Gillipedia Official Rating: Pulled 2.5 G’s writing this review. Inverted.
Tom Cruise personally thanked me for
going to watch this movie. Did it happen to play to the rest of the theater as
well? Sure. But we all know the truth. Top Gun: Maverick reminds us of
why we go to the theaters. It’s a form of escapism entertainment to watch movie
stars perform the unimaginable. You can argue that the enhancement to visual
effects over the last couple decades has allowed for even more creative freedom
to craft the artistic vision from the director. But with novelty comes
imitation and over saturation. Films like The Northman have its flaws,
but there are still standout moments of shooting at real locations—not on a
green screen at a studio. And Cruise’s insistence to only do this movie if
using real planes and practical stunts where possible immerses the audience so
much more than the rubbery looking CGI fights.
But it takes more than a couple stunts
for a film to remain memorable. Because at over two hours in length, this film
has to pull us in and make us care about these characters for the action scenes
to resonate. The story isn’t groundbreaking, but Maverick makes clever
use of familial and internal conflicts to bring us characters that have stakes
that we care about. When I first heard the news of this sequel years back, I
honestly was just meh about it. The original Top Gun isn’t top tier Tom.
Entertaining, sure, but not close to his best work. This was around a time
where everything was being rebooted, revived, or sequelized. Simply bringing
back characters and actors from the past and rehashing their stories isn’t
enough and can feel like a money-grab… And then the first trailer dropped, and
I was hooked.
Before I drool over the F-18 plane
sequences further, let’s talk about that character drama I was referencing
earlier. Tom Cruise plays a Captain for the Navy. At least 4 characters
throughout the film question why this old-timer either hasn’t retired, been
dishonorably discharged for all his antics, or promoted further at this point
in his career. And to the credit of this sequel releasing over three decades
past the release of the original film, being a Captain is who Maverick is. He
can’t seem to stick his roots either in his career or with a family. Despite
this, he has close ties with Rooster—a Top Gun graduate and son of the late and
former wingman Goose from the original. Rooster is played by Miles Teller, and
despite their obvious ties, there’s a rift between him and Maverick that the
film develops. Teller not only believably looks like the son of Goose, but he
brings some heart to the role too. Maverick also reconnects with an old flame
in Penny played by the stunning and ageless Jennifer Connelly. Penny runs a
local bar and has a tween daughter smarter and more mature beyond her years.
After flying too close to the Sun once
again, Maverick returns to Top Gun to train the best of the best Top Gun
graduates for a time-sensitive mission to destroy a nuclear facility in enemy
territory. There is a note of finality to this mission, and with Rooster as one
of the possible recruits for the mission, Maverick is torn between duty and the
very real possibility that he might send an underprepared pilot to his death.
Not only does the mere weeks’ timeframe add a sense of urgency to overarching
plot of this mission, but Maverick has to contemplate what happens to his life
professionally and personally with and after this mission. Again, not
groundbreaking stuff, but it’s well developed and well utilized to make the
suspenseful moments from the action sequences -ahem- soar.
12 recruits are brought into Top Gun
for Maverick to train, but only some will be chosen to actually fly for the mission.
We get to know the call signs of each pilot; unfortunately, they don’t have
much personality beyond that. These are pretty stock characters, jock type
Hangman being the primary foil for our heroes. Their banter is fine, but the
dialogue also isn’t the highlight of the film. But both Maverick’s training
methods and the overall sense of camaraderie comes through in spades.
The film doesn’t lean too much into
glorifying moments from the original which is perfect. Iceman returns in a
limited capacity. I also wasn’t aware that Val Kilmer is suffering lung cancer
in real life, and both the way they fit that into the story as well as
apparently using AI technology for his voice since he can’t really speak in
real life either is impressive. What I appreciate most about the sequel is that
everything makes sense. The plotlines and character arcs aren’t phoned in. It
makes sense what path Maverick has taken over the years, and there’s enough
plausibility to bring him back and connect the way he does. But with new
technology and new characters, the film isn’t overly reliant on the past; in
fact, seeing the original by no means is a prerequisite to enjoy this film.
Also expect to hear music from the original but updated by Hans Zimmer. Really
solid work; Lady Gaga also performs a song.
Now the moment we’ve been waiting for.
The action and stunts. Cruise designed a program to train the new actors on how
to get used to the F-18’s they’d be flying for the film and how to handle all
the force. There are cameras cleverly positioned in the cockpits, and we are
treated to true aerial sequences. There’s a scene about two-thirds through
where Maverick goes a bit rogue during a training sequence, and watching Cruise
swerve left and right at dizzying speed is the kind of thrill I absolutely go
nuts for at the movies. It’s the stuff that makes the price of admission 100%
worth it. The entirety of the climax is some of the most suspenseful and
thrilling action I’ve seen all year. Some of the action from say Doctor
Strange in the Multiverse of Madness was fine, and all the action involving
Scarlet Witch was a blast, but it never had me on the edge of my seat like this
movie did. There is power in authenticity. Tom Cruise is abundantly aware that
I am buying a ticket to watch this old man perform insane stunts. I will watch
all genres of films and appreciate craft, but I am partial to real stunts. Essentially,
I am partial to Tom Cruise.
I’ve already been treated to great
action from Everything Everywhere All at Once and The Batman from this year, so
I won’t make any hasty proclamations, but Top Gun: Maverick has my vote
of confidence in recommending to see it in theaters. With recent Mission
Impossible director Christopher McQuarrie coming in to help produce this
film, you know you’re in good hands. It makes me very happy to see this film succeed
so well at the box office—especially with the countless delays due to Covid. I
get Mission Impossible for the next couple of years, but I don’t know
how many more Cruise years I have left. Savor what you have, ladies and
gentlemen. Watch this movie in theaters and be prepared to be entertained. God
bless America.
Bonus
Review
Men
Gillipedia Official Rating: They’re the worst
From Ex Machina and Annihilation
director Alex Garland comes a new A24 slow-burning horror film Men.
After the tragic and unexpected death of her husband whom she recently just
separated from, Harper travels to the English countryside to get away from the
stresses of life. She rents a house from a quirky Englishman and interacts with
other members of town. Er, interacts isn’t the right word. More like she has
encounters with men in the town that have an underlying feeling of something
off, but nothing noticeable or grave enough to take much action. And as you may
guess, this culminates toward a finale. And since this is Alex Garland and A24,
that climax is a doozy. It’s one of the strangest sequences in recent memory.
In some regards this film is
reminiscent of Midsommar, but it also feels like Garland pushing the
boundary of metaphorical storytelling further than the crazy climax in Annihilation.
It’s interesting, but it’s been over a week since I saw this film, and I still
don’t have a full grasp on it. For those familiar with other A24 works or the
above mentioned films, you might have appropriate expectations. There’s not
going to be jump scares or needless gore; rather, there’s unnerving sequences,
solid filmmaking, and it’s punctuated by an at-times gruesome, at-times
downright confusing climax.
Our star is Jessie Buckley. I’m not
familiar with her, but she is strong-willed, yet also incredibly emotionally
vulnerable considering the traumatic events that just transpired in her life.
She’s the sort of female character I love seeing portrayed. She’s not a simple
damsel in distress, but she’s also not a plain Captain Marvel that has no
weaknesses or personality. This film relies on the strength of the star, and
she shines well.
My interpretation is this film
addressing victim blaming. At each turn as the events become stranger and more
dangerous, Harper is continuously dismissed by the men around her. The quirky
Englishman Geoffrey might be an ally, and her best friend whom she FaceTimes
throughout is a comforting ear. But this also isn’t preachy and “taking sides”
in terms of whatever political platform people want to jump on. I think it’s an
exaggeration of a perfectly plausible situation and works well in a relatable
manner.
It isn’t nearly as dreary as Midsommar
and has a breezy runtime well under 2 hours; however, the slow burn can still
feel a little too slow at times. We only receive a couple embers of horror
before the climax, and I would’ve liked to see more flames flickering. The
climax is of course the highlight, and it has very memorable and gnarly
moments. Like, very tiny spoiler, but the way a character has a hand torn and
ripped up and how it still comes into play later on is one of the grossest but most innovative things I’ve seen. But there’s also some weird metaphors that didn’t
land with me, and a very, very bizarre end that makes sense but is nasty in a
way I don’t think I really needed to see.
There’s something to be said about how
the vast majority of this film could be done on a really small budget.
Compelling characters, a visionary director, and a consistent tone are the only
ingredients you really need for this type of horror film. I also have no idea
outside of visual effects how some of the sequences at the end could’ve been
done, but that’s something else entirely. Unlike the above review, I won’t be
recommending this film. In a bit of hypocrisy, I actually enjoyed it. But
there’s still more I think it could’ve done and didn’t have to try to be so
arthouse at the end. It’s not the style of film that appeals to a wide
audience—which is on brand for any A24 film really. But there’s lots to
appreciate, including the willingness and creativity to be different.
No comments:
Post a Comment