Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

[severe conservative]

Well I must have a cold dead heart. The movie was good - probably better than it had any right to be. But I dont think it is as great as a bunch of people are saying. I gave 3 stars in the poll but would probably give it 3.5 stars if I could. Maverick should have been more of a background character-mentor like Tom Skerritt in the original. If youre gonna make Maverick the star it should have been made in the 90s or 2000s.

Topgun was a rock and roll movie like a bunch of other movies in the 80s. It just happened to be one of the best of them if not the best. It was about the feeling and style and the life of naval aviators. Otherwise it is actually a pretty hollow story. Ive seen people on this very forum criticize it and call it vastly overrated. And objectively I cant really argue with them. For me in order for a sequel to be 100% successful it would have had to replicate that, but they dont really make rock and roll movies anymore.

[MazeRunner]

So this should be able to make it to $270M domestic after weekend #2.

[Just_Discovered_3D]

Originally Posted by severe conservative

Well I must have a cold dead heart. The movie was good - probably better than it had any right to be. But I dont think it is as great as a bunch of people are saying. I gave 3 stars in the poll but would probably give it 3.5 stars if I could. Maverick should have been more of a background character-mentor like Tom Skerritt in the original. If youre gonna make Maverick the star it should have been made in the 90s or 2000s.

Topgun was a rock and roll movie like a bunch of other movies in the 80s. It just happened to be one of the best of them if not the best. It was about the feeling and style and the life of naval aviators. Otherwise it is actually a pretty hollow story. Ive seen people on this very forum criticize it and call it vastly overrated. And objectively I cant really argue with them. For me in order for a sequel to be 100% successful it would have had to replicate that, but they dont really make rock and roll movies anymore.

If Maverick weren't the star then I'd leave the theater feeling gypped. Only Marvel can get away with making the title character be a side character in a film

I wish that Cruise and the gang had gone all in on the nostalgia and made this a "rock and roll movie." Oh well, at least there is still the opportunity to rerelease it in 3D once Avatar 2 reignites that flame in studio boardrooms

Still, it's a bit sad that, at least here in Cinemark Country, TG:M is going to be relegated to the smaller screens starting on this coming Thursday, as Jurassic World Domination is scheduled to sweep it out of XD DBOX.

[kono]

The beauty in this movie is that it pay respect to the nostalgia, while at the same time, hand holding us to a new possibilities. Let us not make the same mistake in the movie making of Star Wars Ep 7. JJ. Abram shared the same exact thoughts as yours, and it is horrendous. I do not want to pay $22, to see Star Wars ep4 again with a female LUKE. Kosinski direction is brilliant. Paid respect to the classic, while introduce new ideas. Trust me, people DO NOT want to see Skeritt. We want to see Maverick grow and lead us to unlimited possibilities. It's a field of dream.

Originally Posted by severe conservative

Well I must have a cold dead heart. The movie was good - probably better than it had any right to be. But I dont think it is as great as a bunch of people are saying. I gave 3 stars in the poll but would probably give it 3.5 stars if I could. Maverick should have been more of a background character-mentor like Tom Skerritt in the original. If youre gonna make Maverick the star it should have been made in the 90s or 2000s.

Topgun was a rock and roll movie like a bunch of other movies in the 80s. It just happened to be one of the best of them if not the best. It was about the feeling and style and the life of naval aviators. Otherwise it is actually a pretty hollow story. Ive seen people on this very forum criticize it and call it vastly overrated. And objectively I cant really argue with them. For me in order for a sequel to be 100% successful it would have had to replicate that, but they dont really make rock and roll movies anymore.

[Frank TJ Mackey]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

The best movie I watched theatrically last weekend was The Duke. The second best was Montana Story. TG2 was a distant 3rd

[BudBaxter]

Originally Posted by kono

Trust me, people DO NOT want to see Skeritt.

I kinda wanted to see him at the

[Show spoiler]funeral

scene, along with Michael Ironside, James Tolkan & Rick Rossovich. Would have been sweet.

[Member-222782]

I wasn't interested in watching this initially but everyone I've spoken to who has seen it has praised it as great entertainment. One co-worker went so far as to say the film revitalized his passion for movies again. After that, I couldn't resist so I purchased an advance ticket yesterday for a showing today. I walked out of that theater lobby in a daze after paying $27 Holy Hell. The most I've ever paid for a movie ticket was $17 pre-pandemic and I thought that was stratospheric. Talk about sticker shock lol. This movie better be every bit as good as most people are saying it is.

[THS]

Itchin' for a third viewing

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by John1701D

Two stars Bonnet?? Really?

Doesn’t surprise me that they said 2 stars.

[Bourne1886]

Originally Posted by BluBonnet

I really wanted to like it, too

[phobicsquirrel]

Great film and amazing visual and aerial photography. I'd give it a five star if it wasn't for the weak plot of an un-named villain with fifth gen tech and the silly reason to use f18s. It still made the film offer interesting feats for maverick but there's no way the other pilots could have done it considering they failed at the tests.

Overall though, fun film.

[sfmarine]

Just saw this and all I can says is wow! A remarkably exhilarating theater experience. As soon as you hear the theme song and that iconic guitar tab...you immediately get chills and know you're in for a treat and part of something special. I already have plans to see it again.

It's hard to put this into a category because it's a different beast. It's similar to 1917 where it puts you into full immersive mode. 1917 may not be the best war film, but it is the most immersive and that's where Maverick comes into play. How do you top such perfection?

It is a near-perfect film and you do not come out of theaters often with that feeling of "this is one of the greatest film experiences I have ever been a part of," but you sure as hell do with Maverick.
They do not make films like this anymore and thank goodness Cruise pushed for practical effects and stunts using real planes with limited CGI. The cooperation with the US Military (although not cheap), greatly paid off as well.

The beginning test run with the Darkstar jet was really awesome and you could really see the similarities between it and the original SR-71 Blackbird which went Mach3. Lockheed Martin has been working on its successor, but it was clear they worked as advisors on the film. The Darkstar (still highly fictional), had a few Easter eggs complete with the Skunk Works logo from their elite and advanced design department.

Even the control arm in which Cruise operates even says Lockheed on it. I really appreciated that attention to detail. They only have a few remaining Blackbirds on display. The more well-known ones being located at The Air and Space Museum in Virginia and the other being in NYC on the USS Intrepid.

Seeing Val Kilmer reprise his role as Iceman was extremely touching and I loved the moment between him and Capt Pete. I recommend everyone check out "Val" on Prime Video.

Thank you Tom Cruise! He really is the biggest movie star of all time.
5/5

[Pieter V]

Grosses
DOMESTIC (52.6%)
$205,604,011

INTERNATIONAL (47.4%)
$185,000,000

WORLDWIDE
$390,604,011

[A Sith Lord?]

I really liked this movie.

The OG isn't one of my favorites by any means, but I had low expectations going into this.

What an action movie this is. The cockpit camera angle is so beautiful and unique. One of the wildest experiences I've had at the movies.

Only things I didn't care for,

[Show spoiler]was the weirdness of having the old 60 year old pilot be shoehorned in for the mission rather than putting the trust in the students to do the job.

Also, this movie pandered to middle-aged and old conservative white men so much.

The old white guy can still do the job better than the young pilots (the female, and other minority pilots).

The old white guy can neglect the women who loved him many times, and at the end he not only gets her back, she comes chasing and driving up to him in a classic car.

The old white guy saves the day for everyone.

It's so cringey.

[A Sith Lord?]

Also, Tom Cruise had to get his obligatory full sprint side angle scene.

[AnthonyGG]

I've only seen the original probably two times in my entire life but...yep, gotta agree with everyone else here and around the world apparently. Very, very enjoyable film. Just got home from it and it was definitely one worth seeing in the theater.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by sfmarine

Just saw this and all I can says is wow! A remarkably exhilarating theater experience. As soon as you hear the theme song and that iconic guitar tab...you immediately get chills and know you're in for a treat and part of something special. I already have plans to see it again.

It's hard to put this into a category because it's a different beast. It's similar to 1917 where it puts you into full immersive mode. 1917 may not be the best war film, but it is the most immersive and that's where Maverick comes into play. How do you top such perfection?

It is a near-perfect film and you do not come out of theaters often with that feeling of "this is one of the greatest film experiences I have ever been a part of," but you sure as hell do with Maverick.
They do not make films like this anymore and thank goodness Cruise pushed for practical effects and stunts using real planes with limited CGI. The cooperation with the US Military (although not cheap), greatly paid off as well.

The beginning test run with the Darkstar jet was really awesome and you could really see the similarities between it and the original SR-71 Blackbird which went Mach3. Lockheed Martin has been working on its successor, but it was clear they worked as advisors on the film. The Darkstar (still highly fictional), had a few Easter eggs complete with the Skunk Works logo from their elite and advanced design department.

Even the control arm in which Cruise operates even says Lockheed on it. I really appreciated that attention to detail.

Friday flashback: July 2019 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post16663980

[jess1581]

Originally Posted by Pieter V

Grosses
DOMESTIC (52.6%)
$205,604,011

INTERNATIONAL (47.4%)
$185,000,000

WORLDWIDE
$390,604,011

Top Gun is cleaning up.

[sfmarine]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Friday flashback: July 2019 - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...n#post16663980

Hey alright! That's awesome.

[A Sith Lord?]

So here's a question.

Is this movie drawing because of Tom Cruise? Or is it that audiences are hungry to watch something and have a movie experience other than a comic book movie? This movie is truly a spectacle. There hasn't been a top gun movie in over 30 years though. So it's not like Mission Impossible where fans know what to expect every sequel.