Skip to main content

Back Into the Danger Zone: Top Gun Sequel Matches Thrills with Pathos


There’s a scene early on in Top Gun: Maverick, like many a direct mirror to one in the original movie, in which an admiral played by Ed Harris chastises Tom Cruise’s Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell after a dangerous test flight and emphasizes that Maverick is a relic; that it won’t be long before the U.S. Military no longer needs pilots, soon to be replaced he predicts, by drones or computerized systems. “Your kind is headed for extinction” he says. “Maybe so, sir,” Maverick acknowledges. “But not today.”
It seems to be a sly meta-comment on Cruise’s place within a Hollywood devoid of the star system in which he first arose in the 1980s, or this movies’ place in a blockbuster environment that is far more homogenized than in the days when Top Gun could be one of the biggest hits of the decade. In any case it is an affirmation that the “relic”, whether a person or product, and though on its’ way out the door, still has some lustre left. That’s kind of the point of the whole movie, and it’s the better for it.
Better certainly than the original Top Gun, a fun bit of 80s cheese, but short on character and compelling drama for all of its’ unfiltered bravado and machismo. It’s lived on for its’ excellent flight scenes, stellar direction from the late Tony Scott, a few highly quotable lines, and its’ music (the movie that birthed both “Take My Breath Away” and “Danger Zone” -the latter of which does appear in this ‘Legacyquel’ as well). Top Gun: Maverick definitely seems to recognize this mixed reputation and is smart enough to have fun with it -the cheesiness this time around is palpably intentional, and is paired with a more focused sense of drama as pertaining to its’ characters and their relationships.
This is especially necessary because Maverick is one of the most insufferable characters from Cruise’s 80s superstar days: an entitled hotshot with boundary issues and a smugness that overpowers any shallow attempts at poignancy. And one of the first things director Joseph Kosinski does in this movie is emphasize the antiquated nature of that attitude, as well as showcase a bit of a death wish in Maverick as he pushes an experimental flight past its’ capacity, resulting in a destroyed piece of military equipment. From there though the movie takes a solid interest in Maverick as a character, where he is now and how he feels about his world. The script makes clear multiple times how he has avoided promotion so that he can continue flying planes -he doesn’t want to leave that vocation. He’s still plenty cocky -when briefed about a new mission, he initially assumes he’s being asked to fly it, and he still finds subtle ways to be insubordinate. But there’s a sadness about it now, this man who is still living in the past, and one who’s got a lot of regrets -namely a romance that didn’t pan out with Top Gun bartender Penny (Jennifer Connelly), and the death of his best friend Goose, as depicted in the first film -now haunting him again in the form of Goose’s resentful son (Miles Teller), a pilot in training himself with the call sign “Rooster”.
That is a really silly detail, as is the fact that Teller is dressed and styled specifically to resemble a twenty-something Anthony Edwards (he even plays “Great Balls of Fire” on the piano to drive the comparison home), but it doesn’t take long for that to be left behind in the sincerity of the piece, and of the genuinely compelling nature to his relationship with Maverick, who had blocked his application to the Academy out of a fear of him succumbing to his fathers’ fate. We see Maverick forced to grapple with the immense grief that has soured his relationship with this kid who might have been a surrogate son. Add to that his anxieties about aging and lost opportunities that betray cogent meta themes on Cruise himself, and a mature attitude towards the safety of those under his tutelage, all played with a real sense of gravitas -this might be one of Cruise’s best performances of his late career. He channels some of that Jerry Maguire charm in his scenes with Penny to the point they have an authentic weight and he conveys strongly that reluctance to let go of his still present sorrow.
The cast around Cruise are pretty exceptional themselves. In particular, Connelly is wonderful -the most believable love interest Cruise has had in well over a decade. She has an immensely likeable earnestness and sense of fun, but is also a responsible and grounded (no pun intended) single mother, which rubs off on Maverick in a very necessary way. He has a lot of admiration for her that translates. Teller does well as the angry, anxious young gun desperate to prove himself, though Glen Powell makes a bigger impression as the charismatic bully Hangman. The other notable pilots are played by Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman, Jay Ellis, and Danny Ramirez, all of whom make the best of their limited parts. Barbaro and Pullman are especially interesting given the way they diversify the image of the Navy fighter pilot –there are conscious efforts to get away from the toxic masculinity of the original film (although it comes also with a reduction of that films’ much celebrated homoeroticism).
And yes, these sort of things do have a propagandic purpose –this film is as much as its’ predecessor an advertisement for the U.S. Navy in ways both subtle and overt. Everyone deliberately avoids naming the nation that is the “enemy” they must launch an assault on by the end of the movie (geography would indicate either Russia or North Korea), and the institution that all of these characters belong to is never criticized. However, the film doesn’t seem constrained by this context, its’ aims don’t conflict, and as a recruitment tool it seems just as likely to turn folks off to the intense dangers of being a fighter pilot. The flight sequences don’t skimp on the harrowing enterprise, yet they are still terrifically fun and thrilling. This is in large part due to the way the action scenes are shot with exceptional dedication to authenticity and detailed immersion both inside and out of the aircraft. Most of it is achieved practically, adding to the excitement. Where it gets less real is in the third act, when on the mission itself, but the tension is built well enough that no believability is strained.
At least barring one excursion on the ground that feels more like a scene out of a Mission Impossible movie (Christopher McQuarrie co-wrote the film) than one that organically fits in here. It is one of several choices seemingly made to assert Cruise’s dominance of ego in this movie –and while these are obvious, they’re not a hindrance. Because they are so well crafted, so exhilarating; and because Top Gun: Maverick threads the needle just right. It brings back all the elements that were cool about the original Top Gun (down to a barely altered opening title sequence), while discarding everything that weakened it in favour of honing in on resonant character drama and themes. There’s a scene where Maverick reunites with Iceman, played by a returning Val Kilmer (his throat cancer worked into the narrative) and it is genuinely moving. I never cared about either of these characters in the earlier film, but that is the strange power of this one. It’s not quite as great as all the hype I feel, but it is nonetheless one of the best legacy sequels we’ve yet seen. It’s fun and invigorating, cheesy and sentimental –just a good old time at the movies. And it’ll take your breath away.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more