Jump to content

Top Gun 2: Greatest Cinematic Event of the New Millennium


Veltigar
 Share

Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, Raja said:

Yeah, it doesn't take a lot of thought to figure out who they are supposed to be, but them being faceless makes it all seem like a simulation to me, thereby lowering the stakes of what's going on on screen.

I've always assumed that they just didn't want to offend anyone and the baddies are a made up country. China already banned the movie just because Maverick had a Taiwanese symbol on his jacket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finally saw it last night on IMAX (after realizing it was the last night so see it in IMAX with Jurassic World taking the spot starting tonight).

I haven't had that much in a movie in a long time. Felt 13 again when I wanted to be a pilot (due to being obsessed with Robotech, Star Wars, GI Joe, and Top Gun). I even liked Iron Eagle back then... don't judge.

So, yeah, the movie hit all the right notes. Mostly the same set pieces, which worked. Even how Mav was introduced to the pilots and the formerly introduced to the class called back to Charlie's formal role.

The guy playing Rooster did a great job "feeling" like Goose's real son. I'm glad the strife between him and Mav wasn't just "You killed my dad! (so I became a pilot like you)". Connolly's character wasn't as tacked on as I feared. At least she was a former flame, not someone he was picking up for the first time. Kilmer was in just enough. Glad they were able to bring him back (with help).

My favorite part of course was the flying. As a kid, I loved the idea of flying through canyons, so this training for the Star Wars trench run was very nostalgic for me. (Even if the SW trench run was a little on the nose)

Solid film.

ETA: Just caught up on the thread. My theater was packed for a 6:30 Wednesday show two weeks after opening (granted last chance on IMAX).

Edited by Myrddin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this thing has some legs apparently. After 17 days in cinemas, it's about to eclipse Dr Strange 2 domestically (38 days, ~$400m) and has earned about $750m internationally. If it doesn't get completely swamped by the summer blockbusters coming out in the next month or so, there's an outside chance it'll be Cruise' first billion dollar film. Well done him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, freaking Tom Cruise https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/tom-cruise-had-perfect-response-to-miles-tellers-medical-emergency-on-top-gun-maverick-064644571.html

Quote

Tom Cruise had perfect response to Miles Teller’s medical emergency on ‘Top Gun: Maverick’

“So we landed, I'm just like, ‘I'm not feeling too good,’ Teller explained. “And I was really hot, and I just started itching like crazy. So I get out of the jet, and I'm just covered in hives, like, head to toe.”

Teller went to the doctor and had a blood analysis performed... The following day, he received some interesting news from his doctor. “My bloodwork comes back, and I have flame-retardant, pesticides, and jet fuel in my blood,” Teller said.

...

“So then I go to set the next day, and Tom's like, ‘So, how did it go, Miles what did they find?’ Teller recalled. “I was like, ‘Well, Tom, it turns out I have jet fuel in my blood.’ And without even skipping a beat, Tom just goes, ‘Yeah, I was born with it, kid.’”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love it when people see only what they want to see and switch off all analytical parts of their brain, patting themselves on the back at the same time, that they are correct in their assumptions and conclusions.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2022/06/15/this-angry-critic-gave-top-gun-maverick-just-half-a-star/

Quote

But a movie reviewer on Letterboxd named Brett was not impressed by this sequel to the 1986 cult classic. In fact, he was so bothered by the action film that he gave it 1/2 a star and wrote more than 700 words about how terrible he found the movie.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's awesome.

Quote

And while Brett does have something of a point, you’d figure that a person who has watched over 1,500 movies and written more than 650 reviews would be able to remove himself from the current international political climate for two hours to watch a film about an old guy flying cool planes and running shirtless on a beach for no reason.

Tell it, sister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

That's awesome.

Tell it, sister.

I thought it was funny that the guy immediately assumed that the baddies had to be Iran, because nuclear treaties and such, but then the final act takes place in a snowy, forested place that's just off a sea or ocean coast. Yep, that's Iran for sure. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I thought it was clever that the "enemy" was just non-descript bad guys (using repainted US hardware of all things). They could just as easily be the new Republic of Texas that seceded with Donald Trump as its president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Myrddin said:

Actually, I thought it was clever that the "enemy" was just non-descript bad guys (using repainted US hardware of all things). They could just as easily be the new Republic of Texas that seceded with Donald Trump as its president.

Top Gun 3:  Maverick and the Multiverse of Madness

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

I thought it was funny that the guy immediately assumed that the baddies had to be Iran, because nuclear treaties and such, but then the final act takes place in a snowy, forested place that's just off a sea or ocean coast. Yep, that's Iran for sure. :P

I kind of assumed it was a proxy for Iran; even if it kind of looks like British Columbia. For no other reason than (I think) Iran is the only country still flying F-14's. They inherited them from the Shah's regime. 

But it's not like I sat in the theater pointing at the screen with a tortured, horrified face because of "the militarism!". Actual propaganda tends to be a lot more subtle. If I was Brett I'd be way more outraged at Captain Marvel and whether or not Stark Industries is a proxy for Lockheed Martin. 

One of the reasons Star Wars was so popular was because you could read almost anything you wanted into the conflict. For some, the empire represented American imperialism and the plucky rebels were the Vietnamese. For others, the empire was the Soviet Union and the freedom loving Rebels were the freedom loving west. There are no wrong answers here. 

This is like the the articles published years ago talking about how '300' would lead to war with Iran:

- Anyone savvy enough to connect ancient Persia with modern Iran isn't going to advocate for war because of a fantasy film.

- It's been over a decade since and I think it's safe to say that film didn't move the needle on international relations at all.

- The Iranian governments "outrage" occurred during that 15 minutes in 2007/2008 when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became the darling of segments of the American left. I have a lot of sympathy for Iran given how they've been screwed by the western powers, but that doesn't mean their government isn't perfectly capable of playing a cynical culture war game. At the time, the Bush administration was using pretty extreme saber rattling rhetoric and there were no shortage of American pundits calling M.A. the new Hitler and using "Munich" analogies. He ended up getting voted out of office BTW. Hardly the next Hitler.  

- If that movie is supposed to be an allegory between a hypothetical American/Iranian war, The Persian army in that scenario clearly represents the Americans. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, this one is actually pretty good, and that's coming from someone that thinks the 1986 movie is complete garbage.

Surely, it has great visuals and action, but I think it also works because unlike some of his movies, this one recognizes that Cruise is getting too old for shit, while also being a meta commentary about the death of the big movie star, something now that is getting increasingly rare. And the relationships both with Rooser and Iceman are compelling (that scene with Kilmer is among the best acting Cruise ever did). It also tones down a lot of the "AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!", since this isn't Reagan's era anymore and even US audiences wouldn't fall for it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Loved it! Incredible movie to see in the theater. The flying sequences were electric, the relationships and their evolution felt real and it had just enough nostalgia and callbacks without being over the top.

And I had no problems with Jennifer Connelly's character, not least because she looked absolutely stunning but more because I liked Maverick having an anchor and a reason to "let it go". Great movie that I will immediately see again once it's out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Went to see Top Gun 2 in IMAX for the third time yesterday. I had two friends with me who didn't see it yet and two people who had seen it once before (one of those saw it in IMAX, the other in regular). Every one loved it. First time, second time or even third time. It's just movie magic to be honest. One of the greatest theatrical experiences that I have ever had.

There is also a ton of good stuff about the film on YouTube. Some stuff I saw recently that might be of interest here:

 

I also think Stuckmann's review was pretty articulate:

Casual movie fans love it, youtube reviewers love it, people who actually fly jets/teach at Top Gun for a living love it... Talk about a home run.

I wonder how much money this will earn at the end of its theatrical run. The movie has been out for over a month right now and my IMAX screening yesterday was still jampacked. it really is incredible.

Edited by Veltigar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and still going. This thing's got some legs. It's currently trading number one spot with Elvis day to day. 

I was sure Jurassic World would beat it globally by virtue of the fact that it got a China release and those films tend to do quite well overseas. Based on how it's tracking, I'm not so sure. It's domestic performance is well below JW: Fallen Kingdom and way below Jurassic World 2015. At the rate it's going, it'll top out at $360-$370 mil domestically. If TG:M does $1.1-$1.3b globally, it's pretty unlikely JW:D will do the $750+ overseas it needs to beat that.

Lightyear is another one that's coming in below expectations. Everyone is keeping their piggy bank moneys for Avatar 2 I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

...and still going. This thing's got some legs. It's currently trading number one spot with Elvis day to day. 

I was sure Jurassic World would beat it globally by virtue of the fact that it got a China release and those films tend to do quite well overseas. Based on how it's tracking, I'm not so sure. It's domestic performance is well below JW: Fallen Kingdom and way below Jurassic World 2015. At the rate it's going, it'll top out at $360-$370 mil domestically. If TG:M does $1.1-$1.3b globally, it's pretty unlikely JW:D will do the $750+ overseas it needs to beat that.

Lightyear is another one that's coming in below expectations. Everyone is keeping their piggy bank moneys for Avatar 2 I guess.

A month after the release they are still playing it in IMAX where I live, where there aren't many of these theatres to go around. I guess it will stick around for a while. Perhaps not long enough for me to go a fourth time, but you never know. 

I hope the financial success of this film proves that you don't have to have superheroes or pander to China to make a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/16/2022 at 5:08 PM, Corvinus85 said:

Gotta love it when people see only what they want to see and switch off all analytical parts of their brain, patting themselves on the back at the same time, that they are correct in their assumptions and conclusions.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2022/06/15/this-angry-critic-gave-top-gun-maverick-just-half-a-star/

 

I just don't get why this is news, or even worthy of an article given that it's a letterbox review. It's a random dude's review of the movie on a site where you're supposed to review films, and shock horror someone doesn't like a movie :dunno: - fans of the movie shouldn't be so insecure in their liking of a film that any negative review, especially one on a site like letterboxd by a random dude, provokes articles & responses like that.

Caught it a second time yesterday with some friends and enjoyed it. Still wish we would lose all the time we spent on his relationship and swapped that out for getting to know the rest of the pilots, but that's a minor quibble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Veltigar said:

A month after the release they are still playing it in IMAX where I live, where there aren't many of these theatres to go around. I guess it will stick around for a while. Perhaps not long enough for me to go a fourth time, but you never know. 

I hope the financial success of this film proves that you don't have to have superheroes or pander to China to make a lot of money.

But you still have to have a nostalgic tie back to the 1980's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...