"Top Gun: Maverick" Breaks the Sound Barrier of Anticipation and Expectation
Posted: 25 May 2022, 06:47
I attended the early access event for "Top Gun: Maverick" last night.
I have been, for the last few years, even before the reality that a sequel was coming out, been guarded on my reaction to the notion. "Top Gun" is such an important movie for me, not just as a fan of carrier aviation, but also because of its reminders of my teen years and fond memories, both good and bad, of the experience of watching it in the theatre for the first time. So, although the thoughts of a sequel didn't even cross my mind for years, when the idea first came up I was torn--excited on the one hand for the prospect of one, and anxious on the other that they will fall into the easy dilemma of making a bad sequel that tarnishes the original.
I also was concerned that they would be too hung up on the name and trademark of "Top Gun" and use that to sell tickets instead of tell a story. I used to say, "They better have the TOPGUN school featured in that movie, otherwise they're just relying on the tendency for people to watch the movie on name reputation alone to make box office dollars." But again, was torn, because even if they did do it with toward intent, how would they be able to without recycling the story?
Then there was the cinematography. I was extremely happy to see the aerial photography and the fact that the actors were really in the cockpit, pulling Gs, and even running the camera. But I wasn't one for going for beauty without brains. Again, I was guarded.
Authenticity in the original "Top Gun" was also something I hoped they would not toss aside. Of course it was only slightly authentic--it is Hollywood after all--but I'm talking about more subtle things like the unforgiving vernacular. Lines that include phrases like "put in hack twice" and "tally ho, right 2:00" without explanation is the kind of authenticity that I am referring to, where it is not sacrificed by downgrading it for the understanding of the layman.
The legacy, for me, also had to be preserved. The movie, whether it was good or bad, had a profound effect on our pop culture. How many times have you heard it quoted, or has it turned up mentioned in another movie? But most of all, I was concerned about the legacy of "Top Gun", especially my beloved F-14 Tomcat. It's 2022 now, 36 years after the original came out and when the Tomcat was already in her prime--and now she's gone. How would I be watching a sequel to the movie that did not start my love in the Tomcat, but further cemented it, knowing that the F-14 would be absent in the movie? Then the trailer revealed that she was indeed in the movie in some form, even in flight. Now my thoughts became, how are they able to put a retired aircraft into the movie, without it being unbelievable and, well, "cheesy"?
Nonetheless, I was having a love/hate relationship with the sequel for these reasons and more, and with every delay since 2016 or so, the struggle became more and more agonizing, not just with the aforementioned points, but also with the release dates. For instance, I understood the delays begrudgingly, and even accepted them, but I was very against it having a winter release as for me, "Top Gun" was always a summer movie, one that signaled the start of the summer, and riding its high throughout and carrying you to the fall when you had your fun and had to go back to school--there's that nostalgia again. But in any case, I couldn't see relating to a beach football game in the snowy wintertime that is Chicago.
So, with all this conflict within, I waited with bated breath for advance tickets to go on sale, and then for the day to come. I saw it in IMAX so that if it fell short of my expectations I will have still enjoyed the scenery.
I was not disappointed.
From the start, they paid homage to its predecessor, and with such grace so as to not belittle the salute, but to also bring its style up to date. I honestly wondered at first if I was actually watching the sequel, or a throwback trailer to the original. My concerns were happily relieved, as if Tom Cruise and the producers had somehow tapped into my brain and used my thoughts as feedback like in a market research group. There was hardly a moment where I was not delighted, even in the non-flying scenes. The story was well thought out and intentional, and pretty much every opportunity there was to drop the ball and resort to "cheese" was successfully outmaneuvered or brought into quiet perspective appropriately. One of the scenes that could have become extremely unbelievable was instead made into a curious possibility that was backed up by that authenticity that I had already wished for. Admittedly, there were also some scenes that threatened to pull a tear or two from your eye.
But aside from that, the characters were great, maybe a little lacking in depth, but it wasn't as if they were too profound in the original either. Nevertheless, Tom Cruise really stood out not just in his acting, but in bringing the character of Maverick back and further him for both the original fans of the iconic film, but also for the newer fans and into the future. I have to admit that during the movie, after watching every subtle motion and expression on Cruise's face, that the thought of "Oscar nomination" came across my mind for Cruise. Maybe even Best Picture, but that would really be letting my fantasies go wild. But I'd be happy with just a nomination.
But the thing that stood out for me the most aside from the obvious flying scenes was the conflict that Maverick was agonizing throughout the entire movie. It really was well written and made you feel like this truly was an aviator who has seen alot, and learned alot, not just to make him wiser, but also more cynical and humbled. One scene in particular elicited tears and emotion, simply from the look on Tom Cruise's face and his body language. It made it somewhat difficult to get through the moment, as difficult as it was for Maverick himself.
Miles Teller did a great job as Rooster, and he looked so much like Anthony Edwards you would think he really was Goose's son. His demeanor was just right and not too overdone. Jennifer Connelly was also notable as Maverick's love interest with a connection to his past, but I think they could have had her have more meaning to the story like Kelly McGillis' Charlie did. I have to also admit that I enjoyed John Hamm's role in the movie, as well as some other surprise actors and how they were used appropriately in the film. The other actors whom I believe are largely unknown, were also quite good in the movie, with just the right amount of cockiness and bravado that you would expect of junior officers flying strike fighters.
Nods to the past were also supplemented with nods to the current events of our time. "Top Gun" came out during the Cold War, and in retrospect, this was quite apparent of the times. Today's current atmosphere and global conflicts were likewise portrayed in the sequel, with some attention given to that past. Besides the world affairs being included in the movie, there was also the nod to current trends marking "Top Gun: Maverick" as one for its own time. Things like cellphones, selfies, and texting marked this movie as contemporary of its time, to be looked back upon in the future by the current generation as fondly as us 80s kids do now. The advances in military aviation and its contrast with aviation in the 80s were also addressed in the movie in one way or another, but with respect rather than disdain, and at one time, even with comedic wit. Such wit which was also added in the right amounts like spice to a dish throughout the film.
All in all, I came away from this movie proud of the way "Top Gun" was equally brought to audiences old and new, and content that in being able to breathe a sigh of relief, it set me up to take another deep breath so that I can scream aloud about how much I loved this movie, what it brought, and what it had done in regard to its predecessor. It was a great work of film-making that left as great an impression on me as the original.
Bravo zulu, Cruise, Bruckheimer, Kosinski, and all involved. Bravo zulu.
v6,
boNes
I have been, for the last few years, even before the reality that a sequel was coming out, been guarded on my reaction to the notion. "Top Gun" is such an important movie for me, not just as a fan of carrier aviation, but also because of its reminders of my teen years and fond memories, both good and bad, of the experience of watching it in the theatre for the first time. So, although the thoughts of a sequel didn't even cross my mind for years, when the idea first came up I was torn--excited on the one hand for the prospect of one, and anxious on the other that they will fall into the easy dilemma of making a bad sequel that tarnishes the original.
I also was concerned that they would be too hung up on the name and trademark of "Top Gun" and use that to sell tickets instead of tell a story. I used to say, "They better have the TOPGUN school featured in that movie, otherwise they're just relying on the tendency for people to watch the movie on name reputation alone to make box office dollars." But again, was torn, because even if they did do it with toward intent, how would they be able to without recycling the story?
Then there was the cinematography. I was extremely happy to see the aerial photography and the fact that the actors were really in the cockpit, pulling Gs, and even running the camera. But I wasn't one for going for beauty without brains. Again, I was guarded.
Authenticity in the original "Top Gun" was also something I hoped they would not toss aside. Of course it was only slightly authentic--it is Hollywood after all--but I'm talking about more subtle things like the unforgiving vernacular. Lines that include phrases like "put in hack twice" and "tally ho, right 2:00" without explanation is the kind of authenticity that I am referring to, where it is not sacrificed by downgrading it for the understanding of the layman.
The legacy, for me, also had to be preserved. The movie, whether it was good or bad, had a profound effect on our pop culture. How many times have you heard it quoted, or has it turned up mentioned in another movie? But most of all, I was concerned about the legacy of "Top Gun", especially my beloved F-14 Tomcat. It's 2022 now, 36 years after the original came out and when the Tomcat was already in her prime--and now she's gone. How would I be watching a sequel to the movie that did not start my love in the Tomcat, but further cemented it, knowing that the F-14 would be absent in the movie? Then the trailer revealed that she was indeed in the movie in some form, even in flight. Now my thoughts became, how are they able to put a retired aircraft into the movie, without it being unbelievable and, well, "cheesy"?
Nonetheless, I was having a love/hate relationship with the sequel for these reasons and more, and with every delay since 2016 or so, the struggle became more and more agonizing, not just with the aforementioned points, but also with the release dates. For instance, I understood the delays begrudgingly, and even accepted them, but I was very against it having a winter release as for me, "Top Gun" was always a summer movie, one that signaled the start of the summer, and riding its high throughout and carrying you to the fall when you had your fun and had to go back to school--there's that nostalgia again. But in any case, I couldn't see relating to a beach football game in the snowy wintertime that is Chicago.
So, with all this conflict within, I waited with bated breath for advance tickets to go on sale, and then for the day to come. I saw it in IMAX so that if it fell short of my expectations I will have still enjoyed the scenery.
I was not disappointed.
From the start, they paid homage to its predecessor, and with such grace so as to not belittle the salute, but to also bring its style up to date. I honestly wondered at first if I was actually watching the sequel, or a throwback trailer to the original. My concerns were happily relieved, as if Tom Cruise and the producers had somehow tapped into my brain and used my thoughts as feedback like in a market research group. There was hardly a moment where I was not delighted, even in the non-flying scenes. The story was well thought out and intentional, and pretty much every opportunity there was to drop the ball and resort to "cheese" was successfully outmaneuvered or brought into quiet perspective appropriately. One of the scenes that could have become extremely unbelievable was instead made into a curious possibility that was backed up by that authenticity that I had already wished for. Admittedly, there were also some scenes that threatened to pull a tear or two from your eye.
But aside from that, the characters were great, maybe a little lacking in depth, but it wasn't as if they were too profound in the original either. Nevertheless, Tom Cruise really stood out not just in his acting, but in bringing the character of Maverick back and further him for both the original fans of the iconic film, but also for the newer fans and into the future. I have to admit that during the movie, after watching every subtle motion and expression on Cruise's face, that the thought of "Oscar nomination" came across my mind for Cruise. Maybe even Best Picture, but that would really be letting my fantasies go wild. But I'd be happy with just a nomination.
But the thing that stood out for me the most aside from the obvious flying scenes was the conflict that Maverick was agonizing throughout the entire movie. It really was well written and made you feel like this truly was an aviator who has seen alot, and learned alot, not just to make him wiser, but also more cynical and humbled. One scene in particular elicited tears and emotion, simply from the look on Tom Cruise's face and his body language. It made it somewhat difficult to get through the moment, as difficult as it was for Maverick himself.
Miles Teller did a great job as Rooster, and he looked so much like Anthony Edwards you would think he really was Goose's son. His demeanor was just right and not too overdone. Jennifer Connelly was also notable as Maverick's love interest with a connection to his past, but I think they could have had her have more meaning to the story like Kelly McGillis' Charlie did. I have to also admit that I enjoyed John Hamm's role in the movie, as well as some other surprise actors and how they were used appropriately in the film. The other actors whom I believe are largely unknown, were also quite good in the movie, with just the right amount of cockiness and bravado that you would expect of junior officers flying strike fighters.
Nods to the past were also supplemented with nods to the current events of our time. "Top Gun" came out during the Cold War, and in retrospect, this was quite apparent of the times. Today's current atmosphere and global conflicts were likewise portrayed in the sequel, with some attention given to that past. Besides the world affairs being included in the movie, there was also the nod to current trends marking "Top Gun: Maverick" as one for its own time. Things like cellphones, selfies, and texting marked this movie as contemporary of its time, to be looked back upon in the future by the current generation as fondly as us 80s kids do now. The advances in military aviation and its contrast with aviation in the 80s were also addressed in the movie in one way or another, but with respect rather than disdain, and at one time, even with comedic wit. Such wit which was also added in the right amounts like spice to a dish throughout the film.
All in all, I came away from this movie proud of the way "Top Gun" was equally brought to audiences old and new, and content that in being able to breathe a sigh of relief, it set me up to take another deep breath so that I can scream aloud about how much I loved this movie, what it brought, and what it had done in regard to its predecessor. It was a great work of film-making that left as great an impression on me as the original.
Bravo zulu, Cruise, Bruckheimer, Kosinski, and all involved. Bravo zulu.
v6,
boNes