Movies in General


siegecrossbow

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Effing Cannes judges selling out to Huawei!

OTHER PRIZES​

Camera d’Or: “War Horse,” Gina Gammell and Riley Keough

Camera d’Or Special Mention: “Plan 75,” Hayakawa Chie

Short Films Palme d’Or:
“The Water Murmurs,” Jianying Chen

Short Films Special Mention:“Lori,” Abinash Bikram Shah

Golden Eye Documentary Prize: “All That Breathes,” Shaunak Sen

Queer Palm: “Joyland”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

CASTING​

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- Tian


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- Grandpa PENG


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
- Nian
 

Equation

Lieutenant General
I finally went to see the new Top Gun movie. It was good, better than the first one. Much better plot and aerial combat maneuvers. I'm sure some of our forum members here (Popeye) love the beginning of the film showcasing all the carrier deck sailors performing the tasks on board that busy flight deck. ;)
 

tygyg1111

Junior Member
Registered Member
I finally went to see the new Top Gun movie. It was good, better than the first one. Much better plot and aerial combat maneuvers. I'm sure some of our forum members here (Popeye) love the beginning of the film showcasing all the carrier deck sailors performing the tasks on board that busy flight deck. ;)
Interesting... I still thought the original was better - a fairly compelling plot driven by the reality of their times, and an optimistic view of the then future... whereas the new Top Gun, whilst well shot and written, was just awash with a rear-looking nostalgia, that their best days were behind them.
All in all still a good movie, but symptomatic of the depressing reality that is facing the US as a whole - that the future is not brighter than yesterday.
 

Helius

Junior Member
Registered Member
Interesting... I still thought the original was better - a fairly compelling plot driven by the reality of their times, and an optimistic view of the then future... whereas the new Top Gun, whilst well shot and written, was just awash with a rear-looking nostalgia, that their best days were behind them.
All in all still a good movie, but symptomatic of the depressing reality that is facing the US as a whole - that the future is not brighter than yesterday.
Which ironically you could argue the sequel also has such a plot as driven by the reality of present times.
 

Maikeru

Senior Member
Registered Member
Just seen it about an hour ago - still buzzing! Epic popcorn! Maverick is less cocky than in the original, good to see Iceman making a return as well. Plot gets a bit silly towards the end but this is the kind of movie where you should leave your brain at the cinema door. I wouldn't over-analyze it, just take it for what it is - great escapist entertainment.
 

Lethe

Senior Member
I saw the new Top Gun film with my Dad this evening. Dad introduced me to the first film as a child and it awakened my love for combat aircraft, a fascination that expanded and deepened over the years to encompass military equipment of all kinds, the nuclear security architecture and other aspects of the Cold War, and which has brought me by various twists and turns to my contemporary interest in China's rise, the development of its MIC and the geopolitical consequences thereof. Without Top Gun, I would probably not be posting here today. As such, I clearly had to see the sequel.

We can all nitpick the technical and tactical absurdities of the film, but I want to speak to a couple aspects that have deeper thematic resonance. I was surprised and impressed that the film identified the hostile Su-57 Felon aircraft (not named as such, but that is clearly what it is) as being superior to the Super Hornet. This positioning of the Super Hornet as the "weaker" aircraft served a clear dramatic purpose but is nonetheless a rare and notable concession from Hollywood. Moreover, this concession is actually true to real life, where the Su-57 could indeed fly circles around Super Hornet. One can debate its effectiveness as a weapons system, but nobody seriously questions the aerodynamic prowess of the Su-57 Felon, and this aspect is what the Top Gun film was interested in.

I was also pleasantly surprised that the adversary nation in the film remained unidentified. This is reminiscent of the first film, but then we live in a very different world today. Whereas Top Gun was one of the leading films of a new "pro-military" era emerging from a decade or more of humility in the wake of Vietnam, Top Gun Maverick releases in a world where American nationalism and militarism has reached new heights, where soldiers are reflexively "thanked for their service" and Washington routinely wages wars all around the world with the support or at least quiescence of the civilian population. The restraint of Top Gun Maverick in this respect is almost admirable. The nuclear reactor plot device and presence of the old F-14 strongly suggests we are looking at a reimagined Iran, but the terrain does not support that, nor does the presence of the Su-57 Felon. A plausibly deniable Iran, then.

I agree that the film lacks the bright optimism of the original. I would put this down more to trends in filmmaking that to trends in a broader national consciousness, though of course they are related to some extent. I was impressed by the presence of Val Kilmer, who has lost the use of his voice in real life. I also thought the Goose/Rooster subplot was quite well done. Jennifer Connolly as "Tom Cruise's woman" didn't work quite so well. The basic ingredients were there for a subplot exploring notions of responsibility, change, commitment, but really the film's attentions were elsewhere. I liked the scene where Tom Cruise was thrown out of the bar and found himself as an old man looking in at the young pilots enjoying themselves as he once did, though it was bit overplayed. This is not exactly a subtle film.

Oddly enough I was actually slightly disappointed by the combat/flight scenes. There may have been real aircraft on film with cameras inside real cockpits, but something about the editing didn't sit quite right for me. I know the original film had lots of fast cuts too, but here it didn't seem like the film gave the aircraft time to breathe on screen, nor the ability to appreciate spatial relationships.

Overall I was satisfied with the film. It will certainly not have the immense impact of the first either for me or the broader culture, but it was well made and reasonably well conceived and I am glad to have seen it.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Major
Registered Member
I saw the new Top Gun film with my Dad this evening. Dad introduced me to the first film as a child and it awakened my love for combat aircraft, a fascination that expanded and deepened over the years to encompass military equipment of all kinds, the nuclear security architecture and other aspects of the Cold War, and which has brought me by various twists and turns to my contemporary interest in China's rise, the development of its MIC and the geopolitical consequences thereof. Without Top Gun, I would probably not be posting here today. As such, I clearly had to see the sequel.

We can all nitpick the technical and tactical absurdities of the film, but I want to speak to a couple aspects that have deeper thematic resonance. I was surprised and impressed that the film identified the hostile Su-57 Felon aircraft (not named as such, but that is clearly what it is) as being superior to the Super Hornet. This positioning of the Super Hornet as the "weaker" aircraft served a clear dramatic purpose but is nonetheless a rare and notable concession from Hollywood. Moreover, this concession is actually true to real life, where the Su-57 could indeed fly circles around Super Hornet. One can debate its effectiveness as a weapons system, but nobody seriously questions the aerodynamic prowess of the Su-57 Felon, and this aspect is what the Top Gun film was interested in.

I was also pleasantly surprised that the adversary nation in the film remained unidentified. This is reminiscent of the first film, but then we live in a very different world today. Whereas Top Gun was one of the leading films of a new "pro-military" era emerging from a decade or more of humility in the wake of Vietnam, Top Gun Maverick releases in a world where American nationalism and militarism has reached new heights, where soldiers are reflexively "thanked for their service" and Washington routinely wages wars all around the world with the support or at least quiescence of the civilian population. The restraint of Top Gun Maverick in this respect is almost admirable. The nuclear reactor plot device and presence of the old F-14 strongly suggests we are looking at a reimagined Iran, but the terrain does not support that, nor does the presence of the Su-57 Felon. A plausibly deniable Iran, then.

I agree that the film lacks the bright optimism of the original. I would put this down more to trends in filmmaking that to trends in a broader national consciousness, though of course they are related to some extent. I was impressed by the presence of Val Kilmer, who has lost the use of his voice in real life. I also thought the Goose/Rooster subplot was quite well done. Jennifer Connolly as "Tom Cruise's woman" didn't work quite so well. The basic ingredients were there for a subplot exploring notions of responsibility, change, commitment, but really the film's attentions were elsewhere. I liked the scene where Tom Cruise was thrown out of the bar and found himself as an old man looking in at the young pilots enjoying themselves as he once did, though it was bit overplayed. This is not exactly a subtle film.

Oddly enough I was actually slightly disappointed by the combat/flight scenes. There may have been real aircraft on film with cameras inside real cockpits, but something about the editing didn't sit quite right for me. I know the original film had lots of fast cuts too, but here it didn't seem like the film gave the aircraft time to breathe on screen, nor the ability to appreciate spatial relationships.

Overall I was satisfied with the film. It will certainly not have the immense impact of the first either for me or the broader culture, but it was well made and reasonably well conceived and I am glad to have seen it.
A very well-written review that pretty much captured most of the points I liked about the movie and then some.
 

Top