actually happened) and finally, they could have shown what Hunt was actually found doing half an hour before the delayed 1976 Japanese GP got underway (he was found by Patrick Head, getting a blow job from a Japanese pit girl in an empty garage in the pits) and the fact that after Lauda pulled out, the race track dried and the real reason Hunts wets went off was because he didn't pit as he was waiting for the team to call him in and they were waiting for him to come in, and finally finally, they could have shown him trying to punch Teddy Meyer at the end for not calling him in, thinking he'd lost the title and that's why there's a picture of Teddy shoving three fingers in James face, All these things plus many more actually happenend and make for a far more interesting story.
Yes it was interesting and entertaining (and the scenes of Lauda's recovery were wonderfully well filmed and in some cases harrowing) but on the whole, as I said above, most of what happenend that year you couldn't make up, but apperently they decided for the film that they could.
I and my wife both really enjoyed it (though she did get up and leave for a couple of minutes at the lung scene!). It probably helped that, whilst we knew that some fiddling of the story was bound to happen, we didn't know enough details of the real story for any inaccuracies to bother us. Good story nonetheless, some cool action sequences, and very well acted.
Those old cars are some seriously terrifying pieces of machinery!
If they had shown what a debauched individual Hunt truly was, no one would have believed it (apart his old WAGS and other close personal acquaintances). Guys like that today get locked up for one addiction or the other.
Props for making the one racing circuit resemble so many others, especially pit road. And for enlisting the owners of the original F1 cars to allow their use in the film filming. But I'm sure they do what they do in part to preserve and perpetuate the cars, and having them immortalised in film would contribute to that. I am sure there were film-goers were either weren't F1 fans or are new to the sport who must have seen the P34 in the pits and not believed it possible. Must be CGI.
It didn't thrill the F1 fan in me but it wasn't an altogether bad representation of the sport. From Lauda's reaction to it, the portrayal of him must have been close enough to the knuckle to make him uncomfortable. That says a lot.
I saw it this week, overall gave it a 4/10 but mostly because I'm a pedantic so-and-so. Like cider_and_toast I think there was so much more that was true that could have enhanced the story without making things up.
Best things were the recreations of the circuits, the cars and Daniel Bruhl. Some of the racing scenes were poorly done, I thought - the speed differential on the overtaking moves was absurd in some cases.
It certainly picked up once it got into the '76 season itself.
The cinematography was good (as you would expect from a Ron Howard film) but why of why did they feel the need to make up stories when the truth was actually so much better. Why for example, create a myth that Hunt couldn't beat Lauda when Hunt beat Lauda in to second place on his debut win for Hesketh in 1975. It's not as if the real story needed any enhancing. Bloody Hollywood !!!
I tried to watch it as well and I agree with Brogan the film is total shit I also turned it off less than half way through just like the Senna movie was, it can't be that hard to make a decent film about F1 surely.
I watched a film the other night called "Fastest." it is about Moto GP and was extremely good viewing IMO.
You can catch it here, for the next 9 days anyway..
I bought this a while ago and watched it the same day I got it. Overall, a good racing film, and worth watching once. Yes, the old diehard F1 fans will notice historical inconsistencies galore, but the film's not actually aimed at them. As a movie to generate interest in F1 among people who've never watched F1, it'll do the job. It may not be accurate, but it does a good job of evoking the era, and the excitement and drama of the sport.