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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

You are, by your own admission, a vagabond.

Doctor Who Season 10 - Worst to Best
Season 10 has the cachet of an anniversary year, one in which two of its stories actively trade on the past and another utilises significant elements. As such, it’s the first indication of the series’ capacity for slavishly indulging the two-edged sword that is nostalgia, rather than simply bringing back ratings winners (the Daleks). It also finds the show at its cosiest, a vibe that had set in during the previous season, which often seemed to be taking things a little too comfortably. Season 10 is rather more cohesive, even as it signals the end of an era (with Jo’s departure). As a collection of stories, you perhaps wouldn’t call it a classic year, but as a whole, an example of the Pertwee UNIT era operating at its most confident, it more than qualifies.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

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. That doesn’t mea…

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ (or Zootopia as our American cousins refer to it; the European title change being nothing to do with U2, but down to a Danish zoo, it seems, which still doesn’t explain the German title, though) creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). It’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

So credit’s due to co-directors Byron Howard (Bolt, Tangled) and Rich Moore (of The Simpsons, Futurama, and latterly, the great until it kind of rests on its laurels Wreck-It-Ralph) and Jared Bush (presumably one of the th…

You can’t keep the whole world in the dark about what’s going on. Once they know that a five-mile hunk of rock is going to hit the world at 30,000 miles per hour, the people will want to know what the hell we intend to do about it.

Meteor (1979)
(SPOILERS) In which we find Sean Connery – or his agent, whom he got rid of subsequent to this and Cuba – showing how completely out of touch he was by the late 1970s. Hence hitching his cart to the moribund disaster movie genre just as movie entertainment was being rewritten and stolen from under him. He wasn’t alone, of course – pal Michael Caine would appear in both The Swarm and Beyond the Poseidon Adventure during this period – but Meteor’s lack of commercial appeal was only accentuated by how functional and charmless its star is in it. Some have cited Meteor as the worst movie of his career (Christopher Bray in his book on the actor), but its sin is not one of being outright terrible, rather of being terminally dull.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You keep a horse in the basement?

The ‘Burbs (1989)
(SPOILERS) The ‘Burbs is Joe Dante’s masterpiece. Or at least, his masterpiece that isn’t his bite-the-hand-that-feeds-you masterpiece Gremlins 2: The New Batch, or his high profile masterpiece Gremlins. Unlike those two, the latter of which bolted out of the gate and took audiences by surprise with it’s black wit subverting the expected Spielberg melange, and the first which was roundly shunned by viewers and critics for being absolutely nothing like the first and waving that fact gleefully under their noses, The ‘Burbs took a while to gain its foothold in the Dante pantheon. 

It came out at a time when there had been a good few movies (not least Dante’s) taking a poke at small town Americana, and it was a Tom Hanks movie when Hanks was still a broad strokes comedy guy (Big had just made him big, Turner and Hooch was a few months away; you know you’ve really made it when you co-star with a pooch). It’s true to say that some, as with say The Big Lebowski, “got it” on fi…

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.

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.