Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Top Gun: Maverick

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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.
    "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

    Comment


    • #17
      Will it have double the homoeroticism of the original?
      "Ah! By god's balls what licentiousness!"

      Marquis de Sade, The 120 Days of Sodom.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Dom D View Post
        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.
        By 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...
        "Never let the fact that they are doing it wrong stop you from doing it right." Hyman Mandell.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Dom D View Post
          By 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...
          And you too can achieve this by joining the church of Scientology. Only if you're wealthy. Otherwise you can sod off.

          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


          • #20
            Rock! Shock! Pop!

            Comment


            • #21
              Not a fan of the original outside of the unintentional homoerotic stuff which I doubt they'll embrace here.

              Comment


              • #22
                You never close your eyes, Jennifer Connelly, when I kiss your lips....

                I mean, I'll see this. It looks like dog shit, but I will see it. At some point.

                Comment


                • #23

                  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


                  • #24
                    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).
                    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


                    • #25
                      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.
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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


                        • #27
                          How 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.
                          Why would anybody watch a scum show like Videodrome? Why did you watch it, Max?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.
                            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.

                            Originally posted by Matt H. View Post
                            How 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.
                            I suppose that would depend on the theater? I didn't notice any loudness difference between this and other films.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.


                              Really? 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. And, it's not just "20 seconds" of flashbacks but the 272 lingering shots of old photos. Kilmer 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. Penny 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!
                              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).
                              JoeS
                              Senior Member
                              Last edited by JoeS; 07-03-2022, 12:03 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JoeS View Post
                                Really? 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.
                                They did. But did it really matter that he's the son of a forgettable character most people barely remember from the original film? Look at John Woo's The Killer for example. It has roughly the same storyline. The protagonist accidentally injures an innocent woman in the opening 10 minutes, then spends the rest of the film trying to make up for it, and earn a hostile cop's respect. And then we have a big emotional pay off at the end. It worked beautifully (better than Maverick) and no prequel from 40 years earlier was needed. There's a million films like that. So that's all I'm saying. They sure added the nostalgia coating, but I can't imagine anyone saying "I loved Maverick because Goose's son is in it".

                                Originally posted by JoeS View Post
                                Kilmer 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.
                                The Kilmer part is played for nostalgia. I agree on that. But it's still just one scene + a couple of text messages. As far as the storyline is concerned, it could just as well have been a new (slightly re-written) character doing all that (just like Ed Harris' character or Cruise's new superiors are new characters and they work fine).

                                Originally posted by JoeS View Post
                                Penny 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!
                                She was mentioned in the original film? I had no idea. I doubt almost anyone else does either. But yeah, she's definitely a stand-in for McGillis. I guess that counts for some pretty thick nostalgia.

                                Originally posted by JoeS View Post
                                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?
                                I'm not quite sure how that is related to nostalgia? Cruise and Kilmer are the only actors returning from the original. Cruise certainly helped make this a hit, but I'd say that's because he's a huge (and charismatic) star, not because he's playing a forgettable character from the '86 film. The '86 film is loved for many reasons... for the soundtrack, for the unintentional gayness, for all the 80s stuff... but I doubt anyone worships the character Cruise played. Or any of the film's characters.

                                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

                                Working...
                                X