When it comes to films that are ordained as classics of cinema, you get two general groups – there are those that earn their reputation (either exceeding expectations or simply meeting them), and then there are the ones that are unfortunately overpraised to the point where eventually watching them is disappointing to say the least. When I first encountered Top Gun over a decade ago as a young film lover, I was entertained but not nearly as enthralled as some made it seem was inevitable – it was a film that left my mind faster than it arrived, and I barely thought of it again, outside of the odd trivia question about where Berlin’s “Take My Breath Away” originated in terms of film. However, recently there has been an abundance of retrospective discussion on the film and what it means to the global population with the release of a sequel, which sought to retread many of the same themes, paying tribute to the legacy of supposedly one of the greatest action films ever made. Perhaps its cynicism, or the fact that it has never been the kind of genre that has appealed to me beyond a few significant works, but paying tribute to Top Gun (especially in comparison to some of the lead actor’s other works, which would have warranted a sequel) seems like a peculiar choice, especially since nothing this film says is necessarily important or impactful, outside of a few stunning sequences in which director Tony Scott was doing very good work. As a whole, Top Gun is not nearly the masterpiece many make it out to be, and watching it in hindsight proves that filmmaking has changed considerably since the time in which this film was made, and that there have been so many better versions of this kind of story, especially when it comes to the more detailed aspects that are seemingly missing from this film.

The cultural cache of Top Gun is not difficult to understand – this is a film that means a great deal to a lot of people. Unfortunately, there isn’t much more to it than this, and those expecting some sweeping, epic action drama are going to leave disappointed. It is slightly short for the kind of film that it is aiming to be, clocking in at under two hours, whereas it could have legitimately gone over the 150 minute mark without too much resistance from the viewer – I don’t normally advocate for lengthy films, but this is one instance where more time would’ve been appropriate, especially considering the sheer amount of content Scott and screenwriters Jim Cash and Jack Epps Jr. were trying to compress into a relatively short running time, which already had too much going on to fully justify the major leaps in plot that we see from beginning to end. This is a classic case of a film being remembered more fondly than it probably deserved, an instance where audiences at the time were so swept away by the spectacle, they carried a deep admiration for it for several decades, passing it down through generations, who somehow were fooled into believing that this was some kind of masterpiece, when in reality it was a relatively straightforward action drama that is subjected to the dreadful condition of overly enthusiastic nostalgia. In short, Top Gun is not a particularly good film, which seems almost blasphemous considering the extent to which many people have gone to defend its honour, almost as if this is supposed to be the same game-changing entry into a genre that was barely changed by this film’s existence. It’s simply adequate, and not much else, with many of its ideas feeling underbaked, poorly developed beyond the point where it is excusable, and simply just being a generally mediocre offering. 

Top Gun emerged right at the peak of Tom Cruise’s ascent to stardom – he had already found his breakthrough with Risky Business, and he was one of the industry’s most sought-after actors, with his magnetic charisma and unique style of acting making him wildly popular. Unfortunately, this film is one of the few that he would make in which his skills were wasted – normally, he commits entirely to his roles, often being the most dedicated actor working in Hollywood (as evident in his insistence on doing his own stunts in most of his films), but here, he is purely banking on his popularity, allowing the film to do almost all of the work for him. It’s not a demanding role, but he still finds ways to underplay nearly everything, and watching him on screen sometimes feels like a chore, since we are trying to grasp that perhaps he is just not very good in this role. He certainly is charismatic, but that’s about the end of it, with everything he does simply being an act of going through the motions. The rest of the cast is in a similar predicament – they’re given roles that are entertaining enough, but don’t have much beyond that, leaving them at an enormous disadvantage, since they all want to do good work, but don’t have the space to do it. Kelly McGillis is a very gifted actress, but she’s wasted here, simply acting as the love interest, not being developed beyond simply the romantic co-lead that only exists in this story because of Cruise’s character. Val Kilmer is an effective villain, but is too limited in his screen time, and Anthony Edwards shows a lot of promise, but ultimately is shifted to the background when the film transitions from a buddy film to one focused almost exclusively on Cruise and his character. We don’t watch films like Top Gun for the performances, but it does help when actors are given something to do, which is not the case with this middling film.

Undeniably, the action sequences in Top Gun are very impressive – Scott knew exactly what needed to be done to keep the audience interested in these scenes. It’s an unimpeachable truth that this film knows what works when it comes to the bigger moments, and it is quite successful as an action film (although beliefs that this changed the course of the genre are severely overstated – it’s impressive but far from iconoclastic), keeping us entertained when the filmmaking was focused on the broader ideas. The problem comes in the moments in between, where the film began to fall apart in terms of the character-based work. The performances in Top Gun are simply adequate as we’ve already noted, but they’re not helped by the fact that, outside of a few moments, the more intimate scenes are almost entirely derivative. There’s a sense of overt sentimentality that doesn’t fit with the film, with the attempt to draw together the rushing adrenaline of the action sequences with the underlying romantic subplot being laughable at best – there have rarely been more blatant instances of trying to cram together two completely different sub-plots than here, particularly in how the love interest of the main character just so happens to be a teacher at his academy, a truly strange way of shoehorning the character into a film that could’ve been fine without her, or at least having her be a much less prominent presence in the day-to-day activities of the protagonist and his colleagues. A good rule of thumb is that when you are reconfiguring a character’s role in a story to the point where there are continuous attempts to justify her invading a plot that she is not directly involved in, then that character is unnecessary, and likely only being used to satiate a particular genre trope, rather than adding to the narrative. Add the blatant jingoism that looks at the war as being constant acts of heroism with inevitable fatalities, and you find a film that can be excruciating for those looking for something a bit more complex.

Criticising a classic is always a risk, especially when it comes to films that have enormously intimidating reputations, being held in the highest esteem by viewers across generations. However, Top Gun is a film that earns its ire, especially in how it sometimes feels like it is looking at important matters through a lens that almost invalidates the reality on which it is based – and whether or not the real life individuals that inspired it found this to be an accurate retelling of their exploits, or simply a glamourized Hollywood version of their story remains to be seen (although its highly unlikely that anyone would be opposed to being the subject of such a polished, expensive production – vanity sometimes outsells accuracy, after all), but taken for what it is, Top Gun is really a product of its time. It’s far from the best action film ever made, and its heavy-handed emotions drag it down to the point where it becomes a bit of a challenge to get through if you’re unable to get onto its wavelength, which is extraordinarily difficult if you’re not accustomed to this kind of flashy filmmaking. It’s a film that has somehow become iconic, despite not being the best work of anyone involved – Cruise had better performances, and Scott made several greater films that achieved their ideas without the need for overwrought posturing or unnecessarily convoluted storylines that are punctuated by lengthy action sequences. As controversial as it may be to say, Top Gun is not a good film at all, whether we look at it from the perspective of the era in which it was made or from a contemporary viewpoint. It lacks a strong story, and the filmmaking, while impressive in some parts, doesn’t compensate for the narrative deficiencies, which ultimately drag the film down and make it such an unnecessarily dull exercise in excessive filmmaking.