Grogu's Review Pod

→ in

a kid with reviews in his pod

Hi all and welcome to my little corner of movie reviews!
Thank you for stopping by and checking it out.
Below I've got an easy to access review index which highlights some of the films that are reviewed in this thread. I hope you they help you with deciding on spending the money on seeing a film in the theatre or just getting that last confirmation on a yay-or-nay to check something out. Please feel free to leave your feedback, support, discussions and/or suggestions below!

Review Index:
1. The Batman (2022)
2. Psycho Goreman (2020)
3. The Adam Project (2022)
4. Uncharted (2022)
5. X (2022)
6. Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

a kid with reviews in his pod
The Batman (2022)

The Synopsis
The Batman, starring Robert Pattinson, follows a series of events based off of the Long Halloween comic. Batman ventures into Gotham City's underworld when a sadistic killer begins eliminating rather important Gotham figureheads and symbols of justice and righteousness. However, as events unravel and motives begin to surface, Batman must form new relationships and alliances in a hope of unmasking the the killer before it is too late - while all the while - standing defiant to the abuse of power and corruption that has long plagued the city of Gotham.

The Potential
The Batman had all the makings of a fantastic film. An exceptional cast, beautiful cinematography, a gritty setting and some of the most realistic Batman fights that have been captured on film to date. However, where The Batman seems to drop the ball is in its unimpressive writing, its overly long runtime and its laughable dialogue, and the fact that movies like Se7en (1994) have done what it aims to achieve ten-fold more impressively.

The Director & The Tone
Director Matt Reeves clearly had a vision for this film. It's artsy and well shot with a plethora of set pieces which make The Batman stand out as a big budget, hard hitting Batman flick. However, where Reeves has failed is in his ability to convey a truly captivating story that has peaks in the tension. The Batman suffers from a feeling of what I can only describe as constant building - but - this building amounts to nothing. It feels like a blue-balling at every corner. As if for every heightened stake and every moment that's supposed to amount to something almost always eventuates into nothing more than another plot thread which is leading into something else. The payoff rarely ever comes - and if it does - it's lackluster and boresome in the time that has been invested into reaching it.

The Batman also appears as though it's not sure what it wants to be: a realistic take on the cowl wearing vigilante of Gotham, or a superhero flick with a noir flair. There a moments of The Batman that feel as though it's supposed to be completely grounded. There's no capes that allow the Batman to fly, there's no super flashy gadgets or spinning stage for the Batmobile to sit atop in all its glory. It's a realistic world . And then, at a random - after establishing this realistic world - you're snapped out of what has been established by car chases that appear right out of the Fast & Furious franchise. It's mind-boggling why some of the decisions made in this film were in fact made at all.

The Casting
The casting of The Batman is something that's been hotly debated in the lead up to the films release. I will say that I was one of those who believed Pattinson would do fine as Bruce Wayne and Batman. Boy, was I wrong. Pattinson's performance feels lacking. His Bruce Wayne is non-existent, his Batman is average at best and his attempts to convey all his inner turmoil and emotions through his physicality fell flat for me. Zoë Kravitz as Selina Kyle/Catwoman is fine. Her role should have been significantly cut from the film as most of it did not amount to much and only bloated the films runtime. Jeffrey Wright's James Gordon is passable. He's more or less a bouncing board and an in to Gotham PD for Pattinson's Batman and much of his involvement is merely for the sake of reading out the Riddler's riddle's and asking "what could that mean?" a lot. Andy Serkis's Alfred's practically not a character, and frankly, this might be the worst casting in the entire film. Serkis is no passable Alfred.

Colin Farrell as the Penguin is perhaps the only genuinely good performance in the film. He is unrecognizable underneath all the prosthetics and his physicality and voice changes are out of this world. He deserves a nomination for his performance because the only times I felt like I was enjoying myself in the theatre was when this man was on screen. Honorable mentions to Paul Dano for an over the top (but creepy) Riddler performance.

Final Thoughts & Verdict
I wanted to love The Batman.

By the pretty scathing review I have given above in most of the areas that I felt this film failed severely, I suppose it wouldn't sound that way. Though, the severe shortfalls of this film have truly left me with a bad taste in my mouth. From corny writing, to some of the dullest takes on the Batman characters I've ever seen, to a laughable final act, The Batman's glowing reviews across platforms have me completely stumped.

This film needed an R rating.

The themes, feel and subject matter that it was exploring suffered severely from a lack ability to show what is so desperately needed to. Therein, a fundamental problem is created with this: we don't see the all encompassing impact of The Riddler's crimes and actions. They're hinted at, their partially shown and told through other characters, but the true brutal and dark nature that Reeves seemed to be wanting to go for was lost with the films inability to properly commit to its own narrative and feel.

With a runtime of almost 3 hours, The Batman somehow still didn't feel like it had enough time to effectively tie everything together due to its excessive introduction of characters and arcs over the course of the film. It's for this reason, I truly believe it would have made a better 6-12 part series than a single 3 hour long feature film. The story could have been told more properly and with more well-rounded detective work through this means of delivery. However, if the film medium served to be the way Reeves truly wanted to deliver The Batman to audiences, if the Catwoman arc had been cut from the film and perhaps a good 15 minutes of the final act - the story would have had more time to breathe into its more engaging themes..

Alas, with all the components that were included in this, The Batman comes together to be an ambitious, overly full mess.

It's for this reason, I give The Batman...

2.5/5 Stars

Pros: Visually beauitful, realistic fight scenes and ambitious set pieces.

Cons: Unoriginal story, poorly realized narrative and a victim to its classification (rating)

a kid with reviews in his pod


The Synopsis:
Psycho Goreman follows the story of a young girl named Mimi (Nita-Josée Hanna) who, after playing a brutal game of 'crazy ball' against her brother Luke (Owen Myre), condemns him to the ultimate fate of being buried alive. When Luke goes about digging his own (comically large) grave, the siblings discover a gem that controls a ferocious and unpredictable monster looking to destroy the Universe.

A Violently Good Time:
What follows the premise of this is a corny, fun & practical effect littered blood-fest, as creatures from other alien worlds endeavor to seek out and destroy Psycho Goreman for good. It's violent, it's gory and it's positively stupid. But it works. Psycho Goreman is just self aware enough to capitalize on all of the negatives that it has going for it, whilst doubling down on the positives. This thing has Kill Bill levels of blood, whilst sporting choreography from the Power Rangers in all their flipping, spinning and tumbling glory.

The Director & The Tone:
Directed (and written) by Steven Kostanski, you can see how Psycho Goreman fits right into his repertoire. The manner in which this film is shot in a way that makes it feel low budget-yet-deliberate is so fitting to the films style that it only adds to its unique flair. The writing is certainly nothing to write home about, but again, it seems that Psycho Goreman's appeal and overall desire is to deliver a gory, black comedy with the intention to shake up the regular archetypes of characters and flip the script on who you're rooting for in the grand scheme of things. After all, Psycho Goreman himself is an inherent villain. Mimi, the girl whom has control over him is obnoxious, arrogant and, frankly, rather unlikeable - but somehow - you're still rooting for Psyco Goreman to come out on top.

What is unique is the manner in which characters are utilized and portrayed. Well intentioned individuals are depicted from an angle of being the bad guys and generally unethical and morally ambiguous individuals are framed as being more heroic or given moments of heroism that frame them as unorthodox champions.

It's a clever spin on the manner in which Psycho Goreman takes place from the perspective of framing a villain as its hero and how within the world it creates, so too does it warp our perspective of the characters that surround him by extension.

The PG (Psycho Goreman) world is an overall bleak one. The feel is that it's pretty much littered with very average people and generally selfish motived individuals. It makes for the bloodbath that follows to hold a less emotional and more comical feel which works fine for what the film is aiming to achieve. Audiences don't need too much of an emotional center for this type of film; albeit, there are sprinkles of it here and there.

The Casting & SFX Team:
The casting of this one isn't something to rave about. Everyone does a passable job at playing their roles, but due to the generally rather one-dimensional way that the characters are written, there's very little for most of the cast to explore within their roles. Nita-Josée Hanna as Mimi is a good time, though, her rantings and nagging can become a little tiresome and frustrating to audiences. Owen Myre's Luke is a good support and a more likable and grounded character alongside Mimi, helping to balance out her sometimes over the top shenanigan's.

The supporting cast do fine, though, most are hidden under some impressive make-up and special effects work done by the SFX department. The team behind the character designs, outfitting and overall look of the creatures in this film deserve huge props for making this thing have its own unique identity. The gore, the characters and brutality that fills up Psycho Goreman's runtime is phenomenal.

Final Thoughts & Verdict:
Psycho Goreman is dumb as hell.

But it's fun.

And that's a lot more than I can say for most films nowadays.

The story isn't going to leave you with much to be desired, but the bloody, dark humor and the corny and yet impressively brutal fight scenes will keep you engaged and chuckling until the next one. If not for anything else, this one is worth watching for the special effects, make-up and costume design alone. It's something you can have on in the background while you go about doing your housework or checking emails and working from home. Frankly, if you're a little distracted, you're not going to miss anything crucially important.

I give this one

a kid with reviews in his pod


The Synopsis:
A time-travelling fighter pilot from the future, Adam Reed (Ryan Reynolds) crash-lands in the year 2022 where he seeks out his 12-year-old self (Walker Scobell) to team up in a bid to save the future.

Time-travel Done Meh :
A movie with Ryan Reynolds inevitably playing himself alongside a decently appealing cast of supporting actors, The Adam Project fails to be anything of a standout when it comes to time-travel flicks. Granted, when you start dabbling with time and the like, plot holes are almost a certainty and rules regarding timeline changes and implication on altered futures pretty much go out the window.

The Adam Project appears to want to be an action/comedy whilst also dealing with the sci-fi/drama of a rather shallow world that would have been far better realized if it had explored the future our lead character came from and the buildup to the world-threatening events that forced him back into the past. Instead, audiences get the retrodden tale it ventures to tell with the script it follows with moments of fun and engagement and pretty much nothing else.

The Director & The Writers:
Directed by Shawn Levy (who also worked with Reynolds on Free Guy), The Adam Project suffers from some pretty lengthy period of uneventfulness which tend to weigh the film down significantly. The middle portion of this film had me checking my watch wishing I could time-travel to the next moment of the film that had something engaging to offer. It's hard to pinpoint whether this issue rests with Levy or the writing team (Jonathan Tropper, T.S. Nowlin, Jennifer Flackett), though - if I were a betting man - I'd been inclined to say both.

There are moments in this film that work well. There are scenes that have emotional weight and some (admittedly rare) moments of comedy that work well to lighten the rather bland vibe the film oftentimes exudes, but for the most part, there's very little to sing and dance about.

With this being said, the action scenes are shot remarkably well and hold a lot of impact. You can feel the punches and the manner in which they are choreographed is seemingly rather impressive (particularly for a Netflix property). Some of the gadgets and tech are pretty cool too and their inclusion doesn't go unnoticed; giving the film a small amount of charm where it sorely needs it. The CGI is good for something that's been pumped out by a streaming service as well and there are very few moments where computer generated images are noticeable, so, props where they're earned.

The Casting:
I actually like Ryan Reynolds. I think he's charismatic, charming and fun and handsome as all hell.

But that's just it.

That's Ryan Reynolds.

And that's who we get in this film.

I can't tell if the guy's over the whole acting thing or his acting range recently is just playing a heightened version of himself in everything, or perhaps the more likely circumstance, the director's he's been working with think Ryan Reynolds as Ryan Reynolds will sell their film just fine enough; so why fix what ain't broken?

They're kind of right I suppose if that's the mentality their going for.

Reynolds does fine as Adam from the future. He's cool, quick-witted and very Ryan Reynoldsy. Walker Scobell does well as a young Adam, and while I haven't seen him in much else, I do hope to see him in more in the future. He's a good child actor (which seem hard to come by if Hollywood's employment of some of the worst kid actors has shown us anything). Jennifer Garner as Ellie Reed does plays her role well enough and we can empathize with her and her dilemmas and emotional struggles. Mark Ruffalo as Louis Reed, Adam's father, is fine whilst on screen, although, his screen time is limited. Same goes for Zoe Saldana as Laura. She pops up, kicks some ass and is pretty much gone within the next breath - so if you're going into this one to see a lot of her - think again.

Special mention to Catherine Keener who plays our predictable and (to be blunt) rather stupid villain, Maya Sorian. With what she has to work with in the script, she does a decent job of playing the part of a villainous stereotype with little substance and very little to do beyond being an antagonist to our heroes.

Final Thoughts & Verdict:
The Adam Project's a film that we've seen before and we've seen done much better. It has a pretty decent cast of talented actors who do their bit with the script they're given and one-liner their way to through the mostly dull runtime. With a few impressively filmed and choreographed fight scenes littered through and a scarce few moments of emotion and comedy that work, The Adam Project is a watch-while-doing-something-more-important kind of film.

I give The Adam Project:

The PG (Psycho Goreman) world is an overall bleak one. The feel is that it's pretty much littered with very average people and generally selfish motived individuals. It makes for the bloodbath that follows to hold a less emotional and more comical feel which works fine for what the film is aiming to achieve. Audiences don't need too much of an emotional center for this type of film; albeit, there are sprinkles of it here and there.
I gave the film the same rating that you did, and I really agree with a lot of your review.

For me, though, the bleakness and the lack of emotional connection meant that the film started to feel a little over-long in the last 15-20 minutes. Because the humor and gore was largely along the same lines for the whole film---and I'll admit it was funny and delightfully gory--I just kind of got tired of it in the last act.

That said, it's an easy film to recommend and it's a lot of fun.

a kid with reviews in his pod
I gave the film the same rating that you did, and I really agree with a lot of your review.

For me, though, the bleakness and the lack of emotional connection meant that the film started to feel a little over-long in the last 15-20 minutes. Because the humor and gore was largely along the same lines for the whole film---and I'll admit it was funny and delightfully gory--I just kind of got tired of it in the last act.

That said, it's an easy film to recommend and it's a lot of fun.
Hey Takoma and thanks for the reply!

I can totally see what you mean. I did feel the last act dragged a bit as well for me, though particular the last 15. Overall it wasn't too big of an issue for me, but I felt like if there had been another 10 minutes tacked on, it'd have been a different story (as petty as that might sound)

I think I went in with reasonably low expectations, so the fact that it was as much dumb fun as it was really made it a standout for me!

I think I went in with reasonably low expectations, so the fact that it was as much dumb fun as it was really made it a standout for me!
Yeah, I think that it's a perfect Friday night midnight movie, or something to put on with friends. As you note, you could miss a few minutes here or there and still have a good enough grasp on the story to follow along.

a kid with reviews in his pod


The Synopsis:
A charming and street-savvy Nathan Drake (Tom Holland) is recruited by a seasoned treasure hunter who goes by the name of Sully (Mark Wahlberg) to find a fortune lost over five-hundred years ago. However, things are not as simple as they seem as other interested parties begin to make their move toward discovering the treasure for themselves.

Why-oh-why Uncharted?
Without the license attached to it, Uncharted could have been a half-decent National Treasure-esque adventure into a slightly dull but ultimately passable world. Using characters and properties from the Uncharted games unfortunately posed to be at the detriment of this film and with some truly appalling casting and lackluster chemistry between our leads, Uncharted feels like its potential could not truly be realized due to the limitations its source material put on it.

The Director & The Wasteful Scripting:
Ruben Fleischer doesn't do terribly directing here. With films like Gangster Squad and Zombieland under his belt, there are many impressive and ultimately engaging action sequences to be had in Uncharted. Sadly, it's most impressive sequence is spoiled in the teasers (and granted, is snagged right from a cut scene in the games), and additionally, features as a portion of the opening of the film also. This crucial mistake guarantees that the best thing you're going to witness out of this half cocked mess is rushed out of the way within the first fifteen minutes.

Which leads us to the script.

It's generic, predictable and wasteful.

With an actor like Antonio Bandera as Santiago Moncada who - at least initially - is framed as the main antagonist, is pretty much unceremoniously removed from the overarching story that the film is exploring just as his character is given something to do; only to be replaced with a far lesser villain in Braddock (Tati Garbielle).

This combined with the unfunny banter between Drake (Holland) and Sully (Wahlberg) and you're pretty much left with a barebones version of things done far more impressively before it. There's not a whole lot the script had to be - but at the very least - it had to sport some genuine and likeable characters and interactions which - in pretty much every aspect - it does not.

The Casting:
Whoever casted this thing had no idea what they were doing. Tom Holland is far too young for Nathan Drake. While it seems they are aiming to place Drake in his younger years to get as many sequels as they can out of this thing, Holland's likeable enough as an actor, but he's not Nathan Drake. His quick-wit and smart-alick charm doesn't breathe through as well as it might have with a different actor. Holland's just too nice of a guy.

However, where Holland does a passable job as just being a general protagonist, the real problem comes in with Mark Wahlberg's Sully. It felt like Wahlberg struggled severely with taking the backseat to Holland and instead of there being fun, playful banter, it constantly feels like Wahlberg's trying to steal the scene instead of compliment Holland's own performance. It's done so often and bleeds through so badly that it just feels like everything is forced. Very few of the jokes land, Wahlberg is almost completely unlikeable and he is nothing like Sully from the game. And that's not even getting into how little he shares any physical resemblance. Yikes.

Supporting cast do an okay job. Antonio Banderas (for the short window he's in the film) plays a passionate, rich guy villain well enough - but again - is criminally wasted. Tati Gabrielle as Braddock is fine. She's pretty much just a devious butt-kicker that has very little to do on an emotional or developmental level. She's just a bad guy for bad guys sake and brings nothing major to the table.

Final Thoughts & Verdict:
I did not like this film.

I'm not a huge fan of the Uncharted games in general, but I've played a few here and there and know them well enough to know that this was done pretty poorly. The casting is off, the banter is all wrong and the whole thing (other than the treasure hunting) doesn't feel like Uncharted at all. They should have just called it The Treasure of Moncada , made it a fun adventure film and scrapped the tie-in to Uncharted altogether. At lease that way there'd had been no expectations and no comparison to the games. And in that instance, it might have been a fun time.

Unfortunately, you can't look passed the fact that this is an adaption and with that being said, it is an adaption that was done poorly.

I was yawning and glancing about the theatre with about forty-minutes left to see if anyone else had lost engagement in the damn thing.

I can't recommend it and I'd rather watch the disappointing The Batman before endeavoring on a venture with these not-quite-right-versions of the Uncharted cast.

a kid with reviews in his pod


In 1979, a group of young pornographic filmmakers venture out to rural Texas to film in a location which compliments the ambitious script. However, after things begin to unravel and their unannounced pornographic exploits are discovered by the elderly owners of the farm which they are staying on, things begin to unravel and the filmmakers find themselves in unmistakable danger.

The 70's setting which is established for X is outstanding. The banter, the clothing, the hair and the make-up along with some of the transitional shots and filmmaking aspects explored here compliment the 70's vibe exceptionally well. Additionally, the exploration of the pornographic filmmaking process and the impacts of it (as well as the seductive nature of the business that come with it) are explored effectively and engagingly.

It is important to note that while X at face value is a horror film, Director & Writer Ti West has added a more intriguing and enticing heart in which explores the porn industry, the implications of the industry on its stars and its crew, as well as the unique manner in which relationships and livelihoods differ from those of normalcy, particularly around the era in which the film is set. More again, the most intriguing and perhaps disturbing aspect of X comes with its exploration of our antagonists in the elderly couple who own the farm and the tragic and awfully frightening reality that comes with growing old.

X explores it's messages and in such a profoundly powerful way that it simply must be seen to be appreciated. It's been quite sometime since I felt anything of sympathy or sadness for an antagonist in a film such as this, particularly with the disturbing nature of their actions - however - it only adds merit to the fantastic script that ensures this slow-burn film never feels boring or pretentious.

X is a unique and interestingly crafted piece of cinema which delves deep into the themes it explores and the characters which it introduces. Where many horror films fail to establish their main cast, X effectively creates likeable and engaging characters that appear to have layers and resemble aspects of real life. Mia Goth is exceptional and gets to truly show off her acting range in X as she plays not only Maxine, but to my complete shock, also the elderly woman who terrorize our cast, Pearl. She's both haunting and captivating in both roles. Special mention to Brittany Snow as Bobby-Lynne who adds a great deal of (at times) much needed humor and comedic beats to break up the seriousness and the dark tone of the film. Owen Campbell (RJ), Martin Henderson (Wayne), Kid Cudi (Jackson), Jenna Ortega (Lorraine) and Stephen Ure (Howard) are also exceptionally well cast and lend some powerful, funny and engaging performance too.

The gore in X is gruesome. It feels like every injury sustained or death that comes upon our cast is executed with profound realism which at times feels disturbing to watch on as it happens. The practical and special effects on display here are marvelous to watch.

There are very few negatives I can give to X. I enjoyed my viewing experience and was pleasantly surprised by the depth of the script and the story, particularly given the content dealt with. X is certainly not for the faint of heart, however. It has graphic sexual content, brutal death sequences and some truly disturbing sequences that the squeamish or easily disturbed will likely struggle to get through. However, if you feel inclined to see this one and soldier through these harder-to-stomach moments, I'm almost certain you'll enjoy and engage with the story; particularly if you fancy the A24 style films.


Most Recent Review:
Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

a kid with reviews in his pod


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.

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: