MovieChat Forums > Top Gun: Maverick (2022) Discussion > The acting felt off

The acting felt off

posted 2 years ago by Burgershmurger (1461)
9 replies | jump to latest

The acting was wooden. I thought I was watching a C movie. Not for a single moment did I feel I was watching the same Maverick as from the 80s. What was the director aiming for? Because the actors can act.

[–] stickman38 (3439) 2 years ago

Action films are usually a little light on acting. I thought Jennifer Connelly did a fairly good job with what she had to work with. But yeah, agreed, not too much to say in the acting department for this movie. TG:M is all about the action scenes. Although, Ed Harris and Charles Parnell were decent too.

At the end of the day, I don't see this movie winning any Oscars in the "actor" category.

[–] Burgershmurger (1461) 2 years ago

The whole movie felt fake. The glossy cinematography didn't help either. It looked like a Cruise puff piece. And not seeing who the enemy is made it look even more hollow.

[–] emori (3674) 2 years ago

Every actor was trying considering action movie material. Only Tom didnt even try. This is his passion project, the one he wanted to make many years. And then he finally did and was to lazy to act.

[–] stickman38 (3439) 2 years ago

I've never considered Tom Cruise to be a great actor or anything, his best performance was in that movie, Magnolia. He was pretty much what most of us expected in TG:M.

I wasn't expecting anything out of the ordinary from him. He was alright in Maverick.

[–] emori (3674) 2 years ago

Yes. Specially Toms acting. He looked like 50 years old actress who did botox and cant move her face now. His acting was so wooden that it was offensive. He had one face expression throughout whole movie. Reminded Bruce Willis acting in his last movies. It was lifeless. But Bruce is sick. Whats Toms excuse?

55 years old Maverick had no personality. He was looking like sad depressed old lady. It was painful to watch. There was no sparkle in him. I wonder if that is because this is what Tom Cruise is now.

[–] Burgershmurger (1461) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[–] Galactus03 (4406) 2 years ago

It was better than the first movie. Top Gun had much more wooden acting scenes than this film. Sorry...

[–] whoanelly (1592) a year ago

I agree. After we watched TG2, we rewatched TG1 after not having seen it for decades. The acting was cringe. Val Kilmer was better in the comedy Top Secret than he was in TG1.

As for Maverick having no “sparkle,” I thought that was the whole point.

[–] Heisenberg (6730) a year ago

Agreed.
The lazy script did not help either.
I think overall it's this "director"s fault, he had no vision nor balls.
Just a servant to the producers, and it shows.

Tony Scott had style, vision and balls. The difference is obvious.