The only good part of the Top Gun sequel was the Val Kilmer cameo (of sorts). The rest of the movie was just a painfully dull retread. Miles Teller is a good actor, but was terrible as Rooster. And the main plot device of Rooster and Maverick's conflict over the death of Rooster's father, Goose, was very poorly played out. The big mission at the end of the movie had a payoff that was so obvious that it just completely ruined the movie.
I'll more or less agree, although jumping into a early generation fighter plane that "had the keys in it" to steal was pretty distracting. But nothing "ruined it" IMO. Fun compared to everything coming out right now that is either horror, serious or 3rd tier super heroes.
It's probably becasue Tom Cruise GOT THE VAX, thus he's near and deer to the harts of BIG pHARMER. It's because of this that we've allowed him to receive good reviews on his latest movie.
Lol if anyone thinks a single top gun class of pilots has ever been as “diverse” as that.
I think the diversity was not to represent Top Gun but represent the overall demographics of the Armed Forces in which case it's pretty accurate. Half the military is non-white, 17% are female.
WTF are you talking about? That was EXACTLY what we wanted in that sequel.
This was the kind of sequel that other sequels always try to be… but where most of the time sequels dissapoint, this one didn’t. Reason: Tom Cruise.
Some sequels try to bring in a ‘new’ actor to play the same old character (e.g., all the James Bond actors over the years). That usually means it’s up to the actor to carry the role and they seldom live up to peoples’ nostalgic expectations. In other cases, they try to cast the same actor to reprise the role… e.g., Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones. Harrison’s a great guy but he’s to geriatric to play the leading man / $ex symbol in an action film… it gets pretty cringy.
It’s pretty extraordinary that a 63 year-old Tom Cruise is able to do so well reprising that role and carrying the film.
It is fair to say that this film just recycled a lot of the plot themes of the first film… at some points the DejaVu was way over the top (the piano scene, the dudes on the beach playing touch football….).
But the action was heart pounding and it struck a very nostalgic chord for people who are old enough to have seen the first film in the 80s.
My favorite part was when someone at the end says ‘he’s now got 5 kills… that makes him an Ace - the first Ace in 40 years). i particularly liked that because I smiled at the thought that my own grandfather was a World War II Double Ace.
The move wasn't good in many respects. We waited 30 years for them to make the same movie in 4k. C'mon. It was worse than Ring of Power
How dare you even compare Top Gun to Rings of Power. Rings or Power was an atrocity and a deliberate attempt to disgrace on of the greatest fantasy series of all time by people who hate the western and Christian ideals Tolkien built the stories upon.
Top Gun Maverick while not great was an honest attempt at sequel to an iconic film. While the plot was so so, and the lines sounded like they were written by a high schooler the movie had redeeming qualities. The film was visually very good and overall it was very entertaining. While it's never going to be a classic in my mind I don't know anyone who went and didn't enjoy themselves. The fact that it was made to appeal to pretty much everyone and was entertaining in an era where Hollywood attempts to do neither explains why it got such great reviews and a massive box office haul.
As an aside you have to give Tom Cruise credit for revitalizing his career in the past decade. He made some real stinkers in the early 2000's when he went through his scientology weirdo phase. But since that era he's made some really good movies. In addition to Top Gun all of the recent Mission Impossible movies have been somewhere between good to great.
The only good part of the Top Gun sequel was the Val Kilmer cameo (of sorts). The rest of the movie was just a painfully dull retread. Miles Teller is a good actor, but was terrible as Rooster. And the main plot device of Rooster and Maverick's conflict over the death of Rooster's father, Goose, was very poorly played out. The big mission at the end of the movie had a payoff that was so obvious that it just completely ruined the movie.
Did you watch the movie on your phone or something? The best parts of the movie were the flight scenes, although the Kilmer scene was up there. Wish I watched it in the theater on IMAX. They were absolutely spectacular and something I go back to watch every month or so. I could really feel the effort. Brilliant.
The only good part of the Top Gun sequel was the Val Kilmer cameo (of sorts). The rest of the movie was just a painfully dull retread. Miles Teller is a good actor, but was terrible as Rooster. And the main plot device of Rooster and Maverick's conflict over the death of Rooster's father, Goose, was very poorly played out. The big mission at the end of the movie had a payoff that was so obvious that it just completely ruined the movie.
Did you watch the movie on your phone or something? The best parts of the movie were the flight scenes, although the Kilmer scene was up there. Wish I watched it in the theater on IMAX. They were absolutely spectacular and something I go back to watch every month or so. I could really feel the effort. Brilliant.
He's disappointed Shakespeare didn't write the script to compensate for the fact that he doesn't like action movies or fighter planes.
This movie is absolutely perfect at what it tries to do, and what I - nay, America - needed at the time. Watching it in 4DX was nothing short of incredible. Getting rocked around and misted with water during low rides over San Diego Bay. And tear-jerking Iceman. I don’t care that they were probably Iranian, we need a Cold War, dammit! And the intro that made you think of times all you did was play with your friends in the street, produced by coke legend Don Simpson. And the ageless Jennifer Connolly.
if you don’t like Maverick, you don’t like (have) sex, you don’t like America, you don’t like life.
It's probably becasue Tom Cruise GOT THE VAX, thus he's near and deer to the harts of BIG pHARMER. It's because of this that we've allowed him to receive good reviews on his latest movie.
oh what a shame, but it figures I guess. History of joining weird cults. Probably flies with his mask on
It just means 24 out of 25 people liked the movie. It’s not like getting a 9.2 on IMDb. And 1 out of 25 people were like yourself and would have found Barbie more to their taste.
It just means 24 out of 25 people liked the movie. It’s not like getting a 9.2 on IMDb. And 1 out of 25 people were like yourself and would have found Barbie more to their taste.
Hey dipsh*t - it's ok to like both. You know this right?
It just means 24 out of 25 people liked the movie. It’s not like getting a 9.2 on IMDb. And 1 out of 25 people were like yourself and would have found Barbie more to their taste.
Hey dipsh*t - it's ok to like both. You know this right?
The OP he's responding to doesn't seem to agree with you.
PreciousRoy thinks if he doesn't like a movie no one should.
I think you're being too soft on them. Top Gun: Maverick was an insult of every intelligent person who tried to sit through it. Nothing in the plot made any sense.
I think you're being too soft on them. Top Gun: Maverick was an insult of every intelligent person who tried to sit through it. Nothing in the plot made any sense.
Sorry, gotta disagree. The movie sucked, big time.
On every level, the plot was utterly absurd and disconnected from reality. Why would the Navy send in only a few F-18's when the U.S. Air Force has B-1 and B-2 bombers loaded with huge "bunker buster" munitions? Why weren't other armed services, especially the Air Force, involved with the planning and execution of this raid? Why the hell didn't the Navy and Air Force use their sophisticated radar- and radio-jamming technologies to disrupt and spoof the defenses of the enemy forces guarding the uranium enrichment plant? Why didn't the U.S. military used its arsenal of cruise missiles to knock out the anti-aircraft missile site and radar stations? Why didn't the Navy and Air Force work with other NATO forces, such as the RAF, or with allies like the Israeli Air Force, to take out the site?
I know, no crowd-pleasing summer movie, especially a retread like "Top Gun: Maverick," is supposed to be a documentary with a rigorous fidelity to the facts. But to be taken seriously, a movie like this has to maintain at least a surface veneer of verisimilitude. And on that score this Top Gun sequel failed utterly.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.