MovieChat Forums > Grand Prix (1966) Discussion > A reality check on some comments

A reality check on some comments

posted 13 years ago by TechExpert
13 replies | jump to latest

Grand Prix is still one of the best example of racing as seen from the inside. ( AKA the pits ). I just watched it again to bring back all the memories, both good and bad when you live in a racing family.

Every car driver / pit crew member has a different way of coping with the physical and mental stress of competing at speed. That concentration can be very unpleasant to deal with just before and during the competition.

I did not see the improper " behavior " of any of the actors; these mannerism are often seen during the actual races while in the pits.

I was involved in unlimited sprint car racing. that meant injuries were common ( clay tracks have lots of dirt and rocks thrown around ) and up front death is seen too. I have participated and witnessed both; you don't get the shakes until later.

Our family has payed it's dues. Dad stopped driving and still competes as the owner of several fast midgets that can be seen at the Chili Bowl. He never misses it.

[–] Akzidenz_Grotesk 13 years ago

Frankenheimer really pulled off an action masterpiece and it's sadly typical that this movie only rates a 6.8 on imdB. The mostly junk that passes for "cinema" today can't hold a candle to the excitement of Grand Prix. The voters here apparently prefer ridiculous boy-wizards and idiot teen vampires to the cooler stuff from the retro years. Their loss.

My votes:http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9422378

[–] denise1234 13 years ago

'Grand Prix' IS a masterpiece :)

"I can't stand a naked light bulb, any more than..a rude remark or a vulgar action" Blanche DuBois

[–] ReturnofSlurry 13 years ago

Grand Prix is nowhere near being a masterpiece. The great racing scenes can't compensate for the dismal script.

[–] cole-jim 11 years ago

I agree.

It is a shame that the rating is so low. To this day this film amazes me, yes, the acting isn't the greatest, BUT IT IS TYPICAL of drama acting back in those days. Take a look at an old episode of Mission Impossible. Great series, but the acting and camera work is dated, right? The acting and the script in this movie is no worse than the best Bond movies of the same time period, but somehow, the Bond movies get a pass and high ratings and Grand Prix does not. Odd. But the only thing I can assume is that most of the dimwits who rate this movie low, don't know ANYTHING about real life involvement in auto racing, especially during those early years when it was really bad and they would lose a couple of guys every year in every form of racing. And that goes for stock car racing, indy cars, formula one, sprint cars, midgets, etc., they were all extremely dangerous. I personally knew a few of them that are no longer with us.

I can't really blame the raters for their ignorance of auto racing and rating this movie so low because they have nothing to base the movie against, there really is no other movie like it, maybe Lemans but it is a bit different too, and if they are not involved in racing in real life it is very hard to go back in time and immerse yourself in this movie.

And yes, the crappy, unbelieveable, special effects movies that are made today are so ludicrous, I can't bring myself to go see them. I watch the previews on TV and it just turns me OFF. Grand Prix is gritty, and real, the sheeple movie goers of today have to have unbelieveable special effect graphics to even hold their attention for two minutes. No plot, bad acting, but lots of graphic work. Blah. No thanks.

Consider the first, great, Raiders of the Lost Ark movie, and compare it to the last "special effects" crappy movie they made last year. Unbelieveable graphics are not the way to go, in fact, they keep me from going to the movies at all.

[–] intexor 13 years ago

The racing scenes are impressive and a reason to watch this movie. The main character is not sympathetic enough and the whole storyline with his teammate's wife is a waste of time.

I didn't really need this movie to show me how dangerous motor racing was back then and still is know, but I don't blame them for that. I blame them for not making me root for the hero.

[–] naturboy99 13 years ago

I think the racing scenes were terrific, and I'm sure most racing fans rate this movie very highly. However IMHO the acting sux, and I'm not talking about the driver extras, I mean several of the leads.

As I pointed out in another thread, the first non-racing scene we get is Jessica Walter hung over in her room, and her hangover act is one of the worst I've ever seen. That is one example of many, and again it is the first non racing scene we see, so it is significant that it sux, it sets the stage for the horrible acting throughout the movie.

I basically watch this movie as racing porn, FF through all the BS and get to the racing scenes. I can see how people who are non-racing fans would rate this movie low.

The terrorists won a battle with America on 4/21/10 thanks to the cowards at Comedy Central

[–] sascha-17 13 years ago

I basically watch this movie as racing porn, FF through all the BS and get to the racing scenes. I can see how people who are non-racing fans would rate this movie low.

Spot on. On the track GP is a 10/10. Off it, it's barely a 6/10.

The only minor criticism I have of the racing-part is that they couldn't use the footage shot at the Nürburgring. Other than that, the intro alone and all those beautiful shots of 1965/66 Monaco make it worth watching for anyone with a slight interest in cars/motorsports.

S.

[–] Magovani 13 years ago

I've loved racing all my life. I agree that the racing scenes in Grand Prix are great.

I was lucky enough to see the movie in Cinerama shortly after it was released. The sound of the engines was incredible (it actually shook the theater's seats). These things created a wonderful sense of realism.

Concerning the non-racing parts of the movie -- meh. There are some good parts, but it's generally too much like a soap opera for me.

[–] seatart-2 12 years ago

"Jessica Walter hung over in her room, and her hangover act is one of the worst I've ever seen"

Jessica Walter is one of the worst actresses in the history of film so I can understand why you felt that way :)

[–] pawtrax67 11 years ago

Actually I felt Jessica Walter and Eva Marie Saint were both wasted in the film. Francoise Hardy, despite having little to no acting experience, did a better and more believable performance. I do also want to know why they cast Brian Bedford?
He couldn't drive. Couldn't they have cast someone a little more likeable?

[–] batvette 11 years ago

As critics have said, the performances of the cast, including IMO Walter, was great. It was the screenplay that was limp.

However I never was looking for much of a plot other than give us some character development to tie the racing characters together so I found no reason for disappointment.

Grand Prix is one of if not the best racing movies of all time, it's not supposed to be held up to the deep complexity of something of the caliber of Citizen Kane or Cheech and Chong's Up in Smoke.

I mean, c'mon, Fiberweed and I didn't know your name was Alex. Rosebud.

I know you are but what am I?

[–] kenny-164 11 years ago

I know exactly why this film has its critics, but in fairness to it the filmmakers had to address a basic problem.

Any film about auto racing has to face the question in some way of how to portray the drivers, and specifically how they as people relate to the racing. How does their driving racecars fit into their overall experience as a human being? Without addressing that, the film will not resonate with the public, and would be nothing more than a fictionalized version of the racing you can see on tv.

But the narrative form of racing on one hand and drivers not racing on the other has its inherent limitations. Which is probably why Grand Prix for all its limitations is generally still regarded as the best auto racing film of all time. The problem basically is as the film proceeds in its linear fashion, you have the drivers and cars racing, and then you have the driver out of the car, dealing with other people in some fashion. There is an inherent disjunct, and going back and forth can be very difficult to deal with. Add in that you then have to come up with some way of showing the drivers' "human side", and the risk of cliche goes up and up.

In any event I am not as hard on the film as others. I genuinely enjoyed some of the off track stuff like when Scott Stoddard gets back into that old racecar in front of his mother.

I also think the acting was generally good. It was the script and overall narrative where the film might have been better. But even the script had its moments, like the I don't drink I don't smoke thing, and Sarti's talking about a lack of imagination.

[–] MoneyMagnet 10 years ago

The actors were fine - the script was terrible. The "personal" scenes for all the characters were so trite and leaden, any other writing would have been an improvement.

Fortunately, the situation itself in racing is genuinely dramatic anyway: I mean, especially with 1960s F1 racing before safety improvements... it's inevitable some good guys are going to die. I appreciated how none of the drivers were portrayed as "baddies" you wanted to see get killed. Yves Montand had the most genuinely interesting character in the film, so it was actually a little upsetting when he was the inevitable driver who had to die.

You could say that too much attention was paid to the racing scenes and not enough to the characters, but... would you have preferred less attention be paid to the racing scenes? Not me. They're the reason to see and enjoy the movie.