Apache - Pioggia di fuoco

i actually enjoyed this movie,which is basically Top Gun with Apache helicopters.i don't think it was a great movie,but it was entertaining.sure there's some bad dialogue and the movie is pretty low key for its kind.the romance angle comes off as silly and unnecessary.but the flying sequences were OK.at least they could have been worse,and i have seen worse.the movie doesn't exactly stretch the acting talents of Nicolas Gage,Tommy Lee Jones,Sean Young,or anyone involved,for that matter.the story is not original,either.yet,like i mentioned earlier,i was entertained,and that's something.for me,Fire Birds is a 6/10

Firebirds suffered from the same problem many military movies suffer from. The writers knew exactly squat about the subject matter. This movie had potential to be really excellent. Nick Cage and Tommy Lee Jones are two very good actors. However, they had crap to work with. The first problem was Apache pilots are a completely different breed than fighter jocks. They were badly portrayed. Sure, they are cocky and arrogant, but those "macho" lines were soooo corny. No self-respecting rotary wing aviator would be caught dead spouting that garbage. Secondly, the helicopters were shown fighting jets and other helicopters. That's like trying to win the Indy 500 in a Yugo or portraying Schwarzanegger as a ballet dancer. Sure its vaguely possible, but no sane person tries it. Finally, Sean Young, while very attractive was not the right person for the role of Billie. All in all, Fire Birds had the right elements and the concepts, but they were jumbled together badly and handled wrong. Leave it on the shelf and get Full Metal Jacket or Saving Private Ryan and see a military movie done right.

The remarks of Mr Alex Ward are pretty much right on the money however, the one problem is that the directors DID consult with people from Ft Hood. If you watch the credits, Ft. Hood is listed in the end credits for thanks. However, this just goes to prove that in the early 90's it still wasn't important to be factually correct on many things, and even though the directors consulted people at Ft. Hood, Hollywood wants their movies a certain way. This is sad because this could have been an "Independance Day" type movie. Alas, it fell far short. For young kids though, it is a good boost for kids wanting to be helicopter pilots. But sorry when all you kids grow up and learn the truth of Helicopters.

'Wings of the Apache' is a truly awful film. I can find little good to say about it. During the first five minutes I was 'on the edge of my seat' only in a bad, jaw-droppingly amazed kind of way. I've watched many bad films over the year. I normally turn them off. However, I sat all the way through this one's one hour and seventeen minute runtime. I really couldn't avert my eyes.

Most people describe 'Wings of the Apache' as 'Top Gun with helicopters.' Yeah, I think that's a reasonable description, only Top Gun was watchable for different reasons. The opening five minutes I spoke about is basically Nicholas Cage narrating over a bland action scene involving a helicopter dogfight over some mountains. Now, I'm no expert, but I seem to remember the first rule of storytelling is 'show, don't tell.' Yet Cage just tells us what's happening in a monotone voice. Apparently, the drugs cartels are now using helicopters to shoot down American helicopters. Does this actually happen in real life? Never mind, it does here. And Nicholas Cage – being the only guy who's seen the cartel's helicopter in action – must lead the charge against the lone chopper.

He's ably aided by Tommy Lee Jones – a great actor in his own right, now reduced to barking orders in the most stereotypical 'drill instructor' way possible. Plus there's a love interest. Guess where that subplot goes? So Nick, Tommy and the token woman must train to fight the baddie then fight the baddie then save the day. Hardly inspiring, but I think the most unforgivable element of the film is the editing. It's just bad. It's like every shot has been filmed separately to every other one and then spliced together – badly. There's a slight pause between when someone answers the person original speaking, making conversations seem stilted (assuming the dialogue spoken was any good to begin with – and nine times out of ten it isn't).

So, in case you haven't got the drift of what I've been saying, 'Wings of the Apache' is just bad. And I watched it all until the last credit rolled. Now I've seen it, I wonder why I did and yet I'm also curious as to why I may – one day – even watch it again, just to remind myself how bad it was. It's bad, but bordering on that so-bad-it's-good kind of way. If you're prepared for that, it will certainly keep your eyes fixed on the screen for exactly one hour and seventeen minutes.

This film is nowhere near as bad as people on here claim.

Alright, it's not original, and it's not accurate, but it's a fun way to spend an evening.

Not to mention the AWESOME performance from Tommy Lee Jones. He delivers line after line of cocky deadpan humour to perfection in this film.

If you are a Tommy Lee Jones fan, this film is a MUST see, as it has him at his very best. If you loved lines like "dammit, we've only got an inch of topsoil left!" in under siege, or the "Alright people, listen up, we have a fugitive on the loose!" speech from The Fugitive, you are going to love some of his stuff in this film.