Days of Thunder - All films are worth watching right?

I'm sure that eventually my girlfriend's DVD collection (regularly claimed by her to contain only films that I have seen and / or are too terrible for us to watch) will finally become as advertised.  It transpired on Sunday evening past that her copy of Top Gun is in fact a double bill DVD containing a copy of Days of Thunder.  Note though that she made no attempt to pretend that Days of Thunder is in any way a good film, rather that it is was worth a watch to be able to appreciate Top Gun.  I don't need much convincing in these matters, after all - all films are worth watching.

Days of Thunder then.  One hesitates to describe a plot for fear of giving the film more credence than it permits itself.  It's a shame as the opening 25 minutes are an above average example of how to set up a simple, exciting action film.  We are introduced to our main characters, see some fast cars, work out who the bad guy is and who the good guy is, get told what everyone wants and teased as to why they want it, and then we're dumped into the middle of an excitingly-shot Nascar race with Tom Cruise (aka Cole Trickle here) proving his yankee heritage won't hold him back in the land of the redneck.  So far so simple.  Simple but effective.

It's what happens next and for the rest of the film that baffles me, because a plot never emerges from this.  We get a hint that Trickle's race engineer (Robert Duval) might have been complicit in a previous racer's death, a racer who's son now works for him.  We find out that Trickle has Daddy issues after his father sacked him.  Trickle is involved in a huge accident with his big rival (Michael Rooker) and his briefly hospitalised.  Trickle begins a romantic liaison with his doctor (Nicole Kidman).  Trickle convinces his big bad rival to get medical treatment.  Trickle decides to race in and win the Daytona 500 in his rival's place.

That's a series of events in the life of a racing driver we know only a little about.  But is it a plot?  If it wasn't for the actual racing scenes (Tony Scott directs - so it is no surprise these are the highlight of the film) then Days of Thunder would be extraordinarily boring.  I'm not usually minded to praise the Fast and the Furious series of films - but at least they keep it simple, keep it fast-paced and keep the action coming.  Days of Thunder only works at all when we're on the race track - the moment we step away it instantly becomes as dull as a post.

I am not as familiar with Top Gun as many are, but people tell me that Days of Thunder is a remake of Top Gun in cars.  One assumes that Tom Cruise was eager to build upon his successes in Top Gun and so went back to the original director and asked to do something similar again.  The fact that Cruise actually co-wrote the script is worrying.  The man can act, but he cannot write.

And what are the 'days' of 'thunder' anyway?  Is thunder the noise of the Nascars?  So then the 'days' of thunder would be the times of our lives when we race Nascars?  Or maybe those carefree days of our lives when we do what we want without consequences?  But the film's message can't be to do what you want when you're young without worry, because of the hospital parts and the brain injuries.  Or maybe that is the message - to make hay when the sun shines in your youth cos when you're older and you can't hack it anymore you're going to get sent to the pits and replaced by someone younger.  I can't decide what would be more depressing - this being the film's message, or that it is so haphazardly-written that it has no message.

All films are worth watching right?

Free Fire - a student film

I cannot remember what entity commended to me that I give Free Fire a go, which is a huge shame as I am not able to delete their recommendations from my life.

I suppose that left to my own devices I might have watched Free Fire even in the absence of the mysterious unknown recommendation.  After all, director Ben Wheatley scored high marks with the darkly comic Sightseers and darkly dark Kill List.  So the film reviewers of YouTube can relax - no one is getting unsubscribed after all.

Free Fire is the story of a gun sale gone wrong.  Two gangs (one with guns, one with money who want to buy the guns) meet in a warehouse and try to carry out the sale.  Except that something goes wrong, someone recognises someone else, someone fires a gun, and before you know it everyone is scattered to the 4 corners of the warehouse wildly firing their guns around mouthing off.

The reason this isn't all over in 30 seconds is that everyone has a terrible aim.  In fact it takes the remaining 70 minutes of the film for everyone to get shot (aside from the last man standing of course).  The entire final 3/4 of the film takes place inside this bloody warehouse.  I don't care if you're Martin Scorsese, but there are only so many ways you can direct a hectic scene with people wildly shooting in the general direction of each other and exchanging insults before it gets boring.  And Ben Wheatley is not Martin Scorsese.

The plus points here are that Cillian Murphy and Michael Smiley are in it - a couple of actors I really like.  Also Brie Larson is our token female - which is quite amusing as she won an Oscar at around the time it was filmed, one wonders if had a sudden rush of regret at being involved.  Some of the banter before the gunfight breaks out is kind of amusing.  But really, that is all.

More than anything it feels like a slightly duff student film.  I say this as the location is static, effects easy to create, has a small cast that can all be contained in a single interior venue and seems to exist more to prove a point about film-making rather than do anything else.  It would be ok if it was funny.  Failing that at least make the action scenes exciting?  Failing that at least end on a spectacular set piece?  Failing that at least fill the film with interesting characters?  This last point it almost does by creating a playful tension at the start of the film, but that falls apart as soon as everyone runs for cover and spends the rest of the film yelling at each other from distance.  At times is becomes very confusing, which is impressive given that everything is happening in one place!

Sorry Ben Wheatley - I have really enjoyed much of your work to date, but this fails completely.