Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[Grogu]

https://i.imgur.com/Gaxy1Fz.png
TOP GUN: MAVERICK
(2022)

Story Overview:
After serving over 30 years as one the the U.S Navy's finest and most renowned aviators, Pete "Maverick" Mitchell manages to continue to dodge any further promotion knowing full well that it would be the ticket to grounding him and pulling him out of the pilot seat. After a run-in with an Admiral, Maverick is tasked with the difficult mission of training a detachment of the finest Top Gun graduates for a particularly dangerous assignment that only the best of the best might ever dare to try let alone survive. With ghosts of the past lurking at every corner and with every decision, Maverick not only has to find a way to bring these young, confident pilots to fully realize themselves - but he must also overcome the grief, guilt and burdens of a time since gone.


REVIEW:
I went into Top Gun: Maverick expecting to see Tom Cruise do his thing and do it well; from stunts to charismatic screen presence, quips and one liners.
You get all of it.

But you get a whole lot more.

I did not go into this expecting for it to be my favorite film released so far this year.
I came out knowing that it was.

This film is shot beautifully. The way that the aircrafts are framed and masterfully captured on film from the very first shot of the movie sets the scene for what is to come. There's an artistry in the way that the director makes the fighter jets in this look damn near sexy at times, terrifying at others and damn cool every other moment. These visuals along with an amazingly fitting soundtrack and an action-packed-yet-character-driven-story full of tension, emotion and a heartfelt message make Top Gun: Maverick a tour de force.

The close up shots of actors in their cockpits are exceptional. The fact that Cruise ensured that the actors were filmed whilst actually being inside the cockpits and sustaining the G-Force their characters are feeling only adds to the real-to-life feeling all the flying scenes have here, only adding to the authenticity of the film as well as character emotions, motivations and so on.

Of course, it is a Top Gun film, and as such, there a moments of endearing corniness, one-liners and bromances -- but I can sincerely say - these do not detract from this sequel, but rather enhance its unique charm.

Tom Cruise leads the cast here epically. He's as much Maverick as he was years ago and he is a stand-out. This man impresses more and more with everything he does and no matter how much I want to dislike the guy, he proves time and time again that when he's on screen -- no one can quite do what Tom Cruise does. His passion for the craft, for authenticity and for doing his own stunts at any given moment is inspiring. This film's solidified this man as one of Hollywood's most committed movie stars. All of the supporting cast are phenomenal as well and there are no weak links. Jennifer Connelly plays an endearing Penny Benjamin, injecting humor and heart into an at times very sombre film. Miles Teller is fantastic as Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw; Goose's son. He and Cruise have some exceptional chemistry and the two of them sharing the screen offers some of the most heart-wrenching and hilarious moments of the film. Val Kilmer makes a small - albeit - welcome appearance as Tom 'Iceman' Kazansky only adding emotional weight to the film and to Maverick's own development with the arc that takes place between the two of them.

Top Gun: Maverick is staggering. It made me weep like a baby three times, it made me want to clap and cheer (granted, I knew better than to do that in a theatre), it had me on the edge of my seat and had my heart pounding so hard I could hear it in my ears. Frankly, I haven't had a movie-going experience like this in over five years. There's something about Top Gun: Maverick that's unexplainable. It has a feeling or a aura that kind of hugs you in and holds you. As if you can feel the love that went into this thing from the moment the first shot flashes up and an iconic song blares to life. Nostalgia finds a way of seeping its way back and yet, Top Gun: Maverick feels fresh all at the same time.

I loved this film.

In fact, writing this review was so difficult because I can't articulate how much I enjoyed it. How much it made me feel and fall in love with the experience of going to the theatre again for some glorious action-packed flying sequences and moments that made me laugh, cry and feel in a way that film should.

Even with all of this, I had so much fun with it.

I was so invested.

And I know it's going to be a long while until a film makes me feel such a way again...

My rating for Top Gun: Maverick is a solid:
5

[Wooley]

Wow.
Well, this is surprising. You couldn't have paid me to see this film before but your review definitely has piqued my interest.

[Sedai]

Really want to see this now!

[doubledenim]

The Ringer article about the effort and commitment put into getting this bird off the ground (https://www.theringer.com/movies/2022/5/24/23137965/top-gun-maverick-training-tom-cruise)

[Optimus]

I haven’t seen a bad thing said about this movie. 99% Audience rating on RT too.

[skizzerflake]

It seems strange that all that close-up turn-and-burn flying was up to date in World War I. As soon as the planes could do their thing from a distance with missiles, nobody wanted those guys to play video game stunts with a hundred million dollar aircraft. That's why they spent gillions of our tax dollars on fire and forget missiles. I guess it's all about that testosterone bonding, evoking medieval combat, Sopwith Camels and the Red Baron. I presume that will, however, be fun to watch. I'd like it more if it had Snoopy in an airplane.

I guess my comment will require me to turn in my Ray Bans.

[Corax]

It seems strange that all that close-up turn-and-burn flying was up to date in World War I. As soon as the planes could do their thing from a distance with missiles, nobody wanted those guys to play video game stunts with a hundred million dollar aircraft. That's why they spent gillions of our tax dollars on fire and forget missiles. I guess it's all about that testosterone bonding, evoking medieval combat, Sopwith Camels and the Red Baron. I presume that will, however, be fun to watch. I'd like it more if it had Snoopy in an airplane.


They took guns off the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam and then had to hastily retrofit gun pods. I agree that the most intimate and visceral air-to-air combat would have been WWI. Now missiles are starting to feature off-bore sighting (i.e., you don't have to have the other plane in front of the nose of your plane) and I hear that missiles like the AIM-9X are pretty nasty. Planes don't carry infinite missiles and there are still guns-on solutions in air-to-air contexts.



One thing the movie gets wrong, again and again, is the assertion that it is not plane but the pilot. In the real world, it doesn't matter how good of a pilot you are if you can't even see the other guy on the radar when he has fired a missile at you from beyond visual range. Also, air combat has been made into a science of energy management. With enough training, the plane matters and matters greatly. If both pilots understand their plane and the plane of their opponent, then the odds are basically stacked. And the future is unmanned. A drone aircraft can pull more G's than the human body, take on riskier missions, loiter as long as they have fuel, and engage targets with precision.



The downside about WWI dramas is that they're so damned maudlin. All that depressing business about trench warfare and Mustard Gas and so on. This tends to suck the romance out of the "knights of the air" who emerged in that war. As much as I would like to see Snoopy fight the Red Baron, the proceedings tend to depressing given the context.

[skizzerflake]

"The downside about WWI dramas is that they're so damned maudlin."

Massive death, poison gas and trench foot generally do incline one to being maudlin.

I really figured that all that macho, knights of the air thing would get an audience. So much of modern war is run by accountants these days (e.g., how many missile-struck Russian tanks will be needed to bankrupt the Kremlin), that, at least the trailer seems like it really wants to evoke some kind of nostalgic Regan era hooting and hollering, even though the accountants were running things back then too. I assume that those shots of what I'd assume to be Maverick, flying right into a 10 foot space between two other planes is a nice piece of digital FX. Hopefully the military didn't really let Tom do that.

[Corax]

"The downside about WWI dramas is that they're so damned maudlin."

Massive death, poison gas and trench foot generally do incline one to being maudlin.



Damned reality of war, spoiling all the fun! Robbing us of our glory!


I really figured that all that macho, knights of the air thing would get an audience. So much of modern war is run by accountants these days (e.g., how many missile-struck Russian tanks will be needed to bankrupt the Kremlin), that, at least the trailer seems like it really wants to evoke some kind of nostalgic Regan era hooting and hollering, even though the accountants were running things back then too.



Oh yeah, you've got it. This taps into the mythos of the 80s and even the 60's (there's some "The Right Stuff" type content in the film).



I assume that those shots of what I'd assume to be Maverick, flying right into a 10 foot space between two other planes is a nice piece of digital FX. Hopefully the military didn't really let Tom do that.


I am sure that that didn't happen. The reality of the actual distance between modern fighters wouldn't be nearly as exciting on the big screen either in training or actual combat.



There is the story of the naval aviator almost crashing an F-14 for the film The Final Countdown. There is a scene in the film where an F-14 almost hits the water (which, allegedly, it almost did). There are YouTube videos on this one. One former naval pilot comments



Going pretty slow [because they were pretending to fight old WWII prop planes], the choreography here is tricky. Now this sequence is infamous. The pilot Fox claims that he did not depart the airplane but you can see him throw up the spoilers here at the end. I don't know. To my eye that looks like an unplanned maneuver; split-S, very low, buries the nose, recovers full burner, right spoiler all the way up. I don't know, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt but that doesn't look like a planned maneuver to me.




https://youtu.be/nzMiKjzFbOg

[doubledenim]

At least I know where we keep the wet blankets around here.

[John McClane]

I can feel the G forces already

[Sedai]

Excellent flick. A Gen-X love letter to a bygone era.

Was a big fan of all the practical, in-camera stuff they pulled off. At this point, Cruise is putting out some of the the best action flicks in the business, with another one around the corner in 2023.

[gbgoodies]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I thought this was an interesting theory about it.

(WARNING!!! SPOILERS IN THIS ARTICLE!!!)

'Top Gun' Fan Theory (https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/a-wild-top-gun-fan-theory-suggests-maverick-was-dead-the-entire-movie/ar-AAXT6up?ocid=ACERDHP17&pc=ACTE&cvid=1141c451779a4d2794956e7fb101d622)

[MovieMeditation]

Came to this thread to say that this is PRIME BLOCKBUSTER ENTERTAINMENT.

Go watch it in cinemas y’all. It’s a big screen experience.

[bronze]

Thanks for the review. It seems I've been waiting for the continuation all these 36 years)) It's a crazy and incredible thing that Tom stil do a lot of stunts by himself.

[Thursday Next]

I didn't love this, the whole macho military posturing and Tom Cruise and his unauthorised and improbable plane stunts aren't quite my cup of tea, but I respected it. It was about as good as a sequel to Top Gun could hope to be. I particularly liked the way the opening felt like an 80s movie - in fact the whole think had a straightforward, classic feel to it. I liked the music, with Hans Zimmer riffing off Highway to the Danger Zone. The whole mission section was appropriately tense.

[Stirchley]

The downside about WWI dramas is that they're so damned maudlin. All that depressing business about trench warfare and Mustard Gas and so on.

True. What they need is a couple of song & dance segments to cheer things up.

[ynwtf]

True. What they need is a couple of song & dance segments to cheer things up.

lookit you, gettin' all sassy pantsy!

(if you meant that seriously, then don't tell me. I prefer to read it the way I did, please and thank you)

[koimoi]

Claudio Miranda’s cinematography is thrilling. She knows how to capture the thrills and fear when the jet flies to its maximum limit.

[Stirchley]

Claudio Miranda’s cinematography is thrilling. She knows how to capture the thrills and fear when the jet flies to its maximum limit.

Miranda is male not female.

[Gideon58]

Didn't like it as much as some...here's a link to my reiew:

https://www.movieforums.com/reviews/2323115-top-gun-maverick.html

[WrinkledMind]

I just watched this, and I am absolutely fuming to have not watched this in the theatres.
My lazy WFH arse choosing to not leave home, when this was in the theatres, has cost me a great theatre experience.

Still, I thoroughly enjoyed this even on my telly. I enjoyed it so much, that I even rewatched couple of scenes.


They got everything right.

Perfect homage to the original - Check
Great action sequences - Check
Goosebumps inducing music - Check
Thrills - Check
Great cinematography - Check
Characters you care for - Check


If by some miracle they rerelease this in the theatres here, then I am going to go for a watch just for the big screen experience.

[xSookieStackhouse]

wonder if they going to make a 3rd one with goose son

[gandalf26]

My first time going to a cinema since Dunkirk 2017 I think, really enjoyed it and really worth it.

[Stirchley]

I just watched this, and I am absolutely fuming to have not watched this in the theatres.
My lazy WFH arse choosing to not leave home, when this was in the theatres, has cost me a great theatre experience.

Still, I thoroughly enjoyed this even on my telly. I enjoyed it so much, that I even rewatched couple of scenes.


They got everything right.

Perfect homage to the original - Check
Great action sequences - Check
Goosebumps inducing music - Check
Thrills - Check
Great cinematography - Check
Characters you care for - Check


If by some miracle they rerelease this in the theatres here, then I am going to go for a watch just for the big screen experience.

So how did you watch it?

[skizzerflake]

You're right that it's best to see it in a theater, with the biggest, best screen you can find, but, sadly, that wouldn't make this a better movie. As an exercise in "hootin-n-hollerin" jingoism, it was like a tired version of the early movie, the Disney ride version, too much like the westerns made in the 1980's. We saw all that in the first movie, and the recent one didn't add anything. A pose by Cruise and McGillis in the sunset wouldn't have looked all that good either, so at least we were spared that.

If they were doing a do-over, it's a shame that they didn't have Tom Skerritt (Viper) and Micheal Ironsides (Jester), who seemed a lot more believable as straight shooters than the narcissistic Tom Cruise who does little other than pose for the camera. I walked out of our big screen theater somewhat entertained, but also with the feeling that I'd never get those 2 hours back.

[WrinkledMind]

So how did you watch it?

Only on telly so far, through Amazon Prime.

Still going on Thursday evening for an IMAX experience. It's still there. Only has few select shows in couple of theatres.

[Stirchley]

Only on telly so far, through Amazon Prime.

Still going on Thursday evening for an IMAX experience. It's still there. Only has few select shows in couple of theatres.

I don’t have Prime, but I could rent it from xfinity for the same price as Prime ($20). Not going to a movie theater any time soon so might be an option albeit an expensive one.

[WrinkledMind]

That's expensive. It's for 99 Rs which is roughly just over a dollar (1.24 $) here.

[Tugg]

My favorite part was the actual mission in 3rd act.

[Gideon58]

The scene with Val Kilmer totally messed me up.

[Stirchley]

That's expensive. It's for 99 Rs which is roughly just over a dollar (1.24 $) here.

I’m confused. I thought you are in the UK.

[WrinkledMind]

I’m confused. I thought you are in the UK.


I wish. I wonder if it was the football that made you think that.
I am from Mumbai, India.

[WrinkledMind]

Only on telly so far, through Amazon Prime.

Still going on Thursday evening for an IMAX experience. It's still there. Only has few select shows in couple of theatres.


Was so worth it.

[Sedai]

You're right that it's best to see it in a theater, with the biggest, best screen you can find, but, sadly, that wouldn't make this a better movie. As an exercise in "hootin-n-hollerin" jingoism, it was like a tired version of the early movie, the Disney ride version, too much like the westerns made in the 1980's. We saw all that in the first movie, and the recent one didn't add anything. A pose by Cruise and McGillis in the sunset wouldn't have looked all that good either, so at least we were spared that.

If they were doing a do-over, it's a shame that they didn't have Tom Skerritt (Viper) and Micheal Ironsides (Jester), who seemed a lot more believable as straight shooters than the narcissistic Tom Cruise who does little other than pose for the camera. I walked out of our big screen theater somewhat entertained, but also with the feeling that I'd never get those 2 hours back.

Your mouth's writing checks your body can't cash! ;)

Cruise is the best!

[Rockatansky]

They should have brought back Anthony Edwards. Would have been nice to hang out with him a little more.

[MovieMeditation]

You're right that it's best to see it in a theater, with the biggest, best screen you can find, but, sadly, that wouldn't make this a better movie. As an exercise in "hootin-n-hollerin" jingoism, it was like a tired version of the early movie, the Disney ride version, too much like the westerns made in the 1980's. We saw all that in the first movie, and the recent one didn't add anything. A pose by Cruise and McGillis in the sunset wouldn't have looked all that good either, so at least we were spared that.

If they were doing a do-over, it's a shame that they didn't have Tom Skerritt (Viper) and Micheal Ironsides (Jester), who seemed a lot more believable as straight shooters than the narcissistic Tom Cruise who does little other than pose for the camera. I walked out of our big screen theater somewhat entertained, but also with the feeling that I'd never get those 2 hours back.
Yoda I think this user got hacked. Someone seems to be making ridiculous posts using his login.

Better do something before he gets to the Star Wars movies and calls Yoda a loony language lizard and the worst wisdom whack job he ever hear of!

[skizzerflake]

Yoda I think this user got hacked. Someone seems to be making ridiculous posts using his login.

Better do something before he gets to the Star Wars movies and calls Yoda a loony language lizard and the worst wisdom whack job he ever hear of!

Nope. It's really me. I'm not generally all this sarcastic, but seeing the aging Tom Cruise defending democracy in a contemporary aircraft, using WW I tactics, just set me off.

FYI - I'm pretty well used up on Star Wars and LOTR iterations, probably won't see the new one, so those franchises are safe from my razor wit.

[Allaby]

I watched this today. It was entertaining and well made, but wouldn't make my list of top 10 films of the year.

[Stirchley]

I wish. I wonder if it was the football that made you think that.
I am from Mumbai, India.

Totally. I assumed you are British. Since when does India follow soccer?

[WrinkledMind]

Totally. I assumed you are British. Since when does India follow soccer?
For ages.
I alone have been following LFC since 2002.

[Sedai]

Watched this again last night with the wife. I liked it even more the second time, and she loved it. Fantastic flick with its old-school heroism, excellent characters, and amazing flight sequences.

[MovieMeditation]

I also rewatched this. And I also liked it even more the second time around. A great all-around blockbuster where you can really feel the craft on screen. Amazing experience, even at home.

[Stirchley]

For ages.
I alone have been following LFC since 2002.

What is LFC? Liverpool Football Club?

I also rewatched this. And I also liked it even more the second time around. A great all-around blockbuster where you can really feel the craft on screen. Amazing experience, even at home.

Good to know since I am not venturing out to a cinema.

[WrinkledMind]

What is LFC? Liverpool Football Club?

Yes.

[John McClane]

I can't see any other character breaking all the rules of the military. But Maverick...sure, break em all.

[MovieMeditation]

Good to know since I am not venturing out to a cinema.
Obviously, the bigger the picture and sound the better, but a good movie should work on all scales - even though this film clearly is made specially for the “rush” of its practical effects and the momentum in action scenes.

So if you can turn up the sound it will be better. :up: but it’s a great entertaining blockbuster no matter what. At least in my opinion. And a great homage and extension of the original.

[Stirchley]

Obviously, the bigger the picture and sound the better, but a good movie should work on all scales - even though this film clearly is made specially for the “rush” of its practical effects and the momentum in action scenes.

So if you can turn up the sound it will be better. :up: but it’s a great entertaining blockbuster no matter what. At least in my opinion. And a great homage and extension of the original.

Good to know.

[Stamina888]

This movie seems like male fantasy action movie that has all the right ingredients to smash box offices, but nothing about it interests me enough to go view it.

Maybe this movie has a lot more to it than what it seems, and I'd be totally proven wrong while watching it.

[Stirchley]

Good to know.

Occurs to me that streaming from my iPad might not be the very best way to go so I will pre-order the dvd, which will be released 11/1, & watch it on my big tv.

[GulfportDoc]

Here's my take on the film:

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

There was so much high praise for Top Gun: Maverick from the media, internet and word of mouth that it would have been difficult for a person’s eventual viewing of the picture to measure up to that volume of universal acclaim.

To be sure, the film’s chief accomplishment was it’s phenomenal aerial footage of high speed jets, both in practice runs, mission, and battle scenes. The production took great pains to physically condition the actors and to train them in filming technique in order to make the action look authentic. And it paid off. Not since Howard Hughes’ Hell’s Angels (1930) have audiences of their particular era been treated to such spectacular aerial realism and excellence. Those displays by themselves are worth the price of admission.

In fact the story of the film was reminiscent of the type of patriotic and melodramatic movies common from the 1930s to the 1950s, complete with a rousing and patriotic film score. Unfortunately at least the first 45 minutes of TGM didn’t update the style of the older films. The settings and dialogue were hackneyed and trite, causing me to question at that point if the movie was going to get better. It did. When it stuck to the preparations and development of the mission, it held one’s interest and even fascination. However the personal stories of Maverick and his former girlfriend, although necessary to the plot, were corny and not altogether believable. Naturally the writing of the Top Gun sequel was somewhat constrained by the original story, surely the writers could have fashioned a better script in that regard.

A major exception was the scene with Maverick and his former fellow flyboy, Iceman --now an Admiral-- who had all along kept Maverick employed with the Navy despite Maverick’s rebellious activities. It was lovely to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman. Despite his well publicized problems with throat cancer, he looked and acted as good as ever. When he did speak his voice reportedly was digitally enhanced. The awareness of Iceman’s terminal illness, and the genuine affection between the two, provided one of the most touching scenes in the film.

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the “unsanctioned” uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldn’t notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.

The picture was not at all overly long at 2 hours and 10 minutes. Once we get into the meat of the action it is a movie well worth seeing. It will be a shoo-in for several technical awards.

Doc’s rating: story- 5/10; action and technical- 10/10

[Stirchley]

One mystery in the picture that perplexed me was the absence of the name of the country that was operating the “unsanctioned” uranium enrichment plant that the Top Gun crew was tasked with destroying. So during the entire film we have an enemy who was never identified. Perhaps the producers reckoned that we wouldn’t notice. But the notion of the urgency in eliminating a thing rather than an enemy took away much of the feeling of conflict.



This point was discussed in The NY Times this week in a discussion with, I think, the director. (Can’t remember.) The enemy was purposely not named. There are so many places it could have been that they decided to let the viewer fill in the blank himself.

[BrianThompson]

I'm new here and I would love to write a review on some movies, Top Gun: Maverick being one of them, but I don't know how. There is no option to write a review anywhere, not even when I search the movie.

[Chypmunk]

I'm new here and I would love to write a review on some movies, Top Gun: Maverick being one of them, but I don't know how. There is no option to write a review anywhere, not even when I search the movie.
Firstly, welcome!

Reviews are written as normal posts wherever you deem most suitable (for instance some people have their own threads dedicated to curating their reviews, some write them in suitable community threads such as the Rate The Last Movie You Saw (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=10846) thread. For Top Gun: Maverick specifically it would also be perfectly acceptable to write your review as a post in this thread if you wished. Wherever your chosen place once you are happy with the content and format tick the checkbox at the bottom of the Reply box ("Suggest this post for inclusion in the Reviews are") and it will be placed in the 'pending acceptance' queue.

[Stirchley]

I'm new here and I would love to write a review on some movies, Top Gun: Maverick being one of them, but I don't know how. There is no option to write a review anywhere, not even when I search the movie.

Click on the REVIEWS button at the top of this page.

https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?anchor=1&p=2329875#post2329875

[BrianThompson]

For those who are interested, my full review of Top Gun: Maverick is now available in my official review topic - Brian's Movie Reviews.

[Guaporense]

This was the best Hollywood blockbuster movie I watched in ages. In fact, I cannot recall a blockbuster movie that felt so entertaining since Lord of the Rings, and in the two decades since, Hollywood movies were basically CGI-fests with poor acting and writing. Now we got an old-school movie, with even real planes and human characters. Very good stuff, I would say its better than Dune (another recent major movie that was far above the average).

This point was discussed in The NY Times this week in a discussion with, I think, the director. (Can’t remember.) The enemy was purposely not named. There are so many places it could have been that they decided to let the viewer fill in the blank himself.

Well, Russia was not named. ;) But its kinda obvious once you have some familiarity with military hardware.

The enemy planes in the movie looks like the Russian Sukhoi-57:
https://www.avionslegendaires.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Gsu57-index.jpg
and the enemy helicopter looks like the Russian Mi-24:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KUacF6PENJ4/TqOplmm8wTI/AAAAAAAAAGA/0CzGflwOkFM/s1600/JLM-USAF-helicopters_MI-24+2.jpg

[harry150]

My favorite movie of the year is The Maverick!