Top Gun: Maverick.

Unlike many people my age, I hold no particular nostalgia for Top Gun. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the movie start to finish, and I have no desire to do so now. I remember the girls in middle school loved it for Tom Cruise, and the guys loved it because pew pew pew airplanes. You also couldn’t escape the soundtrack, which ranged from tolerable (“Danger Zone,” which was 20+ years from its real cultural import, as a Sterling Archer catch phrase) to insufferable (“Take My Breath Away,” by an emasculated Berlin). The movie was a huge commercial success, but critics remained unimpressed.

So when Top Gun: Maverick (rentable on amazon) was first rumored, I admit to some strong disinterest. The sequel to a movie that wasn’t supposed to be all that great 36 years ago? Tom Cruise may not really age, but come on. Dude’s 60 now, right? Is he only allowed to fly the plane before dusk? Will this just be another stop on the “make Miles Teller happen” tour?

Of course, the movie is very good. It’s a popcorn blockbuster, and has its moments of absurdity, starting in the cold open, but it is fun, well-paced, often smarter than its ilk, and gives us some real moments of character development without resorting to schlock or excessive fan service. I was shocked by how much I enjoyed the film just about from start to finish, and if you chop off the unnecessary and ridiculous opening sequence – where Maverick (Cruise) absconds in a fighter jet to fly it at Mach 10, which is about three times faster than any manned plane has ever traveled, just because “ten” sounds cooler than “four” – it has just one eye-rolling moment the rest of the way.

Maverick is in the film’s title, but the script makes quite a bit of room for other characters, including the son of his former colleague Goose (played by Teller). Maverick is more or less given one last case before he retires, as he’s drafted to lead a crash course of a dozen elite young pilots to identify a few who can engage in a secret mission to destroy a weapon in an unnamed country. The weapon itself is located in incredibly inhospitable terrain, at the bottom of a valley surrounded by very high, steep peaks, so flying in and out requires skill, timing, and endurance. As movie challenges go, it’s a pretty good one, and evokes without actually naming a certain country we’ll be playing in football later today. The group of wannabe aces includes Teller’s Bradley Bradshaw, who thinks Maverick is the one who tried to stop his naval career; Hangman (Glen Powell), affably arrogant but also very much a team player; Phoenix (Monica Barbaro), the lone woman in the group, who is often the voice of reason and exudes a sort of quiet confidence; Bob (Lewis Pullman, son of Bill), nerdy – you know this because he has glasses – but of course highly skilled; and more. Maverick has to figure out who can handle the mission’s demands while also figuring out why Bradley is still so mad at him, and, of course, he has to deal with higher-ups (including Jon Hamm) who question his reliability and willingness to follow orders.

What Top Gun: Maverick does right, better than most films that aim for such a broad audience, is avoid the worst cliches of the genre. There’s a love interest between Maverick and Penny (Jennifer Connelly), but it’s deeply understated, and the most serious moment between the two is both unromantic and important to the plot. The younger pilots are a little thinly drawn, but the script takes them seriously as people, and Phoenix isn’t just there as someone’s love interest. We never even see the enemy, which is good as it avoids depicting them in stereotype, but also mirrors modern warfare’s remove from the people it’s killing (for better and worse).

Maverick also comes across as a man of a certain age, and that might have been the most surprising part of the film. Top Gun: Maverick lets its title character stare into the abyss, however briefly, and it is a much stronger film for it. He’s a bit too perfect, as the story seems to think he hasn’t lost any reaction time despite the character being at least in his late 50s, which is definitely not true to life, but there’s a wisdom to the character, and a reserve as well, that befits the character’s age and experience.

Of course, the script goes well over the top in two pretty significant ways. The opening sequence is scientifically preposterous, while the big plot development later in the film, where Maverick and Bradley have to work together to survive, just beggars belief. You can get past the first one, because the story them moves into the actual plot, but the second one blew me right out of the film, and made everything that came after seem artificial.

The other way this film goes over the top is in its pro-military bent. Like most movies that include the U.S. military as part of its story, Top Gun: Maverick received substantial assistance from the U.S. armed forces, and they were allowed to make subtle alterations to the script. It’s not a propaganda film per se, but the film is full of propaganda. The U.S. military looks good here. There’s no mention of, say, the civilian casualties that often result from U.S. airborne operations in foreign countries – to say nothing of the violation of sovereignty involved. Navy good, enemy bad. It doesn’t quite devolve into the level of a recruitment video, as some critics charged, but you’d have to cover your eyes to miss the military’s guiding hand here.

There’s talk of Top Gun: Maverick getting an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, which, sure, fine, it’s not going to win, and whether it’s worthy depends a lot more on what other films are contenders. It should get a slew of nominations for technical awards, as well as one for Best Cinematography, one for Best Film Editing, and perhaps two in the sound categories. Anything more than that, like an acting nod for Cruise, would be overkill. This is a perfectly enjoyable movie on its own merits. We don’t have to overpraise it to appreciate it for what it is.

Comments

  1. I thought it was a good way to spend a couple of hours (my wife and I were laid up with COVID at the time, so time-wasters were a must), and agree with most of what you said.

    What also bothered me was the derivative nature of many of the plot elements. Prime among this was the mission profile. I was waiting to hear Artoo beeping, and Hamm on the radio proclaiming”It’s a twap!”

    As far as the pro-military slant, I didn’t expect anything different

  2. Unpopular opinion alert. I always liked Iron Eagle more than Top Gun.

    • Much better movie with a better lead actor. Gossett’s Chappy was altogether lovable and instilled respect and Suchet’s Nakesh was a great screen villain. No coincidence that, because of how the kids basically stole two F-16s, the US Air Force refused to help with the film much which probably led to the story being better overall. I wore that VHS out. IE2 was disappointing and I skipped the others except for the occasional watch on HBO.

    • Better soundtrack, too. One Vision is a banger.

  3. I loved the original, and loved the sequel. I’ll probably see it 20 times over the course of my lifetime.

    But the movie is significantly better if you take it in the only way that makes sense: Maverick dies in the first ten minutes.

    Of course he doesn’t surprise a crash after going Mach 10. Everything we see after is Mav’s fever dream before death. A mission at Top Gun only he can accomplish, with Goose’s son who ends up forgiving him, and sailing off into the sun-set with Jennifer Connelly, a single millionaire bartender with an impossibly great piece of real-estate and amazing car.

  4. I couldn’t even finish the new top gun and I liked the original. Thought the acting of the young top gun team was atrocious. The scenes were essentially the same as the first movie, the bar, the sports game, the motorcycle stuff. Then when they setup the Star Wars plot for the climax, I laughed and turned it off. I guess the flight scenes looked good but found very little interesting or good about this movie.

    • I did think the mission itself derived from the Death Star sequence in the original Star Wars, but it was done well enough that I went with it.

  5. Miles Teller grew up a few blocks from where I live in Downingtown, PA. So it was nice to see a “local boy done good” in Hollywood.

  6. One of the main reasons is I’ve avoided this movie, other than the fact that I, too, was never overly enamored of the first movie, is Miles Teller. He’s never impressed me in anything in which he’s appeared and he’s got one of those faces that just makes me want to punch it. Though I could see him being the progeny of Anthony Edwards, so maybe that’s why he was cast.

  7. I recommend the original Top Gun for the sheer amount of gay subtext laced throughout – or just watching Quentin Tarantino break it down in very Tarantino fashion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxzwfZ2Wa94&ab_channel=area51org

  8. I tend to agree on this one. Had no interest when I first heard of it, only saw the original 1 time back in the late 80’s & didn’t see what the fuss was about..but, this is a really good popcorn movie & the special effects were really good, esp if you saw it on the big screen.

    Take it for what it is & it’s an enjoyable movie. It’s not Shakespeare & if you’re looking for some deeper meaning, well, not sure what to tell you. The fact they pulled off a few serious moments helps it & adds some meaning, but, this is still guys playing with planes for the most part.

    My 17 year old wanted to see this, so we felt he should see the original & this is miles better, IMO. Could barely get through the original, it’s just so corny.

  9. Want to toss out a question – is Top Gun: Maverick the best sequel ever in terms of how much better it is than the original?

    Making that distinction because obviously something like The Godfather Pt. 2 you can argue is better than Pt. 1, but hte original was still incredible.

    Here the original is perfectly above average (both my perception, and say the RT score), but this was appreciably better.

    Anyway, curious to see which obvious answer I’m not thinking of.

    • That’s a fantastic question. I can think of quite a few sequels I liked better than the original or which might have been technically superior to the first, but if we’re measuring the gap between the first and the second?

      Star Trek 2: The Wrath of Khan is the one that springs to mind.

    • Mad Max: Fury Road got a Best Picture nomination. None of the originals were seen in that light, at least not at the time.

    • Add to Ridley’s list. I always liked Empire Strikes Back more than A New Hope. Terminator 2 was better than the original. Dark Knight over Batman Begins, Road Warrior over Mad Max, A Shot in the Dark over Pink Panther (perhaps not a pure sequel). Probably others as well.

    • IMO Terninator 2 is one of the best action movies of all time. Terminator 1 was solid, maybe not as big a deal as Top Gun was in the public eye, but T2 was non-stop action from start to finish with ground breaking effects for the time (which still hold up pretty well). Eddie Furlong’s acting was pretty corny, but other than that, pure popcorn action fun.
      As for Top Gun 2: Yes the mission was basically Star Wars, but visually it was done much better and it made sense for the plot. My biggest complaint was all the call-backs to the original. A few would have been tolerable but I couldn’t get past Rooster literally wearing his dad’s shirt, sunglasses, and mustache, while singing his dad’s song. We get it, he’s Goose’s son, stop hitting us over the f*cking head already!

  10. Brian in ahwatukee

    I am a bit late here but find the nostalgia flashback thing that’s happening now is off putting. The recent matrix movie did it also. Flash back and show original movie scenes or recreation of parts of the original movie almost a a nod to the older generations to whom the movie is targeted.

    It is dumb. And make me feel old. And it’s dumb.