Did Bob intentionally screw up just about every movie's description to see if we are paying attention or has he just not seen any of these films?
Top Gun: Navel Aviators are not Air Force Pilots (I know, already pointed out).
You also didn't discover that it was homoerotic, you cribbed that from QT. For everyone else it was a great 80's action film. And so straightly romantic that "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'" has become camp rather than romantic.
Days of Thunder: Tom's character was from the Southern stock car circuit, not open-wheel. Big difference. Open-wheel is a higher difficulty than stock car and he would have known a hell of a lot about what needs adjusting on a car.
Crimson Tide: This film was never taken seriously by anyone. It was a naked attempt to rip off 'The Hunt For Red October' and was a real snooze with the leads being caricatures. If the description is wrong, I can't tell since I've worked hard to forget it.
True Romance: Not an intact version of QT's script. It was supposed to be non-linear, much like Pulp Fiction, and was not supposed to have a happy ending. (There is a fanedit floating around that was recut to the script... a very different film.)
Also it was a bit more than a 'bag of cocaine' (which suggests you can put it in your pocket). It is a suitcase of cocaine.
Revenge: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Anthony Quinn's character taking revenge on Costner for sleeping with his wife? Sure it works out badly for him, but things turned out badly for everyone.
I'd argue that the description of the Hunger seems pretty dubious, but I haven't actually seen it in something like 20 years.
Perhaps you shouldn't replace actual knowledge of films with a Wikipedia search.
(Also, I'm pretty sure Callate is right about True Romance being an earlier film than Sleep With Me. I'm going to go out on a limb and say even Pulp Fiction was out before Sleep With Me.)