Top Gun: An IMAX 3D Experience (1986)

Maybe it was all the cocaine going around, but the 80's were pretty sweet. The music rocked, the movies were awesomely cheesy, our TV shows were actually decent, and you only needed to own 3 video games because the average one was so stupid hard that it took until you were 15 to finally beat it. The only thing that was a major misstep was the hair. I personally sported a rat-tail growing up. Nobody ever had the heart to tell me it looked stupid. On the plus side I had an impressive collection of slap bracelets and a sweet dinosaur lunchbox, so my style wasn't a complete wash.

But yes, the movies. Oh the movies were glorious fun back then. And one of the best films of the 80's, and probably the one that better than any other captures the spirit of what movies were like back then, was "Top Gun." It's got everything: Balls-to-the-wall action, fun characters, a synth-heavy soundtrack over montages cut with music video editing, a cheesy predictable romance destined to work because the plot demands it to, the Soviets being villains, and mild to moderate homo-eroticism. This is all classic 80's stuff. And it is freaking awesome.

Unfortunately it also seems to be slowly becoming a product lost in time. I don't meet too many people younger than myself who have even seen it, let alone who are fans of it. Maybe it's just one of those movies that you have to have grown up with to fully appreciate. Actually, I can see somebody who, say, grew up in the 2000's to not "get it" in the same way as many of us children of the 80's do. They've got their own movies they grew up with, which have gotten a lot different since 1986. They may see "Top Gun" as silly and cheesy, or hear a Casio keyboard and immediately become confused since they've never heard one of those things used in any music they listen to.

But we know what's up. Yes, it's true that "Top Gun" may indeed be silly and cheesy, but it's also one of the most manly, macho movies ever made. It's almost like director Tony Scott was able to capture not only the spirit, but the pure essence of the high-five in film format, and seeing it is like a dude's right of passage into manhood. At least it was back in my day. And frankly, if you don't get that, I feel bad for you. It's kind of like beer pong and football. It's just something a dude does.

"Top Gun" revolutionized the conceptual framework of the thumbs up.

It had been a while since I'd last seen "Top Gun," actually. So when a friend let me know that it was being re-released in 3D IMAX, I was all over it. I'm not a fan of 3D, in general, but if there was one movie I'd love to see in 3D, it's "Top Gun." And to my surprise it ended up being the best 3D experience I've ever had. Despite being a conversion nearly 30 years after the fact, this actually looks like it was always intended for 3D. And those are just for random shots. That's not even mentioning the dogfights, which actually made me dizzy in a good way. Add to that the sound that was nearly loud enough to crush the solar plexus, and "Top Gun" really becomes a whole new monster when seen on the big screen, let alone in 3D.

"Top Gun," for those of you who are unaware, is about Lt. Pete "Maverick" Mitchell (Tom Cruise). He's an F-14 pilot who is the prototypical loose-cannon who doesn't play by the rules, and only manages to not get himself killed because he's just that good. After the former #1 pilot in his unit quits after a harrowing encounter with Russian MIGs, Maverick and his co-pilot Goose (Anthony Edwards) are sent in his place to Top Gun, a combat training school for the best of the best.

Once he's there, Maverick makes it a point to show off, as his arrogant nature makes him likely to do. However, it becomes clear pretty quickly that his crap won't fly here (no pun intended), and much of the film is about him finding out just how dangerous he really is to both himself and others, and how little he really knows. In other words, it's a story about a guy getting his head out of his ass. Kind of. Whether or not he learns a whole heck of a lot is up to debate (he doesn't), but that's the idea.

In between all that is a fairly standard and predictable love story with Charlie (Kelly McGillis), one of the instructors at Top Gun. Heaven forbid we have an action movie without a romantic sub-plot. And yes, it's by far the weakest aspect of the film. It takes up about half an hour of screen time before they finally have sex, the movie gets it out of its system, and we move on to what we all came here to see in the first place: fighter jets in our fighter jet movie.

What the balls is this?! I went to this fighter-pilot movie to see awkward flirting!

The flying scenes in "Top Gun" are among the best air combat footage I can think of. The flying scenes are beautiful, with the fighter planes zipping around both desert and ocean. There are some pretty intense dogfights, too, particularly the ending fight as Iceman (Val Kilmer) is forced to survive an entire squadron of MIGs on his tail until Maverick can arrive to help.

The only issue I have with the action in "Top Gun" is that because the camera is typically kept pretty close to the aircraft, occasionally it's a little confusing as to what maneuver was just done. There's not a great sense of position sometimes, and some wider shots and slower editing might have helped out a bit. But I guess that comes from having to actually film something in real life as opposed to creating it in a computer. It's an acceptable tradeoff.

When talking about "Top Gun" it's impossible to not get on the topic of the cast within the first few sentences of the conversation. Those sentences typically contain the words "Goose" "was" and "awesome" within them. And it's true that even though Tom Cruise was made a certified super-star because of this film, oddly enough he's usually the last person to get brought up in the discussion besides someone remarking "I don't like Tom Cruise." And it's easy to see why he's overlooked a bit considering the caliber of the supporting cast.

I can't help but realize, looking back on it now, that Tom Cruise was not that good of an actor back then. He has gotten so much better over the years that it's scary. The action scenes he does fine in but any time he has to romance Kelly McGillis he just comes across as creepy and borderline rapist. What else am I supposed to think when he follows her into the women's room? Charming? That's the character and not him, but I just don't think Cruise sells it. Maybe it's that stupid-ass grin that's permanently attached to his face whenever he has a scene with her.

Dude always looks like he just remembered a really funny joke. Is that a dating strategy? Is that something the ladies like?

I can't blame Tom Cruise too much though. He didn't have much to work with next to Kelly McGillis, who I plain don't like. I've seen more unlikeable blonde love interests in films (re: Willie in "Temple of Doom") but McGillis has the charisma of a bagel slicer. On the plus side she's not a nagging harpy. Or at least when she is one, she has an excuse, being Maverick's teacher and all. When she's busting his chops it's mostly for show, since she can't let it be known she's got a thing for one of her students. (Isn't that creepy when you think about it?)

And then there's Anthony Edwards as Goose. He's one of the best characters from any film in the 80's, and watching again I realize that I'd forgotten how awesome he is. He's such a likable character that you can't help but smile every time he opens his mouth, and when he does open his mouth it's usually the best lines in the film. And as irreverent as he can come across as, he's the anchor that keeps Maverick on the ground, and probably alive. And it's that facade of him being the joker who's always smiling that makes scenes when he's being straight and serious with Maverick that much more dramatic.

"I've been 3 feet away from a MIG this many times."

Goose is also notable for being the only character from an 80's film capable of inspiring more manly "something in my eye" tears than either Littlefoot's Mother or Artax. Every damn time I still get sad. Those of you who've never seen "Top Gun" don't know. But I know everyone else will join me...

This one's for Goose, ya'll.

Even though Val Kilmer didn't want to do "Top Gun," and was forced into it via contract, Iceman is probably the most legendary character from the film after Goose. I love Val Kilmer, and this is one of my favorite performances he's ever given. What's interesting about Iceman is that for the purposes of this film, he's the villain. Or at least, you're meant to be rooting against him so that Maverick can win. But when all is said and done, Iceman is a decent guy, and is probably the better pilot in the sense that between him and Maverick it's a question of smarts vs. improvisation. Iceman is prog-rock and Maverick is jazz. And Maverick my have a certain animal cunning, but Iceman possesses The Ice Chomp.

I still have no idea what this means. But it's awesome.

It would be remiss not to also mention Tom Skerritt and B-movie royalty Michael Ironside as the instructors Viper and Jester. They give a bit of gravity to the zany shenanigans of some of the lighter moments, and some of the weaker acting moments by the young Tom Cruise. And it almost seems to me that Skerritt is slightly miscast, simply because he's too good of an actor for some of the more cliched dialogue they have him say. In particular his speech about what happened to Maverick's father never struck me as well written. And you would think communication would be a strong aspect of this film.

Pictured above - Communication.

So many middle fingers in this film. Oh, and Tim Robbins is Merlin. Not everyone knows that. Good FYI.

So that's the movie. It's a classic, but the best part of the experience, and it is an experience, of seeing "Top Gun" on a big screen was that I was picking out all these things I had never seen before, despite having seen it more times than I can remember. For instance, did you know that Maverick wears cowboy boots? I had no idea until he was standing 30 feet tall in front of me. There's a sense of vertigo and real push and pull with the motion of the aircraft that you just don't get from a normal viewing on your TV screen. It's really like an entirely different film. And while it was an expensive ticket, it was well worth it. Well, mostly worth it. $15 is still too damn much to pay for a movie. I could have bought the DVD twice for that. And I already own it.

Then again, when the lights when down, the Paramount logo came up, and the first peel of the bell signaling the epic-beyond-comprehension opening theme sounded loud enough to shake the seat I'm sitting in, and the words "TOP GUN" appeared as big as a house...I must admit to getting shivers. And that made it kind of worth it. I am a geek.

And I do quote the damn thing all the time. Might as well watch it in IMAX.

THE BOTTOM LINE - "Top Gun" may not be the best written film, and Tom Cruise wasn't the actor he is now, and it does hit a snag every damn time the love story gets in the way of our manly fun, but it's still a hell of a movie, one of the defining things of my childhood. It's a feel-good, somewhat cheesy adventure that puts a smile on my face. I love "Top Gun," and seeing it on the big screen was jaw-dropping. They need to do that more often.

7 Below (2012)

I can't believe they did the "SeSevenen" thing.

Sometimes I don't care about quality. Sometimes I don't want to worry about production values. Sometimes I don't want to bother wondering whether or not a reputable studio made the film. Sometimes I just want to see Val Kilmer. But it's not always my choice to make. Sometimes, I just have to give in to my more sympathetic side.

You know the feeling? Sometimes you're just walking down the new release wall and BOOM there he is: looking out at you from the box like some slack-jawed, somewhat vacant-eyed drifter who you can tell was probably good looking back in the day but has now fattened up and exceeded the recommended storage capacity of his face. He just stares out at me with those sad blue eyes, as if some siren song were emanating from those once bright windows of the soul, singing "Please, Patrick. Take me home. Watch my movie. I know it's not always been the best of times, but please...for the history between us...give me another shot." And me, being the big softy for Val that I am, concede and give the guy another chance. "D'aww...okay, Val. Ya big lug."

This seldom works out in my favor.

You see, in the off chance that you were unaware, Val Kilmer hasn't been on a hot streak lately. In this case "lately" references nearly the last 20 years. As far as big box office goes, the last big Val Kilmer headlining movie was "Batman Forever." Since then he's appeared in lots of other movies, to be sure, but none of them have really been big. It's unfortunate because I honestly think that Val has been doing some of his best work since then, but not too many people see him. Val Kilmer really isn't a big name anymore. And that's a shame.

Most of his films nowadays are straight to video affairs that usually don't even have him in most of the movie. Usually he plays a supporting role and gets killed off about half an hour into the film. Of course, this doesn't stop them from slapping his face all over the cover like he's the main character. A safe rule of thumb is to assume that if it looks like the role you are currently watching him in took more than a weekend to film, his character is probably about to die.

 

"Listen, Mack...you got me till 5 on Sunday. I gotta get back to my other job at Footlocker."

This is a shame, because if it isn't clear already, I love Val Kilmer. Despite his current popularity placing him slightly below Nicolas Cage but a little above Steven Seagal, I think he is horribly underrated and underused in Hollywood, and he deserves better than straight to video schlock that gives him 20 minutes of screen time.

Which finally brings us about to "7 Below."

This is a tough one to talk about. It's not that it's overly good or bad, it's just kind of dull. These are always the hardest movies to talk about. The movies that really don't leave an impression on you one way or the other just have this nasty habit of slipping out of your mind so quickly that by the time you sit down and write about them, it's already mostly gone.

"7 Below" is a fairly standard setup in terms of the "spooky house" genre. About 100 years ago, a family was murdered in this creepy house by the youngest son. Now in the present day, a group of travelers are stranded by a storm and are forced to spend the night there. Before too long, people start turning up dead, and it starts to become a "whodonit."

Ving Rhames plays the dude who lives in the house, and it doesn't take too long to deduce that there will probably be something nefarious about him, mostly because besides him living by himself in a really spooky house, he's trying really hard to be helpful. And in case you wanted to know how to spot a bad guy before the reveal just look for the person being the most helpful. That's your man.

 Pictured above: Prime suspect.

In case you were wondering whether or not that was a spoiler, not really. The real reveal as to who the killer is, while I won't say was overly clever, was slightly unexpected. At least, it was only expected after they reveal it and you say to yourself, "Well, duh, I guess. Should have seen that one coming." Perhaps someone else watching would spot it earlier. Of course, by that point of the film there were only 3 people left so it almost could have been a coin toss.

I will say that the camera work, set design, and in certain cases the acting was actually not that bad. The house looks effectively spooky without looking too obvious, and the lighting does make it pretty moody. In the hands of a scarier script it could have been quite effective. And had it been scary at all, that would have been nice too. But any kind of hope for scares that I may have had for the film were dashed pretty hard when the movie tried the awful, terrible, UNBELIEVABLY overused and un-scary mirror gag not once, but twice.

Twice? Are you kidding me? It's too much if you try it once! That's the horror movie equivalent of playing "Smoke on The Water" or "Stairway to Heaven" on your guitar in public. It's something that you just don't do!

This has worked ONE time in the history of movies...and you're looking at it.

The cast isn't the worst ensemble I've ever seen in one of these outings. Val Kilmer and Ving Rhames are unsurprisingly the best actors in it, and Val in particular does a rather convincing job as a sleazeball. Ving is okay, but his role is kind of cheesy and one-note. I think he plays a better badass than a quiet, subdued kind of creepy guy. This would have been a role better suited for Michael Clarke Duncan. Oh and there's a dude who talks like Schwarzenegger. It's pretty sweet.

There are some weaker links, however. Bonnie Somerville, whom you've seen in nothing unless you watched "NYPD Blue" or "The Ugly Truth" is pretty weak sauce as Val's wife. At least, she's not very good after he dies (spoiler alert). Leading up to his death they have a decent "we can't stand each other" chemistry, particularly a great scene at a gas station where he screws her out of coffee after hitting on the cashier. But as far as her grieving goes, it lasts for only one scene.

I mean, know you weren't overly fond of him, but he was still your husband, and you cared enough to freak out when he died, but 5 minutes later you're sitting on the couch like nothing happened, only mildly remarking that you want to leave like you're only slightly annoyed because you're having to spend the night in a place without fresh sheets. Is your grieving period literally that short? I don't blame her so much as the script, but you almost feel like they filmed the scenes out of order and changed Val's death to WAY earlier than what was in the script.

When "7 Below" gets to the ending, all the pieces fall into place and the mystery is solved, I couldn't help but feel like I had missed something. It's not that the story in the end didn't make sense, because it did...kind of...but overall it gave off the impression that a couple pages had been torn out of the script which would have explained just a few things more. And that's a problem with a horror film. Unless that movie is meant to be provocative and asks some pretty big, not easily answered questions of the viewer, the nature of the terror should be reasonably easy to comprehend, otherwise we aren't left with anything to relate to and be scared of.

"7 Below" did not ask any big questions. It's not trying to convey a message or be artsy or even trying to disturb us with the thought of the nameless terrors of the unknown. It's just a haunted house movie. Just tell us about the evil lurking in the basement and get on with it, otherwise I don't know what if anything I'm supposed to be afraid of. You can't just show me a spooky house and say "BOO! It's scary! WoooOOOOoooOOOoo!!!" That doesn't work on me, and it can be hard to have a positive view looking back on a haunted house movie which left me with more questions about the house than it gave me answers.

 Unless it's this.

THE BOTTOM LINE - While I wouldn't call "7 Below" amateur in its tradecraft, its biggest problem is that it's just a story that in the end wasn't really worth telling, and the end, while almost hitting on some interesting ideas, never really pulls through. Recommended if you need your Val Kilmer fix, since he's pretty sweet in it, but otherwise skip it.

...And I still have NO IDEA what "7 Below" is supposed to mean.

Killer Elite

I have a theory about Robert De Niro. I believe that his mole is actually a sentient life form, born of some malicious other-worldly dark deity. It spreads its minions among us in order for it to sow despair and sorrow, and De Niro has become an unwilling victim of its whims. Every night, the mole whispers horrible secrets, Lovecraftian in nature, of the coldness and insanity-provoking terrors of the universe, and urges him to go out and spread these horrible truths, thereby doing its bidding. This endless torment has caused him to become corrupted and worn, hanging on the brink of insanity every minute of every day -- a dessicated husk held together only by the machinations of his new Dark God.

And that's why Robert De Niro scowls all the time.

That's also why people with big moles on their faces creep me out. I'm always waiting for them to scream "Cthulhu f'tagen!!!" and stab me to death with ceremonial daggers. And before you call me on it, no, Val Kilmer doesn't count. In fact, the reason why I'm such a big Val Kilmer fan is because he has been the only person able to combat the Dark God's power! His mole may make the attempt to corrupt him, but Val's shear bad-assery stops it cold every time. It's more like a trophy Val Kilmer allows to stay on his face, so that he can mock the Dark God's impotence. And the Dark God knows better than to push the issue further, because like any self respecting life form, he's seen "Top Gun," and after that, he knows that to combat the awesomeness that is The Val is useless. He's our only hope, people! We need Val Kilmer back!!!

Our first and last line of defense...

Going into "Killer Elite," I was...hesitant. It was like a mix and match of things I like and things I don't like. Jason Statham is pretty sweet, but although he's a national treasure I just can't get excited about seeing Robert De Niro again. Let's be honest with ourselves here. The man has been doing an impression of himself for some 30 years now. Just squint your eyes, scowl, shrug a lot, and repeat yourself when you are being intense. That's the De Niro Method at work. The worst part is that it's considered light treason if you don't worship the ground the guy walks on. Is it just me? I can't be the only one who is annoyed by Robert De Niro, can I? Don't get me wrong, if I met the dude I'd tell him "You was the bomb in "The Godfather Part II"...in 1974" but I probably couldn't bring myself to say anything else.

I assumed that De Niro probably wasn't going to have a huge role in it, since it appears to be an action flick and De Niro couldn't out-action a rack of lamb nowadays. So Statham is was then. I then noticed that Clive Owen is in it, and my expectations sank that much lower. Ugh. Clive Owen? I do not care for him much at all. It's probably more his track record being in movies I didn't like than him as an actor but maybe this will be-

Ha. Ah ha! HA HA!! BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Awww. Isn't that just the cutest little mustache? Has Selleck Claus been leaving little gifts on all the good boys and girls upper lips? That's just precious and deserves a mocking ^_^. In truth, it's closer to an unrefined version of a post-2000 Burt Reynolds than the powerful Tom Selleck 'stache, but either way it's ridiculous. How can you take that seriously? And dig on this: He's the bad guy. Isn't that hilarious? During the fight scenes I kept imagining Ron Jeremy instead and it lost all sense of tension. Would have made "Killer Elite" a better movie, though.

Since I've beat around the bush long enough with this, I'll just come out and say it: I didn't care for "Killer Elite." And it wasn't so much that the movie was bad, necessarily, it was just impossible for me to care about, silly mustaches aside. I say it wasn't necessarily bad because this is more of a problem I have with the genre in general than any kind of lacking "Killer Elite" had in the way of film-making. I don't like spy thrillers. I hate to say it but I've been forced to come to that conclusion after many attempts to try and prove it to myself otherwise. I especially have an aversion to modern "serious" spy thrillers.

The problem is that they are so frigging complex. Too complex. I'm not a stupid person but I have a real problem following names, especially if there are a bunch thrown out all at once, which they always are, and that's a pretty big issue if you're trying to follow one of these movies. Maybe if these movies were allowed to take their time it wouldn't be so bad, but they always rocket forward like everyone in the audience has a photographic memory for names and faces. But I don't, and it's always thumbscrews for me to figure out who is shooting who and for what purpose. The same thing happens to me with mobster movies, and that's why I don't like them much, either. My head begins to spin, and I realize I have no idea who anybody is, or why they're doing what they're doing. And you know what happens when I reach that point? I stop caring.

I reached that point in "Killer Elite" about 30 minutes in. It's a 2 hour long film. For the last 3/4's of the movie, I had no idea what was happening, and not in a good Christopher Nolan "Memento" kind of way. It was a "I'm bored out of my mind" kind of way. It has to do with an Arabic Sheik forcing an assassin (Statham) out of retirement by kidnapping his friend, another assassin...who got caught and is helpless for some reason. He's a frigging assassin...oh wait it's De Niro. No action for him, got it. He's contracted to kill a bunch of ex-SAS officers who killed the Sheik's sons in a war, and Owen is...some kind of secret agent person or maybe SAS who is trying to stop the killings, I guess. Maybe?

See that's what I'm talking about. I never even had a clear understanding of who one of the main characters is. Is he a cop or a spy or what? Why does he care? The assassinations are made to look like accidents, why is he running around with a gun and sending scouts out to the desert to tail people who they don't even know? I'm sure the movie explains it but I feel like I need Cliffs Notes just to watch this thing. And with these kinds of movies, I can't help but think, "What's the point? The only thing I know for sure is that at some point one of the characters you least suspect is probably going to double-cross the main character, and it's going to end with him finishing the last job and retiring." Because that's how they almost all end. For as many twists and turns as they try to have, they sure are formulaic.

"If we introduce enough character names, it will make our movie seem really, really smart."

Every once in a great while there is an admittedly well filmed scene where Statham punches or shoots something, and that's cool, but I was so uninterested in the plot of "Killer Elite" that it ruined any enjoyment I may have been able to squeeze out of the film. Who are these people and what are they doing? The bigger question is: "Who cares?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to go and write the screenplay for my new movie where Val Kilmer battles Shoggoths...

The Bottom Line: I am no great judge of spy thrillers, since I generally don't like them anyway, but this was a boring, overly confusing mess with unfortunate facial hair. Unless you're a die-hard fan of the genre, skip it.