Top Gun 2: Maverick

[thecolorsblend]

I'm pulling for this movie to be as good as it can be. But there is some justifiable reason to be concerned.

https://bleedingfool.com/blogs/dammit-maverick-how-we-know-the-top-gun-sequel-is-gonna-stink

I'm not cosigning this. I'm just saying the writer brings up some good points.

[Silver Nemesis]

Our first glimpse of Iceman.

I would love it if Kilmer and O'Donnell could appear as Batman and Nightwing in The Flash movie, even if it was just a brief cameo. Then Val would have two Batman movies under his belt. It would cement him, and not Clooney, as the true Batman of the Schumacherverse. And if audiences responded well to his appearance, which I expect they would, then it might prompt WB and DC to publish a Batman '95 comic set in the Schumacherverse and release the Schumacher cut of Batman Forever.

It's high time that Kilmer's Batman and Batman Forever as a whole were detached from the negativity of Batman & Robin.

[The Joker]

Good to see IceMan back! 

After seeing his photo in this latest trailer, I couldn't help but think of a interview Val did where his hair was styled similar to what we see here. It was conducted in June of 2018.

[The Dark Knight]

Say what you want about Cruise, but his movies regularly deliver the goods.

Word of mouth has been extremely positive. Based on 2022's roster, it'll be the last film I see on the big screen this year. Apparently Dead Reckoning's trailer will also be playing before the film, which is another reason to drag my corpse to this. I'll refrain from watching it online and wait for the big day to experience it properly.

[thecolorsblend]

Crap, probably should've posted this here. Oh well.

Saw Top Gun: Maverick yesterday. The reviews are pretty accurate. Zero wokeness, zero Rian Johnson or Paul Feig bs. Just a fun movie that aspires to honor the original without an agenda.

Last I saw, TGM was tracking for a $150 million opening weekend. Assuming that's true, the movie deserves that level of success, if you ask me.

Midway through the movie, I had to run to the men's room. On my way back up the aisle, I looked at the other audience members and most of them were grinning ear to ear at what they were seeing. You can't fake or buy reactions like that.

[Silver Nemesis]

I just got back from seeing this. Here are some thoughts quickly thrown together. Minor spoilers.

In the past, certain cinephiles would divide motion pictures into two broad categories: films and movies. In recent years, a third category has unfortunately come into existence: content. Practically everything expelled from the bowels of the Walt Disney Corporation and its subsidiaries in recent years has been content, the ultimate purpose of which is to attract subscribers to their streaming platform. Top Gun: Maverick is not content. It's an old-school cinematic action adventure movie, and a very, very good one at that. The aerial combat photography is incredible and makes for the some of the best action sequences I've seen in years. The aerial stunts in the original film (which I revisited over the weekend in anticipation of seeing the sequel) were also breathtaking, and TG: Maverick recaptures that spectacle superbly. It's a spectacle worth seeing on the big screen while it's still in theatres. Hence why I say this is a movie, not content.

Based on the trailers, I already expected the aerial sequences would be impressive. What I was less prepared for was how emotional TG: Maverick is. It's surprisingly moving, and the ending, like that of the 1986 film, concludes the story on a stirring upbeat note that celebrates courage and camaraderie. Both Top Gun movies are 'feel good' pictures. You come away from them feeling like you've got your money's worth, impulsively wanting to enlist in the US Navy and ride off into the sunset on a motorcycle wearing aviator shades. I'm reluctant to say that TG: Maverick is better than Tony Scott's 1986 original, even though in some ways it is. Rather I see the two films as complementing each other to form one of the best duology's the action movie genre has to offer. I expect the first film might actually benefit from this sequel, and that's a rare thing. Many belated sequels cheapen their predecessors, but TG: Maverick is a rare exception.

My principle concern at the start of the film was that it would amount to nothing more than nostalgia porn (the screening I attended was preceded by a trailer for a certain dinosaur-themed sequel that epitomises nostalgia bait), and the movie certainly begins on a heavy note of familiarity. We get the same opening text, music and title sequence as the 1986 film. But I took this as the filmmakers' way of acknowledging and taking ownership of Maverick's sequel status. From there, the film doesn't go overboard on the call backs to the 1986 movie. There are a few, but they're satisfying and serve a purpose in connecting the two stories. There were moments where I thought they were going to lay on the echoes thicker and start referencing lines like "I feel the need, the need for speed" or "you can be my wingman anytime", but thankfully the filmmakers show restraint in that regard. TP: Maverick uses its nostalgic references effectively, but it doesn't depend on them the way so many other sequels do. Overall it feels like the second chapter of the story, not just a retread of the first chapter.

The writing in the film is simple but efficient. Early on we're told what the characters' objectives are, both in terms of their shared mission and their individual goals. We then see them pursue those objectives, encountering various obstacles along the way, growing and developing their relationships with one another, before finally seeing them attack the main target they've all been working towards since the beginning. It's a good straightforward plot that can be easily summarised in an elevator pitch, and the story features some nice moments of humour, suspense and character development mixed in with the action. It was particularly great to see Val back as Iceman. It's been a long time since I last saw him in a movie on the big screen, and they tactfully worked his health problems into the plot in such a way that accommodated his speech problems. Val and Cruise only share one scene together, but it's one of the most memorable in the movie.   

Maverick himself is fundamentally the same character from the 1986 film – he's still the incredibly gifted pilot who has a tendency to act impulsively, and who breaks the rules when his instincts tell him there's a better way to get the job done – but he's also matured in a way that feels believable and consistent with the trajectory of his character arc at the end of Scott's film. The sense of responsibility that began to emerge after Goose's death has continued to develop, and we now see it manifest as a paternal protectiveness towards Rooster and the other young pilots he's training. He's become a bit like Tom Skerritt's character Viper from the first movie, and yet he's still unmistakably the Maverick we know from the 1986 film. Cruise is as dependable as ever and plays the role well. I know many people say that he's the last real movie star, and I tend to agree with that. The only trailer I saw before Top Gun that interested me was for Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning. I've seen all the Mission: Impossible films on the big screen, and I'll definitely be going to see the new one when it comes out.

Anyway, that's more or less all I have to say about Top Gun: Maverick. It's a fun uplifting movie with great action, incredible aerial stunts, a solid straightforward plot and sympathetic characters. I've said a number of times over the past few years that I think Joseph Kosinski would be the perfect director to helm a Batman Beyond movie with Michael Keaton, and his work on Top Gun: Maverick has merely reinforced that belief.

If you get the chance, go see it on the big screen.

[Silver Nemesis]

Top Gun: Maverick has had the smallest second weekend drop ever for a movie that opened domestically to over $100 million. It only dropped 32% and its domestic gross now stands at $291.6 million. It's bagged an additional $257 million overseas for a global total of over $548 million.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/box-office-top-gun-tom-cruises-biggest-film-1235158714/

Well deserved. It's a terrific movie that will hopefully set a new standard for modern blockbusters. Maverick's winning formula favours breathtaking practical stunt work and effects over bland and excessive CG animation, it's non-woke, it's patriotic, it portrays military personnel sympathetically as human beings, and it treats its legacy character with respect. So far, it's tied with The Batman as my favourite film of 2022.

[thecolorsblend]

It always stood to reason that TGM would attract repeat business. That's the holy grail of any film. So, the shallow second week dropoff should've been expected, looking back at it.

The best part of this thing is I can't think of too many Eighties films where you could try repeating this. A lot of the more popular ones were turned into franchises long ago and have since lost their luster.

Still, the movie studios have to be casting about for other Eighties classics that could get a sequel made today. So far, the only one I've been able to think of is The Monster Squad. But that would be a very tough sell.

[The Dark Knight]

I've always felt that Cruise chose his films wisely or at the very least believed in them. Take this quite from Cruise, which also speaks to me:

"I love adventure movies, I just love action adventure films. It's pure cinema and you go in and you're lost to it. To me, it's that challenge – I want to give an audience that ride, that entertainment."

I believe he knows the answer to modernity is to reject it. In an age of CGI, give me practical effects, stunt work and shooting on location. There is a level of immersion and authenticity that the audience feels and thus begins to believe in that just isn't the case with digital landscapes. Ease comes at a price.

Stan Winston and his team built two full size T-Rex animatronics for the original Jurassic Park, which required a lot of work, but resulted in movie magic that stands the test of time. That's how a 1993 film looks better than most cash grabs being lazily released today.

Cruise is delivering an experience most studios don't want to anymore, which is what sets him apart. Cinema should be displaying content worthy of that big screen where the audiences marvel at the feats and feel excited about actually attending. Not many films can actually say that.

Top Gun: Maverick is not preaching or dividing the audience in two, it's all about entertaining in the biggest way possible. Even doing that now is considered a problem, which again displays the toxicity of modern culture.

[Silver Nemesis]

Still, the movie studios have to be casting about for other Eighties classics that could get a sequel made today. So far, the only one I've been able to think of is The Monster Squad. But that would be a very tough sell.

I predict Labyrinth (1986) will get the belated sequel treatment soon.

When Kathleen Kennedy and the hacks at Lucasfilm are done ruining Willow and Indiana Jones, they'll be running low on George Lucas IP's to milk (Disney purchased his filmography, after all, not his creativity). Labyrinth will be next on their nostalgic hit list. Will it be a feature length production or a miniseries? It doesn't matter. The important thing is that it'll be content for Disney+.

Jennifer Connelly is receiving good notices for her work in Top Gun: Maverick. Disney will drive a truckload of money to her home and persuade her to reprise her role as Sarah. Lucasfilm might even use the mo-cap technology ILM developed for the ABBA Voyage virtual concert to resurrect David Bowie. Alternatively, they might cast some flavour-of-the-month pop star (most likely female) as his replacement. Sarah will have a teenaged child in the film, and that child will be female and of mixed race. That way the studio can deflect any valid criticisms of the production by labelling the disgruntled fans as racist misogynists.

Like everything else Lucasfilm has produced recently, Return to the Labyrinth, or whatever they call it, will be high on nostalgia and low on creativity. It'll get mixed-to-positive reviews from professional critics, but a cynical reception from audiences.

I've always felt that Cruise chose his films wisely or at the very least believed in them. Take this quite from Cruise, which also speaks to me:

"I love adventure movies, I just love action adventure films. It's pure cinema and you go in and you're lost to it. To me, it's that challenge – I want to give an audience that ride, that entertainment."

I believe he knows the answer to modernity is to reject it. In an age of CGI, give me practical effects, stunt work and shooting on location. There is a level of immersion and authenticity that the audience feels and thus begins to believe in that just isn't the case with digital landscapes. Ease comes at a price.

Stan Winston and his team built two full size T-Rex animatronics for the original Jurassic Park, which required a lot of work, but resulted in movie magic that stands the test of time. That's how a 1993 film looks better than most cash grabs being lazily released today.

Cruise is delivering an experience most studios don't want to anymore, which is what sets him apart. Cinema should be displaying content worthy of that big screen where the audiences marvel at the feats and feel excited about actually attending. Not many films can actually say that.

Top Gun: Maverick is not preaching or dividing the audience in two, it's all about entertaining in the biggest way possible. Even doing that now is considered a problem, which again displays the toxicity of modern culture.

Agreed on all points. Cruise knows what audiences want, and he knows how to deliver it. His role as a producer is almost as important as his role as an actor. He has the power and influence to veto certain things and push for others. I imagine he's the kind of guy who doesn't enjoy most modern blockbuster movies, and he understands that jaded cinemagoers like us are crying out for something better. He's one of the few people in a position to give us what we want. In the last decade alone he's made:

•   Oblivion (2013)
•   Edge of Tomorrow (2014)
•   Mission: Impossible – Rogue Agent (2015)
•   Mission: Impossible – Fallout (2018)
•   Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

I enjoyed all of those movies. The Jack Reacher films aren't terrible either. I can't think of another movie star who made that many entertaining films over the last ten years. I hope the success of Maverick will embolden Cruise to keep doing his own thing. He's got two more Mission: Impossible films coming out, as well as his untitled SpaceX project. I'll gladly pay to see all three of those movies on the big screen.