I heard in an interview with a former jet plane pilot that this was one thing that he appreciated from both movies. He liked it not because of the song but that the film took the time to show all the crew that was necessary to support flight operations.
//i\\
I saw it last weekend and posted this in another thread
The considered opinion of all of us?..excellent.
A real action movie of the old-school, no plot to unravel, no politics to negotiatiate. A perfect Saturday morning bit of escapism. “back to the future” levels of escapism and that is saying something.
The flight sequences are truly breathtaking (see it on the big screen) and the Val Kilmer cameo is perfectly judged.
It is “The Right Stuff” mixed with “Star Wars IV” mixed with…well, “Top Gun” and they’ve actually managed to choose the best of each of those.Make no mistake, it will not surprise you or enlighten you, you know exactly where it is going but it is bloody good fun getting there.
As for the geo-political, warmongering criticism of it posted upthread? pah! Sometimes a film really is what it purports to be. In this case, fast planes and friends. Rollercoasters don’t have an agenda but we love them all the same.
In case you never have, check out the opening to another Tony Scott film with Tom Cruise, Days of Thunder. They didn’t stray too far from the formula: rising sun, slow build up of activity, loud music, action:
Fer cripes sake, both films even has the same core plot!
I’m still wondering why Maverick’s credit card was declined in the bar. Was it really? Or did Penny just say it was so Mav would be tossed out of the bar?
Slate did an analysis of who the “rogue state” could be. Iran is pretty close, but is ruled out by the lush, snowy mountains along the coast. The best match: in a brilliant cross-over, the rogue state is the Syndicate from the Tom Cruise movie Mission: Impossible—Rogue Nation.
This is how I came to Finland as the unnamed opponent, although obviously a more aggressive Finland with nuclear aspirations than the Lapland of our world. Then again, given events of the last few years perhaps we are living in the alternative Philip K. Dick inspired reality and Top Gun: Maverick is but one of many films of the preferred universe that has leaked through in The Man in the High Castle fashion.
I have a thesis that all Tom Cruise movies occur in a single ‘Cruisiverse’; from Taps and Risky Business to Interview With A Vampire and Edge of Tomorrow, they are all part of one narrative continuum, hence why Cruise is such a good spy in the Mission Impossible films.
Stranger
Taps, wow, that was 1981. And Tom Cruise was 19 then.
Brett seems like he’d be a lot of fun at parties.
It’s not an invalid point, overall. But it was more effectively made 29 years ago in the Top Gun parody Hot Shots Part Deux by Miguel Ferrer’s character: “War! It’s fantastic!”
I’ve always felt the best way to make a movie realistic is to not explain anything to the audience. Force them to Google the obscure terminology or jargon/lingo themselves after the film. But just go ahead and use what the pilots/AWACS guys/whatever would actually say, regardless of whether the audience can grasp it or not. That will make them feel immersed in the scene.
Speaking of which…sorry if someone mentioned earlier, but why couldn’t the US have just blown up the uranium facility with a B-2? Can it not laser-designate?
I really don’t want to be in a theater when a bunch of people pull out their phones to google an unfamiliar term. I don’t mind a bit of expository dialog to avoid this.
Yeah, not having any idea what they’re talking about doesn’t exactly immerse me in a scene.
But done poorly, I agree it is distracting. The biggest offender for me was Rich Parnell in The Martian explaining to the NASA scientists what a slingshot maneuver is by getting them to act it out.
Because…Danger Zone!
I mean, if you are going to nitpick, there is not one thing about this film that makes a lick of sense. Not a sixty-year-old test pilot who crashes a hypersonic black project plane, not this unspecified enemy nation with a secret nuclear facility in a GPS-free zone, not having to train pilots in a week to fly F/A-18s in the most ridiculously dangerous way possible, not any of it. It is a Navy recruiting video that, like most such adverts, actually tries to entice people to sign up by showing them all the things they will likely never and probably should not do.
As for the exposition, it is one of those things that is annoying to people with knowledge of aviation or basic physics (and even moreso when the exposition gets it wrong because it has been massaged by screenwriters to make it sound like digestible nonsense) but if the filmmakers don’t do it they get blasted by critics for making the film impenetrable to the general public. That is why you have film adaptation of The Hunt For Red October featuring subs flying through underwater canyons like slow moving aircraft and a helicopter-dropped torpedo being remotely destructed somehow.
Stranger
On that topic…I’m pretty sure there was no way to safely eject from an aircraft going Mach 10.2.
It would have been like the astronauts inside the Columbia during reentry.
You’d certainly need some kind of escape capsule and even at that, the extreme aerodynamic loads and heating would make survivability problematic. But we are talking Tom Cruise so maybe he’s protected by a Dianetic Shield.
Stranger
I’m assuming they lived, but that was only 700 knots.
I thought it was weird that they didn’t name the enemy. And the whole no-defenses-in-the-canyon was off-putting. Even Star Wars had defense assets in the canyon. I would have expected at least something in the valley, seeing as all the ridges around it had anti-air. I also don’t understand why they didn’t just use missiles instead of a manned flight, but this is conceivably something I just don’t understand about the logistics. I am skeptical whether it is realistic for both Maverick and Rooster to survive being shot down without major injuries, not to mention the next scene where they find an unguarded enemy fighter in working condition.
On the other hand I liked the flight scenes, both during training and during the real deal. Very exciting to watch!
~Max
I’ve never undergone SERE training but I’m pretty sure that running up to your buddy and berating him loudly is a very bad survival/anti-detection strategy.
Finally dragged my ass in to see this. I agree with the people about who liked it. I hate Tom Cruise as a person, but, as stated above, he shows up for work and gives the audience what they want.
Random observations:
When did Cruise get so fucking old?
Do admirals always wear their fruit salad when in working clothes, on a carrier?
I really liked the age-appropriateness of the Love Interest. But again, when did Jennifer get so old?
Goose, Jr. was perfectly cast, and the actor nailed it, right down to some gestures.
Well worth the time and effort to see. And the theater I saw it at serves beer, so it’s a win-win.
I took my 11-year-old grandson to see this last night. He watched the original about a year ago and is a big fan. He dressed up like Maverick for Halloween (bomber jacket, sunglasses, etc.) and looked great.
We both loved the new Top Gun. On the way home, he told me it was the best movie he’s ever seen. Everyone that I know that’s seen it has also loved it. I think my grandson summed it up perfectly for me and what others have said. He said, “gramma, it gave me a feeling inside. It’s not a bad feeling, but I don’t know what it is. I think it’s that I feel proud”. 