OSCARS 2026: F1 (2025)

Let us consider the career of screenwriter Ehren Kruger. If you ignore an obscure TV movie and a random Rutger Hauer vehicle, Kruger would first gain fame for writing well-liked thriller “Arlington Road.” Two years after that, he penned “The Ring,” which is still regarded as the best of American J-horror remake trend. Otherwise, Kruger's credits are a line-up of disheartening blockbuster schlock. He did an uncredited polish on the worst “Scream” movie. He put his name on the worst Philip K. Dick adaptation, the movie that ended John Frankenheimer's theatrical career, the Terry Gilliam joint nobody defends, an anime adaptation most famous for whitewashing its heroine, three of the Michael Bay “Transformer” sequels, and Tim Burton's “Dumbo” remake. I don't think Kruger deserves sole blame for any of these features. Maybe the original scripts were really good and got fucked-up during troubled productions or by apathetic filmmakers. Nevertheless, Kruger being associated with so many films that range from deeply mediocre to some of the most annoying big budget movies I've ever seen has not endeared him to me. 

Likewise, let us look at the career of Joseph Kosinski. He first gained attention for elaborate, special effects heavy commercials for video games. This lead to an elaborate, special effects heavy sequel about video games and the least memorable Tom Cruise sci-fi vehicle. It's not that “Tron: Legacy” or “Oblivion” are dreadful movies but they are ones that made little impression on me. Mostly, I associate Kosinski as one of those guys who, for years, gets attached to any number of uninspiring I.P.-driven reboots or sequels before inevitably moving onto something else. But powerful friends can take you places in Hollywood. Clearly Tom Cruise liked working with Kosinski and he eventually got the job to helm the long-in-development “Top Gun” sequel.  That movie become both a surprise box office and critical hit, earning six Academy Award nominations. Kruger wrote that one too and his screenplay got an Oscar nomination, which is pretty funny in light of the rest of his career. 

Now, it would seem, Kosinski and Kruger are hoping to spring off “Top Gun: Maverick's” critical acclaim to change the direction of both of their careers. The director and screenwriter would next re-team not for another forgettable CGI action fest nor a lame reboot of an old cartoon. Instead, they collabed on “F1.” (Advertised on most of the posters as “F1: The Movie,” presumably to differentiate it form “F1: The Sport” or “F1: The Commemorative Dishware.”) Since Tom Cruise had already made his race car movie, another mega-star – Brad Pitt – would be tapped to star. I don't know anybody who saw “F1” but I guess a lot of people did, as it became the ninth highest grossing movie of 2025.  While the movie honestly isn't that different from the work Kosinski and Kruger have made in the past, an aura of prestige was around “F1” all throughout its release. That the film has gone on to be nominated for four Academy Awards, including Best Picture, suggest that Kosinski and Kruger have indeed successfully reinvented themselves as critical darlings. 

Sonny Hayes self-describes not as a has-been in the world of Formula One racing so much as a never-was. His potential has never paid off and he's spent his career as a second stringer. After a successful run at the 24 Hours of Daytona competition, old friend Ruben Cervantes arrives with a proposition. The F1 team Cervantes owns is on the verge being sold unless they start to win some races. Sonny is talked into being the team's second driver. He quickly begins to butt heads with Joshua Pearce, the team's rookie driver, and Kate, the technical director. Sonny helps Kate upgrade the team's car to new heights. His on-going rivalry with Joshua – who is looking to sign with another team – and his own medical problems derail any further wins. It all comes to a head at the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. 

After “Maverick” became such a hit, there was a brief conversation about Tom Cruise returning to his other Tony Scott directed drama about a cocky asshole who pilots fast-moving vehicles. I'm doubtful if “More Days of Thunder” will ever come to theaters but “F1” gives us a decent idea of what it might look like anyway. In his youth, Sonny was probably a lot like Cole Trickle. Over the last thirty years, he's acquired plenty of injuries and emotional burn-out but not much in the way of achievement. He is, in other words, an overgrown cocky kid, still with a lot to prove but quickly running out of time to prove it. It's a familiar character and “familiar” is the exact mold “F1” is operating in. The archetypal roles here are that of young rival, down-on-his-luck mentor, a sleazy corporate antagonist willing to sell everyone out, and a female technician the hero naturally shares a will-they-won't-they? romance with. It's extremely easy to guess where all of this is headed. The hero is going to learn about humility and friendship on his way to securing his legacy, the rival will learn to respect his elders, and the girl is certainly going home in Brad Pitt's arms. The protagonist being an old screw-up rather than a young screw-up does provide some degree of novelty but, otherwise, “F1” makes no effort to resist inspirational sports movie cliches. 

“F1” being so – if you'll excuse the inevitable pun – formulaic raises the question of why the Academy felt the need to acknowledge it all. There is a degree of real world subtext at work in the film. Much as there was in “Top Gun: Maverick,” a movie as much about Tom Cruise attempting to mold the next generation of mega-watt movie stars as it is about a retirement age pilot fostering a new team. Brad Pitt is Cruise's former “Interview with the Vampire” co-star and of the same generation of nineties idols. He's one of the few “true” movie stars we have left, able to open a motion picture based strictly on his charisma alone. But he's getting older and he knows it too. “F1” sees Brad Pitt do all the Brad Pitt things you'd expect. He has satisfying romantic chemistry with Kerry Condon, the two's relationship being one of the better elements of the film. He smiles cockily, chuckles, does dangerous stunts, and somehow paints the image of being kind of a washed-up mess despite obviously looking like Brad Pitt. I felt “Maverick” was a fairly half-assed attempt to pass the baton on Cruise's behalf. “F1” doesn't even pretend, as co-star Damson Idris is a wilting forgettable presence in Pitt's shadow. However, the tension the movie industry feels these days over individual talent being eclipsed by corporate I.P. does run throughout “F1.” 

Another reason “F1” scored points with Academy voters is that it's an impressive technical exercise. As Kosinski did with “Maverick,” CGI spectacle has given way to more grounded, practical effects. The film often puts the camera right into the cockpit with its racers. Sparks fly along the track and against the fences around the road. The speed of the vehicles and the spur-of-the-moment decisions the drivers have to make in these races is conveyed to the audience. Claudio Miranda's cinematography is gritty and fast-moving, while Stephen Mirrione's editing cuts quickly but coherently between multiple perspectives. Naturally, this is most apparent during the multiple crash scenes, the moments when the film most comes to life. The cars spinning through the air, the twisted metal being tossed around, the impact on the drivers, the risk to their lives: All are successfully felt by the audience. If motion pictures were judged strictly by the way they look, sound, and move, “F1” would be a masterpiece.

There's a problem here, however. It's strictly my problem alone but it's one I cannot emphasize enough: I do not care about auto-racing. I do not care about the technical specs of the cars. I do not care about the number of wins or conditions necessary to head towards one championship or another. “F1” is deeply invested in both of these things, multiple long scenes dedicated to the various changes and alterations needed to be made to the car to turn it into a proper winner. While “Days of Thunder” at least made NASCAR a coherent experience, at no point during “F1” did I understand how the hell these races actually operate. The script is full of the minutia regarding the rules, which Sonny and his enemies and friends exploit at various points. Getting a car from point-A to point-B faster than all the other cars should be a simple thing to understand. Instead, I spent much of “F1” completely baffled as to what the fuck any of this meant. What is a safety car? What do the letters APXGP mean? How are slick tires different from regular tires? How is a points finish secured? I do not know. Much more pressingly, I do not care. 

My indifference towards all sporting events is the biggest roadblock to me getting much of anything out of “F1.” As the title indicates, the film is essentially one long advertisement for the sport, featuring actual racers and extensive real world branding. I want to say something pithy like “Even if I did understand Formula 1 racing, the stock-parts script would still leave me unsatisfied.” But the over-reliance on the obscurities of race car regulations is a feature, not a bug, for this one. I can admire the professional, ambitious filmmaking on display here in terms of the shooting, editing, sound engineering, and special effects. However, there's simply no in – emotional or narrative – to the story for anyone outside its world. [5/10]