Top Gun - Maverick

12346

Comments

  • Posts: 322
    I saw it for the second time last week, and was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed it - despite knowing the plot.

    Can imagine it will withstand many repeat viewings, and become a classic. Staple for Christmas TV for decades to come
  • Posts: 3,273
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.
  • Posts: 3,273
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.

    In terms of BO figures yes. Like TB was to GF.

    But in terms of universal praise, putting Bond back on the map again, rejuvenating the franchise, CR is now more fondly looked back on than SF is, the same way GF is compared to TB.

    This is a generalisation, I know. But I'm basing it on current and past reviews I have read over the years (too many to mention). SF was lucky in that it hung on the curtails of 50 year anniversary, where the marketing machine was in full force.

  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,664
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.

    In terms of BO figures yes. Like TB was to GF.

    But in terms of universal praise, putting Bond back on the map again, rejuvenating the franchise, CR is now more fondly looked back on than SF is, the same way GF is compared to TB.

    This is a generalisation, I know. But I'm basing it on current and past reviews I have read over the years (too many to mention). SF was lucky in that it hung on the curtails of 50 year anniversary, where the marketing machine was in full force.

    No, that's all just among a certain breed of fan. Even Metacritic has Skyfall above Casino Royale. Spectre and NTTD also outgrossed CR. That's some rejuvenation.

    Retrospective feelings don't change the fact that Bond was a whole hell of a lot bigger in 2012 than in 2006. And neither was quite what TGM is, certainly not CR!
  • Posts: 642
    DB5MN wrote: »
    mtm wrote: »
    I wonder how Hollywood will react to that. Hopefully it’s not just the easy option (make sequels to really old films) and rather they’ll work out what the special sauce is (make blockbusters which are really good and deliver incredible spectacle).

    I would also add that extra vital ingredient too - feelgood factor.

    For too long now Hollywood has tied itself up in knots, not allowing heroes anymore to be just that - heroes. They have to be flawed, tragic human beings, and with recent trends, the hero has to die at the end of the movie too. He can no longer live.

    If TGM had fallen into the hands of another trendy producer, no doubt Maverick would have been killed at that moment when you thought he may have been killed in the film.

    This ruins the feelgood factor, which is something Cruise has brought back, in spades. The hero wins, and survives to fight another day - and the film ends on a happy note too.

    He did something DC's Bond didn't do and should have. Actually top gun maverick did stuff bond films used to do keep you guessing till the end and somehow he survives.
    Yep remember the PTS of TND where there’s a huge fireball and everyone thinks Bond is dead? Everyone falls silent with baited breath. But then the Bond theme starts blaring and you see “White Knight” emerging from inside all that smoke and the fireball. That’s the James Bond I know!

    But all this is a moot point. Craig makes the call that he wants Bond to die (a call he should have never been allowed to make) and Babs Broccoli falls over backwards trying to accommodate him. Because it’s Craig and we give into anything he wants. A real shame.

    So it doesn’t really matter. You know what Craig demanded and that’s why the death isn’t genuine. It’s contrived. They would have made up any scenario to kill him off because that’s what needed to happen. He might as well have just picked up a gun and shot himself in the head.

    Bottom line - There’s no reason for Bond to die EVER. Coming up with various scenarios to have Bond survive (no matter how contrived) makes sense. That’s how it’s always been. Our hero survives, no matter what. But coming up with various scenarios to actually kill Bond makes no sense.
  • mtmmtm United Kingdom
    edited July 2022 Posts: 14,861
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.

    In terms of BO figures yes. Like TB was to GF.

    But in terms of universal praise, putting Bond back on the map again, rejuvenating the franchise, CR is now more fondly looked back on than SF is, the same way GF is compared to TB.

    This is a generalisation, I know. But I'm basing it on current and past reviews I have read over the years (too many to mention). SF was lucky in that it hung on the curtails of 50 year anniversary, where the marketing machine was in full force.

    No it was Skyfall, two films back. Coming with the London Olympics; Bond and the Queen jumping out of a helicopter; the largest-grossing British ever to date; Adele's song being huge, being the first Bond UK No.1 and winning the first Bond song Oscar... it was absolutely massive and incredibly special. Probably the last time a lot of us felt properly proud of being British, but that's another story...

    I disagree that CR is 'now more fondly looked on'; but even if it were true, the perception of it now would have nothing to do with the assertion that "The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR". Unless you're talking about how special TGM feels now... in ten years time..?! :))
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Finally watched it. It was super predictable but fine for what it is.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Finally watched it. It was super predictable but fine for what it is.

    I thought it was quite a bit more than fine, but God yeah was it predictable. And that's okay--it's quite an art assembling that many cliches into something as fresh-feeling and entertaining as TGM was!
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,099
    Although I enjoyed the film, I also enjoyed this review from alternative aviation blog Hush-Kit:

    Don’t think, do. Why Top Gun Maverick is such a snoozefest (contains spoilers)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Finally watched it. It was super predictable but fine for what it is.

    I thought it was quite a bit more than fine, but God yeah was it predictable. And that's okay--it's quite an art assembling that many cliches into something as fresh-feeling and entertaining as TGM was!

    The movie is mostly good for like 3/4 in, and then it kinda lost me once they crash into Not-Russia.

    “Oh look, there’s the one hangar deck that we missed blowing up which happens to have an F14 ready to fly. How convenient for us!”

    I also can’t help but think of how it’s just a big showboat for Cruise with minimal humility. I get he’s the star, but I think you could do something besides say “I can do anything these kids half my age even better, I can break the rules and always get away with them, DON’T THINK JUST DO IT!”

    The only time they kind of dial that back is when Hangman comes to the rescue, which you could see a mile away, but it’s still appreciative that Tom Cruise isn’t totally infallible, he’s also just lucky.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Finally watched it. It was super predictable but fine for what it is.

    I thought it was quite a bit more than fine, but God yeah was it predictable. And that's okay--it's quite an art assembling that many cliches into something as fresh-feeling and entertaining as TGM was!

    The movie is mostly good for like 3/4 in, and then it kinda lost me once they crash into Not-Russia.

    “Oh look, there’s the one hangar deck that we missed blowing up which happens to have an F14 ready to fly. How convenient for us!”

    I also can’t help but think of how it’s just a big showboat for Cruise with minimal humility. I get he’s the star, but I think you could do something besides say “I can do anything these kids half my age even better, I can break the rules and always get away with them, DON’T THINK JUST DO IT!”

    The only time they kind of dial that back is when Hangman comes to the rescue, which you could see a mile away, but it’s still appreciative that Tom Cruise isn’t totally infallible, he’s also just lucky.

    I can see all that, yeah. I also got a slight Space Cowboys vibe, which is not necessarily a complaint. If you haven't seen that film, Clint Eastwood, Tommy Lee Jones, James Garner, and Donald Sutherland have to go take care of an old Soviet satellite before it crashes into Earth (or something) and the reason the geezers have to do it is because all the hot shot lamebrain young people don't understand the old tech (or something).
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I saw that in theaters. Felt like ARMAGEDDON for GRUMPY OLD MEN.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    I saw that in theaters. Felt like ARMAGEDDON for GRUMPY OLD MEN.

    :))
    It's a pretty nice little movie, and probably a particularly wonderful experience for its target demographic, so no complaints there.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    edited July 2022 Posts: 8,000
    All I remember is there’s a scene where Donald Sutherland is proud of his massive wang during an inspection and that Tommy Lee Jones gets to die on the moon.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 3,273
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.

    In terms of BO figures yes. Like TB was to GF.

    But in terms of universal praise, putting Bond back on the map again, rejuvenating the franchise, CR is now more fondly looked back on than SF is, the same way GF is compared to TB.

    This is a generalisation, I know. But I'm basing it on current and past reviews I have read over the years (too many to mention). SF was lucky in that it hung on the curtails of 50 year anniversary, where the marketing machine was in full force.

    No, that's all just among a certain breed of fan. Even Metacritic has Skyfall above Casino Royale. Spectre and NTTD also outgrossed CR. That's some rejuvenation.

    Retrospective feelings don't change the fact that Bond was a whole hell of a lot bigger in 2012 than in 2006. And neither was quite what TGM is, certainly not CR!

    IMDB has CR above SF, and Rotten Tomatoes has CR higher than SF too, for both reviews and audience rating. I noticed you chose to leave these particular stats out... ;)

    Either way, you are right. Neither CR or SF are what TGM is. I hope one day we get a Bond film that can rival TGM.
  • Posts: 3,273
    I saw that in theaters. Felt like ARMAGEDDON for GRUMPY OLD MEN.

    Are you the grumpy old man... ;)
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I saw it for a third time last night. Even five weeks after release, the theatre was half full. The film has great legs.

    The last time Bond felt as special as TGM does right now, you would have to go back to CR.

    Skyfall was a much, much bigger movie than CR.

    In terms of BO figures yes. Like TB was to GF.

    But in terms of universal praise, putting Bond back on the map again, rejuvenating the franchise, CR is now more fondly looked back on than SF is, the same way GF is compared to TB.

    This is a generalisation, I know. But I'm basing it on current and past reviews I have read over the years (too many to mention). SF was lucky in that it hung on the curtails of 50 year anniversary, where the marketing machine was in full force.

    No, that's all just among a certain breed of fan. Even Metacritic has Skyfall above Casino Royale. Spectre and NTTD also outgrossed CR. That's some rejuvenation.

    Retrospective feelings don't change the fact that Bond was a whole hell of a lot bigger in 2012 than in 2006. And neither was quite what TGM is, certainly not CR!

    Rotten Tomatoes has CR higher than SF - both reviews and audience rating. I noticed you chose to leave that particular stat out... ;)

    Either way, you are right. Neither CR or SF are what TGM is. I hope one day we get a Bond film that can rival TGM.

    I don’t think we’ll ever see a Bond film rival TGM in the US. Bond has not been giant event in the states since 60s Bondmania. It’s had hits since then, but never coming close to other contemporary films that Americans gobble up like candy.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    edited July 2022 Posts: 1,664

    IMDB has CR above SF, and Rotten Tomatoes has CR higher than SF too, for both reviews and audience rating. I noticed you chose to leave these particular stats out... ;)

    Either way, you are right. Neither CR or SF are what TGM is. I hope one day we get a Bond film that can rival TGM.

    I didn't leave it out, I didn't look! I'm sure 2006/7 was a crazy level of Bondmania for jetsetwilly and many others, but in the world at large, Casino Royale was not quite as big a deal as Ice Age 2. :))

    I don’t think we’ll ever see a Bond film rival TGM in the US. Bond has not been giant event in the states since 60s Bondmania. It’s had hits since then, but never coming close to other contemporary films that Americans gobble up like candy.

    You're probably right about that. Skyfall was pretty huge though, as it was everywhere.

    I remember when Goldeneye came out, and I was living in California, and the mood was sort of, "Oh, they've made another Bond film after all!" and it was a slightly-more-than-modest hit.
  • edited July 2022 Posts: 3,273

    I didn't leave it out, I didn't look! I'm sure 2006/7 was a crazy level of Bondmania for jetsetwilly and many others, but in the world at large, Casino Royale was not quite as big a deal as Ice Age 2. :))

    .

    Sounds like you aren't a big fan of CR then either...
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I’m a fan of CR, but I can see in 2006 it wasn’t that massively popular as other titles, at least in the US.

    https://www.boxofficemojo.com/year/2006/?grossesOption=totalGrosses

    Maybe it was more of a phenomenon in the UK, but in the US it pretty much did about as well as all the Brosnan titles more or less. A very respectable box office hit, just not as impressive compared to international.
  • Posts: 642
    I still can’t believe CR finished second to HAPPY FEET. Lol. Who even remembers that movie today???
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    I remember the anti-Craig brigade kept using the box office results with HAPPY FEET topping the weekend as a stick to beat that movie, as if it’s proof that people hate CR and that Eon should fire Craig and bring back Bond.

    Despite the fact that even though at second place, CR was about only a million dollars below.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Although I enjoyed the film, I also enjoyed this review from alternative aviation blog Hush-Kit:

    Don’t think, do. Why Top Gun Maverick is such a snoozefest (contains spoilers)

    With the risk of stepping in that trap of beeing seen as a 40+ man who's (supposedly) missing purpose in life (that is rather far from the truth), I disagree with this assessment. To my mind TG-M does exactly what it says on the tin, and what people expect from it. It's a flat-out fun aviation film with no pretenses whatsoever. The volleyball scene in the original was (afak) never meant to be homo-erotic. Fine if critics who seek meaning in every scene find it arousing or politically (in)correct, but it was only there to show their teambuilding. And that's how it's used in this film as well.
    That bit about Maverick standing up to 'drones taking over' has no other meaning than to set the stage for the mission: of course it would be a drone mission today! But you can't build a blockbuster movie around a drone!
    And that 'don't think' 'lesson' is undone in the funny exchange between Rooster and Maverick, so that point also flies out the window.

    Leaves me to say I find this critic a bit too critical in the wrong points. Cruise has stated it is a loveletter to aviaton, and I think it is. The story doesn't make too much sense when you actually think of it, but we're told not to do that anyway. But the first film didn't make that much sense either. If there's any underlying message, it has more to do with keeping promises and making choises for your family than anything else. And I think that was done tastefully too.
  • Agent_99Agent_99 enjoys a spirited ride as much as the next girl
    Posts: 3,099
    Cruise has stated it is a loveletter to aviaton

    Seems to me it's a love letter to Tom Cruise :) Not that there's anything wrong with that!
  • 00Heaven00Heaven Home
    edited July 2022 Posts: 573
    It did strike me how front and centre Maverick had to be despite his age but I can look past it. There has to be a lot of suspension of disbelief for this movie to work period, especially if you know anything about basic aviation or have read/taken notice of how missions and fighter flights are conducted for real. Despite the reasons given in the film, they could probably have used the F35 for such a mission and I heard they did ask the Navy if they could use that but with it being so high tech and under wraps they were denied usage of it. They then have to go to the next best thing that's a two seater to get the shots they wanted of the actors... And the only really viable ones still in operation are the F15 and the F18. The latter being the only one that's used in the Navy.

    You know, I always found it weird how people spoke about the first movie being homoerotic or whatever. Sure, if you wanted to you could interpret that way I suppose... But we're talking about guys (and gals) who put their lives on the line and need to be able to rely and trust their colleagues 100%. I always saw it as team building and the military trying to instil some much needed comararderie between the aviators despite the competition. I think Maverick does a better job of driving that point home.
  • CommanderRossCommanderRoss The bottom of a pitch lake in Eastern Trinidad, place called La Brea
    Posts: 7,948
    00Heaven wrote: »
    It did strike me how front and centre Maverick had to be despite his age but I can look past it. There has to be a lot of suspension of disbelief for this movie to work period, especially if you know anything about basic aviation or have read/taken notice of how missions and fighter flights are conducted for real. Despite the reasons given in the film, they could probably have used the F35 for such a mission and I heard they did ask the Navy if they could use that but with it being so high tech and under wraps they were denied usage of it. They then have to go to the next best thing that's a two seater to get the shots they wanted of the actors... And the only really viable ones still in operation are the F15 and the F18. The latter being the only one that's used in the Navy.

    You know, I always found it weird how people spoke about the first movie being homoerotic or whatever. Sure, if you wanted to you could interpret that way I suppose... But we're talking about guys (and gals) who put their lives on the line and need to be able to rely and trust their colleagues 100%. I always saw it as team building and the military trying to instil some much needed comararderie between the aviators despite the competition. I think Maverick does a better job of driving that point home.

    I'm not quite sure you can manouvre an F35 through a canyon like that. Then again, I know of no county that builds nuclear reactors at the end of a gorge whilst putting SAM-systems on its edges. But hey, who cares, it makes for a suspenseful ride!
    Agent_99 wrote: »
    Cruise has stated it is a loveletter to aviaton

    Seems to me it's a love letter to Tom Cruise :) Not that there's anything wrong with that!

    hahaha well, to Maverick. You can see he loves the character. Which is fair game. I think they took a page out of Tombraider's playbook with the 'talk to me Goose' and then somebody saying something Goosey (couldn't resist) immediately after.

    All in all it's a perfectly executed, perfectly fine goosebumb-inducing blockbuster. And Iceman's appearance was cool too. Love the fact they adedded that.
  • MakeshiftPythonMakeshiftPython “Baja?!”
    Posts: 8,000
    Just came across the theory that the moment Maverick gets shot down is when the rest of the movie plays all in his head. I kinda buy that idea more.
  • ProfJoeButcherProfJoeButcher Bless your heart
    Posts: 1,664
    Just came across the theory that the moment Maverick gets shot down is when the rest of the movie plays all in his head. I kinda buy that idea more.

    This theory could be applied to most movies, right? When the hero is at their darkest point, everything after that is a dream?

    It actually happens in one of my favorite movies, Brazil, though.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,371
    Just came across the theory that the moment Maverick gets shot down is when the rest of the movie plays all in his head. I kinda buy that idea more.

    This theory could be applied to most movies, right? When the hero is at their darkest point, everything after that is a dream?

    It actually happens in one of my favorite movies, Brazil, though.

    Repo Men too.

    That ending of Brazil is such an incredible gut punch. I love it.
Sign In or Register to comment.