Fluke_Skywalker

No film genre is more formulaic and cliche-ridden than sports, and to be sure F1 doesn't break any new ground. But formulas become cliches for one simple reason. They work.

The old saying "What's old becomes new again" definitely applies here. In an age where Hollywood continues to offer up the tired comic book film and unneeded and often unwanted remake, what audiences are thirsting for-even if they don't exactly know it-is a return to the red meat and potatoes "Good guy overcomes challenges and wins/saves the day." type of film. No capes flapping or heavy-handed messages. Just likeable people we can root for. It's so simple you wonder why studios can't grasp it. But hey, I'm just a paying customer. What do I know?

F1 is an appropriately fast-paced (if a tad bit over long) movie that is perfect for Summer movie season. It looks spectacular, eschewing the CGI cheats of so many Summer "event" films these days, and delivers white-knuckle action that feels tactile. Director Joseph Kosinski, who directed the excellent Top Gun: Maverick (a film that should have woken up Woke Hollywood and showed them how to make movies-and money-again), really knows how to make these kinds of films. I wish he'd been named director of the new Bond film instead of the overrated Denis Villeneuve and his soulless, joy-deficient style.

Like Top Gun's Tom Cruise, Pitt is one of our last real movie stars. He's surrounded here by a capable cast, but make no mistake this is his movie and he carries it across the finish line.

Setting aside the question of whether or not 'Remo Williams' is a good interpretation of the 'Destroyer' novel series that it's based on (I've read two or three of the books, but that was several years ago, so I don't feel qualified to answer it anyway), the next one would likely be "Is it any good?". To that I have an answer. No. If asked to permit a follow-up question, I'd nod likely "Yes", though grudgingly so. If said follow-up was "Well, is it at least fun?" I'd answer "Yeah. Kind of.".

The premise here has lots of potential, but only reaches some of it. Actors Fred Ward and Joel Grey have good chemistry and the story hits all of the mismatched student/master stuff pretty well, but the villain and his plot are under-cooked and the lack of stakes cause things to fizzle out in the finale.

I suppose if you're an 80's kid like me you will find enough nostalgia oil here to grease the rusty gears, but I doubt anyone who has never dialed a rotary phone will find much to keep them from checking their social media feeds before the run time hits the half hour mark.

Revisiting 'Braveheart' is a bit like going to a five star restaurant, and as you're leaving you wonder how you're going to adjust to going back to eating fast food (i.e. Comic book movies, endless remakes and reboots, worn out IP's, etc.).

Mel Gibson is a solid actor, but he's a great filmmaker. His storytelling instincts are impeccable, and his mojo is a perfect fit for this kind of story. He gets "epic" and "operatic" and uses them to build emotional investment that pays off in glorious and spectacular ways.

Featuring a host of great performances (including Gibson himself), superb direction (also by Gibson) and backed by an all-time score from the late, great James Horner, 'Braveheart' is the kind of film we should all revisit and subsequently demand that Hollywood begin making again.