Image by David Mark from Pixabay With the release of the long-delayed, highly-anticipated and (so far) universally-praised sequel Top Gun: Maverick this weekend, I finally revisit the book “1,001 Movies You Must See Before You Die” by Steven Jay Schneider by delving into the reasons why the 1986 high-flying action flick Top Gun ultimately falls flat for me.
[NOTE: This blog will contain spoilers for “Top Gun.” You have been warned.] The History In a 1983 article entitled “Top Guns” published in the California magazine, author Ehud Yonay detailed the life of fighter pilots at Naval Air Station Miramar in San Diego by featuring aerial photography of said pilots (like Lieutenant Commander Charles “Heater” Heatley). After reading the article, film producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson (Flashdance, Beverly Hills Cop, Bad Boys) hired screenwriters Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr. (Turner & Hooch, Anaconda) to write the first draft of the screenplay which involved Epps attending some aviator classes in San Diego (involving him being flown in an F-14 fighter jet). Based on his commercial work in the early 1980s for Swedish car manufacturer Saab, Tony Scott (Days of Thunder, True Romance) was hired by Bruckheimer and Simpson to direct the project. Apparently, Scott’s commercial involved a Saab car racing a Saab fighter jet which impressed the producers. In terms of casting, Matthew Modine (Full Metal Jacket, Stranger Things) was offered the lead role but turned it down because he felt that the script’s pro-military stance contradicted his own political views. Thus, the role ultimately went to Tom Cruise (Risky Business, Born on the Fourth of July, Mission: Impossible). The U.S. Navy played a significant role in approving the final screenplay, and contributed notable changes like moving the opening dogfight to international waters, toning down the language, and cutting a scene involving a plane crashing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. In addition, since the Navy prohibits any romantic or sexual liaisons between officers and enlisted personnel, the protagonist’s love interest was changed from a female enlistee to a civilian contractor for the Navy. When it came to filming, the Navy loaned several in-service F-14 fighter jets to the production team. This, of course, cost Paramount Pictures approximately $20,000 per hour (adjusted for inflation). In filming anything happening on the flight decks of aircraft carrier USS Enterprise, the cameramen had to just shoot normal operations aboard the ship and use what they could in post-production. In order to repeat a shot for another five minutes, Scott wrote a $25,000 check to the captain of Enterprise to turn the ship, stay on course, and film a jet back-lit by the Sun. In order to shoot aircraft flying over land, Scott utilized ground-mounted cameras at Naval Air Station Fallon in Nevada. Meanwhile, air-to-air shots were filed with a Learjet with special camera pods that Paramount Pictures paid for to be mounted upon the plane that could be pointed toward either the front or rear in order to capture shots at high altitudes. All of this stunt filming with live jets did not happen without horrific consequences. On September 16, 1985, aerobatic pilot Art Scholl was performing a flat spin (which was to be captured on camera) when he could not recover from the spin and crashed his plane into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of southern California. The official cause of the accident is unknown, since Scholl’s body nor his plane were never recovered. The film ended up being dedicated to his memory. Released in May of 1986, Top Gun grossed over 350 million dollars on a fifteen-million-dollar budget and thus became the highest-grossing film at the domestic box office that year. Despite generally positive reception for the action sequences, stunts, and the two lead performances, critics were mixed on the film due to the overall story, dialogue, and political messaging. Still, it was nominated for four technical Oscars (winning Best Original Song for “Take My Breath Away”) and in 2015 was selected by the Library of Congress for preservation due to its cultural, historical, and aesthetic significance. The Cons In many ways, the way that my parents’ generation talk about Top Gun reminds me of how they talk about the original Ghostbusters or Tim Burton’s first Batman film. Going into watching this movie for the first time a few years ago, I was under the impression that it was an action-packed flying fest with some iconic 80s cinematic moments that outweigh anything else in the movie that doesn’t hold up to modern scrutiny. But that’s not the experience I had with this film, either during that first viewing or on my rewatch this month. Simply put, Top Gun is a bad movie. Let me explain why. For starters, the entire first act relies on the audience buying into the “will they, won’t they” romance teased between our protagonist Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise) and his instructor Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood (Kelly McGillis). You’re supposed to root for their sexual tension and feel a payoff when they finally open up to each other and hook up. But, in order for me to feel anything for their relationship, I have to care about it as well as buy into their rapport with each other. The problem? Cruise and McGillis have (in my humble opinion) no dynamic or believable chemistry with one another. I can’t say it’s their fault entirely, because Cruise clearly has played several charismatic leads in his career while McGillis played off of Harrison Ford very well in Peter Weir’s 1985 crime drama Witness. I guess the casting agent or director should’ve done a few more chemistry reads between them to realize what I figured out within the first forty-five minutes of the movie. Thus, without a compelling romance plot, the first act of Top Gun drags so needlessly and thus puts that much more pressure on the rest of the film to exceed expectations. Later, I’ll shower praise on the film’s flight sequences which are good…when they’re focused on showing the planes from outside the cockpit. When the camera moves up close and personal with the pilots, we instead get what amounts to a piss-poor VR attraction at an arcade as it rocks back and forth without any of the visceral, high-flying thrills inherent to the film’s concept. Furthermore, the dialogue said by the pilots in the cockpits is so bad that it manages to distract me from the adequately put-together action scenes in the air (god, I hope this improves in the sequel ☹). While I also do appreciate Anthony Edwards’s performance as Maverick’s best friend Nick Bradshaw (more famously known as “Goose”), his role in the plot (specifically, his sudden death while flying with Maverick) felt so incredibly abrupt. It’s almost like the screenwriters were nearing the end of the script and realized that Maverick had no kind of character growth yet. So, instead of delving more into his rivalry with Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer) or keep this romance plot with Charlie trudging along, they just decided to kill one of the most likeable characters in the movie in order to give Maverick some kind of forced, unbelievable identity crisis. Simply put, the movie could have been shaved down to a solid 90 minutes by cutting out this entire element of the story. Hopefully, the sequel makes Goose’s death worth it but for this movie alone I found it both unnecessary and poorly handled. Now, there are other substantive critiques of Top Gun that I could bring up. But, I’d rather have fun and end with a silly criticism that greatly annoyed me on my rewatch. Why are all these pilots so damn sweaty?! I get that they’re running around shirtless playing volleyball on the beaches of San Diego, but even when they’re indoors (presumable with air conditioning) or just sitting in a classroom setting they’re all sweating their asses off. I have to ask director Tony Scott: what was the point of this?!? 😊 The Pros While by no means a good movie, Top Gun does have some redeeming qualities to it. Most of the performances to be either forgettable or downright bad, but Anthony Edwards as Goose manages to maximize the relatively little amount of screen time that he has. Essentially, the impact of Goose’s death in the second act (and therefore Maverick’s character arc in the third act) hinges on Edwards endearing the audience to Goose as a simpleminded but loyal and likeable second-fiddle to Tom Cruise. And he does so well enough that Maverick’s growth feels somewhat earned by the end. That being said, I hope that this relationship dynamic (when introducing Goose’s grown-up son) will pay off way better in the sequel. What most people agree on with Top Gun is that its commitment to well-shot flight sequences was a standout, impressive maneuver (pun intended 😊) for the time period. And while I cannot fully agree given how far we’ve come in the last forty years with compelling aerial action scenes, I can admit that the most engaging thing about the movie is seeing footage of fighter jets flying around each other is competently composed and well executed. But, without question, the best thing about Top Gun is the soundtrack. Strike that: it’s the two most famous songs from the soundtrack. The movie undoubtedly puts its best foot forward with a five-minute intro credits sequence of jets taking off of aircraft carriers set to Kenny Loggins’s kicker rock song “Danger Zone.” If only the rest of the movie delivered on the energetic and exciting promise of those opening minutes. And, of course, Berlin’s performance of “Take My Breath Away” remains one of those iconic 80s songs that makes me want to be swallowed up by the pop culture of a time when I never have and never will actually live in. That being said, its use in the scene where Maverick and Charlie consummate their lust for each other felt quite anticlimactic as it skipped over any of the verses or early choruses in favor of the bridge, essentially going from 3 to 50 too abruptly. But, still a great song. So, what are my final impressions of Top Gun? Not unlike other cheesy 80s flicks that aren’t nearly as good as people who grew up with them say they are, this film is (mostly) a waste of time on its own. Will the sequel justify its existence? I certainly hope so, but am not going into the theaters for Top Gun: Maverick expecting any such miracle. What do you think about Top Gun? Are you excited about the sequel, or do you even care? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|