Just got back from seeing Top Gun: Maverick.

[Anti Federalist]

Whoa...

Everything the drunken Scotsman said and then some.

[dannno]

Should I watch the original first?

[Anti Federalist]

I don't know where to begin...

Let's start here: Attention Hollyweirdos and assorted Marxist fellow travelers. This is how the $#@! you make a billion dollar sequel to an old film favorite. You do it right, you do it justice and you respect and appreciate the audience.

A - This is a summer action film. The first film was like this, light on any heavy political intrigue. This is not Stallone battling Commie-Nazis, the "enemy" is unclear, right down to not having any clear markings on the planes. Nothing is "heavy", no political hand-wringing, no $#@!ing "wokeness", no painful self introspection. The "enemy" is being a baddie and it's up to the good guys to put an end to it by throwing out the book and flying harder, faster and more accurately than anybody thought possible.

B - It is tearfully nostalgic without pathos.

C - It has a love interest that is normal and makes sense in the storyline, without being gratuitous, lewd or feeling "tacked on". (Trivia for fans of the first one: who is that woman?)

D - The live action flight scenes are $#@!ing phenomenal. This is some of the best live action aerial combat footage I've seen since the dawn helicopter raid of Vin Din Lop in Apocalypse Now.

E - And that's what makes this work, because it is about the pilots, the planes, the flying and the skill, which they all acknowledge is becoming a thing of the past in an increasingly automated, meat sack world. That may happen someday...but not today.

F - Most important of all, it did what a good movie is supposed to do: take you away from humdrum grind of day to day life and lets you live vicariously through celluloid heroes on the screen. Tom Cruise makes a point to show his respect for the audience in a an opening snippet as he addresses the audience and lets us know that only reason they are where they are because we are where we are.

It was the first Top Gun in 1986 that prompted my 22 year old self to take flight lessons and learn to fly, just for $#@!s and giggles, for the sheer joy of it.

It was this Top Gun in 2022 that took a broken, cynical, tired and beat down 58 year old self, and made me feel like I was 22 again.

Thank you Tom, and all the actors and production crew, for doing this right.

[Anti Federalist]

Should I watch the original first?

Yes.

[oyarde]

Should I watch the original first?

LOL , I can think of a lot better Val Kilmer movies. Try The Ghost and the Darkness .

[Matt Collins]

[Brian4Liberty]

Should I watch the original first?

I rewatched the original before seeing the new one. There is a lot from the first movie that is referenced in the new one. Pay extra attention to talk about “the Admiral’s daughter”.

[Brian4Liberty]

I don't know where to begin...

... Nothing is "heavy", no political hand-wringing, no $#@!ing "wokeness", no painful self introspection. ...

Well, no beating you over the head with it at least. Perhaps someone can explain how the best pilot (other than Cruise) was left behind while others were chosen for the mission? Kind of like telling Val Kilmer in the first movie, “sorry, even though you are the best, other pilots are going on the mission”.

[Anti Globalist]

I never even watched the first movie.

[Anti Federalist]

Well, no beating you over the head with it at least. Perhaps someone can explain how the best pilot (other than Cruise) was left behind while others were chosen for the mission? Kind of like telling Val Kilmer in the first movie, “sorry, even though you are the best, other pilots are going on the mission”.

Just a carry over from the entire span of Pete Mitchell's naval career.

Refuse to "play by the rules" and you get passed over.

That's another reason I like this movie, like Smokey and the Bandit, no Citizen Kane by any stretch of the imagination, enjoys such widespread popularity even to this day, is because both films poke a giant Three Stooges finger in the eye of dimwitted, heavy handed authority, stodgy bureaucracy and stagnant committee-think.

[pcosmar]

My House in the Keys was just off the Boca Chica Naval Air Station Runway..

They stood on their tails (Ballistic) over my house.

Carol liked to check the pilots eye color, swears there were skid marks on the roof.

[dannno]

Finally watched the original last night. It came out when I was 4. I knew it existed and wanted to see it, but my parents probably didn't want me to watch it because of the romance scenes. There is also quite a bit of swearing for a PG movie. Apparently PG was a bit different back then. PG-13 ratings came out in 1984, but I guess they were still dialing it in when this one came out. By 1990, PG movies maybe had one or two mild swear words, and definitely no shadowy simulated sex scenes.. It's a shame, because at that age I wanted to be a navy fighter pilot.. mostly gave that up a few years later, I wanted to be a major league baseball pitcher instead. Then later on I hated the wars and didn't want anything to do with the military.

I'll be watching the new one tonight in DBOX seats. The seats move around with the movie sort of like Star Tours at Disneyland.

I guess it's like this (4DX), but I think without all the wind and air blowing and possible water spray. I would try that, but no way in hell I'm driving to LA.

[dannno]

I definitely recommend watching this one in 4DX or D-BOX if you can find a theater.

[Anti Federalist]

I definitely recommend watching this one in 4DX or D-BOX if you can find a theater.

You enjoy?

[dannno]

You enjoy?

Ya, movie was good, just like the old days. I don't really watch new movies. The moving/vibrating seat was great. Felt like you were in the action, flying, riding motorcycle, etc.. It's almost $20 for the moving seat, but if you want to watch it again I would recommend.

They were also advertising a David Bowie movie coming out soon that could be pretty good. Also an Adam Sandler movie, who knows, maybe they are trying to get back to their roots.

[Anti Federalist]

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Review: If You Build It, We Will Come

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...-we-will-come/

JOHN NOLTE 10 Jun 2022

For those wondering why this Top Gun: Maverick review is late, as I’ve previously explained, my wife and I are in quarantine pending surgery. This means we go nowhere, see no one, have groceries delivered… COVID could kill the whole deal. What changed? Well, the surgery will take place three hours from home, so we decided to camp nearby for a couple of weeks, and wouldn’t you know it, there’s a drive-in out here, and that drive-in’s playing Top Gun: Maverick, so here we are…

Let me start by saying this… Because so much time’s passed since TGM’s release, my expectations were sky-high. When was the last time so many people were unanimously in love with a movie?

Well, those expectations were not only met, they were exceeded. TGM is spectacular. The nostalgia factor is perfectly calibrated, the story immediately pulls you in and never breaks the spell, the peril felt real, and, above all, Tom Cruise’s performance as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell is one for the ages.

Cruise isn’t getting enough credit for pulling this off. It’s been 36 years since the late Tony Scott’s Top Gun blew the doors off the box office. Thirty-six years. How many actors have you seen resurrect a role after a lengthy recess and still come across as the same guy? I can’t think of one.

Twice Eddie Murphy tried to recapture the magic of his early box office hits with Beverly Hills Cop 3 (1994, after a seven-year absence) and Another 48 Hours (1990, after eight years). It wasn’t the same. The spark and hunger were gone. After 16 years, The Great Jack Nicholson failed to bring back Jake Gittes in The Two Jakes (1990). Harrison Ford’s probably come the closest with Indiana Jones, Han Solo, and Rick Deckard after decades and decades, but it’s never a bullseye. That thing that made Harrison Ford Harrison Ford, that inner fire doesn’t burn as bright. In each of the above cases, you sense a Big Star dressing up for a paycheck.

Not Cruise. He’s white-hot in this Oscar-worthy masterstroke of understatement, of that indefinable thing only a movie star can do—plumb the depths of a well-defined screen image in ways that are felt rather than seen. Everything that made Maverick one of the most iconic characters of the 80s is still there … and yet it’s not. There’s no air-punching, no cocky grin, no high-fives, no getting into the other guy’s face, none of the physical callbacks you expect. Instead, Cruise internalizes all that. Nevertheless, you still sense that cocky young guy is in there. Now he’s older, seasoned, alone, a little sad about that, and haunted by mistakes. This Pete Mitchell wouldn’t like 1986’s Pete Mitchell, yet Cruise still telegraphs he’s the same guy.

It’s a miraculous feat, an all-timer of a performance.

That doesn’t mean Maverick’s been cheapened, which is something that happens too often (and deliberately for political reasons) in these reboots. The easy (and woke) route would’ve been to tear this icon down (especially an 80’s icon) in the same way those dreadful Star Wars sequels tore apart Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. You know what I mean: Maverick’s an aging, embittered drunk living in a trailer, getting into fights, ignoring his teenage daugh— Stop. Just the thought of it’s pissing me off.

TGM does it exactly right. Maverick is still Maverick. A loner, rebellious for the right reasons (to get the job done), a pilot determined to be the best, to push the envelope and himself. He’s still all about excellence and serving his country, but the package is wiser, worldly, and confident enough to let his actions speak for themselves. His mouth no longer writes checks his ass can’t cash.

Everything about TGM works. The relationships are believable, the story is logical and engaging, the emotional moments hit home without being manipulative, and you worry someone could die… Yet, it’s still blockbuster entertainment, a top-notch men-on-a-mission movie with all the expected beats delivered in very satisfying ways.

When was the last time you didn’t want a movie to end? Well, that was me last night. Usually, at the end of these blockbusters, I’m either exhausted (Marvel) or satisfied (Spider-Man: No Way Home). TGM’s 131 minutes flew by and left me wanting to spend more time with these characters. And I say that as someone who’s not a big fan of the original.

Those of you under a certain age might find this hard to believe, but movies like TGM used to be the norm, not an exception so rare you feel like you’ve struck gold. No, really, there was a time when Hollywood only wanted to thrill, move, and entertain us with great stories, iconic characters, and universal themes. There was no preaching, lecturing, or talking down to us. Oh, those “old” movies still had plenty to say, but rather than the filmmakers showing off for their peers by wagging their fingers at the audience with pompous pronouncements and smug characters behaving in ways that violate human nature, the lessons came by way of theme and subtext—which enhanced the movie whereas today everything is dated and diminished.

TGM does have a lot to say about race and gender, and the human condition, about the blessings of forgiveness and letting go, about the price that comes with being the best, and why it’s worth it. But it’s told to us through story and example, which is what makes it so effective. We don’t need to be told a woman pilot can do the job. She does the job. We don’t need to be lectured about race relations. TGM’s melting pot just is—which reflects the reality of Normal America, not the rigged funhouse mirror created by the left.

Most of all, TGM is about being the most important thing in the world: Your own man. The conformists, the sycophants, the go-alongers-to-get-alongers never reach Mach 10. What makes America, America are our Mavericks. We live in a country where, if you so choose, you are allowed to reach the horizon of your abilities, and those are the people who get the job done. Top Gun: Maverick is itself an example of that, of Cruise and the filmmakers going their own way, rebelling against the horrors of woke, respecting the fans, and getting the job done with one of the biggest hits of the year and best sequels ever made.

Best of all, it is timeless. Thirty-six years from now, we will still be watching Top Gun: Maverick, sharing this magic with our kids and grandkids.

If Hollywood built more of these, we would come; we really would. It ain’t COVID keeping us away. It ain’t video games or Netflix, or anything other than the fact that woke is a killjoy that erases the magic.

Had Star Wars gone the Top Gun: Maverick route, the greatest film franchise in history wouldn’t have been demoted to a TV show.

[Anti Federalist]

I rewatched the original before seeing the new one. There is a lot from the first movie that is referenced in the new one. Pay extra attention to talk about “the Admiral’s daughter”.

@Brian4Liberty

You have a $#@!ter account...do me a favor and "tweet" this at Cruise would you please:

It was the first Top Gun in 1986 that prompted my 22 year old self to take flight lessons and learn to fly, just for $#@!s and giggles, for the sheer joy of it.

It was this Top Gun in 2022 that took a broken, cynical, tired and beat down 58 year old self, and made me feel like I was 22 again.

Thank you Tom, and all the actors and production crew, for doing this right. - Regards, Anti Federalist

[luctor-et-emergo]

@Brian4Liberty

You have a $#@!ter account...do me a favor and "tweet" this at Cruise would you please:

Glad you liked it AF. That actually prompts me to maybe go and watch it... The original one was good.

[Brian4Liberty]

@Brian4Liberty

You have a $#@!ter account...do me a favor and "tweet" this at Cruise would you please:

I’m shadow banned. The only people that might see my tweets are people who follow me.

[sam1952]

I would put Paul Newman on that list as “Fast Eddie Felson” on that list from the original The Hustler, 1961 and The Color Of Money, 1986.

[Anti Federalist]

I would put Paul Newman on that list as “Fast Eddie Felson” on that list from the original The Hustler, 1961 and The Color Of Money, 1986.

Also with...Tom Cruise

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I rewatched the original last night. When goose died they ruled that it was not pilot error. Boy that investigation was fast!

[Matt Collins]

LewRockwell.com had a piece about how it was a jingoist DoD propaganda

[Anti Federalist]

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Reaches $1 Billion Worldwide — Without China

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainm...without-china/

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Great movie!

[Brian4Liberty]

Just a carry over from the entire span of Pete Mitchell's naval career.

Refuse to "play by the rules" and you get passed over.

That's another reason I like this movie, like Smokey and the Bandit, no Citizen Kane by any stretch of the imagination, enjoys such widespread popularity even to this day, is because both films poke a giant Three Stooges finger in the eye of dimwitted, heavy handed authority, stodgy bureaucracy and stagnant committee-think.

Except that the rule breaker (Tom Cruise) was given the sole decision on who went on the mission, and he chose Goose’s son for purely emotional reasons, when he clearly wasn’t the best. IMHO, it was an example of passing over the most qualified person to give the others a “chance”, either for an emotional reason, or for the woke diversity agenda. An in your face repudiation of the merit system.