Top Gun: Maverick Movie Review - Achieving “The Need for Speed” and Much More
For decades, we’ve all had our long continuous line of box-office home-runs, potential and inevitable award-winning pieces, and of course, the unapologetic cancerous cysts of Hollywood’s butt-cheek. But one’s that you don’t hear often about are what many would call “cult classics”, and no, I’m not referring to undeserving cud that people pretend to state are cult classics like “Morbius”. I refer to stuff like, “Miami Connection,” “The Big Lebowski”, features that were either failures at release, or didn’t receive enough attention from mainstream audiences and throughout time have gained a devoted fan base due its astounding yet forgotten quality, nostalgia, or being just a film so bad, it must be seen to be believed. Tony Scott’s 1986 feature "Top Gun” is among that list of ironically enjoyed cult classics. With quotable dialogue, cheesy, yet nostalgic moments to boot, a sizzling synthized score and one of the most popular movie soundtracks of all time containing tracks from the likes of Kenny Loggins, The Righteous Brothers, Berlin (having a track that won an Oscar for Best Original Song) and Cheap Trick, “Top Gun” was not only a box-office smash admired by audiences, but a movie that personified the culture and aesthetic zeitgeist of the 1980s.
After its success, there have been several people clamoring if whether or not, producers Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpson with go out to hatch another sequel and pick up whether it left our heroes, after defeating the Russians. Little did we know that since the 2010, there have been plans to bring Maverick back into the cockpit for another adventure. And, after a series of delays during the COVID crisis, the film has finally set foot into theaters at last and was it worth the wait? To quote M. Bison: “YES!”
“Top Gun: Maverick” is superior to its original predecessor in every single way fathomable. It surprises me to say this, but in my wildest dreams I have never expected a movie like this to be as exhilarating, blood-pumping and high-octane as this film. It’s by far and away the best action movie Tom Cruise has ever starred in that graced the silver screen since “Mission: Impossible - Fallout” and I mean in every discernible respect.
What we have for this near 40 year long sequel is quite simple. After working as a test pilot Pete Mitchell, or what we know him being “Maverick”, is being called back to “Top Gun” by his formal rival and now friend, Tom “Iceman” Kazansky (Val Kilmer). He is assigned by (Jon Hamm) to destroy an Uranium Enrichment Planet, which will become a massive threat to the US and its allies if it becomes operational. To accomplish this mission, Maverick must train 12 of some of the best fighter pilots within 3 weeks.
It’s not the biggest surprise on the planet that Tom Cruise himself has balls of titanium whenever he decides to take on stunts or handle action scenes practically, but boy howdy is he dedicated on given the audience an experience of a lifetime. Much like his prior action opus, “Mission: Impossible - Fallout”, everything is filmed and handled through real effects, [each of which are tense enough to make the audience sweat, and filmed through impeccable cinematography and sound design] and this time he takes on the chance of flying Super Hornet fighter jets. And by any chance, are they driven by professional fight pilots? No, all of the cast members are trained rigorously how to fly! And are taught by…guess who, TOM F-ING CRUISE. I mean, what other person in Hollywood can not only take on his own stunts, but even teach young actors with minimal experience to fly a plane? Not even Vin Diesel or Jason Statham can attempt something like this.
Aside from his stunt coordination, his reprisal as Pete Mitchell is worth commending 100%. Despite his acting style being virtually the same regardless of the character he plays, Cruise really brings it as Mitchell offering the same showboating braggadocio of his character, but when recognizing the gravity of the situation, he truly acts with the best of his abilities.
The Top Gun students being taught under Maverick’s wing (my apologies)…they do have standard Hollywood archetypes, and the film would’ve kept them they way as they are with little to no development or change to their character, but that’s not what Top Gun: Maverick does. As the film progresses, each of them grows from what they were originally and they all play a significant part of the story. Yes, each of them understands how dire the situation is, but their progression goes from “we totally got this we’re the top 1% and the best fighter pilots out there,” to “if we don’t accomplish, our allies and our country is screwed” works well in the script. But the acting is what really takes the generic cliches written in the script into genuinely likable characters that have a moment to shine.
The big standout in terms of not just performance, but character development is Miles Teller as Lt. Bradley Bradshaw, which is really good casting on the director’s part. The material provided by the script really works for him where he has a specific disdain of Maverick from the first movie, and where the two have their confrontations with one another, their drama makes up for incredible character arcs.
It was also quite shocking to see Val Kilmer reprise his role for Iceman. Of course, he played a prominent factor for Maverick in the first movie, but especially in this movie, it was curious as to what the writers would have him do and say, given how he has struggled with throat cancer for quite a while which makes it very challenging for him to even talk; even through research, scientists have helped by using an A.I. to create a replica of his voice to read his lines. I’m telling you, by the time Maverick and Iceman exchange with each other, it makes up for not only the most wholesome segments of the movie, but even the saddest parts of the film. What it is, I can’t give away. You have to see it for yourself.
There is a new character that comes into the picture, and it’s the character played by Jennifer Connelly, who is the new love interest for Maverick. While Conolly’s jovial character certainly lightens the room, I’d have to say that her romance with Maverick is perhaps the weakest element of this movie. I can understand why Kelly McGillis didn’t appear to reprise her role, mainly because she in real-life isn’t how she was since the original, and that the production crew would have to find a solid replacement, but I wished that maybe they worked on it for just a little bit more than the script was intending. It isn’t necessarily something that ruins the movie’s quality by a grand margin, but when compared to everything else that transpires in the movie such as scenes that pertain to the original, Maverick teaching the young pilots, his conflicts with Goose’s son, and other superior subplots, it is undoubtedly the part that is overshadowed the most.
I wasn’t expecting “Top Gun: Maverick” to be this good, I feel like if a sequel was made earlier in the 1990s, I don’t believe that it wouldn’t been received as well as the original, and it would’ve been perceived as a cash grab justifiably. But it’s a film that is never overbearing on cheap nostalgia (and when it does, its very much earned) and takes itself legitimately seriously as sequel worth waiting for. This is the kind of modern era blockbusters we need this time around, because in a decade so far with Marvel is taking a turn for the worst and Disney losing its way and becoming out of touch with their main audience, movies like “The Batman” and this come in to save the day! I understand that my review was very short, but I had to keep it condense, because you have to witness the ferocious badassery that lies in one of the best sequels of the decade so far. GO. SEE. THIS. MOVIE!
RATING: 4.5/5
