bjhex1

My first impression of this film was, beyond basic enjoyment ultimately, was that the filmmakers knew the task before them, which was two-fold. First, explain Formula 1 to an audience who mostly wouldn't have much of a clue, myself included. And secondly, manufacture cinematic excitement on screen from what may be enthralling live, but is little more than cars zipping across the screen. What they did was fairly ham-fisted, but ultimately effective.

First, the use of the race commentary (almost universally diegetic, with characters and the audience all hearing), is shamelessly expositive, violating basic 'show-don't-tell' filmmaking philosophy. However, it does help the audience understand what strategy is being employed, why it's being done, and possible ramifications. These would totally be lost on a non-F1 fan without the commentary. And to be honest, I suspect they played a little fast and loose with the 'chaos' and 'combat' strategies, portraying them like this was the first time anyone had every thought of doing it, or that greater penalty contingencies hadn't been put in place.

Secondly, is the music. It seems clear the filmmakers were between a rock and hard place, choosing between quick cut action (which would look like a jumbled mess), and long takes for actors to emote (which would ruin the pacing). Again, the sledgehammer solution was to put aggressively motivational music in to manufacture excitement in the audience. In fact, right from the start with Zeppelin even before the opening credits.

But even with the obvious ham-fisted techniques, I have to admit, they probably were necessary. And even more, they worked. It's a nice film, a bit conventional in story (I promised myself I wouldn't use the word 'formulaic', but there, I did anyway). But a nice time out at the movies.

It took me a while to decide whether they were bluffing or double bluffing (or in fact quad-,quin-, sex-tuple bluffing) with the meta references to bad acting. But even trying to inoculate itself with "Hamber", this episode was painful to watch. The multiple roles trope is always going to be gimmicky, even with good acting, or with intentionally bad acting. The charm just didn't come through for me, with all the over the top characterizations (presumably meant to showcase the actress's skills).

I understand the premise, much like its forebear, Columbo, is to feature the guest star prominently. But the show really needs to focus on its strongest point (and strongest, by far, considering the sometimes uneven writing), which is Natasha Lyonne. The more we get of her, the better the show. Period.

This is a genuinely entertaining film, even as it is fairly prosaic. A lesser quality film might have suffered from the somewhat strained exposition, foreshadowing, call backs, literary allusions and the trop-ish use of children to tug on emotional heartstrings. But even as the technical curtain was pulled back on the storytelling, I still enjoyed the journey.

I would say the closest thing that may have tipped it the other way, was that even as Kerry Condon's performance was meant to be brash, it started to border on cartoonish at times. There is almost an element of parody that doesn't quite match the tone of the rest of the film, but she does stay just short of too far.