"Should I See Top Gun: Maverick"? Ten Questions Answered For Those On The Fence
Greg Ehrhardt, OnScreen Blog Columnist
Author Biases: Never Saw the 1986 Top Gun
Loves Tom Cruise, the action star
Yep, I’ve never seen “Top Gun” (the 1986 version).
Don’t ask me why: every movie fan has their blind spots. At some point in the last 10 years, I realized once you haven’t seen older movies, unless they are true cinema classics, there’s just no way to enjoy the movie the way it was enjoyed by people who saw it much closer to 1986.
Truth be told, I had no intention of watching the requel/legacyquel, even though I’m a cinematic admirer of Tom Cruise. After the latest Scream movie and Matrix: Resurrections, I had sworn off legacyquels for awhile, and, more importantly, the trailers never did much for me, even though I have a healthy appetite for grander scale patriotic pro-military action movies like the ones popular in the 1990s.
After seeing rave reviews from critics and hearing similarly from friends, I had to give this movie a shot, but I was not going to bother with seeing the original 1986 movie, because, if it was really a good movie, it should be good on its own merits.
So was it good? Is it worth seeing for people who never saw Top Gun? We answer that and other questions right now!
1) Do I have to watch the 1986 Top Gun movie to fully enjoy this movie?
a. There are a bunch of callbacks to the original movie, pretty much from the jump, and most of them are important to the plot. However, the movie does a pretty good job of explaining the references without a ton of exposition. The original movie is not an obstacle to enjoying the movie, and I don’t think it would have added much for me to see the original first (though I suspect die-hard fans of the original were plenty satisfied with how important the original was to this movie).
2) Is this an “over the top” Patriotic Movie that would offend foreign audiences?
a. It’s patriotic in that the US armed forces are unequivocal heroes of this movie, and the characters, nor the cause they serve, is ever in doubt. If you are someone who misses movies with military protagonists instead of a bunch of superheroes, then this is right up your alley.
But, there isn’t any particular message about the USA representing the “right” side of the conflict, nor is there anything that would represent the opposite side. The antagonists not named Jon Hamm are nameless and faceless. So, if you are one of those that are uncomfortable with movies unquestionably portraying the US government as the good guys, you don’t have much to worry about here.
This movie is ultimately about Tom Cruise’s Maverick.
3) Is this a good Tom Cruise movie?
a. Yes. While Tom Cruise is rarely not “Tom Cruise” in his movies, he has different shades (like how there are 100 different shades of purple when picking out paint). This performance had more shades of Ethan Hunt (personality wise, not as far as stunts Ethan must do in Mission: Impossible movies), and that was most likely influence with the involvement of Christopher McQuarrie, his Mission: Impossible collaborator.
Ultimately, if you like seeing Tom Cruise run, and making normal statements sound grim and exciting at the same time, this movie will not disappoint.
4) Everyone involved in the movie raved about the aerial scenes. Does it go overboard with stunts the way all recent Tom Cruise movies go overboard with stunts?
a. So, for me, the visuals of the aerial scenes didn’t blow me away, but the sounds did. The sound mixing was incredible in this movie: you felt every decibel of the airplane and its different gyrations when the movie is in the air. You HAVE to have the theater sound system to fully experience this movie.
5) So, Val Kilmer is credited in this movie. He has some severe medical problems that doesn’t allow him to speak much. So, umm, is he really in this movie?
a. Yes, he appears in the movie, and he does have a scene with Tom Cruise, and yes, its one of the best scenes in the movie.
6) How about the rest of the cast? Does anyone other than Tom Cruise stand out?
a. I thought Jon Hamm was perfect in this movie as Cruise’s foil. It was also delightful to see Ed Harris doing Ed Harris things. Jennifer Connelly was also fun. I’m not sure the script really developed the supporting characters much, especially the young flyers, but, when you go into a Tom Cruise movie, you know the purpose is to give Cruise a spotlight and clear out for him to be a star.
7) You haven’t mentioned Miles Teller’s name at all?
a. Nope. He’s ok in this movie, and that’s it., Its always a big discussion on the message boards whether he’s ever going to make it as a big movie star. He’s like a cross between Shia LeBeouf and Timothee Chalamet, and while I think he has acting chops, he’s a bit lacking in the charisma department that made Tom Cruise a multi-decade star (also applies to Chalamet).
This movie doesn’t change that discussion at all, and I’m not sure what Miles Teller needs to jump that hurdle, other than a personality swap. But that’s for another column.
8) Is it one of the best legacyquels ever done?
a. Absolutely, because, while it has a lot of throwbacks to the originals, it is a movie that justifies its existence on its own terms. Too many legacyquels are either just overstuffed love letters to the original or do not have anything particularly new to say. While “Top Gun: Maverick” doesn’t have anything particularly profound to say about, well, anything, it uses the technology available today to give a completely visceral flying experience that justifies the movie theater experience. Ultimately, that’s all you want from a Top Gun movie.
9) Is it a great action movie like many are calling it?
a. For me, it’s a good action movie, but cannot be counted among the greats. As noted before, the characters are on the thinner side, and the plot is pretty basic. Also, while the details of the Top Gun mission are intricate, the villains (such as they are) in this movie are literally nameless, faceless, and lacking in even basic motivation. I don’t think the movie needed a specific villain, but it was hard for me to feel the stakes in this movie because the threat level was super generic. To be a great action movie, you must live and breathe the stakes and have multiple characters you care about. This movie fails in those areas.
Where it does succeed (beyond what I have just mentioned) is in the score (a great Hans Zimmer score, something most audience members will notice and appreciate during the movie), and in the writing. It is a surprisingly witty script in certain scenes, the result of (I suspect) script doctoring by Christopher McQuarrie.
10) So should I see this movie?
a. Yes, you won’t be disappointed, if you enjoy a throwback action movie and a unique visceral movie theater experience. Personally, I think its getting rave reviews because we just haven’t had movies like this in awhile in a superhero-dominated cineplex. I used to dismiss that type of review bias, but, it does take risk to go against the tide, and that risk should be rewarded.
Rating: 3.5 out of 4 stars