Reply to Topic
Totally. I assumed you are British. Since when does India follow soccer?
I alone have been following LFC since 2002.
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)
→ in Movie Reviews
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.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
For ages.
I alone have been following LFC since 2002.
I alone have been following LFC since 2002.
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.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I can't see any other character breaking all the rules of the military. But Maverick...sure, break em all.
__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Good to know since I am not venturing out to a cinema.
So if you can turn up the sound it will be better.
but it’s a great entertaining blockbuster no matter what. At least in my opinion. And a great homage and extension of the original.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
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. but it’s a great entertaining blockbuster no matter what. At least in my opinion. And a great homage and extension of the original.
So if you can turn up the sound it will be better.
but it’s a great entertaining blockbuster no matter what. At least in my opinion. And a great homage and extension of the original.
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.
Maybe this movie has a lot more to it than what it seems, and I'd be totally proven wrong while watching it.
X
Favorite Movies
Good to know.
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
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
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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.
__________________
I see movies differently
I see movies differently
X
Favorite Movies
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.
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 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.
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.
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...75#post2329875
For those who are interested, my full review of Top Gun: Maverick is now available in my official review topic - Brian's Movie Reviews.
X
Favorite Movies
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).
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:
and the enemy helicopter looks like the Russian Mi-24:
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.
But its kinda obvious once you have some familiarity with military hardware.The enemy planes in the movie looks like the Russian Sukhoi-57:
and the enemy helicopter looks like the Russian Mi-24:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
|
|