Showing posts with label F-14 Tomcat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F-14 Tomcat. Show all posts

Saturday, June 13, 2015

CRACKER? Top Gun (1986)

 
                          

                “Top Gun” did more to restore the military in the public’s eye going into the Persian Gulf War than any other war movie.  It was not designed to do that.  Jerry Bruckheimer and his partner Don Simpson got the idea for the film from an article about the Navy’s Fighter Weapons School in San Diego.  They were drawn by the title of the article – “Top Gun”.  That would make a kick-ass title for a film about a rebel who learns to be a team player with the help of a hot chick.  Why not supersize it with $37 million F-14 Tomcats and a pulsating rock sound track?  And laugh all the way to the bank.

Trust me, America.  This ain't Vietnam.
                The film opens in the Indian Ocean “present day”, so don’t even think the movie is about the Vietnam War.  MiGs (F-5s painted black in case you have trouble distinguishing bad guys) are threatening one of our aircraft carriers.  An F-14 pilot named “Maverick” (in case you have trouble determining a character’s personality) flies upside down over the camel fighter jock (the enemy is never identified, but we are encouraged to see them as Middle Eastern).  Maverick (Tom Cruise) gives him the finger.  America, f*** yeah!  The MiG scampers because it is obvious this is no longer the panty-waist U.S. military of the 1970s.  Unfortunately, the best pilot on the carrier (“Cougar”) freaks out over having an enemy fighter tail him.  Apparently no one ever told him that was part of his job.  Maverick has to help him land (disobeying orders in the process, of course).  Mav gets the obligatory reaming when he returns, but on the plus side Cougar’s spot for Fighter Weapons School is now open.  Who better to fill it than the pilot who is always in trouble?
MiG at 3 o'clock.  It must be a bogey because it's painted black.
 Permission to inspire a Pepsi commercial?

                Maverick and his back seater “Goose” (Anthony Edwards) are off to San Diego and just like the week before a college session, there is time for some partying and tail chasing (the other kind).  Maverick’s go-to move is to sing “Loving Feeling” to his target for a one night stand.  This one scene can serve as a litmus test of whether you will like this movie.  Charlie (Kelly McGillis) brushes him off because first base never comes in the first inning of a war movie.  You’ll never guess who the expert on MiGs is at the school.  Wait, since the movie is fictional, go ahead and guess.  Part of the schooling involves mock dogfighting so we can have some breaks from the smoochy parts.  The head trainer is the gruff “Jester” (Michael Ironsides).  He’s the kind of jock whose cockpit chatter includes “You can run, but you cannot hide”.  He takes a liking to Maverick because dogfighting is not all about the rules.  You don’t want to discourage a warrior, you just want to rein him in a bit.
I'd like to give a huge shout-out to my agent, but a
big f-u to the cinematographer who dissed my abs
               
                There are two romantic subplots in the movie.  Maverick is wooing “Charlie”.  At the same time, he has this homoerotic thing going on with his rival “Ice Man” (Val Kilmer).  Or did I misread the sweaty, shirtless volleyball game?  It is a race to see who Maverick will go to bed with first.  Meanwhile, Maverick lives up to his nickname in training and even gets someone killed.  This facilitates the requisite personal crisis common in movies of this ilk.  It will take some kind of national crisis to get Maverick back in the saddle and to bring the movie to a rousing, rock-fueled climax that will have the audience cheering.
What do you mean by "actions have consequences"?
And what does "hubris" mean?

                “Top Gun” was a huge hit. It tapped into the patriotism of the Reagan Eighties.  People were tired of the self-flagellation of the Vietnam War movies and the angst of the Seventies.  The movie purposely avoided any reference to the Vietnam War except to specify that Maverick was seeking redemption for some vague mistake his father made in that war.  In a sense, the movie was seeking redemption from the American public for the Vietnam War.  It could be stretched to theorize that the success of the movie helped America to feel good about its military again and may have thus paved the way for our cocky intervention in the Persian Gulf War.  Interestingly, “Heartbreak Ridge” came out the same year, but had less success with rehabilitating the military.  The time was right for those types of flag-wavers.

                The Pentagon sensed this vibe and gave enormous cooperation to the filmmakers.  Bruckheimer and Simpson were aided by the military’s belief that they had made a big mistake in giving “An Officer and a Gentleman” the cold shoulder.  The Navy swagged the movie with two aircraft carriers, Miramar Naval Air Station, a bevy of F-14s, and the technical advisers that came with them.  Although it was claimed that the script was not meant to stimulate recruiting,  it did have this effect which means the military support was well-rewarded.  The cooperation extended to chilling out on the usual over-protectiveness of Navy morals.  The script was allowed to show fighter pilots partying and behaving like frat boys.  In other words, the movie depicts the pilots like all the other twentysomething males in Eighties movies.  Unfortunately, the unintended consequence is that a Pentagon investigation would later partially blame the Tailhook scandal on “Top Gun”!  The one script adjustment agreed to was making Charlie a civilian.  In other words, the Pentagon insisted on ludicrous over simply ridiculous. 

                All this historical significance for a movie that is parody bait.  (See “Hot Shots!”)  It is another war movie aimed at fourteen year old boys and girlfriends of older guys.  The boys get the rock sound track, the locker room hijinks, and the awesome dogfighting.  The females get the fantasy of a non-hottie getting Tom Cruise and a bunch of good bad-boys swatting each other with towels.  The script does not leave its demographic ponder-challenged.  All of the scenarios are contrived and hammily foreshadowed.  The narrative arc has existed for decades of war movies.  Boy is rebel, boy meets girl, girl flirts with boy, boy gets girl, boy has personal crisis on the way to redemption, girl helps boy overcome adversity.  (The PG-13 romance was apparently meant to not offend President Reagan.)  Speaking of clichés, the movie is not as bad as many, but it does have: the main character loses his best friend and considers himself responsible, a pilot is obsessed with proving himself, a maverick learns to fit in, a pilot rides a motorcycle.

                The only strength of the movie is the aerial scenes.  There are some cool dogfights and none of that off-putting CGI.  In fact, the Tomcats do the best acting in the movie.  The three main characters are ridiculous and the actors don’t help distract from this.  How much respect do you have for your audience if you make Charlie an astro-physicist who teaches MiG fighter tactics at Fightertown?  There is no chemistry between Cruise and McGillis.  McGillis was a head-scratching choice for the role.   She is not hot enough to overcome the underwritten role.  Cruise and Kilmer deserve kudos for having the chutzpah to nosh their ludicrous roles with the laughable dialogue that reaches a crescendo with the closing:  “You can be my wingman anytime.”  “Bull shit, you can be mine.”
As in every romantic comedy, there must be
conflict before the kiss

                Quantity of box office receipts is not a good way to determine the quality of a movie.  “Top Gun” was the highest grossing film of the year.  Not to mention the sales of the sound track.  It was critically acclaimed - by the public.  But I would counsel against using winning the People’s Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture to determine how good a movie is.  The cruel fact is that from a war movie perspective, this movie stinks. It is somewhat entertaining if you can laugh instead of weep over the plot and acting.  Good drinking game – drink every time Cruise gives his patented shit-eating grin.  You’ll soon be drunk and then the rest of the movie will be more enjoyable.

GRADE =  D

DEEP QUESTIONS:

If every airman’s nickname tells you about them, why is Bradshaw called “Goose”?

Why did Maverick get Goose’s dog tags instead of his wife and why would Maverick honor him by throwing them in the ocean?

Why doesn’t recklessly causing the death of a Top Gun candidate get you washed out of the school?  Especially after you had already been reprimanded. 

THE TRAILER


THE HONEST TRAILER

  

Monday, April 6, 2015

#4 HELL’S ANGELS vs. #13 TOP GUN


VS.


MATCH-UP:  “Hell’s Angels” was Howard Hughes’ aerial epic.  It is the tale of two brothers who become fighter pilots in WWI.  There is a love triangle involving a loose woman.  One of the brothers is naïve and pure and the other is cowardly and unpatriotic.  The movie is best known for its Zeppelin bombing London scene and the huge swirling dog fight after the explosion laden bombing of an ammo dump.

                “Top Gun” is Hollywood’s answer to what fourteen year old boys want in a war movie.  "Maverick" is sent to Top Gun school to become a top notch fighter pilot.  He is in competition with a hot shot named “Ice Man” who believes you win dogfights through discipline and adherence to basic principles of air combat.  What a chump!  Maverick is more of a fly by the seat of your pants rule-breaker.  (Note the nicknames.)  This personality trait gets him in trouble with the higher ups, but his bosses recognize brilliance when they see it.  You want this guy with you if there ever is a non-mock dogfight (and stick around because there is one!).  Did I mention there is a love story involving the school’s resident MiG expert?  Relax, the expert is a hot woman!

FIRST QUARTER:  Dogfighting Quantity

Hell’s Angels  =  14 minutes
Top Gun  = * 20 minutes 

*  I included the mock dogfights

FIRST QUARTER SCORE:
Top Gun                 9
Hell’s Angels         8

SECOND QUARTER:  Plot

                “Hell’s Angels” started as a silent movie and has a plot appropriate for that era.  There is a love triangle involving two brothers that is interesting due to the fact that two of the people involved are despicable.  The movie sets up a classic redemption scenario then adds a twist.  It’s not predictability that mars the film, it’s the ridiculous disregard for common sense and what is possible.  Lot’s of very unlikely things have to happen to reach the conclusion.  Thankfully all anyone remembers are the groundbreaking dogfights.   C

                “Top Gun” was designed to please all the demographics except war movie fans.  The plot is predictable and is principally about redemption.  As though coming back from causing the death of Maverick’s best friend is not enough, the screenwriters throw in a vague back-story about his disgraced father.  The movie bookends two encounters with black-painted MiGs (no reason for a 1980s movie to defy the black = evil rule).  In between we get a lot of locker room dramatics and faux dog fights.  There is a lame and extremely unlikely love story for the ladies.  F

HALF-TIME SCORE:
Hell’s Angels         15
Top Gun                 14

THIRD QUARTER:  Realism and Accuracy

                None of the plot devices in “Hell’s Angels” are realistic.  The two brothers have a German friend who they ironically meet in the Zeppelin attack.  The German sabotages the bombing of London because he apparently loves his friends’ country more than his own.  The Zeppelin crew sacrifices itself like lemmings.  The femme fatale ends up on the Western Front because it was a target rich environment.  The two brothers know how to fly a captured bomber without even a tutorial.  In fact, the whole bombing of the ammo dump segment is laughable with collateral explosions worthy of a modern movie.  The sole redemption for realism is the swirling dogfights, but even there the tactics are shaky.  D

                “Top Gun” may seem realistic to your average moviegoer, but anyone with any knowledge of naval aviation will do a lot of eye-rolling.  To the knowledgeable, there are plot devices that are ridiculous.  This begins early when the pilot considered the best in the unit has a panic attack doing what he was trained to do.  Worse is the introduction of a MiG expert in the form of a hot female instructor.  I hope I do not sound sexist when I say that character was silly.  The death of Goose was physically impossible.  For a movie that was heavily vetted by the Navy, it is odd that they allowed a scene trashing their ejection seats and helmets.  On the other hand, the segments involving the Fighter Weapons School seem within reason.  The mock dogfights, although enhanced for dramatic purposes, are believable.  D

THIRD QUARTER SCORE: 
Hell’s Angels         21
Top Gun                 20

FOURTH QUARTER:  Cliches
               
                Monte is a ladies’ man and it’s a curse because he can’t help but sleep with his saintly brother’s girlfriend.  Monte and Roy ride in a motorcycle and sidecar.  They party hard the night before their suicide mission.  There is a head on crash.  B

                Maverick not only rides a motorcycle, he owns one!  He loses his best friend because he is a glory hound.  Kudos for combining two clichés.  The pilots party hard and bring back the WWI movie singalong.  Maverick woos a local girl.  In addition, we get the generic tropes of the main character earning redemption and overcoming a crisis in confidence.  D

FINAL SCORE:
Hell’s Angels         29
Top Gun                 26

POST-MATCH ANALYSIS:


                These two movies are 56 years apart and although the match-up is Old School versus MTV School, the basic plots could have replaced each other without the audiences being confused.  “Hell’s Angels” is overrated, but it does have history going for it.  It was the first significant sound air combat movie.  “Top Gun” has the distinction of being the first air combat film to have a thundering rock sound track.  “Hell’s Angels” was made to please Howard Hughes and “Top Gun” was made to please John Hughes’ core audience.