That voice over at the top, Tom Cruise really does seem to like having his characters hyped to the max. Wonder if he stipulates that or if he just happens to play those characters. Jack Reacher was ridiculous on that front but maybe he's going to try to go even further here. I hope so. Top Gun needs unintentional hilarity.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Top Gun: Maverick
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Dom D View PostThat voice over at the top, Tom Cruise really does seem to like having his characters hyped to the max. Wonder if he stipulates that or if he just happens to play those characters. Jack Reacher was ridiculous on that front but maybe he's going to try to go even further here. I hope so. Top Gun needs unintentional hilarity."Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dom D View PostBy chance the girlfriend suggested watching MI: Rogue Nation tonight. I was just thinking, here's a film where Cruise is relatively unhyped. That is until Baldwin gives a 30 second speech about how Cruise has superhuman abilities, finishng with something along the lines of "he is the human embodiment of Destiny." Laying it on thick even for Cruise...
It's the modern equivalent of those Joe Wieder ads in comic books. Tired of sand being kicked in your face? Become a level 8 Operating Thetan.I'm bitter, I'm twisted, James Joyce is fucking my sister.
Comment
-
MAVERICK is very much a sequel, if one about 30 years later than expected. And, expectations are what Joseph Kosinki's follow-up is about. The collaborative screenplay (five credited writers) hits all the expected story beats, no matter how cliched or predictable they may be.
Tom Cruise is still very much a charismatic star. Jennifer Connelly does what she can with a stereotypical role. The rest of the cast, both young and old, fill their roles suitably, with Miles Teller doing a good job following in Anthony Edwards' flight path as his offspring. Val Kilmer gets a bittersweet cameo. The production (with a huge assist from the U.S. military) is well done.
What is missing are any surprises. It's 130 minutes of just what one would expect. Fan service takes precedence here - the best “supporting actors” are the vintage photos and stock footage from the original 1986 film -- doing a lot of the emotional heavy lifting; Heck, they get more screen-time than some of the actual performers. Almost all of the songs could have been on the soundtrack of the Tony Scott predecessor - wouldn't want to shake up the baby boomers turning out to see it by playing some of that newfangled post 80s music.
Does it “work” as a sequel? Sure. Low bar that it is. The fact that quite a few folks are already touting this as a Best Picture contender says more about the poor state of big studio driven movies than it does about the merits of MAVERICK itself. NOBODY was calling TOP GUN an Oscar contestant in '86. Take away the nostalgia and MAVERICK isn't demonstrably better than the first film (the fact that MAVERICK has a 97 Rotten Tomatoes score vs. a 58 for the original demonstrates how low the bar has gotten). But, hey, in an era where GREEN BOOK, SHAPE OF WATER and CODA can win Best Picture and BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a serious nominee - wouldn't bet against it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JoeS View Post
Take away the nostalgia and MAVERICK isn't demonstrably better than the first film (the fact that MAVERICK has a 97 Rotten Tomatoes score vs. a 58 for the original demonstrates how low the bar has gotten).
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Takuma View Post
I really wouldn't agree with this. I think Maverick is way better than the original film. The '86 film is a fun piece of 80s pop cinema, but it suffers from a lack of plot, and messy action scenes where you can’t always tell what’s going on. The action in Maverick on the other hand is absolutely spectacular and breathtakingly well filmed. I’d say the last 25 minutes is the best action sequence filmed in Hollywood since Death Proof’s last 20 min. And the whole film is backed by a functional “men on a mission / racing against the clock” plot. I’ve seen the film twice on an IMAX screen and enjoyed it even more on the second time.
Comment
-
Much better then I thought it would be, but not even close to the original. The original had some cheezy emotions, the cold war, and a fantastic 80s look and sound. This has a very nonsensical plot without any twists, and everything runs along very smoothly. Everyone is a stereotype and even the plot is recycled from Iron Eagle 2 (minus the russians, plus the son of Goose)
Still Maverick outclasses pretty much any other Hollywood blockbuster of the last ten years or so, because of the simple fact the people making this actually seemed to give a shit. I.E. Real Planes vs. everything green screen etc."No presh from the Dresh!"
Comment
-
Originally posted by JoeS View Post
Except the "plot" here is 90% looking backwards. The movie would have done less than half as well if it were an original story with characters we didn't know. Sure, the effects (and government footage and planes) look terrific, but, it's empty nostaligia.
Originally posted by Matt H. View PostHow loud is this motherfucker in the theater? Movies that don't feature jets give me an earache, I can't imagine the damage this would do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Takuma View Post
I’d say that’s the “story” part, not the “plot”. But far enough. However I wouldn’t give that much emphasis on “nostalgia”. Perhaps if old Tom Cruise or just doing action well (unlike CGI crapfests like almost any other action film these days) count as nostalgia, then yes. But to me at least, the storyline was just about a guy haunted by his past, which is a common theme in original films too. It seemed almost irrelevant that Goose’s son is in the film, or that Val Kilmer has a cameo. Or that there’s about 20 seconds of flashback footage from the ‘86 film. I didn’t mind them, but I don’t think the film’s appeal relies on them. It’s the strong plot + incredible action + solid excection that makes it work.
That's at least 50 percent of the film!
You're serious that if this were about Joe Blow and a bunch of nobodies and starred Tom Smith that this would be the biggest hit of the year? Even with Cruise and not Smith, it's a hit -- but, not an all-time blockbuster. What was Cruise's last big hit that wasn't a sequel or a reboot? EDGE OF TOMORROW? It made 1/6th of what MAVERICK has made (and it's a better movie to boot).Last edited by JoeS; 07-03-2022, 12:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JoeS View PostReally? You don't think they spend a LOT of time and effort establishing who Goose Jr is? The big ending is nothing without that emotional bond.
Originally posted by JoeS View PostKilmer isn't just a "cameo" -- it's the whole reason Maverick is still on the force (and gets the assignment). Not to mention his send-off.
Originally posted by JoeS View PostPenny is a character mentioned in the original film and she also acts as a stand-in for Kelly McGillis (a younger much more attractive version, natch).
That's at least 50 percent of the film!
Originally posted by JoeS View PostYou're serious that if this were about Joe Blow and a bunch of nobodies and starred Tom Smith that this would be the biggest hit of the year?
So I'm not denying there's nostalgia (perhaps more than I initially gave credit for), or that some people have enjoyed that aspect. But I really doubt the film has made a billion at the box office because of that. Surely things like having the best action scenes filmed in Hollywood for nearly two decades, for example, contributed a lot more to its success than "Goose's son".
Comment
Comment