Last June, new CC Editor Ed Snitkoff previewed the film “Ford v Ferrari”. Yesterday, my wife and I walked down to our local multiplex and saw the movie, 2 1/2 hours of almost non-stop Curbside and Trackside Classics.
I can’t really remember the last non-documentary racing movie I watched. It might have been “LeMans”, with Steve McQueen from 1971. I definitely do remember the first racing movie I saw in a theater, “Grand Prix” with James Garner and Francoise Hardy, in 1966. I was ten years old. I’ve never seen “Days of Thunder” or any of the Ricky Bobby parodies, nor any of the Fast and Furious films.
“Ford v Ferrari” centers around the relationship between Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon), retired as a driver and building and selling Cobras at Shelby American in LA; and Ken Miles (Christian Bale), a British-born mechanic and driver also living in southern California.
The early scenes show Miles working in his sports car repair shop in LA, Shelby selling Cobras, and the two of them at Willow Springs Raceway with Miles racing an early, narrow-bodied small-block Cobra against early Sting Rays and older solid axle ‘Vettes.
These scenes are exciting, and well-filmed, but the cars looked just a bit too clean, new and colorful. I realized that almost everything I’d seen of that era was in black and white. It took most of the 2 1/2 hour movie for me to get used to the color. As many observed in response to the recent QOTD about automotive movie pet peeves, the cars were mostly period correct but just too nice looking.
Did Shelby really ever drive a Porsche 356 in 1963, let alone a 356 replica? And since when were 1963 California plates yellow-on-black with numbers preceding letters? Never.
In parallel with the SoCal racing scenes, we’re introduced to Henry Ford II, Lee Iacocca and other senior Ford managers. Ford decides to go racing – international sports car racing, not just NASCAR – and tries to buy Ferrari, but gets turned down. So Henry II decides to develop a sports car to beat Ferrari and win the 24 Hours of LeMans. In late 1963 or perhaps early 1964, Lee Iacocca travels to California to meet with Shelby and asks him to join the team. In a scene that doesn’t seem automotively credible, Lido shows up at Shelby’s shop in a convertible square Bird. Whether it’s a rental or more likely a regional corporate loaner, would a Ford VP really be driving a three or four year old car?
Similarly, some of the technical dialog doesn’t sound like anything car guys would say. There’s some vague discussion of aerodynamics and handling. but never once do terms like lift, or understeer, or brake fade come into use. When Ford decides to switch from the 255 small block of the first cars to a 427 big block, the engine is described (I think by the GT’s designer Roy Lunn) as coming from a stock car, with aluminum cylinder heads. At some point, there is mention of the displacement, but I think Shelby and Lunn would just call it a big block, with aluminum heads.
In another scene, I could have sworn that Shelby American engineer Phil Remington refers to a HARLEY carb. Surely he meant Holley. Another thing that bothered me was that although some of the other Ford drivers were named (Amon, McLaren, Gurney, Hulme and others), they were barely shown in the trackside scenes. Miles shared the driving at LeMans in 1966 with Denis Hulme, but aside from three or four words overheard spoken in a vaguely Antipodean accent, there is no mention of him or scenes with him driving, despite this race occupying at least 30 minutes of the film.
On the other hand, although Ken Miles is bankrupt when he’s hired by Shelby, the ’63 Country Squire he and his wife share seems appropriate. But all CC nit-picking aside, it was a good movie, though perhaps a bit too long. My wife, not a huge car or racing fan enjoyed it. We both thought Christian Bale’s acting was excellent … he portrayed Miles as a passionate and insightful driver and car developer, and a decent father and husband. And Damon’s Shelby and Jon Bernthal’s Iacocca came across as the charismatic and influential people we know they were.
I’ll end with a period black and white photo of the Ford GT’s at Le Mans in 1966. The film pretty much ends with this race (no more spoilers from me), but of course Ford GT’s went on to win again 1967 with the big block prototypes, and again in 1968 and 1969 with the small block “production” GT.
Shouldn’t it be titled “Lola Mk6 V Ferrari”?
No, because the Ford GT was quite a bit different from the Lola. And not entirely designed in England.
I saw the movie a week ago, and your review is spot on. There’s a few inconsistencies in the timeline, and a few “dramatic” moments that make you go “Oh come on!,” but the overall experience was very entertaining.
In fact, when we left the theater it seemed later than I expected, so I looked up the run time- I was amazed the movie ran 2-1/2 hours. Sitting in the theater it felt more like 1-1/2 hours, which is a very positive review indeed.
Ah yes, nitpicking. As someone who’s been doing historical reenactment for the past 30 years (and I can get fascinating to watch when watching “Versailles”, although I enjoyed the series completely and was sorry to see it end), I long ago learned that nit-picking the historical details in reviews is the cinematic equivalent to “hard plastic” in automobile reviews.
(And it’s not necessarily only age. Hit my comments and reviews of “Sons of Anarchy” on Quora if you want a good chuckle – despite my having absolutely loved the series and watched it from beginning to end. And I know of what I speak on that subject having lived it for twenty years.)
It’s impossible to get all the details right in a movie portraying fifty years or more ago – especially when it comes to dialogue. There’s just too many details to wrangle. When you can write your dialogue properly, and train your actors to emote exactly as written, of course it’s going to come out stilted. Because your actors don’t talk like that normally. And they probably weren’t even born when the language was being spoken in that manner. Hell, I can’t pull off 1966 vernacular naturally today, even though I was sixteen at the time and used it in daily speech. The best I can do is 2019-senior-citizen-who-at-least-understands-what-was-being-said-then.
Cars are too nice? Blame that on the owners who insist on restoring vintage cars to a standard that is well beyond what the average assembly line worked considered acceptable. And would probably throw a fit and take their car back if you attempted to age or dirty them in any way shape or form during shooting. I was annoyed enough during the Bacon’s Rebellion film shoot I was in when the makeup department insisted on aging/wearing my brown 1670’s suit to fit in with the battle scene, even though I knew that my dry cleaner would put things back to rights after the filming was done.
Yes, I’m capable of nit-picking. I also enjoy the movie/show better when I stop and just flow with it.
All in all, an excellent movie, up there with “Grand Prix” and “LeMans”. While you’re at it, find yourself a BlueRay copy of “Rush”. You’ll find that’s an equally good movie to the other three. And those four are pretty much the only automobile racing movies made in my lifetime that are worth seeing.
Grand Prix, while quite long, is fabulous to me. A soap opera set around speed, and I sure as hell don’t enjoy “The Days of our Lives”. That film is brilliant on so many levels.
“I’m leaving you. Leaving!? For how long? For always, you fool.“
Yes, “Rush.” I saw “LeMans” when I was 10 years old and it left an impression on me much like “Grand Prix” did with the author. I hope to see “Ford vs. Ferrari” in the near future.
To nitpick your nitpick of the nitpicks, I would only add that when making a movie that is heavily about cars, and expecting that car fans will be the main audience, it would have seemed natural that extra attention would have been paid to details like this. The head of the Ford Division driving something that is not a current-year model is a head-scratcher.
Bales wife overtook the same Chrysler twice as she was thrashing the squire – they must have had the continuity people from Bullitt on board
Haha! Or really any other Hollywood car chase scene…
When I go to see a movie BASED ON A TRUE STORY, I know it’s not going to be completely accurate. Otherwise they’d call it a documentary. My son & I really enjoyed it.
Thanks for this, I look forward to catching it. Yes, the streetscape cars will surely drive me crazy.
This movie makes you laugh and makes you cry.. there was some questionable scenes. It’s a movie not a documentary. I left feeling proud of our country and being an American . Wiith all the hoopla going on in our country right now. It was a refreshing movie. .
The red Porsche is customized in a style that seems really ’80s; the Imperial behind it has a numbering system *never* used by California (431 ZC6) – that’s actually really common in movies, so they don’t duplicate a license number actually in use.
I mentioned it because it really stuck out in that scene as being of a much more modern style than 1963. I found a site that really takes apart a lot of the automotive detail in the film (I didn’t reference any of their observations, just my own). That site said that it was a Miata-based replica (who knew there was such a thing?) but after looking at some pictures of those, I think it’s just a modern take on a Speedster, perhaps even fiberglass bodied but probably not Miata-based. So now I’m nit-picking the nit-pickers 😀
I did see this with my best friend and we both enjoyed it immensely.
I had to more or less accept some of the artistic license in this movie, because they did at least get a majority of the important details right and I’m the kind of guy willing to let some things slide if I’m being entertained.
One thing my friend and I agreed on was the acting was solid and the cinematography was really well done during the racing scenes and with one exception, had some pretty well-integrated CGI (I could rant about blatantly obvious and painful CGI in any movie if you give me the time).
I was a bit worried when I saw the time for this film, but it certainly didn’t feel nearly as long as it was, though I do agree some of it could’ve been trimmed and still get the point across.
Overall: I really did enjoy this film. It got me to want to go to the movies again, and considering my less than chartable view of the overall film scape that has come out in the last three years or so, that’s not a small accomplishment.
I now know which movie will get me off the aptly named Lay-Z-boy sofa-recliner and out to the nearest big screen movie theater.
Thanks for piquing my interest, DMAN!
There is an unattributed quote by an actor on his deathbed that says, “Dying is easy. Comedy is hard.” I’d paraphrase that to “Dying is easy. Making a good movie heavily relying on cars is hard.” The vast majority of movies that have cars as a central theme suck, badly. Even the classic Bullitt, with the exception of the iconic chase scene, is generally panned as a snooze-fest.
It’s good to read that Ford v Ferrari is one of the exceptions.
Bullitt _is_ a snoozefest, but the luscious Jacqueline Bisset helps. A little. 🙂
I like seeing how San Francisco was at the time, since I visited relatives there a lot during the early and mid 70s
Movie-making aside, the great cinematography of 1968 San Francisco makes Bullitt worthwhile. Some movies have the ability to capture the atmosphere or ‘feel’ of a location, and Bullitt certainly does that, just like another quasi-car movie (really more like a musical), The Blues Brothers, captures the ‘feel’ of Chicago.
Bullitt is definitely best remembered for the car chase, but I have come to like it for other things, too. It is a smorgasbord of contemporary cars seen in the many street scenes. It is one of the earliest movies I can think of that feels more like it was filmed in the real world than in a studio, even the indoor scenes. As someone working in the medical field, the hospital scenes are especially interesting. Steve McQueen is great as the cop who doesn’t give a damn about politics and Robert Vaughan is the consummate smarmy villain/politician. The plot is a bit plodding, but the first time I saw it, I didn’t see the plot twist at the end coming, so that was good.
The worst thing about Bullitt is the screenwriting. The dialogue is simply horrible. As an example, in a brief exchange with a hospital physician, one of the bad guys actually says, “doctor” three times in a row. It’s actually comical. If not for Steve McQueen’s screen presence, the movie would have been forgotten long ago. And, without him, there likely wouldn’t have been a chase scene, either.
With that said, Steve McQueen’s ‘Commitment to Reality’ (as the film’s accompanying documentary is titled) was actually a detriment to it’s success. It ‘is’ plodding’, but that’s because that’s precisely how police work really is, and that’s what McQueen was going for. In that regard, it could almost be considered a documentary.
So, in the context of reality, for better or worse, it’s not a bad movie.
It depends on how one defines “success.”
Bullitt was the fifth highest grossing movie of 1968, and was given uniformly favorable reviews by critics at that time. Modern critics still give it overwhelmingly favorable reviews.
When you compare Bullitt to Gone in 60 Seconds(1974) the screenwriting and acting is akin to freaking Citizen Kane. I think Bullitt is a fairly meh movie compared to something as great as The French Connection in the same genre, but its premier in 1968 needs to be taken into account. Cop thrillers from the 60s just weren’t that good, Bullitt with McQueen was at least above average compared to most even without the chase. With the chase it injected a grit and realness that added spice to elevate the whole movie.
I think many people make the mistake of seeing only the chase scene AND THEN seeing the whole movie. The movie does a effective job building to that climax, but if you’ve seen the chase already it just seems like endless waiting for what you already saw.
Good points
A modern movie compared favorably with Grand Prix and Lemans? It’s a damn miracle considering how Hollyweird is these days. Case in point? Midway
Le Mans is terrible, except that it’s Porsche 917 porn.
Midway, as in at the theatres recently Midway? What did you find weird about it? Just curious.
And, for what it’s worth, I’m not big on going to the theatre. The last movie I saw was “Curious George” with my daughter ten years ago.
We just saw Frozen II with our daughters last week.
At this point, the movie has to be something I really want to see – or my children want to see – to justify a trek to the theater.
When it comes to nit picking I was going to mention The Battle of Midway. I have read everything on the battle. I have read everything on the US Navy in WWII. I have restored the USS Hornet for 21 years and while it is fun I do it for history and accuracy.
Consequently I am a stickler for accuracy in WWII movies especially those involving US Navy planes and ships. I simply cannot help but notice inaccuracies the moment they happen. Call if reflex action. I simply know too much and would probably disturb others when I mouth “that is wrong.” I have not and will not see Midway. An early trailer showing Zeros flying down the middle of Battleship Row at mast level sealed that for me.
tbm3 – I know _exactly_ which plane your CC Handle refers to! I can’t even watch the 1976 Midway for the very same reasons that you cite, they throw me right out of the movie because the errors are so glaring.
Don’t even get me started on Memphis Belle, which is simply B-17porn but is otherwise uncaring and inaccurate. P-51s as escorts?? C’mon, you’re not even trying when you’re filming in Great Britain with scads of Spitfires just a phone call and a handshake away!
Just the trailers from Pearl Harbor, with P-40s flying curving paths around buildings, were enough to make me refuse to see it. Did they even depict the P-40A properly or was it the later ones with the deeper radiator and oil cooler?
The new book on McClusky’s actions during the battle – pictured here – is excellent and gave me a new appreciation for the decisions he made during the battle.
Midway isn’t bad; it’s much better than I expected. And I know my history and yeah it has historical flaws but it’s OK and much better than the 1970s movie about Midway. I liked when the character of Admiral King was given a line King (an incredibly irascible guy who made Phil Sheridan look like Mr. Rogers) supposedly said–that when it gets tough they call on the sons of bitches.
Would Lee Iacocca drive a Squarebird in 1963/64?
Sorry, didn’t notice the comment before now.
Loved Grand Prix. Garner in a Shelby Mustang.
Found Le Mans with McQueen a bit boring. Barely any dialogue. Remember the naked brick walls in the pits.
Any auto executive in the 60’s, and probably still today, would not be caught dead in anything other than a current model year vehicle, for his professional image. But I also agree that it is not worth discounting an otherwise good movie for car sins that the general public wouldn’t notice.
Hey, at least they had him in a Square Bird, instead of the proper Flair Bird. He was driving what you’d expect Lee Iacocca to drive back then, a Thunderbird.
Can you imagine the screaming if the props department had put him in a Cadillac? Which was the ultimate American luxury car back then.
True, a non Ford car would be an outrageous error. I should have said: current year of whatever the top of the line car is of their company. A Ford division exec would never be seen in a Falcon. It would have to be a Tbird, or maybe a nice Mustang or LTD ( if those were out yet).
A Lincoln Continental would have been fine. Thoroughly appropriate for a top-level Ford executive to be driving in the mid-1960s, and still immediately recognizable to 21st century audiences.
To be honest, showing Iacocca in a Square Bird in ’63/’64 sounds deliberate, like they wanted him to be perceived as ‘old-fashioned’.
Putting him into a sleek, stylish Bullet Bird, Flair Bird, or even a Continental convertible might have made him seem too ‘hip’ and modern for how they wanted him to be portrayed in the film.
I haven’t seen it yet, not sure I will get a chance in the theaters unfortunately. It’s really good to see a quality major release from Hollywood that is an old fashioned racing movie (and which isn’t PC’d to death). I hope it does well enough to encourage them to keep doing that sort of thing.
I echo the comments above that Rush is another modern racing movie that was very well done. Any car guy would like it.
Red Line 7000 is my favorite racing picture. For one thing it’s a Howard Hawks picture. And it shows Nascar at its peak, when the cars were real Fords, Chevys, Ponchos and Mopars. And one of the characters drives around in a Shelby Daytona. And young Teri Garr is a Go-Go dancer.
DMan,
A couple of comments are merited.
My wife and I viewed Ford v Ferrari shortly after it opened.
Remember that the first objective of movie producers, screenwriters and cinematographers is to entertain, so one of the first causalities potentially could be the truth, therefore variants of the truth often make their way on the screen.
Then understand that most viewers won’t be concerned about the deviations from the truth, that concern the CC electorate, on the way to hopefully enjoying the story. Most viewers will be blissfully unaware of the liberties from the truth that irritated you, and, at times, even me. but most people couldn’t care.
Bottom line, my wife “loved” this film. She loved the humanness seen in the development of the relationships between Ken Miles, his wife, and their son portrayed in the film. As soon as the screening ended that was what she thought was the endearing quality of the movie. Her first words were, “I loved this movie”. Oh, she then said that she enjoyed the cars and the excitement of the racing, but that the human side of the movie captured her heart. In fact, she continued to talk about how much she “loved” the movie the next morning at breakfast.
She commented that if husbands or boyfriends can convince their wives/girl friends to view the movie, to convince them that it is more than “just about cars” that this movie will do well. Interestingly at Thanksgiving dinner she urged her sisters and all present, especially all of the women, to go see Ford v Ferrari, calling it a “wonderful movie.”
Additionally she said she now wants to stream watch Matt Damon’s “The Martian” which she previously didn’t want to watch because she had no interest in Mars. Obviously Matt Damon had an effect on her. Should I be surprised.
So in conclusion,yes, truth can fall victim to the screen writer, but if the story is entertaining and compelling, as in this case, an unlikely audience can be uncovered and built by word of mouth.
Oh, BTW, I really enjoyed the movie too. I actually want to see it again. And I’m really glad that my wife enjoyed the movie too.
Cheers.
My wife and I both liked “The Martian”. Just don’t think too carefully about some basic laws of physics.
Truth, and factuality, are not the same thing. A story can be “true” while taking some liberties. The Great Escape told a true story, though it was rife with fictionalized characters. The Crown is a good, non-automotive example (though there are some really good CCs there, too). The audience comes for a story, not a documentary.
My wife took me to see Rush as a birthday present. She figured she could bear it…but loved the movie just as much as I did. Both the humanness of the story, and the way Ron Howard managed to capture the feel of a GP car at speed, really moved her in ways she didn’t expect. And the scene of Lauda fighting to get his helmet over his bandages brought us both to tears.
She’s promised to take me to this movie too. We’re both looking forward to it.
My wife and I enjoyed the movie. But, seeing that same ’62 Dodge (as much as I’ve always liked that weird car) rolling through the numerous background shots around Ken Miles home through the entire movie started to annoy me on some level. At least there was the ’63 Mercury give the Dodge a rest near the end.
That said, it was an enjoyable movie, and I’m glad I saw it even though I’m not a movie person at all.
I loved one of the first TV ads for this movie. “Ford vs Ferrari, its a triumph!”
The European title “Le Mans ’66” is probable more suitable than the US market title, because in the event it was more Ford v Ford than Ford v Ferrari. Having three Ford teams competing against each other made Ferrari an also-ran.
Interesting that different folk pick-up on different errors – I read a review that noted a (Ford ?) driver changing gear half-way down the Mulsanne straight …..
Very much agree with the review. I did leave the theatre thinking that I didn’t hear the word “apex” once. Just thought that odd.
This movie will probably find a ‘niche’ audience because children won`t be interested in it, and adults over 50-including myself don`t go to the movies anymore. It should do well when it`s released on DVD by mid February. I`ll rent it then.
I really enjoyed the movie but there was definitely a healthy dose of anachronistic car casting that took me out of a scene or two. Most notably when Iacocca and company met with Enzo, with his garage was filled with the same P3/P4s that would race against the GT40s in the climatic 1966 LeMans race.
My wife kindly offered me a date night on opening night for this. She really enjoyed the main story as well as the family story around Ken Miles.
As noted, many liberties were taken. One of the ones that really threw me was Iacocca leading the charge in Italy to buy Ferrari. Iacocca was shown accompanied by a Ford guy in horned rim glasses, I don’t think he was ever addressed by name.
On the way home, it occurred to me that the executive in glasses had to be Don Frey, an engineer closely associated with the creation of the Mustang. Checking the cast list, Don Frey was depicted.
As it turns out, Mr. Frey was the lead man that Iacocca sent to Italy. Iacocca didn’t make the trip.
For the non auto obsessed, Iacocca is obviously the most recognizable public personalty in the movie, and his role is outsize. Among the opening scenes, the Deuce calls on Iacocca several times by his last name in a meeting to make sure the viewers know who he is.
Mssrs. Frey and Iacocca…..
Ok my 50cents.
I don’t understand why the “movies” don’t hire a car guy for the details.
Shelby’s red Porsche shouted out plastic fantastic and black wiper arms?
A brown Mini in the background of Miles workshop which is an Italian Innocenti but they started to produce these in late 1965.
Ok I loved the 403 Peugeot sedan parked on the driveway of his shop and the French scenes were ok, even showing a Z12 Panhard parked in a dark corner.
However nobody in France drove with dipped beams in a city at night in the sixties.
And, where was Enzo’s metallic grey Peugeot 404, he had had a couple of 404’s back then as he thought if to be the best sedan made at the time and of course designed by his friend Pininfarina.
To stay with Peugeot it was good to see their CD race car on a truck .
All car things considering I suggest that for a next project I recommend they use the people from this site as consultants.
What really looked magnificant was the way they rebuilt the grandstand.
You can buy the grandstand in 1/43 and 1/32 scale as a kit, (christmas tip) from a small French manufacturar.
I’ll see if I can post the link here.
I saw it twice over the holidays!
The first time was with the whole D family. Mrs DougD and 19 year old son enjoyed it. 16 year old daughter was reluctant to go. I asked her “do you now how many stupid movies I’ve sat through for you?” so she came along and enjoyed it too.
Walking out of the theater the kids asked me “Did that really happen?”
I didn’t sweat the car details and enjoyed it. It’s a movie.
Really nice to see Ken Miles get his due.