By Charlie Schutt
DISCLAIMER: While this article doesn’t contain any spoilers for “Top Gun: Maverick”, it does hold a few major spoilers for “Top Gun”. If you haven’t gotten around to watching it, then proceed with caution.
As someone who was born in 2005, the words "Top Gun" meant nothing more than "an old movie". Now that I'm years into my love for cinema, it means something else entirely. Three weeks ago, the world was introduced to "Top Gun: Maverick", likely the most overdue sequel in existence. Although industry professionals doubted the power it would have at the box office, it surprised critics and fans alike with a 156 million dollar opening state-side, and a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes. Both of these milestones far surpassed their predecessor, and the film has been so well received that Paramount is eyeing a possible sequel (Franchises mean money these days). As many accolades as the new film has received, I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here for the sole purpose of making people mad. In preparation to see the new film, I popped a bowl of popcorn, dimmed the lights, and shot an IV full of 1986 directly into my bloodstream. Yes, I watched "Top Gun" for the first time. I'm someone who loves classic movies; I grew up on the likes of "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial", "Jurassic Park", "Jaws", and "The Goonies". If you love Steven Spielberg, you'll get that joke. However, "Top Gun" is an item that I had never touched. As much as I love war films, Cruise's headliner seemed more like a "buddy-cop" movie that just happened to take place in the air. Since watching it, I've realized that this is not the case.
The Positives: Let me be clear, there are many good things about "Top Gun". It is by no means a bad movie. For one, who doesn't love a witty Tom Cruise flying upside down? "Giving the bird from a bird." That's just good marketing. There's also an interesting romantic plot that gives the story slightly more substance than it would have otherwise. Besides the charisma of Cruise, and the love story, another redeeming quality is Goose (Portrayed by Anthony Edwards). The image of Cruise and Edwards in the cockpit of a jet brings out so many emotions, and without that dynamic, we wouldn't have the classic, "Need for speed" line. Goose is a loyal friend, and the banter that he dishes out with Maverick makes the movie the classic that it is. Finally, I would be remiss not to bring up the flight cinematography. What was achieved 36 years ago was ahead of its time, and I have an incredible amount of respect for Tony Scott's directing, and the expertise that cinematographer Jeff Kimball brought to the table. To be honest, without the incredible aerial footage, "Top Gun" wouldn't have been the cultural phenomenon that it became. That being said.....
The Negatives: If I had to give "Top Gun" a thumbs up, or thumbs down, it would be a solid thumbs up, however, I have to look at it from an objective point of view. When I do, I don't love what I see. The plot is thin at best, and even the good things about the movie have a bad side. Parallel to Maverick's wit is a lack of concern for the safety of those around him. He pushes things to the limit and it often has a negative effect. Sure, he's a good pilot, but is he a good teammate? The romance is fun and flashy (Meg Ryan makes sure of that), but they lack a connection beyond the song in the bar, and Cruise comes off as forward at best, rude at worst. He follows her into the women's restroom...can we really cheer for this guy? And before you go assuming that the friendship with Goose works for me, it doesn't. Goose is nothing but supportive and forgiving of his copilot throughout the film, continuing to partner with him and back him up in sticky situations. When Maverick is alone, Goose invites him to spend time with his family. Goose is portrayed as a loving father and husband, as well as a loyal and dutiful pilot. For some reason, he continues to extend kindness toward Maverick, all while Maverick disrespects him. Maverick routinely puts his friend's position and safety in jeopardy, and ultimately, Goose meets an untimely end. Besides this, there are other things that just don't add up. After the passing of Goose, his dog tags go to his copilot, rather than his widowed wife and son. I'm no expert on military procedure, but I don't think that's the way things work. The movie also uses the songs, "Take My Breath Away" and "Danger Zone" in unhealthy amounts. If those songs were medication, the movie makes sure that you overdose. All in all, the negatives outweigh the positives for me, and I sincerely believe that this is a movie that only works in 1986. "Top Gun" has officially joined the list of films that I appreciate more than I love.
The Facts: "Top Gun" opened to $8,193,052 ($21,850,331 adjusted for inflation). It made a worldwide gross of $357,300,000 ($952,895,627 a.f.i.) and has been reviewed at 57% on Rotten Tomatoes. "Top Gun: Maverick" opened to $156,000,000 and has grossed $806,300,000 worldwide so far. While the money is great, the critical reception has been incredible, with the film holding a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, and receiving a 5-minute standing ovation when it screened at Cannes.
So why has “Top Gun: Maverick” been so successful?
From everything I’ve seen, there are three reasons that “Maverick” is doing so well.
The first and largest is this: Nostalgia. The generation that grew up with the original film are now in their 40s, and have kids of their own. So, theaters are not only getting their tickets, but also the tickets of the family they bring along. 1986 was certainly a more carefree time, if not a happier one, and the promise of a follow up to a product of that time period has a noticeable draw. The same draw that we’ve recently seen in films such as “Ghostbusters: Afterlife”. The older generation wants to see where their favorite characters have gone as adults, and the younger generation is happy to be along for the ride.
Reason number two: Quality. Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune put it this way, “It may help to have hated the original, but I liked this one, even though it’s not so very different from the first.” This is possibly the most important thing to understand about “Top Gun: Maverick”. It’s not a different movie than its predecessor, but it is a better one. For the returning fans, they got something that felt both familiar and new at the same time, and for the new fans, they got an excellent movie that was well produced. And when you walk out of a theater with a good experience, you tell your friends. When your friends go, the movie makes more money. Hence why the sequel has become Tom Cruise’s highest grossing film of all time.
And finally: Tom Cruise. Like him or not, Tom Cruise has remained on top of the box office and franchise game for thirty years. His dedication to the art of filmmaking is amazing, and it shows in his work. For “Top Gun: Maverick”, Tom Cruise did all his own stunts, riding on the wings of planes, and sitting in the cockpit for the aerial scenes. How many people can fly a fighter jet and act at the same time? The answer: only Cruise. If not for the effort that he puts forth on all accounts, I doubt that “Maverick” would have the commercial or critical presence that it does. The man’s face alone is enough to sell tickets, as audiences worldwide have been watching him onscreen for decades. As many mixed feelings as I have about “Top Gun”, no one can deny the power that its sequel has had on audiences and critics alike.
Comments