remember sports on the beach?
remember playing great balls of fire?
remember riding a motorcycle while playing danger zone?
im not saying its a bad movie, I appreciate Toms drive to do stunts and give us realism with actual actors in actual fighters.
But ive seen sequels do far less retreading, getting far more hate.
I agree. Should've been at least a 9.
share10 , a cool 10
sharethis film ranks up there with LOTR? TDK? SHawshank, the godfather, pulp fiction, the matrix 1, goodfellas, empire, saving private Ryan, terminator 2? I mean you re right on imdv it does I just think thats nonsense. and this film has very little rewatchability and will be forgotten in 1 year
sharethis film ranks up there with LOTR? TDK?
yes........... LOTR is a pillar of cinema.... if you dont think so I can give you the barest crash course on basic film studies so you can actually do your own educating.
film experts dont look at a film and say "well shawshank was about humans and a prison, and LOTR had da orcs and da fantasy, so shawshank is da better film just cause of that"
the 5 basic elements of film are narrative, cinematography, sound, mise-en-scene, and editing.
thats what people who actually understand film look at when analyzing a films caliber. key words, people who actually understand film.
So, LOTR can't be great because... it is fantasy?
Do you listen to yourself?
No. Sorry but that's Bullsh-t.
LOTR is a pretty great film but, as I said, I wouldn't consider it a pillar of cinema (which is what I said) any more than a decent MCU film...
And I absolutely would not consider it a yardstick to compare against a Top Gun film!
...so you confirm that the reason it cannot be a "pillar of cinema" (name a few?) is because it is fantasy?
shareNo. I replied to your "So, LOTR can't be great because... it is fantasy?" by saying it was pretty great.
You've now said "...so you confirm that the reason it cannot be a "pillar of cinema" (name a few?) is because it is fantasy?"
That's not the same thing. A film could be considered great without being a "pillar of cinema" (as in this case).
Equally a fantasy film could be considered a "pillar of cinema".
Then why say:
"These are up there as pillars of great cinema?!! A fantasy film with orcs and a Batman film?"
"A fantasy film with orcs".
And now you're surprised?
Your words, dude.
Okay, so now you've added "with orcs". Which is fine, and yes, I would say a fantasy film with orcs wouldn't be a pillar of great cinema...
However, as per my previous post, it's you who seems to have a problem with words:-
So, LOTR can't be great because... it is fantasy?
Lotr is a pillar of cinema. It literally checks all the boxes.
Cultural impact check, critically loved check, well received by massive audiences check, revolutionary technical film making achievement in effects for it's time check. What else is left?
I wouldn't consider it a piece of art.
Just my personal opinion sure but whilst it's a great film, I wouldn't consider it a particularly significant cultural piece of cinema.
Which going back to my first post is why I found it odd choice to question whether a Top Gun film "ranks up" there alongside it.
They're both disposable, Hollywood entertainment, nothing more, nothing less. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
You not considering it to be a significant piece of cinema does not make it so. I can dislike Godfather or not consider it special but I would be wrong if I said it is not a significant piece of cinema. Lotr does not need your stamp of approval to achieve that status among the masses.
shareLotr does not need your stamp of approval to achieve that status among the masses.
I consider Top Gun Maverick to be quite good. Disposable entertainment to me something like an average MCU film. They have some gems but the ones that are mediocre which is a lot are the ones that I feel are disposable. Calling LOTR disposable to me is baffling but to each his own.
sharethis film ranks up there with LOTR? TDK? SHawshank, the godfather, pulp fiction, the matrix 1, goodfellas, empire, saving private Ryan, terminator 2?
We all knew there'd be a lot of fan service. I think it was well done. It fit with the plot. For example, changing volleyball to two-way football.
shareusing something he learned form the first but better that makes logical sense like the football scene I agree. thats good fan service. other things were just copy and pasted with a new shiny gloss finish
shareAbsurdly overrated movie, reminds me of Avatar in that regard.
It's like everyone is just blindly riding a hype-train, ignoring the movies shortcomings no matter what.
The story is absurdly stupid, the characters are wooden and the first bar-scene with the crew was unbearable and I struggle to get over the fact that all these LIEUTENANTS are "the best of the best" (LOL) and the only candidates for this absurd Metal Gear Solid bullshit-mission. Every 5 seconds the movies demands that I suspend my disbelief and make up some explanation in my head why what I am witnessing is happening while I am being bombarded with the most effortless and cheap fan service at the same time. How am I supposed to enjoy that!?
Everything military is completely absurd, surpassing the point of the enjoyable, and the movie as a whole has been "Marvelized" with this dumb, silly slapstick-like humor up to a point where the movie doesn't take itself serious at all, when it should. The first one did and it was glorious. It was manly, it had solid action that while over the top was still based on realistic military encounters, the love story at least had a purpose and most of all: Chemistry. The cast was brilliant to, perfect I'd say. Especially Goose was brilliant, so was Iceman and many of the supporting roles, like Viper or Ironside's character. Here? none of that. Just "teenagers in flight suits" that say the dumbest lines and BRAG about "being the best"... ahahahaha.
The only good thing is the focus on practical effects and stunts, but that alone doesn't make a movie, let alone justify these hilarious ratings. By the way, does anybody know why Jennifer Connelly was in the movie at all? Who wrote this shit!?
3/10 from me, solely for 2 good scenes (carrier opening, iceman visit) and the practical effects/effort.
The rest is insulting at best. Typical copy/paste "Marvel trash".
The first one did and it was glorious. It was manly, it had solid action that while over the top was still based on realistic military encounters,
I struggle to get over the fact that all these LIEUTENANTS are "the best of the best"
But there was.
The final mission for example made perfect sense.
A damaged US Navy vessel is under threat and they send up F-14 as a CAP and show of force, resulting in a relatively minor (just a couple jets) hostile encounter between the two factions that the Navy, of course, wins.
Perfect example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpkYvPx9iEI
The parallels to the movie encounter are obvious - I hope.
Sure, one can and will find issues on a purely micro-tactical basis when analyzing that battle, but overall it is perfectly realistic story-wise.
Meanwhile in TG2, FOUR jets flown by "the elite" (Lieutenants, lol) are send deep behind enemy lines without SEAD, DEAD, Jammers or fighter escorts to do a LITERAL "Star Wars suicide attack run" on an underground nuclear power plant (cooling is overrated I guess?) that is protected by what felt like a gazillian of outdated, obviously, radar guided, SAM sites that all sit on the most inaccessible mountain tops (how!?) that engage any aircraft in a literal split second and even at the shortest range (how?) being defeated by FLARES that are dumped from a big red button instead of... realistically from the HOTAS. NO!
And that canyon... IF there would be such a high value target the "enemy" wants to protect SO hard, do you really think they'd not put some SHORAD up to, I don't know, protect the ONLY passage they aren't covering? Ah yes right "they would not expect us to come through that"... riiiight.
Go ahead daddy Top Gun, insult me more so the script can happen!
Like come on dude... it's dumb as fuck from start to finish.
It should have been so much... more.
As a die-hard Top Gun fan I am disappointed.
Nothing makes sense. Throughout the movie. How the fuck did Maverick survive ejecting from M 10.3 even!?
I mean come on! How LAZY can writing be?
"I struggle to understand how the graduates of separate Top Gun classes even know each other,"
Yes, perfect observation and another good example.
The final mission for example made perfect sense.
A damaged US Navy vessel is under threat and they send up F-14 as a CAP and show of force, resulting in a relatively minor (just a couple jets) hostile encounter between the two factions that the Navy, of course, wins.
as honest trailers said. "top gun is a military recruitment tool disguised as a gay romance disguised as an action movie"
https://youtu.be/UxFq16IG_k0
Marvel trash? Lol most are fantastic
shareIt's been 37 yrs in between. The retreading here is not your typical retreading, not because they can't think of new material... but it's about nostalgia, so it gets a pass.
share