I do love that it recreated the originals opening with music and Danger Zone and was a nice homage to the first film. Thought the young cast was just ok and didn’t resonate like the original cast(miss a young Val Kilmer) but thought Jennifer Connelly looked gorgeous (too gorgeous to be stuck being a bartender/ owner in a military bar). But the movie really takes off in its final 30 minutes, that’s the real fun part. If I was to see it again I might skip the first hour. Will definitely FF when I eventually get the 4K home disc. Saw it in a Dolby Plus theater and it sounded great. Might try IMAX next week. Certainly a nice time at the movies and would recommend.
There's one fantastic thing in this, take a hint, SW... The original lead is back and he is THE MAIN LEAD. Not second fiddle to a bunch of second hand young actors who will never achieve the longevity he did with his character. And... Here, the young actors all shine. Why because they are in their place. This is how you do long in the coming sequels.
This particular film promises to be "mindless popcorn" but my wife and I see hundreds of films in the theater every year, and I can assure you that there are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent movies with incredible acting released every week. Now this particular week is going to be pretty grim, because the 800 lb gorilla just wandered into town. So tonight, we're going to go see some Bollywood movies, and an animated film. But next week, we should have some more options. We see at least three films a week in the theater, and it's not because we don't have access to plenty of television. Everybody who complains about films in the theater, is only complaining about what's heavily advertised to them. Small films that play in the theater, like Gasper Noe's Vortex or Petite Maman, both of which we've seen in the theater in the last few weeks, don't have hundred million dollar advertising campaigns. Do you know how we found out about those films? We actually looked at the theater listings. My wife just pointed out to me, when I read this to her, that we actually have eight films planned for this week. F3: Fun and Frustration (Bollywood) Bob's Burgers Anek (Bollywood) Montana Story (Indie) Smokey and the Bandit (revival) Delicious (French) Bladerunner (The Final Cut) The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert (revival) These are all in a not particularly distinguished area, Kansas City Missouri and suburbs. If you're not actually out in a rural area (like 86% of Americans), these choices might well be available to you.
Seeing this tonight but to be honest I'm not hopeful, despite all the great reviews. Mission Impossible: Fallout has almost the same glowing Rotten Tomatoes rating and I found it excessively drawn-out and boring. Now that I see Christopher McQuarrie is one of the writers on this I'm severely adjusting my expectations. The original is so compact and concise. Action films have forgotten how to do that.
The best thing about computer graphics is that it's now possible to make a film featuring battleships, armies and jet fighters without having to get the approval of the various branches of the US military in order to get them to supply hardware and troops. Because if they don't like how you portray the military, you're not getting to use their tanks, jets and troops, and your film basically has to be a recruitment poster in order to get their approval.
I saw this movie today at the theater and I was quite impressed with the action and the characters involved. Tom Cruise really works hard in this movie along with the rest of the cast. I got to see a preview of the up and coming Mission Impossible movie due about a year from now. This was the first movie I have been to since the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. The summer of 2019 was the last year I saw a movie in the theater. I've never seen the first Top Gun movie from the mid 80s but I remember the hype at the time. Is it worth a watch?
Saw Maverick today in IMAX. Really great film in many ways. I liked the 1st one and it was a big part of my youth. This one was done better than any modern big studio film in a long time. Not perfect but pretty close. The fact most shots were done practically without much CGI really brings back the past, in a modern way. No in your face politics or agenda. And lots of heart without much cheese. One of the best films in a long time. Bravo RF
Saw Maverick tonight. Think this review sums it up well: “Top Gun: Maverick,” Reviewed: Tom Cruise Takes Empty Thrills to New Heights "The challenges are visceral rather than psychological, technical rather than dramatic, and the script offers them not resolutions but merely solutions—ones that are as impersonal as putting a key in a lock and as gratifying as hearing it click open. “Maverick” feels less written and directed than engineered."
I saw it tonight and enjoyed. It was well done and it held my attention the whole times. Goes very well with the original.
Everything you would want from a big dumb Hollywood movie. I loved every minute of it. Jennifer Connelly is gorgeous
Saw it last night. It was good. I would say in some ways better than the original (in terms of action.). It leaned on nostalgia too hard in places and seemed a bit formulaic that first hour or so but the ending was fantastic. The visuals and sound put you right in the cockpit. Some amazing stuff. I'm also convinced Tom Cruise has made a pact with Satan now or he's a vampire. Yeah we all know he has had cosmetic surgery and such but he comes off as youthful , if not more so,as Miles Teller who is supposed to be playing his best friends Son. He still carries himself as a man in his 30s. Oh and that scene between Val and Tom. I may have shed a tear. It was handled really well and it was great to see Val given his health struggles these last few years.
I saw Top Gun: Maverick as well and thoroughly enjoyed the film. Seeing the warplanes in action on the big-screen is so beautiful.
I saw the film today and liked it because it pulled off the trick of not playing the nostalgia card too heavily whilst being action packed. A few cliches were in there, but a few were avoided, perhaps as a nod to Tom’s advancing age. It’s a movie, gang. I got my money’s worth, which Tom always gives in the action setting.
Rental costs per hour for the F-18's $11,374 - rule for the actors including Tom C (don't touch any controls).
In the case of TG Maverick they had to pay rental costs for the jets/pilots. Are you going to see this movie?
We might, after a few weeks, but it's definitely not high priority. For one, even though we're vaccinated and boosted, we've uncomfortable having people sit near us. Last night, we were in a small theater and for the first time since the pandemic began, we actually had other people in the same row. We kept our masks on throughout the entire film. Also, the way revenue is distributed, the movie studio makes the majority of money in the first week or so. The longer the film plays, the more the theater chain gets. With digital projection, it's not like I have to worry about a print getting worn out, so a showing on that 28th day will look as good as one on the first.
Yeah, they avoided the trap of using this as a baton-handoff to a new generation of actors. It doesn't hurt that Tom Cruise seems to be almost super-human in his ability to still physically bring it at his age, thereby selling the idea he's still the alpha male in the room.
looks like OneRepublic also has a song in the movie. Both songs are ok, but pale in comparison to the music from the original imho OneRepublic - I Ain’t Worried
Regarding Tom's look in the film, remember it was filmed in 2018. That's 4 years ago. Also I think there is probably some digital botox done, it's not well known, but when you're editing your movie, and the star or other stars have a few wrinkles from a late night drink or whatever... It's easy to polish it with digital. No harm done, the shot looks better...
While it's accused of being "cheesy," all the flying/action in the original is fairly grounded in reality. This new one goes to some ludicrous places with the action.
It works with this movie because its not an ongoing franchise like Star Wars. This is likely just a one off follow up to the original. I could maybe see a third film if Tom really wants to do it, but I doubt it. I mean...there is literally no where else to go here. This movie had a sense of finality. Star Wars was on its seventh film with aging leads and let's be honest, Mark Hamill isn't Tom Cruise (and neither were Harrison Ford or Carrie Fisher)and without heavy CGI deepfakery wasn't going to be a viable action lead for another trilogy. The baton pass off was necessary. Same with any franchise. You eventually have to completely reboot and recast or create new characters and explore other possibilities within that universe. And either route is going to piss off someone. You are going to lose some people with whatever approach you take. You can't please every viewer or fan. Now one could argue they could have utilized the original trilogy characters better in the plot line than what we got, but the passing of the torch for the franchise was unavoidable UNLESS you end up recasting Luke, Han and Leia to keep their characters young and vital. However as SOLO showed us, that was fraught with its own risks and downsides.