Support CaB

Subscribers don't see this.

Recent

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

June 30, 2022, 04:42:03 PM

Login with username, password and session length

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

Top Gun Maverick

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

Previous topic - Next topic

beanheadmcginty

Just got back from seeing this. It doesn't quite deserve the extraordinary level of adoration from the critics it has received so far, but I think a lot of the love comes from it having pretty much no CGI or quippy, knowing dialogue.
Recreates far too many scenes from the original film and is a real no-no for anyone who gets upset by the fetishisation of US military equipment.
HOWEVER, the flight sequences are incredible and quite frankly if you don't emerge from that cinema punching the air, high fiving everyone and calling for the US to blow up shit in unnamed foreign countries then you have no soul. Great use of classic rock in the soundtrack too.
Also, don't worry as Cruise gets to do some of his classic running in this one.

Magnum Valentino

Went to see something in the IMAX recently and they showed a trailer for this and I thought "that looks really good", then straight after showed a full scene from the film and I thought "never in a million years".

Never seen the original so I'm the wrong audience which is fair.

crankshaft

No-one seems to want to answer the big question, which is "how much volleyball is there in this film?"

Elderly Sumo Prophecy

and are they well oiled?

beanheadmcginty

They've cleverly replaced the beach volleyball with beach American football, and one of them is a woman, so it's a completely different scene. Plenty of oil though.

13 schoolyards

I 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

phantom_power

Is it worth watching for someone who doesn't like the original?

Bad Ambassador

I was amused that the synopsis on Wikipedia doesn't mention Jennifer Connelly's character at all, demonstrating that she's only there so Maverick has a love interest.

PlanktonSideburns

Is it as gay as the first one?

Feel like RRR is going to be my unofficial top gun sequel

Shaky

The wiki synopsis alone had me bursting out laughing - Rear Admiral Chester "Hammer" Cain and Rear Admiral Solomon "Warlock" Bates, indeed.

checkoutgirl

Are 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.

buzby

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).
Yes, they are still using jets in Ukraine. Ukraine are using Su-25 and Su-27 fighter-bombers for ground attack and Mig-29 fighters for interception. Russia are using Su-25 and Su-34 fighter-bombers for ground attack and Su-30 and Su-35 fighters for interception and bomber escort.
QuoteHas there ever been jet to jet engagement in a real conflict? I'm guessing the last dogfights were in world war 2 or something?
Fighter-to-fighter combat never stopped being a thing - Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, India/Pakisan, Falklands, Vietnam, Israel/Syria/Egypt etc. all had dogfight 'kills'.
QuoteI'm not suggesting Tom Cruise is in the business of realistic drama.
Tom Cruise is 60. If he was in the US Navy in real life the only thing he would be flying now is a desk. Even if he had left and joined an airline he would probably be retired by now.

Also the F/A-18E/F Super Hornets used in the film are not really fighters (the 'F/A' means Fighter/Attack, i.e. they are fighter-bombers). The US Navy's last dedicated fighter type was the F-14D Tomcat (as featured in the original film), which ware retired in 2006 without replacement. They were supposed to be replaced by the NATF, a naval equivalent of the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, but to save money the NATF was cancelled in 1992 and the existing F/A-18 fighter-bomber was upgraded to the 'Super Hornet'. It is a jack of all trades (it replaced all the previous fighter and fighter-bomber aircraft the US Navy operated from carriers) but master of none, so no match for modern dedicated fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 or Su-30/Su-35 when it comes to dogfighting.

Bad Ambassador

I also think that shoehorning in the incredible ill and frail Val Kilmer and making his condition a plot point is in quite poor taste.

beanheadmcginty

Quote from: Bad Ambassador on May 26, 2022, 11:09:20 AMI also think that shoehorning in the incredible ill and frail Val Kilmer and making his condition a plot point is in quite poor taste.

Especially as the amount of work Kilmer has had done on his face makes his scenes unintentionally comical.

Shaky

To be fair, Kilmer basically begged to be in the film and he's too far gone to play anything other than "a bit peaky." It is a bit rum
Spoiler alert
giving Iceman cancer and actually killing him off, though
[close]
.

EOLAN

Cruise may be 60 but could easily play 35.

In American Made, my gut feel watching it was he was too young (and handsome) to play the real life character he was portraying. Then thought for a second and realised he was about 15 years older than the age of the guy


Spoiler alert
when he died
[close]

buzby

Quote from: EOLAN on May 27, 2022, 11:48:43 AMCruise may be 60 but could easily play 35.
HGH and fillers can do wonders.


evilcommiedictator

Oh wow actual planes and little CGI? I was far too pessimistic.
However if you're the type of people who goes in enthusiastically to see this, get the fuck off my planet, you're wasting oxygen

The Bumlord

Quote from: evilcommiedictator on May 28, 2022, 01:23:25 AMOh wow actual planes and little CGI? I was far too pessimistic.
However if you're the type of people who goes in enthusiastically to see this, get the fuck off my planet, you're wasting oxygen

What if you're the sort of person who goes in unenthusiastically, then realises it's a great film and lots of fun?

Replies From View

Quote from: The Bumlord on May 28, 2022, 03:46:39 AMWhat if you're the sort of person who goes in unenthusiastically, then realises it's a great film and lots of fun?

This will never happen in a million years

Replies From View


The Bumlord

Neither have I, just being annoying 😎

Shaky

What if you're the sort of person who goes in unenthusiastically, starts to feel it might be OK then leaves the cinema immediately?

Replies From View

Quote from: Shaky on May 28, 2022, 07:47:04 AMWhat if you're the sort of person who goes in unenthusiastically, starts to feel it might be OK then leaves the cinema immediately?

As long as they come back for all the advert breaks it should be ok

Goldentony

everyone fucking calm down about top gun two

Saw it today with low expectations and really enjoyed it.
Liked the introduction of Jennifer Connolly with Bowie playing on the juke box. Also how much 'Hangman' looked like Limmy.

madhair60

Quote from: evilcommiedictator on May 28, 2022, 01:23:25 AMHowever if you're the type of people who goes in enthusiastically to see this, get the fuck off my planet, you're wasting oxygen

Fuck you, I'm going to waste even more oxygen now on purpose; I fancy my odds

ZoyzaSorris

#27
This was the most outrageous ridiculous tripe imaginable, a mad requiem against everything I hold dear and true, fevered and outlandish nostalgia-witterings of a dying empire sketched out in crayon with all the pragmatic military verisimillitude of Comical Ali.

I absolutely LOVED it.

For what it was – which was absolute unbelieveable hogwash, I should be at pains to hammer home at least once more  - it was amazingly well-done.

Just so simple and taut and straightforward and efficient and executed with effortless precision (unlike the F-35 Lightning II programme, eh readers?) Absolute park-your-brain popcorn entertainment at its best. All the plane-y stuff looked incredible and was genuinely thrilling
Spoiler alert
(plus old Cruise missile himself on foot vs Mi-24 Hind was pretty cool - the whole escape segment was quality levels of audacious mentalism)
[close]
, plus never really felt obviously CGI-ish at any point which is really important in this sort of film, I think. Proper mil-grade solidity rather than half-real Marvel cartoonishness (which I like for some things but not this). And as for the  human interest stuff they kept that mercifully short and to the point, no more personal interaction and character development than strictly necessary to make this an actual film rather than just jet porn. Also - cheesy 80s music crowbarred in purely for absolutely shameless nostalgia purposes, including *Highway to the Dangerzone*? Absolutely, spot-on, and damn right.

Whilst on the face of it completely contrived and gobsmackingly unrealistic, I actually really liked the fact that the US were portrayed as the technological underdogs
Spoiler alert
in old 80s rust-buckets having to rely on pure human ingenuity vs inexplicably ridge mounted super-SAMs and 5th-gen fighters looking remarkably similar to Russia's newish Su-57 (of which they have only built 16 I think.)
I also appreciated that the enemy was an anonymous state rather than it attempting any geopolitical realism that could make my sympathies to a multipolar world interfere with my fist-pumping.
[close]
Overall it had the general mildly endearing air of a US trying to find its way in a complex and confusing new world where its slide from unipolar dominance is inevitable. But all tempered with relentlessly unsafe motorbike protocols, yachts so gleaming you could eat your dinner off them, a P-51 Mustang, plus of course a seemingly 21 year old Tom Cruise, all coming together to help us believe that calling time on the demented fantasy of the American dream might be a little premature just yet. 

At least 4, possibly the full 5 I'm going to give this (as a cinematic experience, probably not a home watch). Disclaimer – I'm always on a couple of pints by half an hour in and lap up any old crap designed to heavily stimulate the lizard brain (see my review of Dr Strange 2). Kid loved it too though, and he was sober as far as I know.   

beanheadmcginty

^^^ This guy gets it ^^^

ZoyzaSorris

Quote from: phantom_power on May 26, 2022, 07:11:04 AMIs it worth watching for someone who doesn't like the original?

The original has a lot of kitsch power-hom charm that has only been made more piquant by nostalgia but there is a lot of so-so melodrama hanging about amongst the fun sexy machine action. This is genuinely a much better film all round in an objective sense. It is a really well put together action flick. Perhaps one of the all-time greats.