[5.1/10] The original Top Gun film is not a masterpiece, exactly. But by god, it had character. A sneakily good script, matched with charisma and camaraderie out the wazoo, gave it a certain endearing quality, a sense of over-the-top yet sincere humanity amid its fly-boy sky jockey action spectacle. It’s not a deep film, but it’s one founded on the believable-if-goofy interactions of men and women immersed in the ebbs and flows of its feisty, high-stakes world.
By contrast, Top Gun: Maverick is a bland, soulless film. It is no deeper than the 1980s original, but it pretends to be. It draws back to something closer to realism in its presentation than its predecessor, but cannot find the truth of its moments to justify a retreat to naturalism. And most of all, while the original film flourished on the backs of vivid, up-to-eleven characters, Maverick offers nothing but empty shells in its main figures, with even its most developed and focused characters seeming like hollow vessels for the film’s trite ideas.
Top Gun: Maverick is also awash in nostalgia. That is to be expected in the legacy sequels that are now du jour. But this successor film is shameless in its attempts to conjure the past. The eponymous Maverick puts on his old jacket. He rides his old motorcycle. He repeats the same lines. His surrogate son plays the same Jerry Lee Lewis song on the piano his wingman once did. They both somehow end up in an F-14 Tomcat by the finale, because of course they do.
Occasionally, these callbacks are meaningful, or at least defensible. Maverick whispering “talk to me Goose” while he considers what approach to take with the man’s son and his own life, is enough of a twist to warrant a C for cleverness in the new wrinkle. But too often the film indulges in empty parallels for the sake of empty parallels, and saccharine reverence for the adventures of old the current story fails to earn.
Still, a little empty wistfulness could be forgiven if Top Gun: Maverick gave the audience anything to care about in the here and now. None of the new, replacement characters in the film make the slightest impression. The script does get some points for a sound premise, as Maverick is brought back to the Top Gun fighter pilot school to teach an all-star team of former top grads in preparation for a dangerous mission.
Unfortunately, all of the new cocky fly-boys (and fly-girls, hooray for progress) are one-note nothings. In fairness, that was often the case with the original, but the contenders for the top gun prize at least had more personality and presence to counterbalance what their characters lacked in fleshing out. “The douche, the dork, the friend, and the rest” is about all you get from the new wave of recruits. And somehow the film manages to waste John freakin’ Hamm as a hardass by-the-book air boss who operates as the authoritative foil to Maverick’s usual miniature rebellions.
On the personal front, without Maverick’s former love interest, who is conspicuously absent in a story fixated on revisiting the past, all Top Gun: Maverick can muster is a warmed over romance between Tom Cruise and Jennifer Connolly. The two actors have all the chemistry of a second grade science project, and lack the crackling back-and-forth that made Maverick’s dalliance with Charlie so memorable. This pairing is a pale substitute, rendered inert by a generic, supposedly feisty dynamic between them and a tacked on backstory to their coupling.
The point where the two cross is in Rooster, the appropriately avian-named son of Goose who’s one of the best Top Gun grads invited back to train with Maverick. It’s here that the film deserves the most credit. In a film chock full of threadbare nostalgia, bringing back Goose’s son, as a means for both he and Maverick to reckon with the death of the boy’s father, shows conviction in using past events to drive story and character in the present rather than simply reminding the audience of old touchstones.
That conflict lays the foundation for Maverick and Rooster’s character arcs, the only one in the films. (Give or take an undercooked but still welcome show of loyalty from the team’s resident jerk in the third act.) Despite being a top pilot, Rooster has a tendency to overthink and show hesitancy, implied to be motivated by his father’s fate, until Maverick teaches him to “Don’t think; just do.” Maverick has to overcome his own reluctance with allowing little Rooster to fly from the nest, given Maverick’s protectiveness of the young man in the shadow of his father’s sacrifice.
It’s all pretty standard, and not especially profound, but it’s solid storytelling, founded on the key emotional legacy from the original Top Gun while projecting it to the next generation to make meaning anew. Paired with a stock standard but similarly well-constructed, “We gotta get these kids in shape for the big mission” setup, and it’s the best thing this legacy sequel accomplishes.
The problem is three-fold. First, the realization of these ideas is trite at best. How Rooster and Maverick overcome both of these problems is limited to a couple of rote speeches and then, boom, emotional breakthrough. Second, Miles Teller is all but anonymous in the role of Rooster, with only a smidgeon of personality that pretty well ends at his mustache. (Which is especially galling since Anthony Edwards all but stole the show as Goose in the first film.)
Third, it’s hard to blame any individual performer in the film when everyone here is unconvincing and plastic in their roles. Top Gun: Maverick tries to recreate the playful rhythms of the interactions with the original crop of recruits, but all of the new class feel like they’re pretending toward snark and bravado rather than embodying it. Thudding dialogue and cheap one-liners render most relationships – be they paternal, adversarial, or romantic – utterly dead on arrival. Even a mildly moving reunion between Maverick and Iceman struggles to find the truth in the moment given such a cheesy presentation.
But maybe the blame lies at the feet of Tom Cruise. Where his iconic performance in the 1980s originator sees Cruise as recognizably human and unvarnished as he’s ever been on screen, Top Gun: Maverick is full of scenes where he is capital-A Acting. As the title character, Maverick is expectedly at the center of all the film’s grand emotional moments, and while a couple of them land, and a vet like him rarely veers into an outright bad performance, his big attempts to emote almost always feel like a put-on, rather than an organic reaction to the scene. Gone is the rough-around-the-edges young actor playing the rough-around-the-edges young fighter pilot, and in their place is a polished pro unconvincingly playacting as the inveterate rebel.
The same pathology afflicts the film’s action sequences. There are a few standout set pieces here. Maverick’s solo training run to prove the big mission can be accomplished is a highlight, A “cobra move” contest between him and Rooster, and his initial Mach 10 test both have some good verve and respectable scene construction.
But so much of the action here is too choppily edited to follow any of the balletic moves of the fighter jets. Some impressionist choices (like showing the field of vision blacking out while the pilots are pulling Gs) is a nice touch. But too often, Top Gun: Maverick makes a hash of its big chases, escapes, and engagements. Everything comes with an anodyne sheen, and the obvious CGI sweetening takes away how impressive fighter jet moves seem on camera.
All those problems aside, the best thing you can say about the film is that it understands its title character. The Maverick of old was not cavalier for the sake of being cavalier. He was someone who took extra risks so as to protect his comrades.
So here, he disobeys an admiral and pushes the limits of the test jet, not to put another feather in his cap, but to protect his colleagues’ job. He presents a challenging and risky mission plan, not because he wants to set records, but because the alternative would cost lives. And he wants to interject himself in the mission despite being grounded, not because he needs to fly, but because he needs to protect those kids, Rooster chief among them.
That's the most important thing to get right, and building the narrative around that facet of his character is the right call. Unfortunately, what Top Gun: Maverick actually builds around that strong core is generic and forgettable. Gone is the life and infectious energy. Gone are the cheeky, lived-in character dynamics. Gone is the cheese that somehow crosses the line back over into earnestness.
In their place is a steady but unadventurous film, that sands down the rough edges of its predecessor and gives the audience something far more polished, pristine, and ultimately flavorless. Sadly, this goose is cooked.
As an action movie - pretty solid, nice visuals. I went to IMAX to have better experience and the movie looked fantastic.
In terms of actual plot - meh.
Can't say there is a depth to the characters, ending is a simple "they all lived happily ever after" and the mission and military action which drives the plot is ridiculous:
Tom Cruise and the team trains and then goes to bomb a nuclear site in Taymyr Peninsula (they try very hard not to say who the enemy is, but print bombing site coordinates in the culminating act). US Aircraft carrier group is somehow stealthily comes into Russian arctic waters, where it launches a strike with multiple Tomahawk missiles and aircrafts to destroy a nuclear facility, which is placed strategically not in the mountain to allow itself to be bombed. There is also a runway with the old US airplanes there for Mr. Cruise to escape, when his plane was hit after successful bombing. In the final air battle, Mr. Cruise has come out victorious out of a series of situations skewed excessively not in his favour.
Conclusion:
Tom Cruise is the Murica's best aircraft pilot: A New Hope anime live action is only worth to watch for the visuals.
Not as gay as the first one, still 50% propaganda.
The story has all the elements and tropes that get comfortable most generations, but especially the target one (i.e. people who were young-ish in the 80s and are grumpy about today's youth and eccentricities): superhumanly human hero; bad**s love interest; the young and pawing young gun; his rival (off the chart arrogant-HS-bully feel); camraderie; the younger love interest (not damsel in distress tho, clearly); the strict superiors not trusting Maverick but coming to respect and admire him for his skills; a general bad enemy without any real world references so to not preclude any market or irate any sympatizer; giant US flags, smaller US flags, flags; young heroes thinking they're the very best (as stated 25 times by themselves to make it clear to even the slowest viewers) but soon understanding and being told that they are, in fact, not yet; toothpicks in the mouth; competition between the new pilots, but also friendship when having to overcome the odds; A seemingly impossible mission; mutual respect earned and manly hugs and shoulder pats to express it; grand speeches; grand gestures to challenge authority, but still following every order that doesn't have moral strings attached; 80s vibe soundtrack; unnecessary selfie when Rooster is doing pushups, just to remind old folks that those are indeed millenials and that's how you recognize'em (no selfie in the cockpit tho, I'm a little disappointed); Jason Mendoza very much alive and with a surprising career choice; motorbikes; boats; I wonder if the bully trope has an actual utility to help improve others in highly competitive environments, or if they just make atmosphere grow heavy; That Iceman reunion is indeed emotional, and there's an unexpected depth given by the silence (filmmakers everywhere, take note); Bonding beach moments (no more volley tho); Many "Come on"; Silent nods; 3rd person self talking; The secondary-couple-of-pilots-which-I'm-guessing-won't-have-such-a-smooth-run-in-the-mission; Nope, well done not falling into stereotypes, love it; Exciting and unexpected final adventure;
That said, cinematography is greatly crafted and without that fake-ish CGI texture which ruins most of current action movies lately (not Cruise's ones tho, to his credit), action scenes are thrilling, plane fights beautifully choreographed, Tom Cruise has always no problem in carrying an action flick on his shoulders, the emotional moments are well calibrated and work on their own even without the nostalgia factor.
Whilst the first 55 mins are just about nostalgia, from that on the movie gets on its legs and finds an identity separated from the original ( with a weird deja vu sensation from A New Hope, regarding the details of the mission ). Even if the first part seems out of time, they managed to keep the spirit yet adapting it to the present action pace.
What an excellent sequel - I, in fact, like it more than its predecessor.
'Top Gun: Maverick' is fantastic, simply put. I was expecting it to be good, but it's actually much more enjoyable than I had anticipated. The callbacks to the original are expertly done, the new characters are strong/well cast, it has plenty of meaning, music is fab and the action is outstanding - the aerial stuff is sensational.
The story is superb, with each high stake coming across as intended - parts even gave me slight goosebumps, which is a surprise given I'm not someone who has a connection to the 1986 film. It's all super neatly put together, I honestly came close to giving it a higher rating.
Tom Cruise is brilliant as he reprises the role of Maverick, while Miles Teller comes in and gives a top performance. Jennifer Connelly is another positive, though her role does kinda feel a tiny bit forced in order to have a love interest; given Kelly McGillis' [unexplained] absence.
Monica Barbaro stands out most from the fresh faces, though I actually did enjoy watching them all - which is something I thought the film may struggle with, adding new people, but it's done nicely; sure Jon Hamm and Glen Powell are a little cliché, though overall I approve.
A great watch - I'd highly recommend it, though naturally would suggest watching the previous film first if you haven't already.
This movie did a great job of trying to make America look weaker than we are for china audiences. Great propaganda Hollywood. Sure they won in the end but they made America out to be the underdogs. When the American Navy and Air Force could do what they did without blinking an eye. 2 and I repeat 2 F-22 Raptors would have been able to do this mission all by its self. Lets say you do need 2 for the missles it still would be a walk in the park. Compared to what they made it look. 2 Raptors would be in and out before anyone knew what happened. Jammers dont matter when the cross-secton the size of a bumble bee thats 0.0001M² thats hoe big they look on radar. Oh and they have radar jamming capabilities. So why do they use F-18s? Because they needed a plot to make money to give to their great China rulers and spit propaganda for China. Hell they even removed the Taiwanese patch from the Chinese version of the film because of china's communist views. I wanna see the 207 dollars my tax dollars spent on Raptors. Oh and don't get me started on the Star Wars rip off.
Given the influence of rose-tinted nostalgia and the remarkable staying power of the original, Tom Cruise and company could be forgiven for just running everything back and cashing it in for the Top Gun sequel. And, as far as the plot is concerned, that’s pretty much what they’ve done. Sure, we’ll see a few mild distinctions, plus a shift in perspective (Cruise certainly isn’t going to play a student pilot, nor is he apt to give up that top billing), but the bones are essentially the same. Cocky kids in an elite dogfight academy are ordered to set aside their differences and accomplish an impossible mission in hostile airspace. Adrenaline, testosterone and pheromones run wild. We even get a reprisal of the YouTube-famous beach volleyball scene. It’s a fitting tribute and a worthy successor, modernized to suit today’s high-end home theater equipment, but not half as gloriously ‘80s-tastic as the first film.
Where Maverick really soars (if you’ll pardon the awful pun) is in a technical sense. This was evidently an area of special concern for filmmakers, and they deserve special credit for the accomplishment. All that work to embed an array of super-resolution cameras into the pilot’s seat has paid off: this is a major level-up moment, on par with the very best IMAX showpieces. Paired with a persistent soundtrack of strained grunts and rapid breathing, the footage does a fantastic job of conveying the intense physical effort that’s required to maintain control of a fighter jet, while also portraying the stunning vistas and dizzying speeds of afterburner combat. More than just special effects for a film, Maverick’s vision of airborne cinema borders on a true life experience. As a film, it’s a light-hearted flex of the bicep, designed to pluck memory threads and evoke warm feelings established by the original. Worthwhile, especially for long-term fans, but not particularly special. The cockpit scenes, though, especially that blood-rushing one-cut takeoff from the aircraft carrier, will stick with me for a long while.
DISCLAIMER: I did not see this movie in its original language(English), but in a dubbed version(Italian). I may have missed some nuances.
This is how you do a blockbuster! Top Gun: Maverick does everything a fan of the original would expect from a sequel. I was a bit worried it would be a delusion (like many sequels tend to be lately), but it exceeded almost all of my expectations.
The flight scenes were amazing, the fact that the CGI was kept at a minimum really shows; it enhances the feeling of being in that aircraft. I thought the whole movie looked great, from the scenes in the desert to the tundra finale. Really pretty.
On a personal note, the F/A18 doesn’t have the same charm the F14 had in the original and I was hoping we’d get to see the F-35, but I understand why they went with this choice (even though the explanation they gave in-movie was so dumb).
The cast did a good job. Excluding for a second Tom Cruise, the rest of the cast had a tough job ahead of them, having few scenes to portray their characters. But, credit to them and the script, they all managed to do great. And of course Tom Cruise was the unchallenged star of the movie; nobody can deny his great acting as well as his dedication to the stunt world.
I liked the story. Before seeing the movie, I feared they would make up some convoluted plot, with twists and turns everywhere. Instead, they kept it nice and simple. A mission to do, how to do it, training. Same formula of the original, still works.
In the end, I loved every second of this movie. It knew what it had to do, and it delivered. It had the right amount of fanservice that the fans of the original expected/demanded, but it didn’t abuse that. Highly recommended to anyone, a must-see for fans of Top Gun.
9/10
I had not seen the original Top Gun from 1986, and when maverick came out 36 years after, I watched both of them back to back. The new one has the stunts, but the first one was a better movie for me.
This write-up considers both movies together.
Tom Cruise plays Maverick, a reckless but extremely skilled fighter pilot in both films. In the first film, he has a companion, Goose. In the second one, we have Goose's son to tie it to the previous film.
The first one was the story of Maverick, as much as it was of the elite fighter pilot school, Top Gun. Maverick was cocky, but at one point in the film, he becomes vulnerable, has doubts about his abilities, and seeks advice. All signs show the hero's journey, we don't see anything of that in the new one. That is largely due to the plot differences.
Top Gun: Maverick has a clear mission at the end of the movie. The entire focus of the film is inching slowly towards that culmination. This leaves very less for actual character development and their interplay. It is a thoroughly plot-driven movie. Whereas the older top gun was more balanced. The love interest made sense, the protagonist was someone you rooted for. In the later movie, we are mostly caring about the goal, which is a plot device for the stunts to shine.
There is no doubt that Top Gun Maverick wins hands down in the action and stunts department. Due to 36 years of advancements in filmmaking, the later top gun is way too polished and has better handling of set pieces and execution. Although the latter one has finesse, it feels artificial as the contrived mission that they have to fly at the end. The older Top Gun was still a brilliant feat in the eighties and its action felt more spirited among the two.
Being a character-driven film, the older Top Gun has a much more believable romantic arc. The same can not be said about the latter. Frankly, the omission of the entire arc with Jennifer Connelly would have made the script much tighter and a through-and-through plot-driven action film. This shows in the runtime too. the older one was 1hr 49mins, a good 30+ mins less than the new one. Yet it managed to deliver a much-rounded story.
This comparison does not mean I am panning the new one. Both these films are worth watching and are still better than average. I am just more biased towards the older.
I don't know if I would say better than the original but it's still pretty good, especially the jet scenes in the second half. A lot of nods to the first film and a lot of "oh this is building up to an obvious nod" and then denied! I kind of like that.
Just when you think the jukebox is going to kick into "Loving Feeling" it doesn't and waiting the whole move to hear "I feel the need for speed" and feeling like it is within seconds of an obvious dialog build up was kind of fun. I think they did that on purpose, made it seem obvious that a nod was about to happen and then yank it away (I hear "PSYYYYYYYYCH!" each time).
It's worth watching. It's the only film in the past few years worth seeing at the theater for the whole experience.
Even if you aren't a Tom Cruise fan, you have to appreciate that this guy works his butt off for every role and does ALL of his own stunts, even the craziest stuff. Like in the new MI he drives a motorcycle off a cliff and pulls a parachute at 100 feet above the ground, he did that and it floors me. For me, though, I like Tom Cruise. He's always the same character but that character is neutral enough that you can see it repeatedly and not be turned off (unlike other repeat performances from actors like Ryan Reynolds, whose schtick is getting tired).
Sure those jets are cool toys, leather jackets are stylish, the Porsche is shiny, bikes are fast, aviators sunglasses are great, the ship is fast, cruise stayed infuriatingly young and maybe - if I remembered the first movie - 80's nostalgia would kick in.
However, the plot is mediocre at best. It's easily summarized in a few sentences. Plotholes are not to be questioned in such movies. Only the enemy and political background remains strangely unspecified. (I bet that's Iceland, Norway or Greenland planning to rob the riches of the Western Hemisphere. Vikings are not to be trusted - especially the Danish.) Most dialogues are from action movie hell. The young pilots (especially during the bar introduction scene) are the worst: adrenaline and testosterone has this effect on boys (and a girl it seems). The personal conflicts in this movie are standard Hollywood BS. The (superfluous?) romantic story is another trope. Charming Connelly and Cruise harmonize well though. I'm very annoyed by the patriotism, jingoism, pathos and the bombastic score. And of course the ending is way too happy to be interesting.
At first I got the impression that dialogues and 80s inspired pathos was supposed to be an ironic comment on the role models propagated by the first movie. But they take this serious, don't they? If you wanted to give this a positive twist, you could say that they honor the first iconic movie. They recapture its look and feel (even if that's contrary to the zeitgeist) and thus refrain from ridiculing the first movie. Maybe they have a point here. That's what makes many other sequels unwatchable: they become a parody of their prequel and the aged main characters become caricatures of their younger selfs - it helps that Cruise doesn't age.
I never expected an intellectual masterpiece. Surely this isn't a clever movie. This will never be a 7/10. There's simply no second layer that could warrant such an above average rating.
Now, let's talk about the positive things: the flying is breathtaking. Whether that's realistic or not - I don't care. Don't know how they did this, but this alone makes this a very entertaining action movie. The initial scram jet sequence is great. The action makes this movie a solid 6/10.
The movie has a lot of nonsense, especially around the exposition of maverick romantic involvement... I know they probably had a short time to put all that info in the movie and they kind of set it up in the first one... But maybe it was something that should be left out. I know it's there for the appeal to the people that like romance in movies, but it felt away out of touch with the whole movie, precisely the way it was shown, with those cringy exposition-heavy dialogs about how they were in the past, those silent scenes, gives me chills just remembering that. It just felt really out of place.
One thing is worth pointing out though... Even though those scenes were pretty bad, Tom cruise's performance is really good in those, so at least it felt like he was trying to deliver something.
But the flying scenes + the main plot are top-notch... Those are worth the movie alone. Aside from Maverick's pick at the end of the film which was completely out of the blue and undeserving going completely against his motives for doing what he did to the person at first putting an unprepared, undeserving, and clearly worse fighter on the line.
The last 30 minutes of this movie gave me a headache. I don't recall having felt this tense watching a movie in a long time and for so long. At some point I caught myself grasping for air because I simply forgot to breathe.
Trust me, it's that good!
Good:
-Astounding action. Direction, cinematography, sound effects and all the technical aspects of this film are extraordinary
-Realism. In an era in when even dialogues between characters are shot in front of a green screen, the fact that they decided to shoot this film in the air, with real planes doing real maneuvers and to put the actors inside a real cockpit must be praised
-Tom Cruise. The film is basically a celebration of the actor and his acting\action skills
Bad:
-More a remake than a sequel. There is little of original in this film.
-The non-action scenes. A lot of them are bad copies of what we already seen in the first movie. The themes are also recycled from the first film but explored in a worse way.
-Actors (Tom Cruise aside of course). An ill and mute Val Kilmer has still twice the charisma of all the new actors they introduced as pilots.
-Romance. Forced and compared to the love story between Maverick and Charlie in the first film terrible.
-Why didn't they call back Kelly McGillis? For a film that focus a lot on nostalgia, her absence is a serious shortcoming.
DVD Quote:
Rooster: "I saved your life!"
Maverick: "I saved your life! That's the whole point!"
This Review Contains Spoilers
Top Gun Maverick was a poor attempt at a sequel. Maverick was still fighting this same demon of his father plus now he had Goose's ghost, and his son to deal with. Too bad many of the former actors on the original film didn't return. The ensuing was a disappointment, and how the lead Character's role ended his story was lame. It didn't match his character at all.
The soundtrack was a disappointment, they reused the songs from the original film, and there weren't as many dog fights and there were an the previous film.
I rated it fairly high only because they convinced Tom Cruise to return, and he did a good job in reprising his role as Maverick.
Also because the actor who played Ice Man returned, and their scene together was probably the best in the movie. The F-16 also made a return in the sequel, even though the Navy is already phasing out use of the plane. If you watch, you'll see how.
Overall, for me, the movie, was a disappointment. But, a highly rated one for the reasons I listed. See it for yourself, and make you're mind up for yourself. I grew up in the era of the original. This sequel failed to recreate the feel of the first movie for me.
"Come on Mav do some of that pilot Shit!"
'Top Gun: Maverick' manages to achieve the impossible when it comes to modern summer movies, and that's finding the perfect balance of crowd-pleasing entertainment and a quality movie.
I originally had no interest or excitement for this movie and wasn't planning on seeing it in the cinema, until I saw the glorying reviews it received that convinced me to check it out, and I'm glad I did.
This was the most satisfying movie experience of the year.
All the flying sequences...well, it took my breath away. But surprisingly the story had a lot of heart to it, and some emotional scenes that I didn't expect to strike a chord with me. It keeps you on your toes and it's entertaining throughout. It's got heart, humour, and most of all a sense of freedom.
Tom Cruise is fantastic in this by the way. He's a great action star but the movie reminds us of his dramatic chops.
I also like the fact that this movie openly acknowledges that he is getting old. Unlike the 2017 movie 'The Mummy', where one of Russell Crowe's lines refers to Cruise's character as a "young man", despite Cruise being two years older than him. I mean, he looks so good for his age, but there's one scene in this movie where he's shirtless on a beach and he's got that body of someone approaching 60.
The chemistry between Jennifer Connelly and Cruise was electrifying and believable.
Also, how the movie handled Val Kilmer's character and how they wrote Kilmer's real health condition into the movie was beautifully handled.
You don't need to see the first movie to understand what's going on in this one. It's a sequel that doesn't rely too much on nostalgia. The sequel is a massive improvement over the original, while at the same time it respects the 1986 film and director Tony Scott.
Overall rating: 'Top Gun: Maverick' is one of the biggest surprises of the year. With this being Tom Cruise's highest-grossing film of all time, I can see why, as there's something re-watchable about it.
I think I let my expectations get ahead of me on this one. I was looking for something more than the original; something fresh and new. Instead, they chose to go the same route as The Force Awakens, leaning into the nostalgia and making a film that closely follows the original formula. Clearly it was the right call, as the movie is breaking records like crazy, but I can't help but be disappointed that a $150+ million dollar sequel had to borrow the structure of the 36 year old original. This borrowing has the added effect of creating a very predictable film. Many of the beats can be seen coming well in advance, which can take a bit of the oomph out of otherwise fun/exciting moments.
Now, that said, the movie is still an improvement on the original. The fact that the second act training sequences have a well defined objective that ties in to the final third act action sequence is a big improvement from the generic and somewhat meaningless training exercises from the original film. It allows that whole portion of the film to maintain much higher stakes, rather than leaning on the low stakes of bragging rights in an educational pilot competition.
That said, this pro is somewhat offset by a minor con related to the specifics of the mission. When they have their introductory briefing, I couldn't help but roll my eyes as they described a dangerous trench run culminating in shooting a proton torpedo missile into at an impossibly small target to destroy the Death Star nuclear facility. I was waiting for Miles Teller to tell us that it was just like his days shooting womp rats out on Tatooine. I understand that there really aren't that many options when it comes to exciting parameters for fighter jet missions, but it was still a tad disappointing for it to feel so familiar.
The movie also suffers from some corny dialogue, which again seems to hearken back to the original film. Additionally, the last couple action beats really throw suspension of disbelief out the window, feeling like they would be more at home in a Fast and Furious film.
To leave off on a positive, despite the familiarity/predictability of the plot, there are still plenty of make-you-smile moments, my favorite being when, after being fired/discharged, Maverick pops up on radar to prove that the mission can be flown within the original time limit. It's the writers giving the audience exactly what they want, i.e Maverick gets to prove that he's the best.
Premise - 15/20 - Not making another one would've been fine, but creating a situation where Capt. Mitchell has to teach others to fly an insane route to complete a mission is a decent premise. Adding in Goose's son was a good idea, as well.
Cast/characters - 12/20 - Tom Cruise has very limited acting ability, and Pete isn't very deep. Miles Teller did a great job as Goose's son. Jennifer Connelly is always one of my favorites, and she didn't disappoint. Hangman was Mitchell back in the day, but the other Top Gun members were not fleshed out well.
Story - 19/20 - The action and suspense were solid throughout the movie, and the ending was satisfying.
Dialogue - 13/20 - There were some quality, meaningful conversations, but the dialogue was not awesome. Just meaningful for the characters.
World-building - 16/20 - Getting engrossed in the Top Gun school and the action scenes was pretty easy.
75/100 - 4 stars out of 5 - A really good movie that relies on your viewpoint on the hotness of Tom Cruise, your appreciation of the story extension from the first movie, and your enjoyment of this type of action. Tom Cruise is overrated, but I was all in for the rest of it.
I've seen this twice in 3 days. That's why it is a 9 out of 10 for me.
Some details...
First up, a round of applause to Tom Cruise and his team for not making a disgrace of a film. They have delivered a worthy sequel to the original - a film that we hold so dear but time has not been too kind to.
the jet sequences are phenomenal. Absolutely beautifully shot but they're direct descendents of the MI franchise, particularly Fallout, and it goes to show how this film has been percolating for a decade or so. They're the benchmark for aviation shots.
the cinematography. I'll say it, it's a mixed bag. The colour is borrowed from the first but there were times the higher frame rate in dramatic scenes made it verge on the Cobra Kai/Netflix feel. My second viewing reduced this a bit so it may be the cinema you watch it in could define the experience.
Jennifer Connelly... I'm not sold on her acting here. It's a bit too cocky that it comes across as monotone. But it's a minor niggle as she's essential to the plot and her arc works very well.
The students. A little bit Cobra Kai again. But by the time the final 3rd comes around, we're past caring about anything hammy or contrived. The story rolls like a freight train and everyone comes along for the ride.
I found this film more enjoyable on a 2nd watch. The pacing is excellent and you appreciate that on the second watch. Cruise gives you what you want in the first 3rd, builds a wonderful tapestry (there's a reason it's called "Maverick") in the second 3rd, and then gives us what we need in the final 3rd.
Truly, Tom Cruise needs a lot more appreciation than he gets - across the board. This guy doesn't phone it in. He is totally believable in these roles. His dedication to the craft should be lauded from the rooftops.
I know these are just films. But they are also cultural touch points. And this one deserves to have the same impact as the first one for its absolutely spectacular aerial cinematography.
9/10
Review by JordyVIP 8BlockedParent2022-05-25T10:57:49Z— updated 2022-05-29T21:27:19Z
Way better than it needs to be, or is expected from films like these nowadays.
It’s pretty much perfectly produced, and you can tell they really went the extra mile with these action scenes and their presentation, which paid off in dividends (great sound design in particular!)
They also wisely toned down the amount of cheese and propaganda compared to the first one, though it’s still there to some extent.
For example, you still get a scene of the main characters playing sports games in the Californian sunset, while a terrible One Republic song plays in the background.
The writing in general is a little basic. They found a good way to deepen Maverick as a character emotionally, and the new additions to the cast are all fine, but everything sort of falls into place in the way you’re expecting during the first 2 acts. Take the scenes with Jennifer Connely. She’s clearly trying very hard with what she’s given to do, but she’s ultimately just the obligatory love interest, making her scenes feel like filler. There are also a few too many times the exposition repeats itself, too many deus ex machinas moments, and there’s an arc that’s set up with Ed Harris’ character that’s never paid off.
It seemed like a scene got cut from the end that was meant to complete that arc, because instead you just get a quick montage to wrap up the other loose ends, while a terrible Lady Gaga song plays in the background.
The writing got a little more interesting in the third act, which is where the movie basically turns into Mission Impossible. Our main characters are given an ‘impossible’ mission, things don’t go according to plan, and Tom Cruise has to figure a way out of this. It’s a great formula that just works, with tension that’s constantly rising and a good sense of physicality.
Ultimately, the extremely well shot and edited action scenes are the selling point and most memorable part of this film. The movie around that is acceptable, but could’ve been more creative and tighter.
8/10