Trending
Let's face it: For all its fame and fortune, the original "Top Gun" is no masterpiece.
Yes, that 1986 smash had solid action, good performances, classic scenes and one of the best-chosen soundtracks ever. But the weak, cheesy writing and hot-dog antics have not aged well; and that sex scene -- ugh! It's practically unwatchable.
Happily, the sequel is about five times better. In fact, "Top Gun: Maverick" is a genuinely great film: acted to perfection, brilliantly choreographed, firmly grounded in earned emotion and mature reflection.
This one is for grown-ups.
The movie-miracle-machine known as Tom Cruise returns as flying ace Pete Mitchell, here tapped to train younger pilots for a mission to take out a nascent uranium-enrichment site.
Drama stems partly from the insane aerial acrobatics, but more from the rivalry among young flyers -- including one "Hangman," who is, if possible, even more conceited than Mitchell was 36 years ago. Oh yeah -- and then there's the matter of pilot "Rooster" Bradshaw, son of the first film's beloved "Goose," who died in a crash for which Mitchell still feels responsible.
"Maverick" is an almost perfect blend of old and new, paying nostalgic tribute to its beloved predecessor: a love interest; a sunny, sweaty sports match; Mitchell racing his motorcycle in flight jacket and shades; cool sepia credits against Kenny Loggins; and even an appearance by "Top Gun" co-star Val Kilmer, whose real-life bout with throat cancer made this scene both a challenge to film and a powerhouse to watch. The final line in the Maverick-Iceman reunion is a fine example of how much smarter this new script is.
Cruise is extraordinary. And it's not just the actor's well-known penchant for doing his own stunts -- which led, among other things, to the unilateral use of real flying footage with actual actors in the cockpit (rather than computer images or special effects). No -- Cruise's best work is in the long silent shots, the close-ups, the regret, the maturity of a top-notch actor reprising a role after nearly four decades of steady growth.
The only things notably missing are original stars Meg Ryan and Kelly McGillis; the former's absence is explained, but the latter's is not -- and frankly, they could have managed a cameo with less effort than they spent on Kilmer. I also don't know why this new film couldn't give us at least a piece of Berlin's Oscar-winning "Take My Breath Away" -- though that may have been a decision by Lady Gaga, who oversaw the soundtrack and apparently thought something new of her own would be better.
It isn't.
"Maverick's" other drawback is its final scenes after the crash, which stretch believability beyond the breaking point; but then, the first film's finale did that too.
With its beautifully filmed and edited action, "Maverick" is a movie to be seen on the big screen; and indeed its early numbers suggest this title may almost single-handedly reverse the trend away from theatrical attendance.
Hollywood may already be thinking of another sequel or a franchise, but I can't see the sense in that.
It'll be tough to top this "Gun."