AndrewBloom

5/10

Spoilers

[5.1/10] The original *Top Gun* film is not a masterpiece, exactly. But by god, it had character. A sneakily good script, matched with charisma and camaraderie out the wazoo, gave it a certain endearing quality, a sense of over-the-top yet sincere humanity amid its fly-boy sky jockey action spectacle. It’s not a deep film, but it’s one founded on the believable-if-goofy interactions of men and women immersed in the ebbs and flows of its feisty, high-stakes world. By contrast, *Top Gun: Maverick* is a bland, soulless film. It is no deeper than the 1980s original, but it pretends to be. It draws back to something closer to realism in its presentation than its predecessor, but cannot find the truth of its moments to justify a retreat to naturalism. And most of all, while the original film flourished on the backs of vivid, up-to-eleven characters, *Maverick* offers nothing but empty shells in its main figures, with even its most developed and focused characters seeming like hollow vessels for the film’s trite ideas. *Top Gun: Maverick* is also awash in nostalgia. That is to be expected in the legacy sequels that are now du jour. But this successor film is shameless in its attempts to conjure the past. The eponymous Maverick puts on his old jacket. He rides his old motorcycle. He repeats the same lines. His surrogate son plays the same Jerry Lee Lewis song on the piano his wingman once did. They both somehow end up in an F-14 Tomcat by the finale, because of course they do. Occasionally, these callbacks are meaningful, or at least defensible. Maverick whispering “talk to me Goose” while he considers what approach to take with the man’s son and his own life, is enough of a twist to warrant a C for cleverness in the new wrinkle. But too often the film indulges in empty parallels for the sake of empty parallels, and saccharine reverence for the adventures of old the current story fails to earn. Still, a little empty wistfulness could be forgiven if *Top Gun: Maverick* gave the audience anything to care about in the here and now. None of the new, replacement characters in the film make the slightest impression. The script does get some points for a sound premise, as Maverick is brought back to the Top Gun fighter pilot school to teach an all-star team of former top grads in preparation for a dangerous mission. Unfortunately, all of the new cocky fly-boys (and fly-girls, hooray for progress) are one-note nothings. In fairness, that was often the case with the original, but the contenders for the top gun prize at least had more personality and presence to counterbalance what their characters lacked in fleshing out. “The douche, the dork, the friend, and the rest” is about all you get from the new wave of recruits. And somehow the film manages to waste John freakin’ Hamm as a hardass by-the-book air boss who operates as the authoritative foil to Maverick’s usual miniature rebellions. On the personal front, without Maverick’s former love interest, who is conspicuously absent in a story fixated on revisiting the past, all *Top Gun: Maverick* can muster is a warmed over romance between Tom Cruise and Jennifer Connolly. The two actors have all the chemistry of a second grade science project, and lack the crackling back-and-forth that made Maverick’s dalliance with Charlie so memorable. This pairing is a pale substitute, rendered inert by a generic, supposedly feisty dynamic between them and a tacked on backstory to their coupling. The point where the two cross is in Rooster, the appropriately avian-named son of Goose who’s one of the best Top Gun grads invited back to train with Maverick. It’s here that the film deserves the most credit. In a film chock full of threadbare nostalgia, bringing back Goose’s son, as a means for both he and Maverick to reckon with the death of the boy’s father, shows conviction in using past events to drive story and character in the present rather than simply reminding the audience of old touchstones. That conflict lays the foundation for Maverick and Rooster’s character arcs, the only one in the films. (Give or take an undercooked but still welcome show of loyalty from the team’s resident jerk in the third act.) Despite being a top pilot, Rooster has a tendency to overthink and show hesitancy, implied to be motivated by his father’s fate, until Maverick teaches him to “Don’t think; just do.” Maverick has to overcome his own reluctance with allowing little Rooster to fly from the nest, given Maverick’s protectiveness of the young man in the shadow of his father’s sacrifice. It’s all pretty standard, and not especially profound, but it’s solid storytelling, founded on the key emotional legacy from the original *Top Gun* while projecting it to the next generation to make meaning anew. Paired with a stock standard but similarly well-constructed, “We gotta get these kids in shape for the big mission” setup, and it’s the best thing this legacy sequel accomplishes. The problem is three-fold. First, the realization of these ideas is trite at best. How Rooster and Maverick overcome both of these problems is limited to a couple of rote speeches and then, boom, emotional breakthrough. Second, Miles Teller is all but anonymous in the role of Rooster, with only a smidgeon of personality that pretty well ends at his mustache. (Which is especially galling since Anthony Edwards all but stole the show as Goose in the first film.) Third, it’s hard to blame any individual performer in the film when *everyone* here is unconvincing and plastic in their roles. *Top Gun: Maverick* tries to recreate the playful rhythms of the interactions with the original crop of recruits, but all of the new class feel like they’re pretending toward snark and bravado rather than embodying it. Thudding dialogue and cheap one-liners render most relationships – be they paternal, adversarial, or romantic – utterly dead on arrival. Even a mildly moving reunion between Maverick and Iceman struggles to find the truth in the moment given such a cheesy presentation. But maybe the blame lies at the feet of Tom Cruise. Where his iconic performance in the 1980s originator sees Cruise as recognizably human and unvarnished as he’s ever been on screen, *Top Gun: Maverick* is full of scenes where he is capital-A Acting. As the title character, Maverick is expectedly at the center of all the film’s grand emotional moments, and while a couple of them land, and a vet like him rarely veers into an outright bad performance, his big attempts to emote almost always feel like a put-on, rather than an organic reaction to the scene. Gone is the rough-around-the-edges young actor playing the rough-around-the-edges young fighter pilot, and in their place is a polished pro unconvincingly playacting as the inveterate rebel. The same pathology afflicts the film’s action sequences. There are a few standout set pieces here. Maverick’s solo training run to prove the big mission can be accomplished is a highlight, A “cobra move” contest between him and Rooster, and his initial Mach 10 test both have some good verve and respectable scene construction. But so much of the action here is too choppily edited to follow any of the balletic moves of the fighter jets. Some impressionist choices (like showing the field of vision blacking out while the pilots are pulling Gs) is a nice touch. But too often, *Top Gun: Maverick* makes a hash of its big chases, escapes, and engagements. Everything comes with an anodyne sheen, and the obvious CGI sweetening takes away how impressive fighter jet moves seem on camera. All those problems aside, the best thing you can say about the film is that it understands its title character. The Maverick of old was not cavalier for the sake of being cavalier. He was someone who took extra risks so as to protect his comrades. So here, he disobeys an admiral and pushes the limits of the test jet, not to put another feather in his cap, but to protect his colleagues’ job. He presents a challenging and risky mission plan, not because he wants to set records, but because the alternative would cost lives. And he wants to interject himself in the mission despite being grounded, not because he needs to fly, but because he needs to protect those kids, Rooster chief among them. That's the most important thing to get right, and building the narrative around that facet of his character is the right call. Unfortunately, what *Top Gun: Maverick* actually builds around that strong core is generic and forgettable. Gone is the life and infectious energy. Gone are the cheeky, lived-in character dynamics. Gone is the cheese that somehow crosses the line back over into earnestness. In their place is a steady but unadventurous film, that sands down the rough edges of its predecessor and gives the audience something far more polished, pristine, and ultimately flavorless. Sadly, this goose is cooked.

Jordyep

8/10

Way better than it needs to be, or is expected from films like these nowadays. It’s pretty much perfectly produced, and you can tell they really went the extra mile with these action scenes and their presentation, which paid off in dividends (great sound design in particular!) They also wisely toned down the amount of cheese and propaganda compared to the first one, though it’s still there to some extent. For example, you still get a scene of the main characters playing sports games in the Californian sunset, while a terrible One Republic song plays in the background. The writing in general is a little basic. They found a good way to deepen Maverick as a character emotionally, and the new additions to the cast are all fine, but everything sort of falls into place in the way you’re expecting during the first 2 acts. Take the scenes with Jennifer Connely. She’s clearly trying very hard with what she’s given to do, but she’s ultimately just the obligatory love interest, making her scenes feel like filler. There are also a few too many times the exposition repeats itself, too many deus ex machinas moments, and there’s an arc that’s set up with Ed Harris’ character that’s never paid off. It seemed like a scene got cut from the end that was meant to complete that arc, because instead you just get a quick montage to wrap up the other loose ends, while a terrible Lady Gaga song plays in the background. The writing got a little more interesting in the third act, which is where the movie basically turns into Mission Impossible. Our main characters are given an ‘impossible’ mission, things don’t go according to plan, and Tom Cruise has to figure a way out of this. It’s a great formula that just works, with tension that’s constantly rising and a good sense of physicality. Ultimately, the extremely well shot and edited action scenes are the selling point and most memorable part of this film. The movie around that is acceptable, but could’ve been more creative and tighter. 8/10

CinemaSerf

0/10

It seems like I have been watching the trailers for this film for years now - and you know what? Yes - it was worth the wait. The film is all about some truly exhilarating aerial photography that culminates in some super dogfighting and a good old dose of nostalgia. Tom Cruise is very much in his element as the ageing - and frequently not afraid to look it - eponymous "Top Gun" pilot drafted in by a rather sceptical admiral to train up a new squad for a very perilous mission to destroy an underground uranium enrichment facility. The team arrive - full of hormones - and he must whip them into shape, a task made more difficult by the presence of "Rooster" (Miles Teller) who is the son of his old mate "Goose" who came to a sticky end last time out in 1986. He also gets to rekindle his romance with bar owner "Penny" (Jennifer Connelly) whilst all under the protection of his former wingman, now the poorly retired admiral "Kazansky" (Val Kilmer). To be honest, the story isn't really up to much - there are some twists and turns, the script is not without some humour but there is no jeopardy really. We all know what is going to happen in the end. That said, though, everyone is on good form; the pace (aside from the interludes with Connelly which do rather abruptly slow things down a bit) is consistently action packed and the imagery from both inside and outside of these amazing pieces of machinery is not at all repetitive and is compelling to watch. Even the usual gung-ho, ye-ha stuff is kept to a minimum - this is a superior film depicting the US military at it's most competitive, but also at it's most intelligent - and I really quite enjoyed it. Big screen photography - don't wait til it is on the telly.

JustEntertainment

0/10

Haven't seen a movie this perfect in decades. It was most obviously written and directed with the audience in mind - no politics, no preaching, no gratuitous sex, no woke, no offensive casting or characters. Brilliant, simplistic screenwriting and thrill rides. The original, if you've seen it, was iconic as it was, and to know it makes the second film here more enjoyable, but even if you're not familiar with the background of the characters it's clearly presented enough to be a stand-alone enjoyable film.

T

0/10

> Loved this movie. Even had me guessing to the end. Seems like every cast member picked to play their role was the only person that could pull it off especially for the song of Goose. 9.9/10 sequel never lived up to original this one did. 10/10