To me, this movie is perfection.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Just when I think I have seen all the slightly over the top, cheesy, crazy one liners, insane Nic Cage action movies, this enters my life.I was very afraid to see this movie. The reviews claimed top gun but not as awesome. I think this is more awesome but very cheesy.Nic Cage gets a bad rap. With so many bad actors getting a free pass such as Samuel Jackson and in recent times Bruce Willis who now collects pay checks rather than acts, I really wonder if he's just a whipping boy as he represents an era when movies were made for guys.This is about helicopter pilots and Cage is the young hotshot who is awesomely over the top. When he runs he overacts, when he drives he overacts, when he makes love he overacts. His love interest Sean Young just does a terrible acting job herself, but Tommy Lee Jones is excellent as the wily veteran who is their to reign in the cocky young kid in Cage.Excellent fun film with cheesy action. Lovers of movies get this movie while guys who love Broke Back Mountain simply cannot wrap they heads around why this movie is awesome.It's a solid 10 out of 10 in terms of being a guy movie, but to be snobbish I will give it a 7 out of 10. The last fight scene is so awesome.

'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.

Frankly, I don't really understand why people complain so much about this movie. Top Gun ripoff? Maybe - so what? As something of a "military otaku", I've seen both, and I'd say I know enough about the matters portrayed, as well. Is it realistic? Not really, but it does provide simple, enjoyable entertainment and great viewing experience for the aviation fan in you. The footage is indeed great.People keep bringing "Top Gun" up over and over. Just as unrealistic, if not worse. I'd say, TG is far more far-fetched than Fire Birds. Why does everyone hold TG in higher regard? It came first, but... that's about it.I hear complaints about bad acting... I can't really tell, as the Polish edition has, just like everything else, that annoying lector instead of subtitles, efficiently making all the original dialogs inaudible. The dialogs, however, seemed quite okay in translation.Honestly, I really like this movie. It's been in my collection for a dozen years now, and I've gotten myself a DVD recently. What's important to understand, is that it's one of those movies that are NOT supposed to have a deep storyline. The plot is nice and simple, just enough to keep a story going and show off the Apaches.I love Top Gun, for its beautiful F-14 footage and a simple story that doesn't get in the way of the viewing experience. And i don't really mind the corny lines and obvious lack of any realism. It's not a documentary, it's an action movie, one of the few of its kind (aerial action movie?) As for Fire Birds...I love Fire Birds for the same reasons - beautiful AH-64 footage and a simple story that keeps the thing going and doesn't get in the way of what I want to see there in the first place - the Apaches in action. I don't mind the corny lines nor flaws in realism. Just like TG, it's not supposed to be a documentary. It's an action movie of the same, rare genre as Top Gun. I wish there was more of those...

I don't know for sure but after reading all of these comments at least half of them seem to come from the same person using different handles. All seem to say the same thing that this tried to be a Top Gun with helicopters. I really didn't see any comparison to Top Gun whatsoever. No more than there were people flying and there was a love story. Someone mentioned the Iron Eagle series. If one copied the other it was probably Top Gun copying Iron Eagle Since Iron Eagle came out 3 - 4 months earlier. I just got finished watching this movie Which I saw originally on NBC. I thought originally that this was a Made for TV movie for some reason but I guess after reading here that it was put out at the theaters. I would have loved to have seen it on the big screen but admit I would not want to pay 7 dollars to see it. IT still rates better than 1 or 2 stars and all the bad insults it is getting here. I agree with one of the people that posted here that it would go great as a "Movie for Guy's who like movies" As a guy I love movies with action. I am not in the army and know a "Little" about the equipment. I am not a fighter pilot though and am not in the military. As a civilian I love this movie as an action movie. If I wanted to see realistic and authentic representations of Millitiary equipment I'll go to the History Channel. If I wan't an action movie with just the right amount of comedy and romance I'll go see fire birds again.Is it realistic? NO Is it fun? Yes Is it accurate? No are there some corny lines? Yeah but let me ask you this. All these people talking about Top gun being so big... how many pilots would really fly upside down and flip off a Russian and take it's picture? how many pilots would really do those kinds of fly by's and still be in the Navy? and I won't go into the corny lines from that movie. All in all Firebirds is deserving of just as much respect based on it's merits as a fun action/romance movie as is Top Gun without comparing them to each other.