https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...9TLFA&usqp=CAU
Trailer:
[]
IMDb / wiki / RT / Metacritic
Official website
Printable View
Masterfully done, honestly. Exceeds the first film by a considerable margin.
In a way, it feels like a last stand for the big-theater experience, in both a real way and a way that ties in with the themes of the film. If this is the last proper adult blockbuster, it’s a great one to go out on.
DavidSeven sighting!!Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
Yup, as great a blockbuster as everyone is saying. I had a stupid grin on my face for most of it and the aviation scenes outdo the first one in every way to be honest. I found it hilarious how they never name the country they are attacking even though it's so obviously Russia. Oh and most of the cast is really good but I had never seen the guy who played Hangman before and I'd like to single out that minor but amazing performance and face.
The Kilmer scene almost brought me to tears.
My man Kosinski still batting a thousand.
A very good blockbuster, more thrilling and emotional than most that get released during a year. Better than the original too even if it's fairly predictable. The Star Wars-inspired finale, [], still all felt a tad too easy, regardless of the absolutely dazzling filming and cinematography. I'm just a wee bit conflicted about some things. Although it is cool and apt that Mitchell gets [], although that insert probably also reduced the surprise. Conflicted about these things as I said.
I didn't get a lot from the bonding + frolicking with the Connelly character. Although it was ok, it flirted a bit with 'obligatory love interest', but thankfully it never did go that far. I know there was a Penny mentioned in the original Top Gun, but I suppose these scenes might have been stronger and more emotional for me had there been an actual Penny in the 1986 film. Connelly would have been 16 in the first film, so yeah, I get why that's out of the question. Still, their relationship is more interesting and genuine (and admittedly also different cuz different kind of Maverick) than the one Mitchell had with Charlie in the 1986 flick.
I appreciated how the training sequences, horribly tensionless in the 1986 film, here actually emphasize some of the challenges the team would be facing and how they need to hit certain checkmarks for the mission to be a success.
I could nitpick the script contrivances []but whatever, the movie is an old school crowd pleasing popcorn blockbuster in all the right ways.
Mav is the focal point, but the entire ensemble gets to shine ala Aliens. Even Jennifer Connelly's character is rather clever; taking a throwaway line in the first movie about banging an admiral's daughter and making her a whole character now. I like how Mav's personal life has been rather shitty and lonely, dumping his entire life into flying but now realizing he's facing retirement and blew off creating a family of his own. Now he wants his surrogate family (Penny and Rooster) more than ever. Movies about surrogate families really get to me (I'm a big Boogie Nights fan, natch) and this is no different. Shed some man tears for Iceman too.
This might have the best & most spatially coherent action editing I've seen since Ford v. Ferrari.
Yeah; I also liked how vague they were about which European-ish looking country they were bombing, because it was essentially presenting a fantasy scenario when it comes to modern conflict, because depicting that accurately would be far less exciting. Still, it suits the movie as a bit of uncritical-of-American-imperalism escapism, and I did enjoy it on the whole, so it did what it needed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Trash
Many praise the original's action, but I remember being indifferent to it almost two decades back, and often bored by the rest. By contrast, Kosinski nails the heart-in-the-throat thrills of every plane-related sequences here, from Cruise trying to gun hypersonic speed at the beginning to that insane climax. What's more, by surrounding himself with stellar, fresh-faced ensemble (thank goodness someone taps Powell's superwatt charisma onto big screen again) and acknowledge the passage of time on both his character's legacy and others around him, this has an effectively elegiac, even mournful core at its center that gives it a lot of dramatic heft, and one that is singularly tied to Cruise's star status to boot. Like, I might have taken more issue with how the stakes/tone of the climax turn out, if it doesn't feel intrinsically tied to the Cruise text, which would feel supplemental for any other star/legacyquel but by now functions like an essential part of every of his film now: "It's time to let go." "I don't know how." 8/10
I listened to an interview with the director on The Big Picture podcast (worth listening to, he also goes into detail about how they shot the aviation scenes, and boy howdy do I have a lot of respect for him and Tom Cruise for insisting on shooting all this in camera, it's not easy but the direction and production process is fascinating) and he talks about this. Basically they (correctly imo) thought it would date the film if they directly named a country, not to mention the awkward politics involved with naming a country in a big Hollywood blockbuster movie playing worldwide we don't have a hot war with (you could argue we are in a "cold" war now with Russia and Iran). He said he wanted Top Gun 2 to play just as well 20 or 40 years from now, plus it's a callback to the first movie which also didn't name the "Russians" (although I guess it could be some south Asian or Middle Eastern country that also used MiGs).Quote:
Originally Posted by StuSmallz
I think the airborne photography of the original is really good (which I think is perhaps what is being praised rather than what it means for the story), even if it has been surpassed now, but Top Gun's training sessions are just a slog as there is nothing at stake, and then at the end of course there is the obligatory mission but it feels rather perfunctory and dull. At least with Iron Eagle the kid was going to break out his dad. lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peng
But Top Gun Maverick ties the training sequences into the actual mission far better so that you know, pre-emptively, what the challenges are. It's kinda like how in Titanic Rose is shown a computer recreation of how the ship went down so the viewer knows exactly what's happening 170 minutes later.
Tell me it's Russia without telling me it's Russia.
Good old fashioned Navy propaganda that works better than the original in many ways due to the cast and the story and writing being better this time. The original did have the better group of actors though and the football scene doesn't match up to the volleyball one in terms of pure eroticism however. Also I'm pretty sure the country that was targeted was Iran.
Huh? It was a barely concealed reperesentation of Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by DFA1979
They mentioned hitting a planned nuclear facility so I thought it was Iran. Also Iran has snow and mountains. Plus Russia has plenty of nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grouchy
I found this, they don't think it's Iran either: "Top Gun: Maverick: Who is the movie’s enemy “rogue state”?" https://slate.com/culture/2022/05/to...-revealed.html
I guess it's a good joke at the end.