Top Gun: Maverick

[cavalcade]

I thought the film was fine. I don't have a huge affinity for the original, though I did have an obsession with planes and flight sims when I was younger. The way the original plays fast and loose with about every aspect of arial combat I found quite annoying at the time. I think this newer film certainly, more than any other recent blockbuster featuring air combat, attempts to ground the core mission in a vague reality which helps a lot. 

 

I found the core structure of the movie pretty paint by numbers. Distractingly so at times. The emotional beats are so obvious and laboured that I didn't get a huge amount out of them apart from the visiting an old friend scene (even if the scripting was a bit poor). MiniGoose was good (but then I quite liked Fantastic 4 2015, so I might well have issues), age appropriate love interest was fine, the pilot team from Aliens was fine and Tom Cruise sort of TC'ed up the place as well as he usually does. I guess it all hinges on the actual action, which I found decent though still suffering from occasionally bad bits of CGI and the usual lack of 3D space in dogfights. This made it feel a bit Star Warsy (e.g. the dogfights in Force Awakens) at times with the same floaty weird thing where dogfighting planes/ships are about 3ft apart from one another sliding about. There's also something a little bit shit about the F/1A 18, which isn't as iconic as an F-14 (although yes, that bit is quite good). I do appreciate actually putting the reality of modern air combat on the screen would be boring - no 5th gen fighter is going to dogfight an F-14 - so the balance they manage to tease out is pretty good. 

 

I do think after watching a string of movies where they seem to have forgotten the basics of movie structure it is nice to see a film that has a clear series of acts, a workable script, decent direction, good action and which hits all the right nostalgia notes. I wonder if, in a sense, just having a top tier blockbuster that doesn't fuck about too much and sticks to the basics is a big part of its success, rather than a flash cut incomprehensible monstrosity. When the main mission is described for about the eighth time in painstaking detail, you can almost feel the filmmakers making sure everyone knows exactly what's about to happen and how the movie is going to play out, which is quite comforting. The entire thing felt very much like watching a favourite film you knew or re-reading a favourite book.

 

So yes, a solid 7 or 8 out of ten. Pew pew planes.  

[drmick]

55 minutes ago, cavalcade said:

I thought the film was fine. I don't have a huge affinity for the original, though I did have an obsession with planes and flight sims when I was younger. The way the original plays fast and loose with about every aspect of arial combat I found quite annoying at the time. I think this newer film certainly, more than any other recent blockbuster featuring air combat, attempts to ground the core mission in a vague reality which helps a lot. 

 

I found the core structure of the movie pretty paint by numbers. Distractingly so at times. The emotional beats are so obvious and laboured that I didn't get a huge amount out of them apart from the visiting an old friend scene (even if the scripting was a bit poor). MiniGoose was good (but then I quite liked Fantastic 4 2015, so I might well have issues), age appropriate love interest was fine, the pilot team from Aliens was fine and Tom Cruise sort of TC'ed up the place as well as he usually does. I guess it all hinges on the actual action, which I found decent though still suffering from occasionally bad bits of CGI and the usual lack of 3D space in dogfights. This made it feel a bit Star Warsy (e.g. the dogfights in Force Awakens) at times with the same floaty weird thing where dogfighting planes/ships are about 3ft apart from one another sliding about. There's also something a little bit shit about the F/1A 18, which isn't as iconic as an F-14 (although yes, that bit is quite good). I do appreciate actually putting the reality of modern air combat on the screen would be boring - no 5th gen fighter is going to dogfight an F-14 - so the balance they manage to tease out is pretty good. 

 

I do think after watching a string of movies where they seem to have forgotten the basics of movie structure it is nice to see a film that has a clear series of acts, a workable script, decent direction, good action and which hits all the right nostalgia notes. I wonder if, in a sense, just having a top tier blockbuster that doesn't fuck about too much and sticks to the basics is a big part of its success, rather than a flash cut incomprehensible monstrosity. When the main mission is described for about the eighth time in painstaking detail, you can almost feel the filmmakers making sure everyone knows exactly what's about to happen and how the movie is going to play out, which is quite comforting. The entire thing felt very much like watching a favourite film you knew or re-reading a favourite book.

 

So yes, a solid 7 or 8 out of ten. Pew pew planes.  

 

I'm of a similar opinion- this is a A-list blockbuster that isn't superhero, or space, or fantasy, or sci-fi- and as such it appeals to the casual masses AND appears original to younger audiences.

[Turino 73]

It truly says something when Kate Bush is the top of the music charts and a Tom Cruise remix of Star Wars and Iron Eagle II is the film of the year

[Triple A]

I just got home from my second viewing - yeah this is a really great movie, one of my goats.

The Gaga song grows on you too!

[Jammy]

Just got back from the cinema with wife

and boy (7). Everyone loved it - some great flight scenes, just the right amount of cheese, nostalgia and feels. The boy said on the way out that

Spoiler

he nearly cried at the end when they were on the carrier because he was so happy they all made it back.

 

[Oracle]

You can take a 7 year old to the film?

[pledge]

It is a 12A. With an adult an under 12 can see it.

[Oracle]

2 hours ago, pledge said:

It is a 12A. With an adult an under 12 can see it.

well guess what I’m doing tomorrow morning, fathers  day just got exciting. I wouldn’t show my kids the original due to sex pest Tom cruise. But the sequel is much better on that front. 

[Oracle]

I could only get a Screen X (triple projectors) viewing in the morning but took my daughter to watch. 
 

Shame the setup is not a patch on IMAX, particularly the weak audio. But amazing to share with her, not something I had the opportunity to do with my dad when he was alive. 

[Thor]

Three generations of boys from my family went to see this together for fathers day, and loved it!  

[glb]

Missed an IMAX screening but seen Picturehouse Central has it on tomorrow in their main screen, 4K, decent size and dobly atmos. Saw Jurassic Larks: Dominion on it last week and think it’ll scratch the itch.

 

Sorry, this probably could have been a diary entry but here we are.

[glb]

On 19/06/2022 at 18:37, glb said:

Missed an IMAX screening but seen Picturehouse Central has it on tomorrow in their main screen, 4K, decent size and dobly atmos. Saw Jurassic Larks: Dominion on it last week and think it’ll scratch the itch.

 

Sorry, this probably could have been a diary entry but here we are.

Dear diary,

 

Train/tube strikes curtailed plans. I am sad. Oh when will I see Top Gun Maverick on a format it deserves????!!!!!

Skipped breakfast this morning. Might have cereal for lunch though. Live the dream.

[ineligible doodles]

[SozzlyJoe]

Saw this with the kids, agree with the takes above. A very enjoyable blockbuster, incredibly competently made. I got a weird sense of temporal vertigo at Tom Cruise being basically the same character as a movie from my childhood, like I was in a time slip or something.

OK, stupid question about the mission.

 

Spoiler

Why could they just not turn round and fly back out the same canyon they flew in?

 

[Gigawatt]

Spoiler

I assume the plan is that they would, but there’s an unavoidable period after they pull up from the attack where they pop into radar coverage and immediately get targeted by the SAMs. They then have to defend against those. Presumably the 2 who don’t get shot down do run out back through the valley, but that’s never even hinted at. 

 

[glb]

I thought it was more…

 

Spoiler

They’re using the valley as cover to get as close as possible to the target; once they blow shit up the enemy is alerted anyway so the pilots need to exit the quickest way possible rather than back down the treacherous trench run.

 

Until Maverick intervenes and Skywalkers the shit out of the canyon run, the mission is also seen as a suicide mission by the higher ups anyway, so they didn’t really plan a reliable exit. Just, “I dunno, bomb stuff, break cover and haul ass, I guess”

 

[probotector]

The plan was always to do what happened.

 

The had to pull up above the canyon to get away or go into the mountain.

 

They didn’t train for what happens after as that was down to their existing abilities. 

[Flanders]

One amazing thing about this wonderful film I haven’t seen mentioned in here yet:

 

Spoiler

Best use of the single ‘fuck’ allowed under a PG-13 rating ever - when Rooster yells WHAT THE FUCK in response to the fifth gen fighter doing the most unearthly gravity-defying flip-spin to get behind them in the final fight. It was exactly what every single person watching thought in their head at the same time. 

 

[probotector]

I went wtf as well because the fighter did it so smoothly and elegantly.

 

I was in the peaks last year and heard thunder but it was a sunny day, a fighter jet fly past me literally at eye level by lady bower dam. It banked to the side I could see the pilot and it was moving just like that fifth gen fighter as in, you would think these things are fast but it was moving unnaturally slowly!

 

Really hard to explain.

[Dapple]

54 minutes ago, Flanders said:

One amazing thing about this wonderful film I haven’t seen mentioned in here yet:

 

  Hide contents

Best use of the single ‘fuck’ allowed under a PG-13 rating ever - when Rooster yells WHAT THE FUCK in response to the fifth gen fighter doing the most unearthly gravity-defying flip-spin to get behind them in the final fight. It was exactly what every single person watching thought in their head at the same time. 

 

One of my favourite things was how 

Spoiler

Maverick and Iceman always ended their one-line text messages with a full stop.

 

[SozzlyJoe]

Waiiit.. I've got another question about the mission

 

Spoiler

So, the thing that alerted the patrolling fighters that they were there was the big cloud of cruise missiles hitting the runway.. so why launch them so early? Launch them so they only hit seconds before you are due to bomb the target! Then the fighters can just tootle along at their own speed for the first part. Maverick, you showboater!

 

Still a great film, all this nitpicking is part of the fun.

[JohnC]

7 minutes ago, SozzlyJoe said:

Waiiit.. I've got another question about the mission

 

  Hide contents

So, the thing that alerted the patrolling fighters that they were there was the big cloud of cruise missiles hitting the runway.. so why launch them so early? Launch them so they only hit seconds before you are due to bomb the target! Then the fighters can just tootle along at their own speed for the first part. Maverick, you showboater!

 

Still a great film, all this nitpicking is part of the fun.

Spoiler

There's no guarantee they won't be spotted earlier, by being detected by a SAM if one flies too high, or by unexpected other planes, which almost happened. If that happens, there's perhaps a chance planes launch before the runway is destroyed. They need to destroy it early to be sure.

 

[SozzlyJoe]

Fair, I'll accept that!

 

Also, I enjoyed the irony that it would have been a perfect mission for the drones they were all so annoyed they were going to be replaced by!

[drmick]

22 hours ago, Dapple said:

One of my favourite things was how 

  Hide contents

Maverick and Iceman always ended their one-line text messages with a full stop.

 

 

I reckon that is something Tom Cruise insists on lol. Can anyone recall similar in the Mission Impossible movies?

[Bucky]

Saw it last night.  I thought it was great.  I let out a few odd whoops and incredulous laughs, it's been some time since the cinema did that to me.

 

There was enough character and heart to make the original look really flimsy. 

 

Those first few minutes which are almost shot for shot the original but in 4K amazing are almost worth the price of admission.  

[englishbob]

5 minutes ago, Bucky said:

There was enough character and heart to make the original look really flimsy.  

 

I re-watched the original the other day for the first time in 30+ years (after only seeing it once before and posted in the Films out of 5 thread) and there really isn't anything in the film of any substance.

[glb]

On 23/06/2022 at 19:31, Flanders said:

One amazing thing about this wonderful film I haven’t seen mentioned in here yet:

 

  Hide contents

Best use of the single ‘fuck’ allowed under a PG-13 rating ever - when Rooster yells WHAT THE FUCK in response to the fifth gen fighter doing the most unearthly gravity-defying flip-spin to get behind them in the final fight. It was exactly what every single person watching thought in their head at the same time. 

 

I wholeheartedly recommend…

 

Spoiler

…if you haven’t already, going down a YouTube rabbit hole of the SU-57’s manoeuvrability. The physics of what that plane can do is borderline fantasy.

 

Christ only knows what sixth gen fighters will bring to the table.

 

[glb]

Finally…

 

 

[gone fishin]

Global Box office is now over $1bn, second highest grossing post-COVID film after Spider-Man, but I can see Top Gun Maverick performing well for months, it’s a great summer film and probably worth a re-watch. I heard a radio advert for it today, so it’s still being promoted.  

 

It’s kind of weird (but very nice) it being a total old school film, in that it’s not going to streaming after 2 months and people still want to go and see it in the cinema. 

 

 

[glb]

Holy shitballs! I enjoyed Maverick first time around but it’s an altogether different film on IMAX.

 

The action scenes are simply sensational on the format. Blockbusters have utilised VFX incredibly well in recent years but there’s a lot to be said for in-camera set-pieces. It’s so damn visceral. Tom Cruise can be a loon but damn if I don’t admire him for how hard he’s pushing the envelope for big screen cinema. And beneath all that is still an incredibly well-made, unashamedly old fashioned classic narrative film. 

 

I did get a huge, appreciative wave of gratitude halfway through tonight’s showing. I don’t know how many hundreds, probably thousands, of hours I’ve sat in the dark watching films on screens in my 42 years but films like this are why I still feel a tingle of excitement every time the house lights dim, and I get to escape into a new world, wide-eyed in wonder, for a couple of hours.

 

Top Gun: Maverick may not be the best film I see this year, but I’m pretty certain it’s the one I’ll remember the most fondly.

 

2 hours ago, gone fishin said:

Global Box office is now over $1bn, second highest grossing post-COVID film after Spider-Man, but I can see Top Gun Maverick performing well for months, it’s a great summer film and probably worth a re-watch. I heard a radio advert for it today, so it’s still being promoted.  

 

It’s kind of weird (but very nice) it being a total old school film, in that it’s not going to streaming after 2 months and people still want to go and see it in the cinema. 

 

 

Pleasingly the BFI IMAX was 2/3rds full tonight. Seen that the film is also back in rotation at the other ‘big’ screens in central London. Deservedly so.

[Gabe]

I thought this was decent.

 

I haven't seen the original (nor know what happens other than his friend dies and his son is in this one) but I didn't feel I needed to. I imagine there are some callbacks I would've missed, but they didn't impact on my enjoyment. 

 

I felt the action was surprisingly low-key and a bit too easy when they got to the actual mission though. It was well-shot and pretty easy to follow though, which isn't something you can always say about similar films. 

 

Would I watch it again? No, I don't think so. The core story isn't particularly interesting, there's little characterisation of, well, anybody and it leans into - and relies on - Cruise's charm over a compelling tale.

 

He is pretty charming though.