Top Gun: Maverick (2022) (1 Viewer)

[Adam Gregorich]

I had to chuckle, though, at the obvious similarities to A New Hope. There was a trench run to fire a missile into a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port (okay, not really, but close). They even had Rooster "turn off" his targeting computer!

I thought the same thing!

 

[Jake Lipson]

Like some of the younger cast member in this movie, I wasn't born yet when the original Top Gun came out. I caught up with it on DVD. My parents aren't movie collectors like I am, but for some reason I remember it being one of the first discs we got when we got a DVD player. It might have even come with the player. I really liked it but have never had the pleasure of seeing it in a movie theater. Because of that, I don't think you need to see it in a theater to enjoy it. But I do think that seeing this one in the theater absolutely enhanced my experience with it.

The filmmaking here is top notch and the flying sequences are incredible to watch. I don't want to diminish that stuff at all because I was in awe of some of the footage they were able to get. But I had expected the flying sequences to be great. I was equally impressed that they actually found a story worth telling that justified bringing Maverick back. It would have probably been easy to pump out a generic sequel a long time ago and I'm glad they didn't do that here.

Seeing Maverick at a different stage of his life coming up against a new challenge and a changing world seemed more interesting than a less belated sequel that just sent him on another mission might have been. Having him train Goose's son was sort of obvious, but that relationship was really well written, and Cruise and Teller really sell the intensity of it. I think the whole cast was great, but Teller was the standout of the new group of pilots. I've been a fan of him for a while and was really glad when he was announced for this role, and he didn't disappoint. Of course, he also had the most to do out of those characters.

It was also great to see Val Kilmer as Iceman again. His appearance obviously had to take something from Kilmer's real life experiences, but it worked really well for this story.

I should say that Jennifer Connelly's character seemed particularly underdeveloped. Because Penny was mentioned twice in the original film, I sort of expected her inclusion here to matter more to the plot. It turns out she is essentially just there to be the love interest and hasn't got much of anything to do with the main story. This isn't meant as a slight to Connelly, who is really talented and does a good job here. It's more about the material that has been written for her. It is a credit to her and to her chemistry with Cruise that she made as much of the role as she did without having more to do.

 

[Wayne_j]

This movie received a rare A+ score on cinemascore.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

It’s better than the first movie!

Agreed! It was as good or better at the things that movie did well, while doing a much better job at the things that movie did poorly. Maverick is a better protagonist this time around, too.

Yes, there were plot holes, you could fly a F18 through, but it had the perfect amount of well-done throw backs to fans of the original, and it gets a lot of its heart from those scenes.

I watched the first movie again last night on Netflix, and there are a ton of throwbacks, down even to shot composition at times. But it never felt like the nostalgia or fan service overwhelmed the movie..

A lot of movies are said to have "third act problems". Not this movie. Maverick has one of the best third acts in recent memory (especially amongst action movies).

Definitely. And while it adheres to the modern blockbuster formula of the climax being one long massive action sequence, at least in this movie the whole story was building up to it. It also nicely brings the interpersonal conflict between Maverick and Goose's son to a head right as the action comes to a head.

I had to chuckle, though, at the obvious similarities to A New Hope. There was a trench run to fire a missile into a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port (okay, not really, but close). They even had Rooster "turn off" his targeting computer!

The parallels delighted me. What was once science fiction is now (kinda sorta, if you ignore certain rules of physics) science fact!

This is an excellent sequel that I didn't know I wanted.

Same.

It was also great to see Val Kilmer as Iceman again. His appearance obviously had to take something from Kilmer's real life experiences, but it worked really well for this story.

Yes. Apparently Kilmer worked with a UK-based technology company to create a digital voice synthesizer of his old, pre-cancer voice:


For his several lines of dialog in this movie, the synthesized voice delivered the dialog and he lip synced his lines to the recording.

I should say that Jennifer Connelly's character seemed particularly underdeveloped. Because Penny was mentioned twice in the original film, I sort of expected her inclusion here to matter more to the plot. It turns out she is essentially just there to be the love interest and hasn't got much of anything to do with the main story. This isn't meant as a slight to Connelly, who is really talented and does a good job here. It's more about the material that has been written for her. It is a credit to her and to her chemistry with Cruise that she made as much of the role as she did without having more to do.

I was figuring that it was going to be revealed that her daughter was actually Maverick's daughter, from one of their flings. I'm glad they didn't go down that route, given how little screen time that relationship got.

It sure seemed like the part was written for Kelly McGillis's Charlie, and then just shifted to Penny late in the game when they decided to go with Jennifer Connelly as his love interest. I'm thinking because Kelly McGillis is 64, and looks 64, while Tom Cruise is 59 and looks younger than that. Jennifer Connelly was only 16 when the original movie came out, which is younger than Penny seemed to be at the time. But now, in her early fifties, she's more age appropriate than most of Cruise's recent love interests.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It sure seemed like the part was written for Kelly McGillis's Charlie, and then just shifted to Penny late in the game when they decided to go with Jennifer Connelly as his love interest.

I can totally understand why you would think that. But according to Joseph Kosinski, they never considered bringing back Charlie's character.

'Top Gun: Maverick' director says the major female stars from the first movie were never considered for the sequel

Director Joseph Kosinski told Insider that Kelly McGillis and Meg Ryan aren't in the sequel because he didn't want to "always be looking backwards."

www.insider.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

I recently bought the soundtrack for Maverick. It is a very different type of album than the classic soundtrack for the original film. I thought I'd post here just in case anyone else is thinking of buying it.

The soundtrack for the original film has two tracks of Harold Faltermeyer's score alongside a bunch of the film's signature pop music. The soundtrack Maverick is the opposite, putting a much greater emphasis on the instrumental score. This time, the score is credited to Harold Faltermeyer, Lady Gaga and Hans Zimmer. Eight of the 12 tracks on the album are instrumental underscore. I like the movie and I wouldn't change it. I do think the score is good. But I have to admit that I was surprised that there wasn't more pop music used because the pop music in the original film is such a huge part of it.

"Danger Zone" appears on the album again and is the exact same track from the 1986 soundtrack repurposed. "Great Balls of Fire" is here again, too, but this is a new recording used in this film. The two new pop songs are "I Ain't Worried" by One Republic and "Hold My Hand" by Lady Gaga.

The score tracks and the pop songs are interspersed on the album. I'm not sure as I've only seen the movie once at this point, but I think they appear chronologically in sequence as they are heard in the film. "Hold My Hand" is a pretty smooth transition from the score track preceding it because they actually included its melody in places in the score, which I assume is why Lady Gaga is credited with contributing to the score. "I Ain't Worried" is a pretty jarring transition when you're listening to it surrounded on either side by instrumental score though.

Altogether, the new album is about 42 minutes in length. This compares to about 57 minutes for my copy of the original Top Gun soundtrack.

I would recommend the soundtrack and I am glad I got it, but potential buyers should be aware of the shift in focus to a predominantly instrumental album. I buy instrumental scores with some frequency anyway, so this is fine with me. But people expecting a parade of pop music like the original film soundtrack won't really get that.

I think the standout vocal track here is "Hold My Hand." Of course, "Danger Zone" remains great. But Top Gun soundtrack fans already have that on the previous CD. So "Hold My Hand" is the biggest new attraction. "I Ain't Worried" is fine, but it isn't as good as "Playing With the Boys" was in the same slot for the original film. The new version of "Great Balls of Fire" is good but less than two minutes.

So, that's what you get if you want to buy the new album.

Anybody who wants to pick up a physical copy should know that there are two different covers available. The standard version looks like this. As of right now, Amazon has it for $13.98, which appears to be its retail price.


The other one is a Target exclusive artwork variant. As of right now, Target is selling this for $11.99, which is actually cheaper than Amazon for the regular edition. Occasionally, Target has put out exclusive editions with extra tracks, but not in this case. I have the Target edition and I can confirm that its track list is identical to what is listed as being on the regular version.

The sticker on the Target version advertises an exclusive poster and alternate artwork. This is true, but you'd have to choose to display one or the other. The poster is printed on the back of the included booklet, so if you actually hang the poster, you wouldn't also have the booklet to keep in the jewel case. The Target cover artwork looks like the second photo. The poster on the back of it has Tom Cruise in the same pose as the standard cover art (the first photo) without text or the title. I chose to get the Target version both because it was cheaper and because I like that cover art better. I am not going to hang the poster and will keep the booklet with the CD case.

 

[Tino]

sigh... ... ...
another skip for me who cant tolerate inconsistent picture height in home presentation...

What does this have to do with the theatrical presentation tho?

 

[Tino]

Saw it in IMAX today and thought it was very entertaining. On the same level as the first imo.

 

[Clark Green]

I recently bought the soundtrack for Maverick. It is a very different type of album than the classic soundtrack for the original film. I thought I'd post here just in case anyone else is thinking of buying it.

The soundtrack for the original film has two tracks of Harold Faltermeyer's score alongside a bunch of the film's signature pop music. The soundtrack Maverick is the opposite, putting a much greater emphasis on the instrumental score. This time, the score is credited to Harold Faltermeyer, Lady Gaga and Hans Zimmer. Eight of the 12 tracks on the album are instrumental underscore. I like the movie and I wouldn't change it. I do think the score is good. But I have to admit that I was surprised that there wasn't more pop music used because the pop music in the original film is such a huge part of it.

"Danger Zone" appears on the album again and is the exact same track from the 1986 soundtrack repurposed. "Great Balls of Fire" is here again, too, but this is a new recording used in this film. The two new pop songs are "I Ain't Worried" by One Republic and "Hold My Hand" by Lady Gaga.

The score tracks and the pop songs are interspersed on the album. I'm not sure as I've only seen the movie once at this point, but I think they appear chronologically in sequence as they are heard in the film. "Hold My Hand" is a pretty smooth transition from the score track preceding it because they actually included its melody in places in the score, which I assume is why Lady Gaga is credited with contributing to the score. "I Ain't Worried" is a pretty jarring transition when you're listening to it surrounded on either side by instrumental score though.

Altogether, the new album is about 42 minutes in length. This compares to about 57 minutes for my copy of the original Top Gun soundtrack.

I would recommend the soundtrack and I am glad I got it, but potential buyers should be aware of the shift in focus to a predominantly instrumental album. I buy instrumental scores with some frequency anyway, so this is fine with me. But people expecting a parade of pop music like the original film soundtrack won't really get that.

I think the standout vocal track here is "Hold My Hand." Of course, "Danger Zone" remains great. But Top Gun soundtrack fans already have that on the previous CD. So "Hold My Hand" is the biggest new attraction. "I Ain't Worried" is fine, but it isn't as good as "Playing With the Boys" was in the same slot for the original film. The new version of "Great Balls of Fire" is good but less than two minutes.

So, that's what you get if you want to buy the new album.

Anybody who wants to pick up a physical copy should know that there are two different covers available.. The standard version looks like this. As of right now, Amazon has it for $13.98, which appears to be its retail price.

View attachment 140340
The other one is a Target exclusive artwork variant. As of right now, Target is selling this for $11.99, which is actually cheaper than Amazon for the regular edition. Occasionally, Target has put out exclusive editions with extra tracks, but not in this case. I have the Target edition and I can confirm that its track list is identical to what is listed as being on the regular version.
View attachment 140341
The sticker on the Target version advertises an exclusive poster and alternate artwork. This is true, but you'd have to choose to display one or the other. The poster is printed on the back of the included booklet, so if you actually hang the poster, you wouldn't also have the booklet to keep in the jewel case. The Target cover artwork looks like the second photo. The poster on the back of it has Tom Cruise in the same pose as the standard cover art (the first photo) without text or the title. I chose to get the Target version both because it was cheaper and because I like that cover art better. I am not going to hang the poster and will keep the booklet with the CD case.

It's also available on Spotify for those who prefer streaming.

 

[Greg.K]

Caught a Regal RPX showing today. This was one I wanted to catch on the big screen for the aerial scenes and it was worth it.

It was good to see how they managed to get Val Kilmer back.

I had to chuckle, though, at the obvious similarities to A New Hope. There was a trench run to fire a missile into a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port (okay, not really, but close). They even had Rooster "turn off" his targeting computer!

When they were briefing the pilots on the mission with the computer simulation, at one point I whispered to my wife "Just like Beggar's Canyon back home".

 

[YANG]

What does this have to do with the theatrical presentation tho?

looking back on box office hits from previous releases like MI:6, Dunkirk as well as others, its highly possible that the most successful theatrical screen version to be ported to home video release in coming months.
in another point of view, the inconsistent ratio presentation theatrically doesn't stop me from going another round of flight. yeah! today I'm going for the Atmos experience! pity that the dbox seats are very limited in this small market...

 

[DP 70]

Great Film with an excellent Dolby Atmos sound mix.

 

[Alex...]

 

[Malcolm R]

These lawsuits that are filed years after the fact are completely ridiculous and should be dismissed immediately. This film has been in production for years. If there was an issue, the time to file a claim was immediately after the announcement that they were making the film (which was big news and widely known), not years later when the film is in theaters. Especially considering it was delayed a couple more years due to the pandemic.

This is like the suit against Mariah Carey for a song nearly 30 years old. The time to file that claim was in 1994-95. Filing these claims years (decades) after the fact is laughable.

 

[TJPC]

Just saw this in the screen x process. I wondered of it is always like this. The theatre did not install new screens to the left and right, they just used the walls. That meant that the images here were a bit fuzzy and had the fire alarm and exit signs etc. in the middle of the image.

Even if the images were sharp, I don't think the movie benefitted from this"poor man's" cinerama. We will not pay to experience this process again. This theatre also has D box, which is another silly novelty we only experienced once.

Do directors have any imput in these things?

 

[Alex...]

 

[Tom-G]

I saw Top Gun: Maverick last night in IMAX. I thought this was great!

A lot of movies are said to have "third act problems". Not this movie. Maverick has one of the best third acts in recent memory (especially amongst action movies).

I had to chuckle, though, at the obvious similarities to A New Hope. There was a trench run to fire a missile into a small thermal exhaust port right below the main port (okay, not really, but close). They even had Rooster "turn off" his targeting computer!

But I really liked it all.

We also got the return of the "super pumped to be there guy" in the opening sequence's deck crew.

This is an excellent sequel that I didn't know I wanted.

Edited to add my score: 9/10.

Exactly how I felt! I wasn't fortunate enough to see it in IMAX, though. From the moment it was mentioned what the mission entailed, I couldn't help but think of "It's not impossible. I used to bullseye womprats..."


What fun, thrilling and highly satisfying movie. Some contrivances, sure, but they can be forgiven in a movie this good.

 

[Wayne_j]

Just saw this in the screen x process. I wondered of it is always like this. The theatre did not install new screens to the left and right, they just used the walls. That meant that the images here were a bit fuzzy and had the fire alarm and exit signs etc. in the middle of the image.

Even if the images were sharp, I don't think the movie benefitted from this"poor man's" cinerama. We will not pay to experience this process again. This theatre also has D box, which is another silly novelty we only experienced once.

Do directors have any imput in these things?

My local theater recently added a screen x auditorium. I've never seen a movie in screen x however so I have no idea how it typically works.

 

[John_Bilbrey]

We saw it over the weekend, thought it was great.

 

[RobertMG]

We saw it over the weekend, thought it was great.

Cruise control! What a track record he has!