Post by joekiddlouischama on Jun 9, 2022 9:56:13 GMT
I just saw Top Gun: Maverick (in XD) and would consider it "decent." The film could hardly be more formulaic, predictable, or unrealistic, and it obviously lacks the originality of the original. But the sequel is not as overbearing as the borderline-obnoxious original Top Gun (after all, the late Tony Scott is not the director of this one, although I appreciate the tribute to him at the end) and the flight scenes seem more extensive, more dynamic, and more thrilling in this edition, especially in the climactic battle sequences. (And I viewed the original Top Gun in the theater in 2016, 2018, and 2019.) There are some comical moments (more and better humor than in the original), Cruise is in fine form, and Jennifer Connelly adds some grace. The scene where the Cruise and Connelly characters essentially have to
I do retain one ideological complaint. Unless I missed something very early in the movie, the filmmakers never identify the uranium-enriching enemy. Iran would represent a logical guess, or maybe North Korea, although that country already debuted a rudimentary nuclear arsenal a few years ago. But as far as I could tell, the enemy is utterly generic—nameless and faceless. Similarly, Top Gun: Maverick completely skirts the politics of the US launching some kind of preemptive or preventative strike. And I understand the matter: the movie wants to focus on entertainment—on characters and action—rather than geopolitics and politics, which can be controversial even in this kind of vehicle. But to entirely skirt such matters and the national identity of the enemy is to make it akin to the James Bond movies, which are pure fantasies. Top Gun is not supposed to be a total fantasy, but it risks entering that territory by just whitewashing all geopolitics and politics from its subject matter, even though such elements would be inherent to its plot. So, rather like the original from 1986, it tries to have matters both ways—to glory in the militarized thrill and danger while making those elements antiseptic, socially and politically. Most viewers probably will not notice or care, but for me, this artificial neutralization of inherent controversy was a bit of a distraction and a problem.
Aside from the spectacular flight scenes, the film is quite conventional; the nature of the filmmaking is basically the same as director Michael Bay's recent Ambulance, a commercialized mode of moviemaking subtly and wittily parodied in writer-director Roland Emmerich's Moonfall from earlier this year. But Top Gun: Maverick is certainly competent and entertaining enough, and I give Cruise credit for waiting over three decades before consummating a sequel. The generational difference in age helps the film, and I respect the fact that Cruise has not been making sequels of Top Gun every few years, in contrast to the typical Hollywood trend (or even Cruise's trend in other movies).
Probably the most intriguing aspect of the movie was to learn, during the closing credits, that "Renee Russo" served as a post-production sound assistant. (Okay, that is Renee Russo, not Rene Russo, but it amused me.)
act like teenagers to avoid the latter's teenaged daughter
offers some genuine comedy and constitutes the best part of the movie.I do retain one ideological complaint. Unless I missed something very early in the movie, the filmmakers never identify the uranium-enriching enemy. Iran would represent a logical guess, or maybe North Korea, although that country already debuted a rudimentary nuclear arsenal a few years ago. But as far as I could tell, the enemy is utterly generic—nameless and faceless. Similarly, Top Gun: Maverick completely skirts the politics of the US launching some kind of preemptive or preventative strike. And I understand the matter: the movie wants to focus on entertainment—on characters and action—rather than geopolitics and politics, which can be controversial even in this kind of vehicle. But to entirely skirt such matters and the national identity of the enemy is to make it akin to the James Bond movies, which are pure fantasies. Top Gun is not supposed to be a total fantasy, but it risks entering that territory by just whitewashing all geopolitics and politics from its subject matter, even though such elements would be inherent to its plot. So, rather like the original from 1986, it tries to have matters both ways—to glory in the militarized thrill and danger while making those elements antiseptic, socially and politically. Most viewers probably will not notice or care, but for me, this artificial neutralization of inherent controversy was a bit of a distraction and a problem.
Aside from the spectacular flight scenes, the film is quite conventional; the nature of the filmmaking is basically the same as director Michael Bay's recent Ambulance, a commercialized mode of moviemaking subtly and wittily parodied in writer-director Roland Emmerich's Moonfall from earlier this year. But Top Gun: Maverick is certainly competent and entertaining enough, and I give Cruise credit for waiting over three decades before consummating a sequel. The generational difference in age helps the film, and I respect the fact that Cruise has not been making sequels of Top Gun every few years, in contrast to the typical Hollywood trend (or even Cruise's trend in other movies).
Probably the most intriguing aspect of the movie was to learn, during the closing credits, that "Renee Russo" served as a post-production sound assistant. (Okay, that is Renee Russo, not Rene Russo, but it amused me.)
