Skip to main content

There’s nothing stock about a stock car.

Days of Thunder
(1990)

(SPOILERS) The summer of 1990 was beset with box office underperformers. Sure-thing sequels – Another 48Hrs, Robocop 2, Gremlins 2: The New Batch, The Exorcist III, even Back to the Future Part III – either belly flopped or failed to hit the hoped for highs, while franchise hopefuls – Dick Tracy, Arachnophobia – most certainly did not ascend to the stratospheric levels of the previous year’s Batman. Even the big hitters, Total Recall and Die Hard 2: Die Harder, were somewhat offset by costing a fortune in the first place. Price-tag-wise, Days of Thunder, a thematic sequel to the phenomenon that was Top Gun, was in their category. Business-wise, it was definitely in the former. Tom Cruise didn’t quite suffer his first misfire since Legend – he’d made charmed choices ever since playing Maverick – but it was a close-run thing.

This was a reunion of Top Gun personnel too – producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer, director Tony Scott, in a production nicknamed Top Car. Premiere magazine had it vouchsafed as the Number One hit of the summer – it should have packed houses and brought home $140m or so (Top Gun made $180m). Instead, Days of Thunder spluttered to $83m, at a cost of $60m+, a symptom of producer power run amok (it was budgeted at $35m). Following Scott’s death, Slate ran a piece in 2012 asserting that it changed the way the then vogue in producer-led productions spiralling out of control were handled, which is to some extent true (Peter Guber and Jon Peters still went on to the abortive Superman Lives! though). Although, Simpson dying and the relatively moderate Bruckheimer going from strength to strength also had an effect; it would be five years before they had another hit, Bad Boys.

But Slate does Scott a disservice by suggesting his work with them was made to order (“jangly necklaces of MTV-like rock video sequences interspersed with feats of, well, fill-in-the-blank… To make such a movie one need not hire Serge Eisenstein”). The visuals he offered their ‘80s productions were entirely his own, and they’re consistent throughout his more critically approved subsequent work, just often with all-important decent screenplays also attached. If the Simpson/Bruckheimer Flashdance has a similar sheen, it’s because the producers picked English ad men to call the shots; you won’t find the same look in their Beverly Hills Cop, and there’s precious little else to reference during that period; of their six productions to 1990, three of them were Scott directed, so who was influencing whom? Now, content is another matter; Scott’s aesthetic simply suited their flashy vacuity.

And the content on this occasion was unmitigated slop. It led to Simpson and Bruckheimer parting ways with Paramount (soon after signing a deal worth $300m) amid mutual acrimony; the studio blamed overspending, they blamed the rush to hit a release date. The studio asked for $9m back from them for losses made, and also under-budgeted Beverly Hills Cop III – and look what happened with that one when it eventually appeared. The producer duo moved to Disney where, not long after their first successes began appearing, Bruckheimer finally had enough of his partner’s drug-fuelled excesses, severing their relationship (Simpson died of drug-related heart failure in 1996). Simpson’s delusionary thinking during Top Car even led to him requesting the purpose-written role of driver Aldo Bennedetti (most of which ended up on the cutting room floor). Producer spending ran rampant and there were also frequent delays due to arguments over how to shoot (despite this, Scott would work with Bruckheimer three more times; it probably seemed like a breeze after having to deal with Bruce Willis and Joel Silver on the subsequent Last Boy Scout).

How does Tom Cruise fit in to all this? He was their golden boy, and had by far his biggest hit with them. He fancied following in Paul Newman’s racing footsteps – the movie was reputedly conceived when he and Newman tested one of NASCAR team owner Rick Hendrick’s race cars – but rather like his character in the movie, he was over-aggressive on the track. The dare-devil speed freak formula seemed like a no-brainer, and Cruise duly brought in Robert Towne to thrash out a screenplay (Cruise gets a story credit, tellingly the only such occasion). It was not one of Towne’s better for-hire affairs, although there are admittedly quite a few to choose from in that category, and was constantly being revised on set.

In essence, Days of Thunder follows the Cruise template of the period, something Roger Ebert (who liked the movie) etched out in convincing form, and you might argue that the formulaic nature could be a virtue, if it actually followed it successfully. All the elements are there – Cruise’s cocky kid just needing to apply himself when guided by a fine mentor (Robert Duvall), sparring with a rival he eventually becomes chums with (Michael Rooker), falling for a hot professional (Nicole Kidman, coming off the lauded Dead Calm, handed the thinnest of parts), coming a cropper and needing to recover his confidence, a real rival (Cary Elwes, who might at one point have had a more substantial role; as it is, he barely qualifies as villainous) whom he bests in the final triumphant race – but the approach that made Top Gun such a hit is entirely less fleet-footed here. Scott puts together some solid race footage during the first half, but then the movie stops dead for what seems like an age, as Cruise’s Cole Trickle – a name that sounds like a urinary complaint ­– engages in a tepid romance and Rooker’s Rowdy gets crook.

There’s also the fatal problem that the movie assumes you like Cole because you like Tom, but there’s absolutely nothing here to back that up. There’s an added layer of the excruciating too, with Cruise flashing his trademark pearly whites as Trickle indulges his teammates laddishly larky – sexist, exploitative – behaviour but entirely fails to convince that he’s up for this kind of thing or that he’s part of this crowd.

Duvall, in contrast, has his role down pat, a salt-of-the-earth type with homespun wisdom who has no pretensions about men being men and women being women. He almost single-handedly imbues the movie with verisimilitude that’s otherwise entirely absent. Cruise was clearly canny enough at this point to recognise he could bolster his credibility by sparking off a seasoned pro, but whereas previously (Newman in The Color of Money, Hoffman in Rain Man) it reaped dividends, and would so again (Hackman in The Firm, Nicholson in A Few Good Men), here he finds himself caught in an uncomfortable holding pattern. He’d come a long way since Top Gun, to the tune of an Oscar nomination earlier that year, so this really represented a backslide, a miscalculation of his cachet and career direction. He’d follow it with another stumble (Far and Away), before rallying in a manner that enabled him to plough through the rest of the decade on top of the world, but his only return to franchise fare, his Mission: Impossible baby, notably saw him eschewing his popular ‘80s persona for a kind of non-descript action man (which he did extremely well).

Cole’s boast “There’s nothing I can’t do with a race car” is reliant on the audience being wowed, but racing has proved a genre singularly resistant to cinematic success (if we ignore the only nominally related Fast and Furious franchise) Comedies have fared better, but the likes of Le Mans, Rush, Driven, Winning, Bobby Deerfield, even Speed Racer, all tanked (Grand Prix did okay). Le Mans '66Ford v Ferrari will doubtless follow suit. The rivalry/camaraderie with Rowdy never takes off despite wheelchair and rental car races, and Cruise’s chemistry with Kidman is as tepid as in their other on-screen pairings (at least in Eyes Wide Shut that plays to the material). But then, Cruise has rarely been a convincing romantic lead. There’s amenable support from John C Reilly and Randy Quaid (it was also Margo Martindale’s big screen debut), but it’s only Duvall who actually fools you into thinking there’s something worth caring about here.

For empty froth like this to succeed, it needs to flash by, but Days of Thunder is stuck in the pits whenever there isn’t a race on, which is most of the time. There are some compensations; Ward Russell’s cinematography is the real star turn (he’s now a stills photographer), while Hans Zimmer’s bombastic, aspirational, sun-kissed score may have become over familiar through repetition, but back then, he was still quite fresh, with only Black Rain and Rain Man broadcasting his name. The soundtrack was no Top Gun either; Maria McKee’s Show Me Heaven was a UK number one, but didn’t even reach Billboard’s Hot 100.

When Bruckheimer regrouped a few years later, his success formula required sparky screenplays to compliment the visuals, hence the run of Bad Boys, Crimson TideThe Rock, Con Air, Enemy of the State and, er, Armageddon. Scott, in his own way, followed a similar train of thought. Cruise realised he needed to capitalise on his clout by making choices that were simultaneously commercial and not exactly what he’d always done (no easy thing, but he succeeded admirably for another decade). As for 1990, the biggest four for the year weren’t on anyone’s must-see list at the beginning (Pretty Woman, Ghost, Dances with Wolves, Home Alone). No one proclaims Days of Thunder an unsung masterpiece (except maybe Tarantino, but he’s weird like that – his latest pic of choice is Crawl), but studios are still willing to periodically test that assumed viewer aversion to racing movies. Good luck on that one.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.