Berlin | Kevin Barrett's Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Berlin’

I Feel The Need…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Academy Awards, Anthony Edwards, Berlin, Best Original Song, California, Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood, Danger Zone, Fighter Weapons School, General Comments, Jester, Kelly McGillis, Kenny Loggins, Michael Ironside, Miramar, Movie Reviews, Nick “Goose” Bradshaw, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, Reviews, Strong Movie Recommendation, Take My Breath Away, Tom “Iceman” Kazansky, Tom Cruise, Tom Skerritt, Tony Scott, Top Gun (1986) — movie review, Val Kilmer, Viper on November 21, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Top Gun” (1986) — movie review
Today’s review is for the jet fueled, aviation action drama “Top Gun” (1986), starring Tom Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell — a cocky, instinct-driven U.S. Navy aviator with a chip on his shoulder and a need to prove himself; Kelly McGillis plays Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood, a civilian astrophysicist and flight instructor whose intellect and poise challenge Maverick’s bravado; Val Kilmer co-stars as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky, Maverick’s cool-headed rival; Anthony Edwards brings warmth and levity as Nick “Goose” Bradshaw, Maverick’s loyal radar intercept officer and best friend; Tom Skerritt as the wise “Viper” (who flew with Maverick’s father and who was the first “Top Gun” awardee when the school was started); and Michael Ironside as the gruff “Jester” (the main flight / combat instructor / evaluator).

Background: I first saw “Top Gun” during it’s initial release when it was MUST SEE on a big screen, and then again in the late ’80s, long after its theatrical run but well within its VHS and cable TV dominance (and multiple times since then – DVD and streaming). It was one of those movies that seemed to be on every weekend — a rite of passage for anyone growing up in the era of bomber jackets and synthesizer scores. I remember enjoying the aerial sequences and aware that this was a film about more than just jets. Back then, I was young and naive enough not to catch / recognize the “supposedly” homoerotic beach volleyball and locker room scenes. I just thought it was a blatant attempt to increase the repeat female viewing audience. LoL. Directed by Tony Scott and backed by a now-iconic soundtrack, “Top Gun” became a cultural phenomenon, redefining the modern action blockbuster and launching Cruise into superstardom. The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Song (Berlin’s “Take My Breath Away”) and remains a touchstone of 1980s cinema — equal parts adrenaline, romance, and Reagan-era military glamor. Watching it again now, more than a decade since my last viewing, I was struck by how much of the film’s appeal lies in its contradictions: it’s both earnest and absurd, romantic and militaristic, grounded in loss and buoyed by testosterone. It’s a film that invites both critique and admiration — and somehow, it soars.

Plot: The story follows Maverick, a talented but reckless Naval aviator who, after a daring rescue at the end of a successful mission, is selected to attend the elite Navy Fighter Weapons School — better known as “Top Gun” — in Miramar, California. There, he competes against the best of the best, including Iceman, whose disciplined flying style clashes with Maverick’s improvisational flair. Amid the dogfights and classroom drills, Maverick begins a secret romance with Charlie, one of the instructors, while grappling with the legacy of his father — a pilot whose mysterious death in combat casts a long shadow. The film builds toward a climactic real-world engagement, where Maverick must overcome personal demons, honor his fallen friend, and prove that he’s more than just a hotshot with a death wish.

So, is this movie any good? How’s the acting? The filming / FX? Any problems? And, did I enjoy the film? Short answers: Yes; stylized military; thrilling and iconic; several; yes — with caveats.

Any Good? Yes. “Top Gun” is a film that knows exactly what it wants to be — a sleek, seductive celebration of speed, skill, and swagger. (Did I mention it’s a pseudo-recruitment advertisement for the Navy and Naval aviation in particular.) It’s not subtle, but it’s effective cinema. The narrative is thin, the character arcs are broad, and the dialogue often feels like it was written with a recruitment poster in mind. And yet, it works. The film’s emotional beats — particularly the bond between Maverick and Goose — land with surprising sincerity. The aerial sequences remain exhilarating, and the soundtrack is a time capsule of ’80s pop glory. It’s a film that trades in archetypes, not nuance, but it does so with conviction. It’s a masterpiece (for Cruise and the Navy), and it’s a milestone for modern pro-military cinema.

Acting: Tom Cruise is magnetic. His Maverick is all smirks and squints, but there’s a vulnerability beneath the bravado that hints at the actor’s future depth. Kelly McGillis brings intelligence and maturity to Charlie, though the romance feels scripted, not organic. Val Kilmer’s Iceman is a study in restraint — his icy demeanor a perfect foil to Maverick’s seat-of-your-pants aviator heat. Anthony Edwards is the film’s emotional anchor, infusing Goose with charm and heart. The supporting cast — including Tom Skerritt / “Viper” and Michael Ironside / “Jester” — round out the ensemble with military gravitas. The chemistry among the pilots is palpable, which helps sell the film.

Filming / FX: The aerial cinematography is the film’s crown jewel. Tony Scott’s direction — all golden-hour lighting, slow-motion silhouettes, and kinetic dogfights — gives the film a mythic imagery. The use of real F-14 Tomcats and in-cockpit footage lends authenticity and visceral impact. The editing is tight, the sound design immersive, and the soundtrack — from Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” to Berlin’s Oscar-winning “Take My Breath Away” — is inseparable from the film’s identity. The visual language is pure ’80s excess: sweat-slicked bodies, mirrored aviator sunglasses, and sunsets that seem to last forever. It’s not realism — it’s mythical military iconography.

Problems: Several. The plot is skeletal, with character development often taking a backseat to spectacle. The romance between Maverick and Charlie is rushed and spotty, more a narrative obligation than a genuine connection. There is film chemistry between them, but it’s at a distance because you run into the visual reality that Cruise is physically smaller than McGillis. In face to face head shots, his head is smaller than hers. (LoL) And, it’s not just that he’s smaller, he’s also shorter, so the film is shot with her constantly leaning or him sitting to try to “hide” the height difference. The film’s treatment of military service (at least the aviator side of it) is unabashedly romanticized — a recruiting ad with a pulse-pounding soundtrack. The homoerotic subtext, particularly in the volleyball scene and locker room standoffs, is so overt it borders on parody — though whether that’s a flaw or a feature depends on your lens. As I mentioned earlier, I wasn’t even aware of these aspects of the film back then. (LoL) And, while the film flirts with emotional themes of loss and legacy, it’s not “really” about them. It’s about the action – jets and dog-fights. I believe the expression is: “Keep the camera on the money, boys!“

Did I Enjoy the Film? Yes. Despite its flaws (or maybe because of them), “Top Gun” remains a fun watch. It’s a film that taps into something primal: the thrill of flight, the ache of competition, the allure of danger. The film is emotionally manipulative, narratively simplistic, and visually intoxicating. Watching it now, I was struck by how much of its DNA has seeped into the culture — from the music to the catchphrases (see this post’s title) to the very idea of what it means to be “cool.” It’s not a film anyone would call profound, but I find it undeniably entertaining. And more often than not, that’s what cinema is all about – or it should be.

Final Recommendation: Strong recommendation. “Top Gun” feels more and more like a cinematic time capsule of the mid-to-late 1980s. It’s a film that captures the spirit of its (marketed) era with style, swagger, and a killer soundtrack. It’s rated PG for language and some sensuality, but it’s mostly tame by today’s standards. If you’re interested in aviation, ’80s nostalgia, or the origins of Tom Cruise’s stardom, this film is essential viewing. It’s not perfect cinema, but it’s iconic — and in the end, that’s (and the soundtrack) what makes it soar.

.
Click here (21 November) to see the posts of prior years. I started this blog in late 2009. Daily posting began in late January 2011. Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.