Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Danger Zone’

It’s Not The Plane, It’s The Pilot

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 22, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Top Gun:  Maverick” (2022) – movie review
Today’s review is for the high-octane legacy sequel “Top Gun:  Maverick” (2022), starring Tom Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (the aged but still rebellious naval aviator who’s spent decades dodging promotion and command authority), Miles Teller as Lt. Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (the son of Maverick’s late best friend Goose, now a pilot with a chip on his shoulder and a voice full of resentment), Jennifer Connelly as Penny Benjamin (a bar owner and single mother with a history of romantic entanglement with Maverick), Jon Hamm as Vice Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson (a by-the-book commander unimpressed by Maverick’s reputation, and himself a former “Top Gun” honor graduate), and Glen Powell as Lt. Jake “Hangman” Seresin (a cocky hotshot who channels the original Maverick’s swagger with less conscience).  The film also features Ed Harris, Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman, and a brief but poignant appearance by Val Kilmer as Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky.  This sequel arrives 36 years after the original “Top Gun” (1986), and somehow manages to be both a nostalgic throwback and a surprisingly emotional meditation on legacy, loss, and the limits of speed.
Background:  I came to “Top Gun:  Maverick” with tempered (but high) expectations.  I had heard a lot of good things about it, but I’ve heard the same thing loads of times for other sequels which were never quite as good as their marketing.  The original “Top Gun” (review here) was iconic for its style, soundtrack, and testosterone — but not exactly for its depth.  I wasn’t sure a sequel could offer more than recycled dogfights and callbacks (it does both).  But “Maverick” surprised me.  Released in 2022 after multiple pandemic delays, the film became a box office juggernaut and earned six Academy Award nominations, winning Best Sound.  It was also nominated for Best Picture — a rare feat for a sequel in the action genre.  Watching it now, I see why.  Beneath the roar of jet engines and the gleam of aviator sunglasses, there’s a story about aging, mentorship, and the ghosts some carry far past their utility.
Plot:  Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell has spent decades avoiding promotion, preferring the cockpit to the desk.  When a hypersonic test program he’s assigned to is to be shut down, Maverick is reassigned — by orders of his old rival Iceman — to train a new generation of Top Gun graduates for a near-impossible mission:  destroy a uranium enrichment site deep in enemy territory, requiring low-altitude flying, precision bombing, and a steep escape climb.  Among the trainees is Rooster, Goose’s son, whose strained relationship with Maverick threatens the cohesion of the team.  As Maverick battles bureaucracy, guilt, and the limits of his own mortality, he must decide whether to lead from the classroom or the sky.  The film builds toward a final act that blends old-school aerial combat with modern stakes, and reminds us why Maverick still flies.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  grounded and charismatic;  stunning and immersive;  a few;  absolutely.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Top Gun: Maverick” is more than just a sequel — it’s a resolution (for Maverick’s career).  It honors the original without being too shackled by it.  The film balances adrenaline with emotion, spectacle with sincerity.  It’s a story about second chances, about teaching what you’ve learned the hard way, and about flying not because you’re fearless, but because you love it anyway.  It’s a rare blockbuster that earns its sentiment.
Acting:  Tom Cruise delivers one of his most restrained performances in years.  His Maverick is still cocky, but now haunted — by Goose’s death, by Rooster’s resentment, and by the ticking clock of relevance.  Cruise’s physical commitment is legendary, but it’s the quiet scenes — with Iceman, with Penny, with Rooster — that give the film its heart.  Miles Teller is excellent as Rooster — his simmering anger and vulnerability feel earned.  Jennifer Connelly brings warmth and maturity to Penny, but (IMHO) her character / feels more like another step in Maverick’s career wind down.  At least she didn’t seem to have the height issue / problem the love interest (Kelly McGillis) had in the first film.  LoL.  Glen Powell steals scenes as Hangman, successfully balances walking the tightrope between arrogance and charm.  Jon Hamm is solid as Cyclone, though his role is mostly functional.  Val Kilmer’s brief appearance is moving as his real-life health struggles mirror Iceman’s, and the scene between him and Cruise is a masterclass in restraint and emotional payoff.
Filming / FX:  The aerial sequences deliver and are what make the film.  Shot with IMAX cameras and real fighter jets, the film avoids CGI overload and instead delivers visceral, kinetic dogfights that make you feel every G-force.  The sound design — Oscar-winning — is thunderous.  The cinematography captures the grandeur of flight.  The editing is crisp, especially in the final mission sequence, which builds tension with precision.  The use of music — Lady Gaga’s “Hold My Hand” and a reprise of Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” — is nostalgic without being overbearing.  The film’s visuals are sleek, sun-drenched, and unapologetically cinematic.
Problems:  Mostly minor.  The plot is thin — essentially a training montage leading to a mission — but that’s by design.  Some of the supporting pilots are underdeveloped, and the enemy is faceless and unnamed, which feels geopolitically evasive (i.e. “correct”).  The romantic subplot, while charming, is underwritten but the “action” film is better for it.  And while the film nods to Maverick’s recklessness, it never fully addresses the consequences of his choices.  My “biggest” technical issue is that through-out the training scenes, the radar only seems to work forward an up.  This allows the “instructor” to sneak up on the trainees from below and behind.  Yeah, right.  My “biggest” reality issue with the film is Cruise’s / Maverick’s obvious age.  While it might be possible for Maverick to be a private sector test pilot (but not at Mach 10) into his very late 50s, he could NEVER be a fighter pilot at that age.  I don’t care if he had multiple Presidential Administrations protecting his career.  But these are Hollywood v. reality quibbles in a film that knows exactly what it wants to be (Hollywood).
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Top Gun:  Maverick” is a rare sequel that marginally equals its mega-hit original.  It’s thrilling, emotional, and unexpectedly reflective.  Watching it felt like reconnecting with an old friend — one who’s matured, still rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but is ready to give up the “edge” for a return to a WWII P-51 Mustang.  The film’s central message — that it’s not the plane, it’s the pilot — resonates.  And in a cinematic landscape dominated by franchises, this one keeps its legs / wings.
Final Recommendation:  Strong Recommendation.  “Top Gun:  Maverick” is more than just a nostalgia trip — it’s a high-flying, heart-thumping, and surprisingly soulful film that honors its predecessor while charting its own course.  If you’ve seen the original, this is essential viewing.  If you haven’t, it still works — because the story isn’t just about flying.  It’s about teaching, healing, and choosing to fly anyway.  Rated PG-13 for intense action and some language, but largely family-friendly.  Strap in.
.
Click here (22 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

I Feel The Need…

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on November 21, 2025| Leave a Comment »

“Top Gun”  (1986) — movie review
Today’s review is for the jet fueled, aviation action drama “Top Gun” (1986), starring Tom Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell — a cocky, instinct-driven U.S. Navy aviator with a chip on his shoulder and a need to prove himself;  Kelly McGillis plays Charlotte “Charlie” Blackwood, a civilian astrophysicist and flight instructor whose intellect and poise challenge Maverick’s bravado;  Val Kilmer co-stars as Tom “Iceman” Kazansky, Maverick’s cool-headed rival;  Anthony Edwards brings warmth and levity as Nick “Goose” Bradshaw, Maverick’s loyal radar intercept officer and best friend;  Tom Skerritt as the wise “Viper” (who flew with Maverick’s father and who was the first “Top Gun” awardee when the school was started);  and Michael Ironside as the gruff “Jester” (the main flight / combat instructor / evaluator).
Background:  I first saw “Top Gun” during it’s initial release when it was MUST SEE on a big screen, and then again in the late ’80s, long after its theatrical run but well within its VHS and cable TV dominance (and multiple times since then – DVD and streaming).  It was one of those movies that seemed to be on every weekend — a rite of passage for anyone growing up in the era of bomber jackets and synthesizer scores.  I remember enjoying the aerial sequences and aware that this was a film about more than just jets.  Back then, I was young and naive enough not to catch / recognize the “supposedly” homoerotic beach volleyball and locker room scenes.  I just thought it was a blatant attempt to increase the repeat female viewing audience.  LoL.  Directed by Tony Scott and backed by a now-iconic soundtrack, “Top Gun” became a cultural phenomenon, redefining the modern action blockbuster and launching Cruise into superstardom.  The film won the Academy Award for Best Original Song (Berlin’s “Take My Breath Away”) and remains a touchstone of 1980s cinema — equal parts adrenaline, romance, and Reagan-era military glamor.  Watching it again now, more than a decade since my last viewing, I was struck by how much of the film’s appeal lies in its contradictions:  it’s both earnest and absurd, romantic and militaristic, grounded in loss and buoyed by testosterone.  It’s a film that invites both critique and admiration — and somehow, it soars.
Plot:  The story follows Maverick, a talented but reckless Naval aviator who, after a daring rescue at the end of a successful mission, is selected to attend the elite Navy Fighter Weapons School — better known as “Top Gun” — in Miramar, California.  There, he competes against the best of the best, including Iceman, whose disciplined flying style clashes with Maverick’s improvisational flair.  Amid the dogfights and classroom drills, Maverick begins a secret romance with Charlie, one of the instructors, while grappling with the legacy of his father — a pilot whose mysterious death in combat casts a long shadow.  The film builds toward a climactic real-world engagement, where Maverick must overcome personal demons, honor his fallen friend, and prove that he’s more than just a hotshot with a death wish.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  stylized military;  thrilling and iconic;  several;  yes — with caveats.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Top Gun” is a film that knows exactly what it wants to be — a sleek, seductive celebration of speed, skill, and swagger.  (Did I mention it’s a pseudo-recruitment advertisement for the Navy and Naval aviation in particular.)  It’s not subtle, but it’s effective cinema.  The narrative is thin, the character arcs are broad, and the dialogue often feels like it was written with a recruitment poster in mind.  And yet, it works.  The film’s emotional beats — particularly the bond between Maverick and Goose — land with surprising sincerity.  The aerial sequences remain exhilarating, and the soundtrack is a time capsule of ’80s pop glory.  It’s a film that trades in archetypes, not nuance, but it does so with conviction.  It’s a masterpiece (for Cruise and the Navy), and it’s a milestone for modern pro-military cinema.
Acting:  Tom Cruise is magnetic.  His Maverick is all smirks and squints, but there’s a vulnerability beneath the bravado that hints at the actor’s future depth.  Kelly McGillis brings intelligence and maturity to Charlie, though the romance feels scripted, not organic.  Val Kilmer’s Iceman is a study in restraint — his icy demeanor a perfect foil to Maverick’s seat-of-your-pants aviator heat.   Anthony Edwards is the film’s emotional anchor, infusing Goose with charm and heart.  The supporting cast — including Tom Skerritt / “Viper” and Michael Ironside / “Jester” — round out the ensemble with military gravitas.  The chemistry among the pilots is palpable, which helps sell the film.
Filming / FX:  The aerial cinematography is the film’s crown jewel.  Tony Scott’s direction — all golden-hour lighting, slow-motion silhouettes, and kinetic dogfights — gives the film a mythic imagery.  The use of real F-14 Tomcats and in-cockpit footage lends authenticity and visceral impact.  The editing is tight, the sound design immersive, and the soundtrack — from Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone” to Berlin’s Oscar-winning “Take My Breath Away” — is inseparable from the film’s identity.  The visual language is pure ’80s excess:  sweat-slicked bodies, mirrored aviator sunglasses, and sunsets that seem to last forever.  It’s not realism — it’s mythical military iconography.
Problems:  Several.  The plot is skeletal, with character development often taking a backseat to spectacle.  The romance between Maverick and Charlie is rushed and spotty, more a narrative obligation than a genuine connection. There is film chemistry between them, but it’s at a distance because you run into the visual reality that Cruise is physically smaller than McGillis.  In face to face head shots, his head is smaller than hers.  (LoL)  And, it’s not just that he’s smaller, he’s also shorter, so the film is shot with her constantly leaning or him sitting to try to “hide” the height difference.  The film’s treatment of military service (at least the aviator side of it) is unabashedly romanticized — a recruiting ad with a pulse-pounding soundtrack.  The homoerotic subtext, particularly in the volleyball scene and locker room standoffs, is so overt it borders on parody — though whether that’s a flaw or a feature depends on your lens.  As I mentioned earlier, I wasn’t even aware of these aspects of the film back then.  (LoL)  And, while the film flirts with emotional themes of loss and legacy, it’s not “really” about them.  It’s about the action –  jets and dog-fights.  I believe the expression is:  “Keep the camera on the money, boys!“
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  Despite its flaws (or maybe because of them), “Top Gun” remains a fun watch.  It’s a film that taps into something primal:  the thrill of flight, the ache of competition, the allure of danger.  The film is emotionally manipulative, narratively simplistic, and visually intoxicating.  Watching it now, I was struck by how much of its DNA has seeped into the culture — from the music to the catchphrases (see this post’s title) to the very idea of what it means to be “cool.”  It’s not a film anyone would call profound, but I find it undeniably entertaining.  And more often than not, that’s what cinema is all about – or it should be.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation.  “Top Gun” feels more and more like a cinematic time capsule of the mid-to-late 1980s.  It’s a film that captures the spirit of its (marketed) era with style, swagger, and a killer soundtrack.  It’s rated PG for language and some sensuality, but it’s mostly tame by today’s standards.  If you’re interested in aviation, ’80s nostalgia, or the origins of Tom Cruise’s stardom, this film is essential viewing.  It’s not perfect cinema, but it’s iconic — and in the end, that’s (and the soundtrack) what makes it soar.
.
Click here (21 November) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started