› ›

Top Gun - Maverick

patbpatb
in General Movies & TV Posts: 4,602
Deserves it's own thread, it's not MI :-) ,

when was the last big Hollywood release that received such universal praise? - especially for a sequel to an iconic movie.
«134567

Comments

  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Going to see it with the Mrs at a charity screening tonight. Can't wait
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,278
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Going to see it with the Mrs at a charity screening tonight. Can't wait

    Fantastic; let us know what you thought of it!
  • Scaramanga1974Scaramanga1974
    Posts: 708
    Looks good.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    mtm wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Going to see it with the Mrs at a charity screening tonight. Can't wait

    Fantastic; let us know what you thought of it!

    Will do mate. No doubt it'll be amazing if the trailers are anything to go by
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,949
    I'll be seeing it next Saturday. I can't wait.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,278
    I'm booked in for the IMAX the week after. I hope I don't get air sick! :D
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,278
    Edgar Wright posted a funny comment: he’s watching it tonight, for the third time in as many years! It’s funny to think how long it’s been on the shelf for.
  • brinkeguthriebrinkeguthrie Piz Gloria
    Posts: 1,400
    Covid is taking off again. Waiting for streaming.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    Top Gun Maverick is a phenomenal film.

    The opening is an adrenaline rush filled with nostalgia and then the film steadily gets better and better...until the third act comes and it takes off (pun fully intended) the third act is worth the price of admission alone.

    If you're a fan of the original, you'll love it. But if you haven't seen the first film, you'll enjoy it just as much if not more. My Mrs wasn't a fan of the original but she loved this film.

    The action is breathtaking and the trailers give nothing away. The action feels more dangerous and intense, you feel like nobody is safe the moment they're in the air. The set up to the mission is brilliant, the stakes are well mapped out and the objective is clear.

    Comparing to the first film, the action is better, the story was surprisingly emotional in moments and it's not as cheesy as the original

    Go see this film in Imax, this what the cinema experience is all about
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 16,278
    Excellent stuff, thanks so much! I'm glad you had such a great time - I can't wait!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,949
    I'm even more excited to see this now in almost a week's time. Thanks, @Jordo007!
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,641
    You're welcome guys, I hope you enjoy it as much as I did
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,602
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,169
    I’ll probably rent the DVD on RedBox.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 16,278
    I watched the original last night to get up to speed on the characters, and erm… it’s not very good is it? :D Everything feels hollow and done for effect rather than with any meaning, and every single character is there just to tell us something about Maverick. I know he’s the lead character, but everything revolves around him in quite a weird way: he’s the only character with any life. I think there’s only one scene he’s not in, and even in that they’re talking about him. The worst example is Kelly McGinnis’ character: on their first date he tells her all about his childhood, his dad going missing etc. so he gets to look sad and sensitive, but he doesn’t ask anything about her: she’s not important. We don’t really get to know her, it’s just all about what she can do for Maverick. Towards the end she literally says “I’m here to help”- yup that’s all you’re there for, love! :) Such a horrible, thankless role for an actress. Even Goose’s death is just shown as being a challenge for Mav, it’s not tragic in itself. Meg Ryan doesn’t get to grieve without Maverick being present and it all being about him.
    The flying stuff is very effective though, and I’m certainly looking forward to the new one because I have no doubt it’s miles better.
    When is it set though? I understand Goose’s son is in it, but shouldn’t he be nearly 40?
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,175
    mtm wrote: »
    I watched the original last night to get up to speed on the characters, and erm… it’s not very good is it? :D

    It is pretty terrible! The last time I watched it I was with my partner, and I burst out afterwards "Iceman is right! Maverick is a [censored]!"

    I was so relieved when he agreed.

    (Tenuous Bond connection: Anthony Edwards, who plays Goose, is in Hawks with Timothy Dalton. Let's just say he does not play characters who have a lot of luck.)
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,278
    Yeah, there’s even a weird bit at the end where Mav chucks Goose’s dog tags in the sea: the message seemingly being ‘Tom Skerrit was right: forget your dead friends and move on: they’re dead and you’re Maverick. You’re great!” :D
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,199
    Hahaha it's a fair assessment of the first film, although cinema has evolved, it's also very Era-bound. It was a very good film for its day. When I tried to join our airforce, I had an interview with a psychologist. She told me there were plenty of guys who wanted to join because they'd seen top gun 40 times and 'still love it'. A couple of years ago I had the chance to see it in the cinema. It really is a fantastic ride, but sure, iceman is not only right about Maverick, he's the better pilot too...
  • patbpatb
    Posts: 4,602
    There are movies that, when you take them apart, they are not very good, I agree that with Top Gun, but somehow these movies capture the spirit of the era and capture the imaginations of the viewers (for decades after their first viewing). IMHO, this is what makes movies great. For all of it's many faults, Top Gun is a cast iron classic

    PS how many movies released this year will have a follow up released over thirty years later?
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    edited May 2022 Posts: 8,199
    mtm wrote: »
    I watched the original last night to get up to speed on the characters, and erm… it’s not very good is it? :D Everything feels hollow and done for effect rather than with any meaning, and every single character is there just to tell us something about Maverick. I know he’s the lead character, but everything revolves around him in quite a weird way: he’s the only character with any life. I think there’s only one scene he’s not in, and even in that they’re talking about him. The worst example is Kelly McGinnis’ character: on their first date he tells her all about his childhood, his dad going missing etc. so he gets to look sad and sensitive, but he doesn’t ask anything about her: she’s not important. We don’t really get to know her, it’s just all about what she can do for Maverick. Towards the end she literally says “I’m here to help”- yup that’s all you’re there for, love! :) Such a horrible, thankless role for an actress. Even Goose’s death is just shown as being a challenge for Mav, it’s not tragic in itself. Meg Ryan doesn’t get to grieve without Maverick being present and it all being about him.
    The flying stuff is very effective though, and I’m certainly looking forward to the new one because I have no doubt it’s miles better.
    When is it set though? I understand Goose’s son is in it, but shouldn’t he be nearly 40?

    The first film is very bad, indeed. Everyone points out the usual stuff - the cheesy lines, the homo-erotic aesthetic complimented by the over-the-top music - but there's legitimately several things about it (aside from those) that are very poor and can't be passed off as simply being "of its time".
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    Posts: 16,278
    Although I do think the flying scenes are pretty exceptional; and it's not easy to make a dogfight work onscreen, especially as there's no real geography to be used.
    And without a star like Cruise it would have been a lot worse; he makes it function where it would be pretty terrible with another nondescript handsome lad (although I can imagine it just about working with Kilmer as Mav).
  • jetsetwillyjetsetwilly
    Posts: 3,327
    I can't believe there are people on here that think the original Top Gun is bad. It's in my top 10 all time favourite movies, but I know its a product of its time. It gave both Tom Cruise and Tony Scott their big break, and I suppose looking at it now it is cheesy and corny.

    But seeing this as a teenager when first released, and every kid I knew wanted to be Maverick. The flying jacket, the Ray Bans, the 501's.

    Sunsets galore, orange filters, a soundtrack to rival Rocky IV as the best of all time, Faltermeyer at his finest, Top Gun is the ultimate 80's movie. I've got way too much emotional attachment to it as a teenager to see this film in any other way, and I cannot wait to see the sequel next Saturday.

    This may wipe away the disappointment of NTTD (fingers crossed). As long as we don't get a depressing ending, and instead an upbeat one, just as good as the original, then I don't think this one will crash and burn like Bond did.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited May 2022 Posts: 25,027
    Top Gun: Maverick. Tom Cruise interview on Graham Norton.

    Minor spoilers

    Tom is lazer like focus.
  • DwayneDwayne New York City
    Posts: 2,828
    FYI,
    People Magazine has a special “TOP GUN” newsstand special for sale.
    people-may-special-cover-1-2000.jpg

    Whatever TOP GUN's artistic merits, I really enjoyed the film. And without being too personal, it helped me deal with 1986,,,,a year of great tragedy.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,949
    I can't wait to see this. I'm eager to see what Kilmer's role is, or if it's nothing more than a portrait on a wall. I imagine it won't be a speaking role, at least.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited May 2022 Posts: 2,641
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I can't wait to see this. I'm eager to see what Kilmer's role is, or if it's nothing more than a portrait on a wall. I imagine it won't be a speaking role, at least.
    Satisfying (in my opinion)
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 8,199
    mtm wrote: »
    Although I do think the flying scenes are pretty exceptional; and it's not easy to make a dogfight work onscreen, especially as there's no real geography to be used.
    And without a star like Cruise it would have been a lot worse; he makes it function where it would be pretty terrible with another nondescript handsome lad (although I can imagine it just about working with Kilmer as Mav).

    They are astonishing. When they first wanted to make a sequel in the eighties the production company didn't want to spend all that money on more flying, so they went to look for un-used film. There wasn't any. They used all of it for the first film. As I understand it this film is made on the same principles as the first one, which is promising a lot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,949
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I can't wait to see this. I'm eager to see what Kilmer's role is, or if it's nothing more than a portrait on a wall. I imagine it won't be a speaking role, at least.
    Satisfying (in my opinion)
    Am I correct in my assumption that it won't be a speaking role?
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    edited May 2022 Posts: 2,641
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I can't wait to see this. I'm eager to see what Kilmer's role is, or if it's nothing more than a portrait on a wall. I imagine it won't be a speaking role, at least.
    Satisfying (in my opinion)
    Am I correct in my assumption that it won't be a speaking role?
    I don't want spoil it mate, as it's one of the most impactful moments of the film. What they did in the film was very clever.
    Message me if you want me to reveal it
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,949
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Jordo007 wrote: »
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    I can't wait to see this. I'm eager to see what Kilmer's role is, or if it's nothing more than a portrait on a wall. I imagine it won't be a speaking role, at least.
    Satisfying (in my opinion)
    Am I correct in my assumption that it won't be a speaking role?
    I don'twant spoil it mate, as it's one of the most impactful moments of the film. What they did in the film was very clever.
    Message me if you want me to reveal it

    If it's that great, I'll gladly wait!
Sign In or Register to comment.