Well, we asked! Here are some vey astute reviews by people who know the subject very well. We present them in order of arrival.
By Burt Levy
Got to see Ferrari a few days ago and have, quite frankly, been gobsmacked by some of the fawning & enthusiastic early reviews I’ve seen online. Did we really see the same movie? To be honest, I really wanted to like it, and was hopeful it would present and perhaps even illuminate the career path, challenges and accomplishments of the enigmatic title character as well as the magnificence of the machines he built and the multi-layered and oft-Machiavellian motorsports juggernaut he both created and commanded. I was also hoping they would show a little respect and accuracy regarding the history.
What I got instead was a dull, ponderous, confusing, poorly cast, tabloid-worthy peep-hole peek into his personal/sexual relationships and company financial struggles, and a couple—many in the audience came for this!—lurid, gory & gratuitous crash scenes. None nearly as vivid, enthralling or realistic as the pre-AI. Monaco sequence that opens Frankenheimer’s Grand Prix. And as far as the history goes, the credits claim that the movie is based on my late and thrilled-to-be-iconoclastic friend Brock Yate’s “tell-all” Ferrari bio, and I doubt that many on the writing or production crew ever picked it up except to highlight a few titillating details they wanted to use. Was there really a tentative outreach between Ferrari and Ford way back in 1957? I think not. Did the team Ferraris that started out minutes apart in the 1957 Mille Miglia spend much of the race running nose-to-tail? Don’t be ridiculous. I hope Brock’s heirs were paid well for the rights to the book—they deserve it—but if Brock was still around to write a review of this plodding, inaccurate, hard-to-follow mess, he’d chop it off at the knees…just like the body parts seen strewn about after Portago’s horrific fatal crash on the Mille. Do yourself a favor. Do see it, but wait for it to come out on TV, so at least you won’t have to pay for the privilege. In the meantime, watch Daryl Goodrich’s brilliant, accurate, engrossing and entertaining documentary Ferrari: Race to Immortality.
By Mary Zeitner
I just got home from seeing Ferrari with the Northwest Alfa Romeo Club! Quite a movie on many levels. I was somewhat familiar with that Mille Miglia, but not the depth of the interpersonal issues shown in the movie. And I don’t believe I had ever heard of Portago, in spite of knowing about that horrible accident. My husband, who has no particular interest in racing, said it was about the saddest film he had ever seen–again, considering the accident and the interpersonal issues. The cars were beautiful–and not just the race cars, but also the workaday background cars. The race scenes were interesting, but the surrounding countryside added its own beauty. At first, I chuckled at the comment that a Fiat 500 reportedly was clocked at 140. Then I remembered the bizarrely altered 500s that were race cars and 140 kilometers per hour, maybe! And not the least important ingredient to the movie was the excellent acting. To sum up, a very engaging movie, with some deviation from history, and I would like to see it again!
Thank you, Peter, for your newsletter! Now I have to read about Fon’s Ferrari!
By Bill Tuttle
Having seen the movie Ferrari this afternoon I left both pleased and a little disappointed. There really was not that much actual racing shown but what was… was very well done. Great scenes shot in Italy. The movie cars used looked very convincing. The accident scene at Guidizzolo was beyond over the top. There was a lot right and a lot wrong in this movie, such as Ford’s interest in Ferrari about five years to early… But if you are not worried about all the facts and details, I would recommend this film.
By Peter Vanlaw
My take on Ferrari: It was far better than I expected for a “race car movie.” Since it was essentially a film in two parts, a story about Enzo himself and his issues, as of 1957. And then the racing scenes, that were spectacular. Both Adam Driver and Penelope Cruz did a nice job with Enzo’s life story at that time. And Michael Mann did an incredible job with the racing scenes and the authenticity of the race cars and their locations. Plus, I was fortunate to see it at a screening, where Mann was part of a Q&A, after. So, I was able to learn that ALL the scenes were shot in their actual locations, including de Portago’s fatal crash, which was shot in front of the house where it actually happened and how it happened!
By Fernando Capablanca
Excellent portrayal of Ferrari and of the drivers (with possible exception of Behra, who is only recognizable by the checkered helmet). Fon Portago was well played, down to the “kiss of death.” Enjoyed movie and will watch it again. Loud reaction of the movie goers to Portago’s accident was reminiscent of the visceral reaction to the movie Jaws. The first shots of the F-1 Dino and Maser 250 while testing were very cleverly taken from a Fangio documentary. I suspect some in Italy may not be pleased with the portrayal of the legendary Enzo, but kudos to the producers nonetheless. Great job!.
P.S. I am old enough to have had the pleasure of meeting all of them (except Taruffi) when I was young.
By Tim Clark
Very well done, but certainly not a racer/automobilist movie. I set up a viewing for six of my car buddies, all older guys. The consensus was that Grand Prix is still the best and Ford vs Ferrari was more entertaining. The acting was great, the race scenes were OK but typical “Hollywood.” Definitely a movie I wouldn’t watch again or recommend to a Car Guy.
By Peter Brock
Whereas Ford vs Ferrari was pure historically inaccurate entertainment for the motorsport uneducated public, Ferrari is a rather dark introspective look into the complex lives of those who created one of the most exciting automobiles in the world. For those expecting an evening of glorious motorsport, forget it. This is raw human drama tinged with a taste of what might be expected only to find in the end that this too is dark, violent and ugly. Ferrari is not going to be the Hollywood blockbuster many of us expected, but it will be a movie that will remain in your thoughts long after the final curtain. Penelope Cruz presents an astonishing portrayal of a betrayed business partner wife, who one unexpectedly and finally understands was every bit as powerful in making the Ferrari name what it is today. Cruz IS the Ferrari movie in an award contending performance that will be remembered long after the movie’s story fades from view. What’s missing for me is the lack of passion that I so remember from those who created and raced those incredibly exciting red cars from the era depicted.”
By Wallace Wyss
I was surprised to see how dark and moody it was–especially the scenes with Adam Driver playing Enzo and Penelope Cruz playing his wife Laura. The mistress? Miscast, no chutzpah compared the angry wife. Re the lighting: I read after I saw the movie it was deliberate, Mann thought the red Ferraris looked better after you emerged from the caves. I think he saw too many “art house” films. I was relieved the big crash wasn’t on screen too long but a lot of fans who plan to take their wife or girlfriend better be ready for them to walk out at that point. Chronology-wise, I am a little surprised he has Ferrari eyeing Ford as a buyer of his firm in ’57 when Ford didn’t pitch their offer until 1963. Overall it is a must-see for those who like behind-the-scenes drama of famous racing efforts–it makes Ford vs Ferrari , with all its innocence, look like a kid’s film…this is an adult movie. (Wyss is currently hawking his own Ferrari-tiled book to Hollywood, an action thriller called Ferrari Hunters.)
By Aldo Zana
Ferrari is a good movie only if you have a discounted theater ticket. I watched it with two buddies, and we were the only audience that night in Milano. It’s a Hollywood old-timer that was made strictly controlling the overall expenditures, despite many scenes being filmed in the correct Italian locations; the Modena cemetery, the Brescia Piazza della Vittoria, the Maranello factory entry gate. Enzo Ferrari is presented as a mature man without any mention of his achievements prior to 1957, the history making events and the endless line of success and failures that made Ferrari the man. He is shown focusing on his own adultery rather than on his iron will to win the races that are the lifeblood of his factory. Some scenes are irritating, false, and somehow non-essential to the development of the story, such as when he takes Laura on the kitchen table (in 1957 Ferrari was 59!) or when the reporters flock to assault him after the Mille Miglia tragedy. The racing scenes in the Apennines are thrilling yet false as a so close a fight was impossible due to the difference in the starting time; the race was against the clock not direct competitors. The phone call with Mr. Agnelli is only a good piece of humor. Even the ones who either lived or heard the real-life story would find it difficult to accept or to identify minor figures like Miss Delia Scala (Castellotti accident), ingegnere Carlo Chiti (checking of the tire back at the factory), the drivers Piero Taruffi, Mike Hawthorn, Olivier Gendebien, Wolfgang von Trips, and even Peter Collins. And there was never a prize-giving ceremony in Brescia that took place in front of a clapping mob.
By Sam Smith
FERRARI the movie is a compelling and well-crafted movie about the complicated life of a very dynamic personality. Like those films about Michelangelo or Babe Ruth. The story is wrapped around Enzo Ferrari’s obsession with being the ultimately successful race car builder and the need to win one race, the 1957 Mille Miglia, to survive financially to fight another day. When I want to watch the best racing movie ever made, I watch Steve McQueen’s Le Mans.
By Ralph Shandilya
The film tells the story of this complicated man called Enzo Ferrari, based on the excellent book by Brock Yates, and it shines the light on his wife, Laura, and his indiscretions in his married life to the extent he fathered a child without his wife knowing. By taking the Mille Miglia of 1957 and the tragic death of Portago and his navigator Edmund Nelson with nine spectators, five of them children, the film builds on that race. It opens the door to the very good race scenes, for that the film’s budget of 99 million dollars was probably almost all spent, as they are very good and the action comes alive. I wanted more of that. Overall the film is a good story that’s about a “Family“ but maybe they packed too much into the film. My big critique is the bad sound, almost indistinguishable at times, which is strange as that didn’t need to be like that. Apart from that my advice is to see the movie even if it’s just for watch these cars in action. And, all the acting is top-notch; Penelope Cruz great as is Adam Driver.
By Ed McDonough
I have gone to see it…not entirely what I expected but…I counted 39 errors of fact. They were not all major but some were and they end up painting a false picture…that is if you are interested in accuracy. The film is presented as 1957 and Portago meets Ferrari at a stop light and then again at a test session. Portago is told that he will be in the team when Castellotti us killed. But in fact they were already teammates the previous year in sports cars. Castellotti was killed March 1957. Portago is portrayed as an F1 driver after that and is criticized for not being committed at the French Grand Prix and his car is given to Collins. It never happened. Portago was not in the French Grand Prix…he was already dead. The Mille Miglia us at the end of the film implying the end of 1957 but in fact it was on April. And Portago never pushed Behra off in the Mille Miglia and the top five cars never ran nose to tail, etc etc. Piero Lardi Ferrari in a recent interview he never asked for autographs and acknowledges much ‘poetic licence.’ Enzo was not slick as played by Adam Driver, was often coarse. And then there were all those conversations where there were never witnesses. Lots more…so why make such an expensive film and manage to get so much wrong? That’s probably enough from me.
Why ask someone to review the movie who has never heard of de Portago?
As for those complaining about the lurid accident scene, he was cut in half, as anyone who’s read Robert Daley’s 1960s racing books would know.
Thanks for reading! We didn’t ask anyone in particular, but the entire readership and they sent their opinions with a wide range of viewpoints…
Pete
I go back to the point that Ferrari presented a gift of a 1952 212 Barchetta to Henry Ford the second… the car lives now at the Peterson museum, I get that major negotiations with Ford happened in the 60’s but clearly Ford was on Ferrari’s radar much earlier… for a fledgling manufacturer to gift a car at the time he was making so few cars would have been at great expense to his company… wonder why so many people seem to overlook this event?
I wish the mkvue credits included a listing by model and chassis number of the actual cars used in the filming of this movie.
Well I enjoyed the movie very much. It is a movie not a documentary so of course there will be some inaccuracies but I found it to be well acted especially by Penelope Cruz. Adam Driver looks nothing like Enzo but I felt also does an admirable job. A well filmed and acted movie featuring cars we all appreciate should be welcomed and I am for one am glad they made it. I will certainly buy the DVD to add to my collection of car/racing movies and watch it again.
The best car/racing movie for me ever is LeMans, and I never sit there and quibble about its inaccuracies.
Enjoy it as a movie celebrating wonderful cars, and be glad that made it
Folks, it’s not a documentary. No film *ever* has been completely historically accurate. And 99.99% of the movie goers will not have a clue about most of the inaccuracies noted above. I’d catch some of them, maybe, although the whole wheel to wheel racing in a timed entry event like the Mille Miglia bothered me from just watching the trailers. Again, most movie goers are not going to catch that.
Jim Simpson’s point about Henry Ford II getting a 1952 Barchetta certainly raises the possibility that the Ford corporate interest in Ferrari was, indeed, earlier than the well known events of the 1960s.
And for the record, Grand Prix was the best racing movie ever, closely followed by Le Mans.
Have a look. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lzlMX_NNlo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuH7G4N-dYU
The Ferrari movie is not a bio pic or a documentary, it is a Hollywood movie made by Hollywood people in Italy. I applaud their effort. Of course the cars never raced side-by-side in the Mille Miglia. If the cars were five minutes apart in the movie, it would’ve been an impossible to finance.
As to Ford’s interest in Ferrari, maybe I missed it, but I believe the movie was saying that it was all in the mind of Enzo as he paid a reporter to write an article to put pressure on Fiat, but I could be wrong.
If you want a very real racing documentary look up Spa 1955 on YouTube, it is real life in B&W.
Certainly enjoyed all the reviews and comments, and plan to see the movie in the coming weeks.
Have had the Brock Yates book sitting on my shelf for many years – unread. Now will be a must read in the coming year.
People who expected a documentary or accurate history were bound to be disappointed. It was a dramatic film, based on real people and events where liberties had to be taken to keep it dramatic. The recreated cars were excellent, the sound and racing action top class, the story and characters believable, with Cruz at award level. Biggest surprise for me; Adam Driver somehow nailed Ferrari. (Would have appreciated more racing.)
I could not agree with Burt Levy’s review more. I too very much wanted to like the film. As it was, I found it be completely inaccurate as Ferrari history and just not that great as entertainment.
I watched Ferrari the movie alone 3 days ago, walked out the theater wanting to vent on its factual deviations. At that moment I was in total agreement with all the above impressions from eminent All Things Ferrari experts, which I am not. However, 12 hours later, having replayed the movie in my head, I now have a different take, might not as intended by Michael Mann, but its mine. I took in the movie in hope of learning about Enzo Ferrari and Brock’s book reincarnate. After my initial disillusionment, I now praise the movie, Why? Instead of disappointed with portrayal of Enzo Ferrari the man, I gained a new perspective of Laura Ferrari, her contribution to the Ferrari glow. In her era, she most often painted in less than flattering light, nearly always by male painters with narrow lens. In today’s gender identity climate, this movie gives a overdue voice to Laura, the long suffering silent partner. This movie also led me to rethink on the infamous 1961 year end walk out at Ferrari, and even Enzo Ferrari walked a tight rope of his wife, mistress, and mother. Is any man truly free?
Hey Aldo,
Speak for your self. I am 73 and have a 9 year old, car loving daughter. Not saying that a kitchen table was involved, but… you know… 59 isn’t old, and you probably didn’t know Enzo well enough to equate his appetites with his age.
Still have not seen Ferrari yet, but my industry friends say that it is pretty good. My guess is that if the cars were not close together, racing movies would be as exciting as trying on gloves or watching the traffic from the Mulholland overpass. The problem is that there is a fine line between being interesting and exciting, and just plain dumb, for people who know what they are looking at. Remember that there were complaints about the source material when it was published as well.
The Ferrari movie is for movie goers, looking for a new story, not car guys like us. I happen to be both, so I will probably enjoy watching the film, enjoying the art, and maybe the cars and story. If I want to be excited by cars, I just go to the garage, get in and turn the key. I already have a late 50s sport racer with license plates, the roads to enjoy it on and SJmy 9 year old to share the experience.
Grand Prix certainly had its problems, but I do enjoy watching it from time to time (for Frankenheimer’s vision), and LeMans has some excellent racing scenes and gives a feel for endurance racing that bores some people to sleep, not to mention that there is not 3 pages of dialog in the entire film. Steve McQueen and a bunch of 60s sport racing cars? Sure. Still fun to watch.
We saw the movie this past weekend. Not accurate enough or interesting from a car perspective for me. I expected more about the cars, a more accurate depiction of Enzo Ferrari, and less about his relationships with the women in his life. 1957 was a critical moment for Ferrari’s V6, which Dino encouraged his father to build and which his father named for his son. None of that was evident. Disappointing.
I have followed Ferrari since the 1950’s, and I appreciate what Michael Mann has tried to do. That said, I came for the cars but stayed for the story of Laura and the performance of Penelope Cruz.
Brava !
I agree with Dale LaFollette, it appeared to me that Enzo was baiting Fiat to make an overture with the planted story.
Otherwise it was an entertaining movie – exactly as intended. What ever historical details and inaccuracies as noted by others were probably no ticked by less than 1% of the audience. Three and half stars.
My wife and I enjoyed the movie. Making movies is a business, making money. Who would pay money to see a movie with only one major star in it (Penelope Cruze) titled “Smith” or “Jones?” We liked it because it was both a love story and racing story, a movie both the husband wife could enjoy. Of course it had its re rigueur sex and gore scenes, they, unfortunately, are obligatory in todays movies.
Like Hemingway said, “Take a little bit of what you know and expand it.” That’s what the producers and directer did. I have owned a Ferrari and been to Brescia and can accept the film’s many technical and historical flaws much easier than, as a retired colonel, I can accept such military flaws in movies. So I can understand serious Ferrarista’s frustrations. But we weren’t in the theater to be serious, just entertained.
Like we were four years ago, holding hands while we watched “The Art of Racing In the Rain.”
I recently had the opportunity to see Oppenheimer and Napoleon. Both movies focused heavily on their love lives in comparison to factual substance. Sounds from the reviews above that Ferrari has the same missteps. I will still go see it because how many times do you think someone else will try another racing movie.
I agree with Burt Levy and will add that the number of technical blunders to include, script delivery, props, continuity, history, and too many made up, unknowable scenes was tiring as well as irritating. The characters were simply not credible, especially the principal character Enzo “Driver” ..
The unnecessary, clumsily placed and sex scenes and crash gore scenes made the movie typical Hollywood rather than something great.
I would say this is not a “car guy or gal” movie.. fortunately at the last moment, my wife could not go. She enjoyed Rush, Ford V Ferrari, Gran Prix, Le Mans.
I cannot recommend this film unless you want to see 15-20 minutes of interesting cars exhibiting unlikely racing.
Hated it. 90% soap opera, 10% racing. Especially hated the very darkly lit scene of Enzo and wife staring at each other in long interminable closeups ala General Hospital. Nothing on the engineering or construction of the race cars. Almost no character development of the race drivers and how they ended up driving in 1957 Mille Miglia.
OK… At 86, I’m old enough to remember the horror of the ’57 MM, coming so close on the heels of the ’55 Le Mans disaster. Racing back then was DANGEROUS!! If you were expecting a docu-drama or a historically correct tome, you should probably have stayed home and saved your money (when did movies get so expensive?). Look, Hollywood makes entertainment, not history. Think about it: if old Laura had looked anything like Penelope Cruz, Enzo probably would have not needed or wanted a mistress (whose company made some of the crummiest Ferrari-branded merch EVER). The drivers were true to the swashbuckling image of their day, although I thought the young man playng Collins was a bit off. Taruffi and de Portago’s guys were spot on. Anyhow, I enjoyed the film, as I have every Mann film I’ve ever seen, but I was smart enough to check my prejudices and pre-judgements at the door. It’s called “suspnsion of disbelief”.
Well, I haven’t seen it yet.
I have no expectations so I will have no disappointments. Hard to beat a movie createe by a drivr who is also an experienced actor.
Ford and Ferrari was not accurate either but I still enjoy watching it. They did take the scene out that showed the Chevrolet Small Block in one of the cars.
It’s interesting how folklore becomes fact. Regarding the Ferrari barchetta that Enzo Ferrari gifted to Henry Ford II, Dick Merritt worked in Ford Design and he subsequently purchased the car. Here is his account as told to me in October 2014:
“The car was not a gift from Enzo Ferrari. It was ordered by Ford Motor Company in Henry’s name and purchased through Giuseppe Santi, a dealer in Rome (VERA S.r.l.).
Ford Motor Company bought the following cars for study in creating the Thunderbird:
• Corvette
• Jaguar XK-120
• 300SL Gullwing
• Studebaker coupe
• Ferrari 0253/EU
Henry’s brother, William Clay Ford, was VP of design and was pictured on several occasions with the car — often leading to confusion as to whether it was “his” or “Henry’s.” The car belonged to Ford Motor Company. It was common practice to use Henry’s name to gain prompt delivery for such cars. As an aside, the Ford accounting department entry number was provided to the DMV as the car’s serial number, only later corrected.”
Christian Philippsen reports:
Ferrari records show “Speciale per sig H.F. Fort” which translates to “Special for Mr. H.F. Ford”
My thought is this … The Ferrari enterprise was strapped for cash in the early days. I cannot believe Enzo would give a car to Henry Ford or anyone else. He sold the cars. This was necessary to keep the doors open and to finance his racing.