It is no secret that with the MANY classic and memorable properties over the years from both TV and film, that studios have been cashing in on those fan-favorite callbacks with remakes, reimaginings, or long-awaited sequels/prequels/hell at times threequels by banking on purely nostalgia for the original IP. All these studios have multiple properties with interest from the studio big wigs deciding to revisit certain properties to further produce nostalgic triggers amongst the paying customers. They are raking in older generations of viewers to partake in trips down memory lane, while inviting newcomers to experience the property with a fresh set of new eyes. We have covered MANY movies that do this on this blog in the past and hell we'll probably talking about nostalgia for years and years to come. Because that is the way the world works. Some express an interest of reminiscing with a familiar face from yesteryear, while others believe that too much fan-service can ruin the continuation franchise and are only presented in this way to make easy money.
So let's talk about a movie that has been long overdue on my list for the past month with Paramount Pictures and its legacy sequel, Top Gun: Maverick. I got to be honest. When this was first announced, I was incredibly cynical about this being a sequel. For those of you who didn't watch or need a refresher on the original, Top Gun was a 1987 action movie that was...okay. Perfectly okay. I think it was far more interesting in the second half of its run time than it was in the first, but I get why it was framed the way it was. It was glorious 80s action cheese with its catchphrases, soundtrack full of 80s bangers, and Tom Cruise mugging his face all over the place. The movie was a capsule of its time period and I would be lying if I said I didn't have Maverick's jack and dog tags hanging in my house.
But more importantly, why make a sequel to this? What exactly warrants this to exist? Was there anyone really dying to see the continued adventures of Pete "Maverick" Mitchell and explore him even further as a character? I mean I get that Paramount isn't doing too hot as a studio at the moment, but they can't really be this cash deprived and sorely in need of a hit. What more could they possibly do with this property?
...is what I thought for the longest time. And then the movie kept getting delayed repeatedly due to the pandemic. I kept thinking that maybe Paramount would just push this straight to Paramount+ like they did with Sponge on the Run, Rumble, and damn near everything else on their calendar for the last two years. But Tom Cruise said something interesting during those delays. That this movie was meant to be seen on the big screen. In a world where movies are focusing more and more on streaming, more and more actors, directors, etc. are publicly pointing out why movie theaters truly can't be beat and more want to make theater driven movies solely to remind the viewing public why nothing compares to the movie theater experience. As a cinephile myself, I love that experience more than watching something in the comfort of my home. And I've always been under the impression that Tom Cruise is one himself. The man STILL does his own stunts in his late 50s. Solely for his love of film. So he caught my attention with his message about this sequel more than the many celebrities who have done this push to save the cinema going experience.
And message delivered. Holy fucking shit was this movie something special. A film that I am so glad to have paid to sit in a movie theater to go see. Let me get that statement perfectly clear before I go any further with this review. I went to see this in IMAX and the money was absolutely worth it. This has some of the most breathtaking visuals I've ever seen. Filmmaking and CGI has truly come a long way because I truly felt like I was in the air while watching some of these sequences. Kudos to Maverick director and frequent Tom Cruise collaborater Joseph Kosinski.. Damn great directing.
Hell even the story is an improvement on the original. I mean if you want to get overly critical here, yeah the framing and certain sequences you can point out as carbon copies of the original. From the exact same opening sequence and fairly close closing sequence to the bar scene where Maverick and his love interest "Penny" reunite for the first time in years to the new characters being damn near carbon copies of the original characters. To me though, I am forgiving of this because they were tributes to the original. Otherwise, people would be forgetting this is a TOP GUN sequel and not just a Mission Impossible sequel or another Tom Cruise action movie. Quote me on that because there were younger people in the audience not understanding the Top Gun homages and I bet you my theater wasn't the only one who had that.
What I loved about this story was that Tom Cruise's Maverick is a far more complex character than I expected. In the original Top Gun, Maverick was not an interesting character until the third act. Otherwise, he was a cocky shit throughout two thirds of the movie. In the sequel, Maverick is still cocky because let's be honest, it is who he is. But he still hasn't let go of the consequences of his actions for the death of Goose from the original and he made choices over the 35 years since the original that he is paying the repercussions for amongst other characters like Goose's son Rooster (also played greatly by Miles Teller). Also we get to see Maverick train a new generation of navy pilots, with one of them being a carbon copy of himself mixed his rival from the original Iceman, played by Glen Powell. It just adds more dimensions to Maverick's character and that is what we want to see from sequels and continuations. Reasons to continue to be invested in these characters after so many years away. Plus the mission is a hell of a lot better than the original. The climax had me on the edge of my seat for 30-45 minutes compared to the original which was good, but not great.
And then there is the love story. Look I'm not saying that the original love story was bad by any means. But Maverick playing hot for teacher throughout the original was kind of...uninteresting? Yeah Charlie (played by Kelly McGillis) and Maverick did have chemistry, but the movie didn't really do much for me to root for them to end up together. But like I mentioned before, this movie did a better job exploring Maverick as a character, so seeing him reconnect with a long lost flame in Penny was much better because she turned down his advances and noticed that this character was fighting trauma that he has not learned to let go. Much more fascinating.
One more thing. This soundtrack still slaps after all these years. It had the right amounts of nostalgia with the Top Gun theme and "Danger Zone", while also throwing in some nice newer 80s style callbacks like Lady Gaga's "Hold My Hand".
So is this one of the best sequels ever made? I think this has a case to be on the list. I wouldn't call it my favorite sequel ever by any means....guys, The Empire Strikes Back exists. But I think this is definitely Top 15 or 20 in my humble opinion. And that is not an overreaction. I've been longing for a movie to truly remind me in these still troubled times to make me fall back in love with the movie going experience. And while I enjoyed the likes of The Batman and Spider-Man: No Way Home an awful lot...Top Gun: Maverick is better than both. Absolutely capitalizing on perfect amounts of nostalgia and how far technology has come. This is truly showing how to absolutely improve on the original in every possible fashion.
Final Grade: A+
No comments:
Post a Comment