Top Gun - Maverick

24567

Comments

  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Going to see this at the weekend. Can't wait!!
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    Posts: 23,104
    Tom Cruise Terrifies James in 'Top Gun' Fighter

    :))
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    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!
    I promise you'll enjoy it more when you know the stakes and the impact to the story. It is a cameo but it got a special reaction during the screening
  • Posts: 4,599
    loved it, just loved it
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    Just three days left until I get to see it. I can't wait. These glowing reviews have me all the more excited.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,728
    I've never even seen the original film though I gather John Gardner's Win, Lose or Die (1989) was partially inspired by it.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I've never even seen the original film though I gather John Gardner's Win, Lose or Die (1989) was partially inspired by it.

    I finally saw it for the first time a couple of months back and I quite enjoyed it. Killer soundtrack and some excellent action sequences for its time.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited May 2022 Posts: 17,728
    Creasy47 wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    I've never even seen the original film though I gather John Gardner's Win, Lose or Die (1989) was partially inspired by it.

    I finally saw it for the first time a couple of months back and I quite enjoyed it. Killer soundtrack and some excellent action sequences for its time.

    I tell a lie as I think I saw a bit of it once when my friend showed me it on DVD years ago, but not the whole thing. I'm pretty sure I picked up a copy cheaply on DVD some years ago so I could really do with digging it out and watching it.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Trying to find a cinema around London that's showing a double bill for the full Top Gun experience.............................
  • Posts: 2,400
    It's a legitimate masterpiece, which I can't believe is my summation of a f@#$ing TOP GUN SEQUEL. :))
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 4,599
    The thing is (no spoliers) if you take the movie to pieces, it's not remarkable. It just gives mainstream audiences what they want (and what they wanted 40 years ago). It's unreamarkable and breaks no barriers/conventions and steals (in a good way) from other movies. But the execution is top notch. Why don't we get more of these films? Also worth noting that this shows TC is not all about stunts. IMHO, if they had filmed cockpit sequences in the studio etc, it would still have been a huge hit. It was more about the emotional ride than the any other ride. (the most talked about scene is in an office)

    PS too many writers are trying to be different/original rather than recognising that viewers are happy with the same stuff if executed well - https://industrialscripts.com/movie-tropes/
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    The film takes $19.3 million in previews, setting records for both Paramount and Memorial Day Weekend openings:

    https://deadline.com/2022/05/top-gun-maverick-box-office-1235034420/
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Wow!!!!!!!!!
    Just seen it and that's all I've got to say.
  • CraigMooreOHMSSCraigMooreOHMSS Dublin, Ireland
    Posts: 8,009
    It's brilliant. A hugely enjoyable film made with love. It absolutely flies along as well (pun intended). No fat, all substance. Just great stuff. Leaves the first film in the wind in almost every aspect.
  • Posts: 3,273
    Amazing! Best film I have seen in years, decades! Uplifting, feelgood factor off the scale. Cruise has reminded us all why we go to the cinema in the first place - to be entertained, thrilled, emotionally drained, and most importantly, leave the cinema on an absolute all time high. There is no nasty gimmick shocks in this film. It's all done very tastefully, and essential to the storyline.

    Makes a mockery of all the recent gloomy depressing endings that Netflix, Hollywood and the Bond producers think is what audiences expect now from a film.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    Saw it yesterday evening, what an absolutely incredible sequel. I've scarcely felt so much chest-thumping and pulse-pounding action sequences in a theater, you can feel the sound design in your body as much as the score. And that finale? Nail-biting stuff and very emotional. I loved it so much more than the original. That's how you do a blockbuster.

    AND I got to enjoy the Dead Reckoning trailer in cinemas. It made my jaw drop.
  • Posts: 322
    I agree, it’s brilliant

    Might go and see it again in an iMax
  • Posts: 15,785
    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?

    I'm a little late on this conversation, but interestingly my Dad watched the original recently and came a way disappointed. Echoed those thoughts. In addition, having trained in a Navy flight program he felt the characters were too arrogant and immature to be taken seriously. He liked the aerial visuals, though.
    Last time I watched it I liked it enough. It is what it is.
    I may catch the new one in a coupe weeks when I get some time off.
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    Posts: 573
    Probably gonna go see it again if I can this week. It's a must in IMAX if you can.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    00Heaven wrote: »
    Probably gonna go see it again if I can this week. It's a must in IMAX if you can.

    The generic theater I caught it in was so impressive; I don't think my body could handle the sheer amazement that IMAX would offer.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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?

    I'm a little late on this conversation, but interestingly my Dad watched the original recently and came a way disappointed. Echoed those thoughts. In addition, having trained in a Navy flight program he felt the characters were too arrogant and immature to be taken seriously. He liked the aerial visuals, though.
    Last time I watched it I liked it enough. It is what it is.
    I may catch the new one in a coupe weeks when I get some time off.

    Spending years in aviation circles the gist of it isn't too far off. Pilots usually do think the world turns around them. That said it was done a bit ott, but one historic aspect is overlooked here: it was the first film in ages after the vietnam war that showed the US military in a positive light.

    Of course, we all know who the real best pilot is:

  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited May 2022 Posts: 14,861
    ToTheRight wrote: »
    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?

    I'm a little late on this conversation, but interestingly my Dad watched the original recently and came a way disappointed. Echoed those thoughts. In addition, having trained in a Navy flight program he felt the characters were too arrogant and immature to be taken seriously. He liked the aerial visuals, though.
    Last time I watched it I liked it enough. It is what it is.
    I may catch the new one in a coupe weeks when I get some time off.

    I realised one quite fundamental issue with the original film is that it never explains what Goose and all the other co-pilots actually do. They seem to have no role other than to tell the pilot who’s following them and give occasional moral support :)
    I’m sure there was a reason why those planes did have two pilots, but the film itself never explains it to the audience. Very odd.
  • Tokoloshe2Tokoloshe2 Northern Ireland
    Posts: 1,172
    Just saw it last night. I'm not one for exaggeration but I was genuinely stunned at how BRILLIANT this film is.

    An absolute thrill from start to finish, exciting and emotional and just loads of fun. I only saw the original Top Gun for the first time on Friday and I have to say the sequel is the best thing I've seen at the cinema in many, many years. Just wow.
  • Jordo007Jordo007 Merseyside
    Posts: 2,483
    I'm made up everyone is starting to see this film and is loving it as much as I do. It was so difficult not to talk about it for a week
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 4,599
    I do hope that the success of TG will hit home with other producers (including Bond) to show that audiences want now what they wanted 30-40 years ago. The winning formula has not changed IMHO. It's also interesting to consider how and why we lost touch with this formula and it seems down to a minority in Hollywood to make such great films.

    PS there is a wonderful sense of "boyish charm" and rebeliousness with TC that the writers exploit and is missed with Bond IMHO

    Maverick : I have to admit I wasn't expecting an invitation back.
    Coleman : They're called *orders*, Maverick.

    I think Bond needs this.
  • Fire_and_Ice_ReturnsFire_and_Ice_Returns I am trying to get away from this mountan!
    edited May 2022 Posts: 23,104

    Spoilers
  • edited May 2022 Posts: 3,273
    patb wrote: »
    I do hope that the success of TG will hit home with other producers (including Bond) to show that audiences want now what they wanted 30-40 years ago. The winning formula has not changed IMHO. It's also interesting to consider how and why we lost touch with this formula and it seems down to a minority in Hollywood to make such great films.

    PS there is a wonderful sense of "boyish charm" and rebeliousness with TC that the writers exploit and is missed with Bond IMHO

    Maverick : I have to admit I wasn't expecting an invitation back.
    Coleman : They're called *orders*, Maverick.

    I think Bond needs this.

    Spot on! It's almost like Cruise gave 2 fingers up to the current depressing Hollywood trend and gave us what we really want, and not what the pathetic Hollywood rabble think we want.

    To be entertained properly, not depressed, and feel very uplifted when we leave the cinema. Bond used to be able to do that too.

    Had the Netflix crew been in charge of Top Gun, no doubt Maverick would have been killed off at the end of the movie, just for that novelty `shock' value once again, as they believe this is what audiences now want. So do the Bond producers too.

    I really hope TGM is a massive success (looking good so far), and this forces Hollywood back down the route of uplifting, feelgood movies again, like we used to get in the 80's, and it also forces a change in direction with the next Bond too.

    All hail the mighty Tom Cruise!! Maybe he should produce the next Bond.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    Great points about the feel good entertainment and ending it offers. I loved that:
    No major characters were killed off and it wraps up with such a pretty bow. It's nice to see a happy ending after all the doom and gloom of the last few years. I'm all for a sad ending but there has been a massive influx of them lately and it's refreshing to end things on an upbeat note.
  • Posts: 4,599
    Yes, there were so many roads that it could have gone down, can you imagine how they could have trashed it. The obvious one being "battle of the sexes" rather than just have a female pilot in the team and making zero reference (true equality), they could have gone down the "morality of war" route, the "long lost daughter" route (melodrama), the "age" route, the "weakened America in the world stage" route. This movie is as much about what they did not as about what they did. Given todays movie culture, it took a certain strength to keep the the formula that movie fans have loved way way before the 80s.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    patb wrote: »
    Yes, there were so many roads that it could have gone down, can you imagine how they could have trashed it. The obvious one being "battle of the sexes" rather than just have a female pilot in the team and making zero reference (true equality), they could have gone down the "morality of war" route, the "long lost daughter" route (melodrama), the "age" route, the "weakened America in the world stage" route. This movie is as much about what they did not as about what they did. Given todays movie culture, it took a certain strength to keep the the formula that movie fans have loved way way before the 80s.

    It perfectly exuded the formula, style and atmosphere of the original without being a complete, predictable retread. It was perfectly done. This is how you do a sequel, especially one that's coming 40 years later.
Sign In or Register to comment.