The film is loosely based on real events. Very entertaining. Good driving scenes. A nice memorial to Ken Miles who was a dream development driver & an excellent competitor. His monologue about the perfect lap was very cool. My main problem with the film is they didn't use the excellent sound editor from the film 'Dunkirk'. While in cabin sounds were ok, you could clearly hear the cam drive, but all the shifts were accompanied by what sounded like synchronizer crunch which would be difficult to hear as it is way in the back of the car. Most exteriors of the Fords sounded like 5L engines & the Ferrari buzz was totally absent. Kind of like the sound difference between a Spitfire and a Thunderbolt. A 7L race V8 totally shakes the ground (you actually feel the sound) up to about 4000 RPM & then becomes deafening up to red line. They barely mentioned the body/chassis was developed in the UK & that most of the chassis tweaking & fab work was done by the brits. PaulE
-
-
Thanks for the review Paul. This is on my very small 'cinema trip list' I think it called Lemans '66 over here. I understand your points, as petrol heads these are the sort of detail we might notice. I suppose the film has been produced for the masses, but then again, has it. I wonder, would a non petrol head be interested in watching this ? I don't know. -
-
Thank you. I mentioned 'Dunkirk' because the sound was so well done it kept you THERE throughout. I think a car film should try to do the same. The pedal & shifter work was a bit overdone so pulled me out at times. Ken would have been much smoother at both. Better sound could have overcome the editing faults. PaulE
PS
My daughter enjoyed it, and she is no "petrol head":smiling2: so they did a lot right.Comment
-
Jakko, Dunkirk or Ford v Ferrari? They both had their share, but thought 'Dunkirk' definitly the better film. PaulEComment
-
Sorry, I was talking about Dunkirk. I watched it a few months ago when I noticed it’s on Netflix (in the Netherlands, anyway) and it just didn’t do much for me. Too much drama for drama’s sake, not to mention silly things like that opening scene (running away from gunfire in the direction they’re firing in then jumping over a gate, when you’re in a street — with a T-junction at that? Why does that boat sink when it’s got a few little holes poked in it? Why don’t they plug them with the junk inside the boat? etc.).Comment
-
Although I've never served in the armed forces, it has been my experience when confronted with a potential end-of-life situation people do one of three things in the moment: 1. avoidance, sometimes in panic w/no rational thought. 2. see a problem to be solved, rational thought and/or muscle memory (application of training and/or experience). 3. attack, sometimes w/no rational thought. Your two examples seem to show #1. PaulEComment
-
I’ve never been in the armed forces either, but I would kind of expect the British Army in 1940 to have fairly well-trained soldiers taught to seek cover when under fire — and in the film, they are literally within steps of cover when the firing begins, yet they run down the street.
I guess what I’m saying is that it looks like the writers, director and whoever also have no military experience, but also not done much research on real soldiers
Comment
-
Paul, Jakko,
To comment to you both, the modern 'Dunkirk' was a load of rubbish, far too much of Hollywood and less of history. The original B/W Dunkirk was so much more believable. As for the Shelby film, yet to see it, but as a Shelby 'fan', again I will be expecting Hollywood to intervene and put their take on the true story, and as they say the book is so much better than the film.Comment
-
Now you mention it, I have seen parts of the 1958 version (not the whole thing, due to falling into it partway when it was on TV at some point) and what I remember of it seems far better than the 2017 one.Comment
Comment