Directed by:
Joseph KosinskiCinematography:
Claudio MirandaCast:
Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Val Kilmer, Bashir Salahuddin, Charles Parnell, Glen Powell, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman (more)VOD (4)
Plots(1)
After more than thirty years of service as one of the Navy’s top aviators, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell is where he belongs, pushing the envelope as a courageous test pilot and dodging the advancement in rank that would ground him. When he finds himself training a detachment of TOPGUN graduates for a specialized mission the likes of which no living pilot has ever seen, Maverick encounters Lt. Bradley Bradshaw, call sign: “Rooster,” the son of Maverick’s late friend and Radar Intercept Officer Lt. Nick Bradshaw, aka “Goose.” Facing an uncertain future and confronting the ghosts of his past, Maverick is drawn into a confrontation with his own deepest fears, culminating in a mission that demands the ultimate sacrifice from those who will be chosen to fly it. (Cannes Film Festival)
(more)Videos (13)
Reviews (16)
We have long been aware that Kosinski knows how to work with visuals and emotion, and here Bruckheimer and Cruise take him on a very pleasant journey of nostalgia. The connection to the original film is literally loving, the characters’ motivations complex and expansive. Fans of the original will get more of the same, but better, with an upgrade of the action scenes to a never-before-seen, physically honest airshow in the mold of Nolan. It’s been a long time since I’ve been so glued to an IMAX seat. I’m not giving Top Gun: Maverick a fifth star because the plot was safely predictable through the first 90% of its runtime in order to soothe fans of the original. The final 10%, however, is a wonderfully delightful Hollywood attraction. And I was pleased by the inclusion of Val Kilmer’s character.
()
An inexplicable phenomenon in the form of a film that does not advance the genre forward, does not stand out in terms of acting, repeats itself like a song, and visually quotes a decades-old original scene by scene – and yet critics, viewers, children, and grandparents all nod their heads in agreement and struggle to admit that they just saw the film of the year. Honest action, where screws visibly fly off fighter planes and oil drips, a cliché seen a hundred times, which quakes with every emotion, and the essence of the 80s, extracted to the core, still works a couple levels better at every moment than it did in 1986. Top Gun: Maverick is the opposite of fan service because it brings us back to a fandom that most people only halfheartedly like, and not many would include it among their favorites. And yet it crushes us with nostalgia for times we didn't experience, forcing us to melancholically ponder fates we didn't know for three decades, and we honestly go in any direction it shows us, wondering why we never became pilots.
()
The first one was youthful, impetuous, restless and surprisingly a lot harder and less predictable. The second one plays on safety. Lest it sound bad, it's a great movie. What Bruckheimer was able to produce, Kosinski to shoot, and Cruise and co. to star in will be in the textbooks for the next decade on how to make an "aerial film." All those polished shots, breathtaking camera twists and F18s rolls (and it wouldn’t be Tom Cruise without a Cobra at least once per film) are truly eye candy and you can't help but smile at the commitment of the actors. But there is not a single surprise, not a single unexpected scene throughout – there is one hint towards the end, but after a few seconds the sensation dissipates in another onslaught of clichés. Of course,we are speaking about clichés with refinement, elegance and overall acceptable consistency throughout, though. The filmmakers partially develop the story of Maverick and actually kind of recreate the fan-favorite moments of the first film for audiences three generations younger. The older ones smile because they know, the younger ones stare wide-eyes because they don’t know and they like it a lot. That means everyone is a target and that's why Maverick will make a bundle and deservedly so. However, the screenwriting qualities are not nearly as high as the technical ones. But that in the end is obviously not such a problem for a high rating, because when Cruise puts on his dusty jacket and sits on his motorbike at sunset, it's hard not to just slap five stars on there out of nostalgia.
()
Tommy negotiated a 20% cut of every ticket sold, clever boy, and with himself as producer he serves us a fairytale that is beautifully filmed, but with a plot that is cliché as hell. Fighter jets have never been so sexy, in the cockpit shots you can totally see the effects of overload on the actors' faces, every extra mach – nostalgia is fine if you know how to work with it – but it all goes follows classic predictable Hollywood notes, you can guess exactly what will happen in the next scene, there is no moment of surprise, this film can only dream of some surprising twists. I was thoroughly bored for the first half, and in fact for the rest of the film. The only one who gave me the creeps was Val Kilmer, especially if you know about his health. The final praised action set-piece looked like a CGI cut scene from “Call of Duty”, the only thing missing was a gamepad in my hands. I think the current 92% here is nonsense.
()
Of course, the biggest attraction of the new Top Gun is not the supersonic fighter jets, but Tom Cruise in thrall to his own acting legacy. As is usually the case with legacy sequels, 90% of the plot is a copy/variation of the events of the first film (the opening and closing credits are practically identical). Whereas Cruise was a student in the first Top Gun, this time he’s an instructor (and stand-in father) who shows the novices how it (aerial manoeuvres and action movies) is supposed to be done. Thanks to his emphasis on the human element (repeating the line that what matters is the pilot’s skill, not the machine’s capabilities), he saves the day (and the action genre, which he is breathing new life into). Nevertheless, he remains a rebellious outsider who rides the (same) motorcycle, wears the (same) leather jacket, doesn’t respect authority and doesn’t read manuals. At the same time, however, he obediently serves the military-industrial complex, so his rebelliousness is only superficial. Because Maverick chose to go his own way (just as Cruise’s career comprises a separate universe that is not part of the dominant comic-book multiverse), he has not put down roots and remains a solitary figure (which is constantly emphasised by how he observes the other characters from afar rather than coexisting with them). Like the most recent Bond film, Top Gun: Maverick is packed with nostalgic looks back at the past, admitting one’s own vulnerability and coming to terms with the fact that our time on earth is limited (Cruise will soon be 60 years old). Seeking out and pondering the parallels between Maverick and Cruise by going through his filmography and reflecting on his image as a star was truthfully more entertaining to me than the numerous aerial scenes, which, with the exception of the last one, which takes place over a snow-covered landscape for the sake of variety, are interchangeable, with such rapid cuts that you can’t really enjoy them much anyway (it’s worth seeing the film in IMAX mainly for the sound). The same is true of the variation on the legendary volleyball scene. The game of (American) football on the beach is shot predominantly against the sun, chopped up with a lot of unnecessary cuts and absolutely asexual. I guiltily admit that watching it made me long for Scott's advertising-video aesthetic and shameless objectification of semi-nude male bodies. I would have found such stylisation more appropriate for a blockbuster heroic, action-melodrama that basically takes place completely outside of any real socio-political context, in a world that exists solely for the purpose of showing off aerial acrobatics and Tom Cruise’s smile. 75%
()
Ads