If your like me, you probably had fond memories of "Top Gun" from your childhood. Tom Cruise was, in my young mind, the barometer of late Cold War manliness with his motorcycle and jet fighting. Having just watched it again for TKP, I was puzzled by how terrible of a movie it really is. At the end of the day "Top Gun" is just a complicated hot-for-teacher story about an irresponsible naval aviator with severe daddy issues. Not only that, this movie, released in the later part of Ronald Reagan's second term is so myopic about the implications of the Cold War that it's unbelievable. Let me explain:
Of all the movies that have ever starred Val Kilmer, this one probably needs the least introduction (other than "Batman Forever"). Just about everyone saw "Top Gun" when they were growing up. It was a mega-hit and propelled Tom Cruise from a doofus dancing around a living room in his underwear to a doofus of an action movie star. Kilmer's supporting role as Tom "Iceman" Kazanski propelled him to bigger and better things and so this movie is almost definitely responsible for the blog you're now reading.
The story is about the Navy's advanced training camp for its top pilots. Tom Cruise plays Pete "Maverick" Mitchell, a hot shot pilot who is the son of another hot shot pilot who went inexplicably missing and whose whereabouts are 'classified.' Maverick's partner is Anthony Edwards, aka "Goose,"
(aka Dr. Mark Greene on E.R. - seriously, he aged terribly)
Anyway they manage to get nominated to the Top Gun school through sheer ballsiness... and by default since the other guy quit. The pilots compete in training exercises and are awarded points. The winner gets his name on a plaque and can be a flight instructor in the Top Gun program (whoo hoo!).
Val Kilmer is the favorite to win the contest because he's... what's the word, competent. I always remembered Iceman as being this huge villain, but after having just watched it again, I'm pretty convinced that he's got a point. Basically, his beef with Maverick is that Maverick (as his McCain-inspiring nickname ought to foreshadow) is reckless and his mistakes will end up getting people in killed. This seems like a fairly straightforward critique. Maverick is kind of a jackass who doesn't care to follow military discipline and the more straight laced soldier doesn't respect him because of it.
And you'll never believe what happens! Maverick's aggressive flying leads to his plane stalling in midair and Dr. Goose dying. Also, Iceman actually wins the Top Gun contest! Did anyone else not remember this? I guess I was always under the impression that Maverick was the Top Gun, but he's not. Your led to believe that somehow Maverick's the hero because... well I don't know really, he sleeps with his teacher? He's aggressive? He's sad about being personally responsible for making his best friend's wife a widow? He recklessly endangers the lives of the crew members in the control tower for his own selfish amusement by flying perilously close to it at a high speed? When you think about it, Iceman is totally right to not respect Maverick. Iceman is a paragon of accountability. He's a reliable and skilled pilot who doesn't seem to have an F-14 Tomcat's worth of personal issues to deal with. Kilmer plays the sort of pilot our country should hope for in its service members. Cruise plays a guy who will probably get shook up after combat and end up a burnt out bum with a sign pleading for help for a vet.
That said "Top Gun" does set up an interestingly confrontational dynamic between Tom "Mr. Scientology" Cruise and Val Kilmer, a Christian Scientist (not to be confused with the aforementioned L. Ron Hubbard nonsense). One thing's for certain: not a lot of pharmaceuticals around the set with these two as the leads. Also, I'm pretty sure this is the only movie that they were in together.
I'm aware this has gotten long but I do want to touch briefly on one other point. The battle scene near the end of the movie is so preposterous. When during the later point of the cold war did Migs (as in the fighter jets of the Soviet Union) and US aircraft actually ever come even remotely close to engaging in combat? The movie's plot has a downed communication ship about to be blown up by a Mig fighters. Why? Don't worry about it? They're the evil empire? Fine. But why would the Migs willing engage the US fighters and risk World War III? It's nonsensical. It's just a convenient plot device that allows this expensive military hardware to be actually be used. Imagine how boring of a movie it would be if they just did the engage, retreat without firing a shot thing that happens at the beginning of the movie (and most likely did happen whenever either side encroached on the other's airspace). Why is the navy in the Indian Ocean in the first place? It's unexplainable militarism like this that makes people like me unable to enjoy brainless action movies.
In conclusion, that volleyball scene does not connect to any other part of the story at all, whatsoever. It's five minutes of absolutely shameless filler... but look at those bods.
February 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment