Redux: Top Gun.

Redux: #029: Top Gun.

Cast: 

Tom Cruise (Pete "Maverick" Mitchell), Kelly McGillis (Charlotte "Charlie" Blackwood), Val Kilmer (Tom "Iceman" Kazansky), Anthony Edwards (Nick "Goose" Bradshaw), Tom Skerritt (Mike "Viper" Metcalf), Michael Ironside (Rick "Jester" Heatherly), John Stockwell (Bill "Cougar" Cortell), Barry Tubb (Leonard "Wolfman" Wolfe), Rick Rossovich (Ron "Slider" Kerner), Tim Robbins (Sam "Merlin" Wells), Clarence Gilyard (Marcus "Sundown" Williams), Whip Hubley (Rick "Hollywood" Neven), and James Tolkan (Tom "Stinger" Jardian) Directed by Tony Scott.

Review: 

"Jerry was the first person to see the energy and dynamism that ad directors could bring to movies because he was from a commercials background himself."

A main core is only as successful as the parts that come with it. Tony Scott was born in Tynemouth, England as the youngest of three sons; when his older brother Ridley shot his first film in 1962, he cast his brother as the lead. At any rate, the younger Scott studied at Sunderland Art School and the Royal College of Art before he decided to join his brother in making advertisement films (as was the case with other soon-to-be directors like Alan Parker and Adrian Lyne). Of course, he did do his own shorts with One of the Missing (1968) and Loving Memory (1970) before his feature film debut came with The Hunger (made in 1983 to minor attention), but it was his filming in advertisements that would keep him steady for a number of years, and it was his advertisement for automaker Saab (which had a car racing a fighter jet) that raised interest from Jerry Bruckheimer to do this film. Of course, as a young man, Bruckheimer had worked in advertising before moving to producing films in 1972; it was his meeting years later with Don Simpson, who also had years of experience with film production that later led to their first collaboration: Flashdance, released in 1983, would be Bruckheimer and Simpson's first major hit as producer. The movie was inspired by an article called "Top Guns", written originally for California magazine in May 1983 by Ehud Yonay. The article detailed a F-14 pilots training with the Navy Fighter Weapons School program that was noted for its prose and still photography that conveyed what flying a fighter seemed like, as stated by two pilots named "Yogi" and "Possum". Bruckheimer and Don Simpson liked it and thus got Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr to construct a first draft, although there would be considerable differences before it finally made it to the big screen (which reportedly saw a last-minute rewrite from Warren Skaaren). This also extended to their work with the Department of Defense (a key backer that wanted to maintain that the movie honored the fine points of security, accuracy, policy, and propriety with the story (i.e. a character not suffering a mid-air collision or the love story being changed from between military personnel to a military man and civilian). The technical advisor utilized for the film was Peter "Viper" Pettigrew, a former "Topgun" (as the actual term is referred to) instructor at the Miramar Naval Air Station in Miramar, California.

As stated by its opening card: On March 3, 1969 the United States Navy established an elite school for the top one percent of its pilots. Its purpose was to teach the lost art of aerial combat and to insure that the handful of men who graduated were the best fighter pilots in the world. They succeeded. Today, the Navy calls it Fighter Weapons School. The flyers call it: You get the idea. The last time I saw the film was over a decade ago, and I remember that the film was a "cheesy flick", one that worked best with its action sequences more so than its overall mood and atmosphere. But time does find a new way to write more clear words about a movie that has now reached over three decades of age. If one gets even a fraction of how Yonay felt when he flew in an F-5 for an hour in terms of aching muscles or the thrill of wanting to get up there again, then the movie has obviously succeeded. The sequences in between talking are quite effective in their choreography, ones that serve as a useful tool of conveying action with the strange duality of not churning itself in its look but also conveying violence without drops of blood. Admittedly, the movie served as a useful tool to one thing in particular: the United States Navy, who not only helped support the film but also found plenty of recruits after the movie was released. Perhaps it isn't surprising that Oliver Stone (director of Platoon, which won Best Picture the same year as this film) felt the movie was fascist. Honestly, the parody Hot Shots (1991) might actually be the most appropriate feeling about the movie: a movie that made light of its overt macho nature that doesn't have time to think, instead acting on instinct and not much else. I think the mediocrity that my eyes saw as a fourteen-year-old only slightly changed very slightly as a 25-year old. The best thing about the movie is still the style first and Cruise second. One can see the persistent charisma oozing from Cruise (who had his breakthrough with Risky Business three years prior) that molded him from casual leading man to one with a formula fitting for a big-name presence, and he essentially walks over most of the folks here, to the point where McGillis can't catch up even when "Take My Breath Away" is blaring. Edwards provides warm energy to the early part of the proceedings for a movie that set a tone as a so-called movie for the "bros", if you will. Kilmer (who had early success in comedies like Top Secret!) has his own kind of icy charm that is just as confident and self-assured as Cruise. Skerritt and Tolkan are useful tools for authority foils, ones fitting of a sports movie filled with recognizable people meant to induce a wise-ass remark or smile. Besides, sports movies could only wish to be as eccentric with their opening besides seeing someone take a photo from up above. I think the opening with Stockwell going through a panic attack in the air is probably the best actual sequence of dialogue and visual sense; the volleyball sequence may be talked about to death, but honestly it only seems to exist as an offshoot to all of the other scenes that seem shot for a commercial rather than anything to seriously dissect. I respect the craft while also recognizing that the script quality is essentially on a level equivalent to an adventure movie where inevitability is king. It is probably how driving a car from the 1980s would turn out: it may look sleek, but one has to watch out for the simple things. For a number of years, the idea of a Top Gun sequel came up a couple of times in the 21st century, even with the suicide of Scott in 2012, and after a number of years in film/development, Top Gun: Maverick was released in late May 2022. It isn't a surprise that this followed along the lines of other sequels to movies long ago, because Top Gun is a curious representation of its era: bold, set firmly in its time, and possibly ripe for further viewing if one is in the mindset for what it wants to sell.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next Review: Top Gun: Maverick.

Beverly Hills Cop II.

Review #1842: Beverly Hills Cop II.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Detective Axel Foley), Judge Reinhold (Detective Billy Rosewood), Jürgen Prochnow (Maxwell Dent), John Ashton (Detective John Taggart), Ronny Cox (Captain Andrew Bogomil), Brigitte Nielsen (Karla Fry), Allen Garfield (Chief Harold Lutz), Brian O'Connor (Detective Biddle), Dean Stockwell (Charles Cain), Gil Hill (Inspector Douglas Todd), Gilbert Gottfried (Sidney Bernstein), Paul Reiser (Detective Jeffrey Friedman), Paul Guilfoyle (Nikos Thomopolis), Robert Ridgely (Mayor Ted Egan), and Alice Adair (Jan Bogomil) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, #357 - The Last Boy Scout, #1632 - True Romance)

Review: 

Admittedly, it isn't much of a surprise that this film came on the heels of a successful feature, one that  celebrates its 35th anniversary of release. Beverly Hills Cop (1984), based on a script by Danilo Bach and Daniel Petrie Jr with direction by Martin Brest, was the right movie at the right time to bring its main star (Eddie Murphy rather than Sylvester Stallone, who is referenced from time to time in this movie) to widespread popularity, one that was the biggest blockbuster (and biggest overall hit) of its year. As such, the sequel features the same producers in Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer along with most of the regulars back to star; the movie was done rather than the idea of doing a television series, which is what Paramount Pictures wanted to do (Murphy said no to the idea). Of course, the writers are different, as Larry Ferguson and Warren Skaaren wrote the screenplay while Robert D. Wachs and Eddie Murphy did the story. For what it's worth, Murphy said a few years later that it was a "half-assed movie." Tony Scott, who had made a serviceable hit for Bruckheimer with Top Gun (1986), was brought in to direct the movie, which was his third ever feature as director (with his older brother Ridley, they had founded a company together in 1968 that honed directors like him and Alan Parker in making commercials).

At least "Shakedown" is a good song to start with (Bob Seger is underrated)? Honestly, it is just okay. It doesn't do well in terms of generating amusement, but Scott does well enough with staging the action and general charm of Murphy and friends to make a relatively decent experience. One gets to see Murphy paired with Reinhold and Ashton while others nearly fall by the wayside, whether that means Prochnow or with Cox. It glides around for103-minute with some of the same beats from the original while trying to not muddle the machinations of the plot, which goes from "fish out of water breaking into a crime ring by a businessman" to "not fish out of water breaking into a crime ring by a businessman" (both involving someone close to him being shot in Beverly Hills), with "alphabet crimes" being the name of the game here. Scott stated this film as a cross between Beverly Hills Cop and 48 Hrs (1982), but it inadvertently serves as a precursor to Murphy doing second-tier work in later years such as Another 48 Hrs (1990), although at least this film doesn't strain itself too hard to explain its plot beyond what it needs to. Murphy at least makes the effort in driving the movie along with his general charm that maneuvers his way through the action/comedy beats with staid patience rather than complete "paycheck mode". Additionally, Reinhold and Ashton make for a good trio to follow along with in budding engagement, where one likes to see them around making good beats for timing with contrast between calm and hard-lined personality. Prochnow and Nielsen are moderately around the adversarial level that the first film had in general "okay" quality that can't exactly stand out too well from Murphy besides cardboard threats of inevitability (Stockwell being used as a front man rather than for actual moments of ooze is particularly vexing, I don't care how many movies Prochnow has done, you cannot tell me Stockwell isn't up to his par). Besides, Garfield is the hard-lined foil to remember for short bits anyway. There are a select number of small appearances with recognizable faces (established or not), with some of those working out fine like with Gottfried and his momentary bumbling (also, Chris Rock makes his first film appearance) while others...do not (no one, and I mean no one, needs a sequence at the Playboy Mansion). As a whole, the movie is glossier and perhaps less heightened than the original, one with all the right (cliche) moves that will please just the folks who are fine with what they have seen before, serving as a pinnacle of average. There is nothing great or terrible with it, which seems more of a description of fast-food products more than anything. With that in mind, this is one of those "take it or leave it" movies, where Murphy and company carry it far enough over the finish line to make the experience mostly worth it. In a sea of Murphy movies, being in the middle of the pack is not a bad thing to consider.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

True Romance.

Review #1632: True Romance.

Cast:

Christian Slater (Clarence Worley), Patricia Arquette (Alabama Whitman), Dennis Hopper (Clifford Worley), Val Kilmer (Mentor), Gary Oldman (Drexl Spivey), Brad Pitt (Floyd), Christopher Walken (Vincenzo Coccotti), Bronson Pinchot (Elliot Blitzer), Samuel L. Jackson (Big Don), Michael Rapaport (Dick Ritchie), Saul Rubinek (Lee Donowitz), Conchata Ferrell (Mary Louise Ravencroft), James Gandolfini (Virgil), Anna Thomson (Lucy), Victor Argo (Lenny), Chris Penn (Nicky Dimes), and Tom Sizemore (Cody Nicholson) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun, #253 - Unstoppable, and #357 - The Last Boy Scout)

Review:

"The biggest edge I live on is directing. That's the most scary, dangerous thing you can do in your life."

Curiosity can reign free when it comes to looking upon two merging visions make a film together in the writer and director. The writer of the film was Quentin Tarantino, who based his script of a script Roger Avary had done called "The Open Road", and Avary helped organize the structure of that script. He had met director Tony Scott while lurking around the set of Scott's film The Last Boy Scout, and he gave Scott two scripts (True Romance and Reservoir Dogs), for which Scott wanted to make films of (when faced with having to pick just one, he picked the former (the latter script was turned into a film first, although it had been written later than the former). The script was written by Tarantino with the lead character as a stand-in for himself. Scott was obviously no stranger to making enterprising efforts in action. A graduate of the Royal College of Art in London like his older brother Ridley, with each becoming inspired to move from an interest in art to advertisements to eventually films, with the younger Scott specializing in action and thriller over the course of sixteen films. This was the seventh feature effort from Scott, which he made on a budget of $12 million that led to fair notice but a limited appeal in terms of box office. Its stature has risen in recent years as a cult favorite, for obvious reasons to those who look at the film at the nexus of two directors. There is of course one key difference from script to film - the final fate of one of the characters, in which Tarantino had them die (as a sign of comeuppance for all the cynical folks), but Scott liked one of the characters so much that he wanted them to stay together, acting it as a fairy tale love story. Of course, the acting choices would certainly be interesting if looked upon by Tarantino, since he wrote the film with Robert Carradine and Joan Cusack in mind for the leads (for his part, Scott desired Drew Barrymore at first), so wrap your head how that would have looked.

When one is tired of relationships, they should pick a romance, obviously. If Natural Born Killers (1994, the second script he sold) represents a compromised vision between Tarantino's scripting and the director, True Romance is certainly a case of writer-director cohesion, one where the details all come together to make what might seem like a fantasy come alive with energy and intrigue (although there is some satire included by Scott, who molded Rubinek's character after producer Joel Silver). It never seems like a compromise, balancing eloquence of amusement with violence that only got more interesting upon the progression of Tarantino over the next few years, and Scott makes his effort count in riveting interest with what is needed, whether that means scenes shot at the Ambassador Hotel, or with scenes that can jump from amusement to violent at a turn that go with the aspects of Elvis Presley adoration to a collection of cast that could make up two separate big-time movies (Oldman, Jackson, and Pitt basically make up about 20 minutes of time on screen, and this is 1992 we are talking about). Is it perfect? No, but it certainly is bold enough to linger with anyone curious enough to seek it out for those who like to see an interesting time that runs the gamut from pulp to black comedy without running itself ragged. Slater thought of the role as a comedy before Scott and him saw Taxi Driver (1976) in order to hone in a darker, cooler approach. Obviously it worked out well, since he plays it off with a refined sense of daredevil charisma, where one can see him roll with everything that goes in action and romance without any trouble, playing this quasi-Tarantino character with no false note (even when dealing an imaginary friend that looks like Elvis) Arquette fits on the other side of the coin, matching well in making this romance easy to believe in from the very first few moments, because one sees plenty of magnetism between these folks in their pursuit of living free within the domain of enjoying kung fu among other hobbies and vices. She makes for a mix of worldly innocence that makes this dark fairy tale come around with dutiful interest that holds her own (just as Slater does) when not together - the best scene might be her paired with another actor though, as the scene in the motel room with Gandolfini (in a key early role marked with brutal effectiveness) makes for a tense tête-à-tête in rising action and a natural bludgeoning edge to close it out. Others do their part with less time on screen, such as Hopper, who naturally gets one interesting scene to spend making it all count - his last, spent with one-scene wonder Walken, which involves a few choice words involving Sicily that makes for a riveting standoff. Kilmer spends his time with a good voice needed to play off scenes spent in quasi-hiding, which go well when playing an imagined presence. Oldman may not be in it much, but he sure makes a worthy rough presence count that never betrays the makeup and voice set for such an unsavory curiosity. Pitt (no stranger to making supporting turns count in the first part of the 1990s) makes his buzzed time count, an observer with improvised dialogue to make for bemused amusement (one might recognize the influence this role had on another film released years later with Pineapple Express). Pinchot (mostly known for his star role in Perfect Strangers for seven years) makes well with panic-laced pacing, which plays right into the climax fine, particularly with the bravado played by Rubinek, while Rapaport, Penn, and Sizemore contribute in their own little ways (mostly with the standoff). By the time the film closes down its 118 minute run-time, one will find a pretty good experience in balancing dark humor and violence that has plenty of energy where it needs to go without seeming too much like a brazen fantasy running around in references. It makes for a fun time, accomplishing what it needs to do with its pursuit of story beat to drive it over the finish line to its standoff that will hit with the viewers that enjoy what comes from either Tarantino or Scott without too much worry about every detail or just who did what. Sometimes one just has to sit and enjoy the tale for itself.

Well, you are probably wondering just why there were a few reviews this week that happened to tie to the years of 1990-1993. Sure, these films have been in consideration for several months (for obvious reason), but there is also another reason: They happen to be the years involving a team dear to me when it comes to rooting interest in the Buffalo Bills, who went to the Super Bowl in four straight years. I don't usually take to the sports pulpit when it comes to these writings, but let's bend the rule for this one because of the fact that they are playing for the right to be in the Super Bowl again: Let's go Buffalo, let us see you pull of a great big upset today and move on to February, so say it with me now: No one circles the wagons like the Buffalo Bills!

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Last Boy Scout.

Review #357: The Last Boy Scout.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Joe Hallenbeck), Damon Wayans (James Dix), Noble Willingham (Sheldon Marcone), Taylor Negron (Milo), Danielle Harris (Darian Hallenbeck), Halle Berry (Cory), Chelsea Field (Sarah Hallenbeck), and Bruce McGill (Mike Matthews) Directed by Tony Scott (#029 - Top Gun and #253 - Unstoppable)

Review
This film is like a checklist for action films in some senses. Longtime action star? Check. Second cast member who helps out the first action star? Check. 80s-90s feel? Check. Writer of a previous action film? Check. Director of previous action films? Check. But the last question is: Is it any good? Ehhh...sure. Willis tries his best given the limited range for this character, but I'll certainly say he does better than he did in Hudson Hawk. Wayans does okay, nothing really that special. The rest of the cast is okay, either being over the top or just okay.The action isn't all that bad, it has its moments. The film reminds me of Lethal Weapon, with its small bits of comedy and action sequences, both sharing the same writer, Shane Black, who coincidentally is directing Iron Man 3. It has its moments despite not really being any different from other action films, but it isn't that bad.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Unstoppable.

Review #253: Unstoppable.

Cast
Denzel Washington (Frank Barnes), Chris Pine (Will Colson), Rosario Dawson (Connie Hooper), Lew Temple (Ned Oldham), Ethan Suplee (Dewey), Kevin Dunn (Oscar Galvin), and Kevin Corrigan (Scott Werner) Directed by Tony Scott (Top Gun - #029)

Review
Personally, a runaway train is moderately frightening for me. Trains aren't used as much as they were back then when people had to use the train. What does this statement have to do with this review? I'll tell you later. It's been a long while since I've reviewed something of Tony Scott (Brother of Ridley Scott), who directed films from his first in 1983 to his last in 2010. Scott manages to keep the story interesting enough to keep watching, and...the runaway train is actually a bit frightening, with a decent climax. The acting is alright, Washington (last Review of him: Glory - #101) and Pine (last: Star Trek - #009) do a respectable job together, as does the rest of the cast. It should be a note that this was Scott's last film that he directed (I would've mentioned this earlier, but I wanted to make sure that part would be padded to the end), and it is a good way to go out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.