F1: The Movie is on the cusp of hitting theatres around the world this week, but beware the cynical reviews centring on the film’s inaccuracies — it’s still a romp worth seeing.

Leave the FIA sporting regulations at home, suspend your disbelief, and allow yourself to be delighted by an audiovisual bonanza designed to sweep you off your feet. (And be warned: there are spoilers ahead!)

1. The F1 movie thrives on impeccable audio and visuals

Motorsport film fans may (or may not) like this comparison, but F1: The Movie is something of the modern version of Steve McQueen’s Le Mans: The audio and visuals are fantastic, while the plot leaves a lot to be desired.

When McQueen set out to film Le Mans, he wanted to film a love letter to the most iconic endurance race in the world. Plot was a secondary concern. As such, the storyline that threads the racing action together is flimsy and cheesy; the racing scenes are what gave the film its permanent place in the motorsport movie pantheon.

F1: The Movie felt similar. Yes, the plot can feel a bit clunky and loaded down with Hollywood tropes, but the racing scenes are where it shines, and those scenes are the ones that will stand the test of time.

2. The F1 movie treats other racing series with respect

When it comes to F1-focused media, there can be a tendency to act as if Formula 1 is the only form of motorsport in the world — or, at least, the only one worth respect.

Thankfully, F1: The Movie doesn’t fall into that trap. Brad Pitt’s character, Sonny Hayes, kicks off the movie by winning the Daytona 24 Hours in the GTD class and ends it heading off to Mexico to try his hand at the Baja 1000. Sprinkled throughout are references to Hayes trying his hand at Le Mans, Dakar, and more.

Further, as Damson Idris’ character Joshua Pearce faces down a potential reality that may see him leaving F1, his manager suggests IndyCar as a viable alternative — without treating it as some sort of downgrade.

For F1-only fans who can’t conscience the thought that other forms of motorsport might be compelling, satisfying, and reputable, this fact may not matter. But the film is a Hollywood affair geared toward American fans; speaking ill of American motorsport would likely be a turn-off. The fact that North American motorsport is given its due is refreshing.

3. The F1 movie pulls from reality, if you’re willing to scratch beneath the surface

One of the biggest criticisms coming from early motorsport-specific reviewers of the F1 film is that it is inaccurate and unreal — but I’d like to challenge you to scratch beneath the surface; you might find some details are closer to reality than you might imagine.

You might ask: “How can a back-of-the-field team suddenly start contending for podiums?” I’d challenge you to recall Alpine’s performance turnaround in 2024, where the French team burst to life near the end of the season.

You might wonder how Sonny Hayes can somehow strategise for his team-mate in the middle of a Grand Prix — but over at Aston Martin, Fernando Alonso has done the same for Lance Stroll (albeit, admittedly, to a much lesser extent).

You might burst into laughter at the surreal crash scenes, particularly Joshua Pearce’s incident at Monza — but there are elements of each crash that have come from real life. In 2019, Formula 3 driver Alex Peroni had an airborne accident very similar to Pearce’s, while Romain Grosjean’s 2020 Bahrain Grand Prix wreck proved that F1 cars can still burst into flames.

I won’t argue that the entire movie is entirely accurate, because it isn’t, but I do think folks might benefit from removing the sceptic’s hat, if only to explore what could be true.

More on the Brad Pitt F1 movie:

👉 Brad Pitt F1 movie: Cast, release date, Lewis Hamilton involvement and more

👉 Brad Pitt F1 movie: An insider’s complete guide to the F1 film

4. The F1 movie is a fun love letter to racing films

Whether you’re a fan of Grand Prix, Le Mans, Days of Thunder, or even Talladega Nights, there will be some element of the new F1 film that feels like a call-back to some of your favourite scenes of yore. That’s because F1: The Movie feels like a love letter to the racing films that came before it.

The poker scene in F1 is reminiscent of the sugar packet racing in Days of Thunder. The onboards are transformative in the same way Grand Prix‘s were. F1 is often funny, relying on tropes about European motorsport personnel in the same way that Talladega Nights drew on stereotypes about NASCAR drivers. It’s nostalgic like Rush or Ford v. Ferrari; it can be absurd like Driven; it’s a culture clash like Bobby Deerfield.

The primary thing that all those racing movies have in common is their ties to reality — and their extrapolation upon it. That’s a large part of what makes F1: The Movie so fun.

5. The F1 movie is escapism, not reality

How often does Hollywood produce a fully accurate version of reality, and how often does it centre on a kind of escapist version of reality? If things were always completely factual, then publications like GQ wouldn’t have recurring series like “The Breakdown” that bring in experts to fact check prominent films.

Movies are wish fulfilment. Even theoretically factual racing movies like Rush, Ferrari, and Ford v. Ferrari are chock full of inaccuracies that are designed for Hollywood — and that’s because these movies are designed to entertain, not educate.

How many 60-year-old men wish they could race in F1? How many drivers in the Daytona 24 Hours wish they could crash into each other? How many bottom-tier teams wish they could wreck for a podium? These things don’t exist in real life, but they can absolutely exist in movies — and they do exist in F1.

6. The F1 movie isn’t made for hardcore F1 fans, and that’s okay!

Hardcore Formula 1 fans can be a tough bunch to please even on the best of days, and the rampant discourse in comment sections and forums all around the internet prove that to be the case.

Did Max Verstappen deserve his penalty points in Spain? Should America have three Grands Prix? Can we call Lewis Hamilton the Greatest Of All Time? These topics have been hotly contested, with fans taking stances on all sides of the fence and not a lick of consensus to be found amongst them.

The same is always going to be true for the F1 film. There were sure to be naysayers, even if it was the most accurate portrayal of the sport, loaded with historical fact and by-the-book racing. And if that had been the case, it wouldn’t have been all that compelling for new audiences.

F1: The Movie inhabits the same space as Netflix’s docuseries Drive to Survive. Both are compelling portrayals of a sport that are designed more for non-F1 fans than for the folks who know the sport like the back of their hand. And that’s okay. In fact, that’s great!

F1 is growing around the world, particularly with younger and more diverse audiences — demographics that have historically been difficult for the sport to crack. For the first time in 75 years, Americans are flocking to the track, while young women have discovered novel entry points to the sport.

Those fans may not experience F1 the same way that a long-time, tech-and-strategy-focused fan might. They might want different things from F1, or have new ways of engaging with the sport. They might care less about digging into the nuance of engineering than they do about interpersonal drama between drivers. But if they’re tuning in, does it really matter?

Drive to Survive showed that it’s possible to engage fresh demographics by portraying the sport in a different way. F1: The Movie takes another stab at drawing in even more fans by taking a fictionalised approach to motorsport. And if you enter the theatre with that in mind, you might just find yourself enjoying the movie rather than tearing it apart.

Read next: Williams confirm ‘payment’ over F1 movie involvement as FIA keep watch