Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 12:56:40 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Top Gun Maverick

Started by beanheadmcginty, May 25, 2022, 11:11:15 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

ZoyzaSorris

Quote from: checkoutgirl on May 26, 2022, 10:05:06 AMAre fighter jets still relevant in warfare? Are they using them in Ukraine? My theory is jets are are so destructive they're only used in places you don't want to annex or places you want to rebuild using contractors from your own country (let's face it, America).

Has there ever been jet to jet engagement in a real conflict? I'm guessing the last dogfights were in world war 2 or something?

I'm not suggesting Tom Cruise is in the business of realistic drama.


Essentially, not really that relevant, and almost all engagements that would hypothetically happen these days would be boring affairs that take place beyond visual range with long-range missiles. The US has long been air power focused - partly because it is very expensive and keeps the defence contractors happy and partly because the global nature of their 'empire' means that mobility is important whereas Russia (and the Soviet Union before it) was/is much more orientated towards using large quantities of land and sea-based missiles (both surface-to-surface to strike enemy targets and surface-to-air to destroy enemy aircraft) - perhaps reflective both of the doctrinal importance of getting more bang for buck and also the continental landmass sphere of influence lending itself more to this approach. The Soviets / Russia did/do of course have a decent air force but nowhere near as big and powerful or central to overall strategy as the US. In terms of gun to gun dogfights (or even short range AAM ones) there were plenty in the Korean War and Vietnam War, but more recently you are 99% more likely to get shot down by a long range missile from 50 miles away or even more likely, a SAM (the Ghost of Kiev was completely fictional before anyone brings up Ukraine). So no, it's not very realistic. Hence the very contrived scenario. But films aren't real and I know that and still enjoy them, especially when they are this well slotted together. 

bgmnts

Imagine Top Drone.

Two drone strike operators going through drone school, competing over how many insurgents and civilians striked impassively thousands of miles away.

Old Nehamkin

#32
I saw this at the bloody ol' Imax yesterday and had a very good time. It's a pretty slavish reiteration of the original film that doesn't quite manage to justify itself as a sequel, but it was fun to go on the ride again and, as derivative as this one is, it benefits from the fact that this particular type of earnest, romantic, big-scale blockbuster has become so rare in modern hollywood cinema. There are a few concessions to modernity here and obviously the tech and stunt work is all top of the line, but in its bones this really feels like a frozen-in-amber relic of an older hegemony of populist big-budget filmmaking, and it's kind of a refreshing novelty in that way.

I did find it funny how the film ends up stubbornly refusing to let the torch be passed on to the new generation and making clear that Maverick is still the only one good enough to successfully lead the mission and take heroic centre-stage for the whole final act. There is perhaps some sort of allegory you could draw about Cruise himself managing to maintain his top-level movie star crown into his 60s with the kind of enduring star power that no younger actor has really managed to match in this atomised, post-consensus era of ours.

13 schoolyards

Quote from: Old Nehamkin on June 04, 2022, 12:25:26 PMI did find it funny how the film ends up stubbornly refusing to let the torch be passed on to the new generation and making clear that Maverick is still the only one good enough to successfully lead the mission and take heroic centre-stage for the whole final act.

That was possibly my favourite part of the whole thing - usually these sequels devolve into the kind of pointless unwarranted torch-passing that's designed entirely to prolong the franchise (remember Shia leBoef in the last Indiana Jones movie?). Meanwhile in the real world the audience only gives a shit about the original actors - a film that blatantly says "hang on, these new guys suck, let's stick with a proven winner" is giving them (ok, me) exactly what they (me) want.

Old Nehamkin

#34
Quote from: 13 schoolyards on June 05, 2022, 07:51:29 AMThat was possibly my favourite part of the whole thing - usually these sequels devolve into the kind of pointless unwarranted torch-passing that's designed entirely to prolong the franchise (remember Shia leBoef in the last Indiana Jones movie?). Meanwhile in the real world the audience only gives a shit about the original actors - a film that blatantly says "hang on, these new guys suck, let's stick with a proven winner" is giving them (ok, me) exactly what they (me) want.

I did really like the guy who played the "dickhead who turns out to be alright" character and thought he deserved to do a bit more at the end, but yeah, I do basically agree. The film feels very much like a close-ended encore to the first one and there's something charming about how little interest it seems to have in laying the groundwork for a continuing franchise or a spin-off series on Apple TV+ or whatever.

Quote from: bgmnts on May 30, 2022, 10:30:12 PMImagine Top Drone.

Two drone strike operators going through drone school, competing over how many insurgents and civilians striked impassively thousands of miles away.

The topless homoerotic tension won't be quite the same if they only meet over Microsoft Teams.

bgmnts

Quote from: curiousoranges on June 05, 2022, 12:08:21 PMThe topless homoerotic tension won't be quite the same if they only meet over Microsoft Teams.

One of life's simple joys
Skyping with the boys

Quote from: 13 schoolyards on May 26, 2022, 06:05:09 AMI was surprised at how much I enjoyed this (as I didn't really expect to enjoy it much) - it does everything you expect it to, only slightly better than you expect it to. Apart from the flying sequences which are legitimately very impressive.

Bonus points for never actually naming the evil "enemy" who have somehow managed to get a hold of "5th generation" fighter jets which mean the US planes are totally outclassed. Strangely nobody puts up their hand and says "why don't we use cruise missiles instead", probably because they were worried someone would look to camera and say "we've got our own Cruise missile right here" while pointing at Maverick

Which they then also use on the airbase ...

Anyway, the only one of the new lot I had any time for was Bob, so looking forwards to the spin off sequel where he sits in a bar, enjoys his own company and sips on a nice cold beer.

ZoyzaSorris

Quote from: A Hat Like That on June 05, 2022, 03:06:12 PMWhich they then also use on the airbase ...

I think they covered that the target couldn't be hit by cruise missiles due to it being in a big hole / maybe some GPS jamming or something. I mean the whole thing was heavily contrived to prouce a very unrealistic mission undertakable only by very specific aging aircraft in a way that would be cinematic rather than a few distant bits of glowing stuff on a head-up display somewhere but you know, 'artistic' licence and that.

dissolute ocelot

You may as well ask why they didn't have guided missiles in Star Wars: A New Hope.

Can't remember if there was a reason in Independence Day for not missiling up the aliens at the end.

I would go see this in a cinema if I had any desire to venture in a cinema ever again.

Ant Farm Keyboard

Quote from: ZoyzaSorris on June 06, 2022, 09:22:00 AMI think they covered that the target couldn't be hit by cruise missiles due to it being in a big hole / maybe some GPS jamming or something. I mean the whole thing was heavily contrived to prouce a very unrealistic mission undertakable only by very specific aging aircraft in a way that would be cinematic rather than a few distant bits of glowing stuff on a head-up display somewhere but you know, 'artistic' licence and that.

It was simply "reverse engineered". First, they tried to put together the most spectacular and dangerous mission involving planes with a lot of manual control. Second, they made up contrived reasons as to why they wouldn't use hi-tech jets or missiles instead. It's similar to From Russia with Love. Common sense would have Bond and Tatiana taking a plane to leave Istanbul, and the filmmakers themselves acknowledged how implausible it is to take the train instead. Of course, it works in that film, while having in The Spy Who Loved Me a night train that goes from Cairo to Sardinia is definitely one step too far.

checkoutgirl

Quote from: Old Nehamkin on June 04, 2022, 12:25:26 PMI did find it funny how the film ends up stubbornly refusing to let the torch be passed on to the new generation and making clear that Maverick is still the only one good enough to successfully lead the mission and take heroic centre-stage for the whole final act.

That was peculiar because I thought the Kilmer scene was foreshadowing Maverick passing the baton and that being his arc, what the fuck was the point of that idea if it didn't resolve in him doing that? Then when he went on the mission I thought he'd die, giving his life and when he took that missile I felt it was confirmed. But no, Maverick goes on. Has Cruise ever died in a film?

It was fine but even by its own crazy logic there were a few bits missing. A scene or two showing the recruits actually succeeding at something during the training for example. They just fail continuously and then it's off to the real mission with no indication they were ready for any of it.

I enjoyed the sex noises Cruise made during the high gravity stuff, it really sold the physicality of flying under such stress, pressure and physical strain. Also the mach 10 attempt at the start was fun and nicely tense, exhilarating even.

The end was very cheesy with nobody dying, no real hassle and Tom Cruise literally flying off into the sunset with the girl. No prizes for originality there.

The action scenes made the film really. 7/10

QuoteHas Cruise ever died in a film?

One's I'm 100 % sure of ...

"It's beautiful, man, beautiful"

TAPS (1981) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppMQ2Jvekfg

Far and Away (1992) - he bangs his head on a rock, the camera swirls upwards as if he's going to heaven, then changes its mind.

Collateral (2004) - spoilers?

Valkyrie (2008) - err, spoilers?

I guess he plays a vampire in the 90s, so that probably counts.

popcorn

Quote from: checkoutgirl on June 06, 2022, 04:10:12 PMHas Cruise ever died in a film?

Edge of Tomorrow is the film for you

Ant Farm Keyboard

Weird fact: the film has two John Glens in it. Ed Harris plus Rooster's nemesis (in Hidden Figures). They could have hired Patrick J. Harris too.

dissolute ocelot

Quote from: Ant Farm Keyboard on June 06, 2022, 10:36:31 PMWeird fact: the film has two John Glens in it. Ed Harris plus Rooster's nemesis (in Hidden Figures). They could have hired Patrick J. Harris too.
And got John Glen who directed the 1980s Bonds to helm it.

I'm a big fan of the original and have been waiting for them to make this film for years so it was never going to live up to expectations I guess, but I genuinely thought it was a bit crap.  It could of been so much better if (spoilers) they had the balls to kill off Maverick. 

The first one was unintentionally funny because of how camp it was.  This one at certain points seemed to via into comedy territory, in a very clumsy way.  The love interest was tacked on and Ed Harris was very much under-utilised.


Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

I know the broad strokes and iconic moments, but I've never seen the original in its entirety. Despite that, I quite enjoyed this. That said, while the flying was obviously impressive, I didn't actually find it all that thrilling for the most part. The only time I was on the edge of my seat was when the training mission went awry.

We saw it in "Screen X", where the picture wraps around the walls. An interesting experience, but it meant that the main screen was pretty much filled with the pilots' faces during the cockpit bits, which took away a lot of the sense of motion.

My friend and I couldn't help but chuckle when the mission was revealed to be copied almost verbatim from Star Wars.

It seems like they could have rolled Harris and Hamm's roles into one. The film didn't really need two hardass superiors to tell us that Maverick is a loose cannon, but he gets results. Also, while Hamm was fine, Harris seems like a more natural fit for bossing Cruise around.

That last minute swerve into Mission Impossible territory was rather unexpected. I wonder if the plan was indeed for Maverick to cark it, but someone balked and demanded it be changed. Or maybe Cruise demanded to do some running.

Old Nehamkin

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on June 12, 2022, 12:01:38 AMMy friend and I couldn't help but chuckle when the mission was revealed to be copied almost verbatim from Star Wars.

The Star Wars trench run sequence was itself heavily cribbed from The Dam Busters, to be fair.

iamcoop

My partner pointed out that Rooster would have to be at least 35 for this to work chronologically.

Do we just ignore that or is this one supposed to be set in 2010 or something?

Anyway this was bobbins in a good way.

The two hours really flew by(!)

Famous Mortimer

Quote from: iamcoop on June 13, 2022, 11:17:33 PMMy partner pointed out that Rooster would have to be at least 35 for this to work chronologically.

Do we just ignore that or is this one supposed to be set in 2010 or something?
Similar to that, none of these people appear to have achieved anything in the last 35 years, judging by the photographs. Did they ever explicitly state it's been X years, though?

I enjoyed it a lot, but not as much as I expected, given how much I liked the first film and how well-regarded this one has been. It's nice that they hired someone reasonably age-appropriate for Cruise to have a relationship with, too.

I just kept getting distracted by nit-picks, though. Like, how did no-one recognise Cruise in the first scene in the bar, when there's a gigantic photograph of him in the foyer of the Navy base? Or even just because he's one of three people with a confirmed dogfight kill? Why did Rooster have the same facial hair and clothing style as his long-dead father?

The beach football scene was peculiar, too. They carefully didn't pan down below Cruise's pecs, and while there was plenty of oil and exposed flesh, it wasn't remotely as fun as the volleyball scene from the first one, which wanted us to admire these bronzed gods. Every actor looks like this these days, though, so it just doesn't have the same impact.

I don't know. The action was excellent, and I also completely agree with

QuoteI did find it funny how the film ends up stubbornly refusing to let the torch be passed on to the new generation and making clear that Maverick is still the only one good enough to successfully lead the mission and take heroic centre-stage for the whole final act.


Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on June 20, 2022, 03:34:23 PMWhy did Rooster have the same facial hair and clothing style as his long-dead father?
I was wondering that too. Family heirlooms?

thugler

Saw this, it was ok. Had no idea they were actually flying the planes, and that is impressive I suppose. Plot was very very stupid.


Blinder Data

This was loads of fun. I watched the original for the first time last Wednesday and, while this sequel does not have the same level of campy fun, the scenes in between the action were much better. The sex scene and dialogue in the original are really ropey. The flying scenes in this one were, unsurprisingly, much more impressive.

Tommy Cruise is great, isn't he? A weird human undoubtedly but he deserves credit for doing his bit to save Hollywood and cinemas with his massive films full of death-defying stunts.

Dr Rock

QuoteHas Cruise ever died in a film?

Answered.

Has Tom Cruise ever taken illegal drugs in a film?

phantom_power

Equal parts dog fight and dog shit. Anything other than the flying scenes was painfully trite and repetitive from the original film (which I hate). Making Goose's son have a tache, wear Hawaiian shirts and play Great Balls of Fire on the piano was a bit much. It was all just hand-holding a manbaby through not being able to have an honest conversation with his best friend's son.

And it was odd seeing Manny Jacinto appear briefly in the background every now and again. I expected his character to play more of a part

atavist

I only saw the first Top Gun film this year - I had no interest in it at the time, as it looked like some flying bits, a stupid boring romance, and a frat-boy type of film, plus there didn't seem to be any real jeopardy.

And when I finally watched it, that's exactly what it was!

But my son loved Maverick in the cinema, and demanded that we rent it at home, so I watched it with him and while it has lots of the same story beats, it's all just *miles* better and the flying bits are awesome.

So well done Tom Cruise, I suppose.