- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,383
I saw the movie Top Gun Maverick today. My review
- Thread starter Slow Car Sport Mode
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,383
Understood. However, I heard that there was actual CGI there, and absolutely nothing in the movie looked like it was "generated". Can't say the same for a lot of movies - even ones where the technology should be so good as to be indistinguishable from .
I do like what they did with the airfield scenes. They apparently had carte blanche to do what they wanted with Lake Tahoe Airport since it was being rebuilt anyways. Also at a state park.
https://tahoetrailguide.com/behind-...ruise-filming-top-gun-maverick-aka-top-gun-2/
Went and saw it again last night.
So, SO supremely entertaining. The film making is stellar.
So, SO supremely entertaining. The film making is stellar.
Went to see it last night with the wife. She absolutely loved it. I'd say it was not great, but yes very good, as far as being entertaining. I could have done without the immature alpha-male, ultracompetitive douche-baggery in the bar and a few other scenes...My sister's ex, and a couple of my friends are (now retired) fighter pilots, and I work with a few now even, and not one of them acts even remotely like this. Yes we are all 20+ years older now but even back when we were younger they werent anything at all like that, at least not that I remember. Quite the opposite really. Just my limited experience with the species, so I could be way off here. The ones I knew (and know) are more like the "Bob" pilot in this movie. I know one (former) F-22 pilot that is practically a clone of Bob.
And as someone else mentioned, I felt the plot was a little too borrowed, intentional or not. When we were walking out to the car after it was over, my wife asked what I thought. I told her "I enjoyed it more the first time I saw it, when it was called Star Wars." Instead of getting Luke Skywalker and X-wing fighters, we have Pete Mitchell and F-18's, doing the same basic scenario. And instead of Han Solo, they gave us "Hangman", who's character personally I would have preferred to have suffered the same fate as Han Solo and ended up frozen in carbonite. I wouldnt have complained...
I'm trying to be vague with the plot details, on the other hand if you havent seen the movie yet, you might not want to read the previous paragraph. I dont think I gave away too much of anything.
I thought the subplot with Jennifer Connelly lacked any chemistry and kind of just seemed like space filler. I expected a bit more out of Jon Hamm. I would have thought with his demeanor and acting style he would have been a really good fit for this type of roll, but something just seemed off about it, as someone else mentioned. I would liked to have seen more of Val Kilmer and a tad more interaction with his character but I can see how his real-life health kept that from happening.
On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a solid 8. A bit too cheesy like others said, the plot a bit too borrowed, and things were a little too predictable, but overall pretty entertaining and I think it was absolutely worth the $10.
And as someone else mentioned, I felt the plot was a little too borrowed, intentional or not. When we were walking out to the car after it was over, my wife asked what I thought. I told her "I enjoyed it more the first time I saw it, when it was called Star Wars." Instead of getting Luke Skywalker and X-wing fighters, we have Pete Mitchell and F-18's, doing the same basic scenario. And instead of Han Solo, they gave us "Hangman", who's character personally I would have preferred to have suffered the same fate as Han Solo and ended up frozen in carbonite. I wouldnt have complained...
I'm trying to be vague with the plot details, on the other hand if you havent seen the movie yet, you might not want to read the previous paragraph. I dont think I gave away too much of anything.
I thought the subplot with Jennifer Connelly lacked any chemistry and kind of just seemed like space filler. I expected a bit more out of Jon Hamm. I would have thought with his demeanor and acting style he would have been a really good fit for this type of roll, but something just seemed off about it, as someone else mentioned. I would liked to have seen more of Val Kilmer and a tad more interaction with his character but I can see how his real-life health kept that from happening.
On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a solid 8. A bit too cheesy like others said, the plot a bit too borrowed, and things were a little too predictable, but overall pretty entertaining and I think it was absolutely worth the $10.
For what it is...it is great summer movie. Just leave your brain at home and enjoy the ride.
Just a movie...BUT...5th Gen Russian fighter...Felon...suppose to have stealth like the F-22...how could they track it or 'see' it on radar???
Just a movie...BUT...5th Gen Russian fighter...Felon...suppose to have stealth like the F-22...how could they track it or 'see' it on radar???
Well, not to hijack this thread, but it was NOT that simple. It involved some 'hacking' and luck...
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/an-...tealth-fighter-during-operation-allied-force/
Granted the US probably has some of the best radars in the world, but in the movie, they made it 'look' easy. And again, it is just a movie. I'm sure several technical liberties were taken to enhance the story line.
Speaking of which, the movie does remind me of something...didn't the Israelis do something similar (in real life) to Iraq back in the 80s...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
Well they never really say it, but the only country with F14s is Iran and I don't think they have 5th gen fighters yet, but I guess it's a movie and maybe it happens somehow in the future. Plus with a specific gps coordinate, can't you fire a lot of cruise missiles, regular missiles or whatever to hit the target? Some of them would get through the SAM guarding it. But yeah, check your brain at the door and enjoy those flying sequences.
They never mentioned the country in the first movie either. It was just hostiles flying over the Indian Ocean.
Penny was actually mentioned in the first movie, twice. She is the "Admiral's daughter." I didn't pick that up until I watched it the second time.
Penny was actually mentioned in the first movie, twice. She is the "Admiral's daughter." I didn't pick that up until I watched it the second time.
Watched it in Dolby cinema. The effect is GOOD. When hornets are shaking, my seat is shaking with them. Closeup shot when they pull high Gs are very real. 9/10
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,383
Yep.......
I agree, it was definitely lightweight and the bar scenes (except for when Maverick saw a younger Iceman. That part was great) were totally just stupid and a bore on a great movie, took up too much time.
It was a little long but it was also necessary character introduction. We met all the pilots in that scene.
My pet peeve and near total turn off for movies is excessive CGI, especially involving airplanes. I have been on the fence about seeing it, but seems like the folks here generally like it...I may go. Our 15y/o daughter liked it, but I'm not sure her crowd judges the same as I would
My pet peeve and near total turn off for movies is excessive CGI, especially involving airplanes. I have been on the fence about seeing it, but seems like the folks here generally like it...I may go. Our 15y/o daughter liked it, but I'm not sure her crowd judges the same as I would
Most of the reason to go see this movie is that it is real. There is some CGI with explosions and some prototype fighters but the very vast majority of the aerial scenes are real. My opinion is this is 100% a go see in the theatre movie. I may be even go see it a third time and I have a 110" projection screen theatre setup in my house.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,383
We all knew the story would always center around 4 of them. Minor nuances in excellent movie but.. still kinda like a big episode of Step by Step.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2021
- Messages
- 5,383
My pet peeve and near total turn off for movies is excessive CGI, especially involving airplanes. I have been on the fence about seeing it, but seems like the folks here generally like it...I may go. Our 15y/o daughter liked it, but I'm not sure her crowd judges the same as I would
There was "almost no CGI" I think i saw one or two scenes.. where, one was inconsequential, one was a major-ish scene but. That aspect was perfected as much as that can be perfected.
The problem is that they basically try and recapture what made the first movie a hit so you get more of the same only updated for the times including the big fight sequence at the end. I was wondering about the football sequence until someone reminded me that there was a volleyball sequence in the first movie.
It was interesting in the first movie the volleyball game was a competition between the pilots, but in this movie it was a team building exercise.
Oh and I can confirm that in this movie, Tom Cruise runs. lol
I’ve seen it twice. In IMAX and regular. IMAX is overpriced for not much more. Movie is great either way. Seen the first one about 100 times. Used to live in San Diego so I even went to check out the filming spots. Some things are funny. The sailing scene was not San Diego. Penny’s house is in San Pedro, The bar was built on the Coronado beach as a set, bummer, wish it was real. Penny is a single mom with a Rolex, vintage Porsche, beach house, $$$$ sail boat, owns a beach front bar? Maverick does use Snap-on tools. I liked that. What about the CA motorcycle helmet law?
Similar threads
