The Official Review Thread of 2022

[Sonic Youth]

I've never seen the original. I think "Let it Slip Away" is the ugliest 80s ballad I've ever heard. Am I really required to have an accompanying visual to go along with it?

[taki15]

I'm a kid of the 80's but only saw the original Top Gun a few weeks ago. I'll agree that its artistic merits are dubious, to say the least, but I was thoroughly entertained (even though I started giggling during the sex scene as I was reminded of the same scene in Hot Shots!).
Top Gun: Maverick though is a genuinely good movie and whoever likes it has nothing to be embarrassed of.

[Greg]

I saw Top Gun once years ago. I have three memories of it. I was mostly bored; some women/girls in the theater screamed when Tom Cruise played volleyball without his shirt on; and, the Oscar-winning song.

[Big Magilla]

I think his best reviewed film was True Romance, but that is probably thanks more to Quentin Tarantino's screenplay than his direction. I find most of his films a slog to sit through, especially The Hunger which I've never been able to take than a few minutes of, and his dumb remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three. The rest, including The Crimson Tide, I have no memory of other than that I've seen some of them.

Top Gun, at least I remember.

[Mister Tee]

It was not a great work of art

Classic understatement.

although it is one of director Tony Scott's better films

I suppose arguable, only because Tony Scott has one of the least impressive filmographies of any hit-making director in my lifetime. I'll grant he's not as bad as, say, Michael Bay. But apart from maybe Enemy of the State, Crimson Tide, and, I guess, The Hunger, I wouldn't give a single thought to any of his movies.

[Big Magilla]

It really is interesting to me that there haven't been many reviews about Top Gun: Maverick on this board.

I'm in no rush to see it. The original was a box-office phenomenon propelled by a popular song that eventually won an Oscar and the rising popularity of its star. It was not a great work of art, although it is one of director Tony Scott's better films, a solid **1/2-*** film. No doubt, however, that there are people who remember it more fondly than some of us here.

I've long contended the one unbridgeable generation gap is our level of tolerance for the crap we saw in formative years. I don't expect anyone who wasn't in my age cohort in 1959 to have much affection for The Shaggy Dog -- yet it sits warmly in my heart to this day. However: I was 24 when a follow-up, The Shaggy D.A. was released, and it didn't even cross my mind to go see it. I'd outgrown it. I don't think people outgrow their youthful attachments; they just keep going to see minor variations on the same.

Fortunately, my youthful attachments were to better films. As a child, I saw big screen theatrical revivals of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, The Wizard of Oz and Pinocchio on the big screen so I had no tolerance for the newer, dumber films aimed at children. As a consequence, I gravitated toward more serious films at an early age. I've always liked films from any genre as long as they are well made, but if I have a preference, it is probably toward British murder mysteries in Sherlock Holmes - Agatha Christie tradition which are better done on TV than on the big screen these days.

I knew movies were in trouble in the late 90s, when I saw grown adults dressed as Princess Leia and Chewbacca, standing in line for yet another re-release of the Star Wars movies. These people weren't outgrowing their youths; they were doubling down on them. Given that an increasing percentage of the film-going audience has never known a time when seriously-intended movies were anything but a late-year/awards-centered phenomenon, if they keep anchored to what they grew up on, it's going to be ever-thinner versions of what was garbage to begin with.

Sadly, true.

This has now crossed over to the realm of film criticism. With the shrinking of legitimate newspaper/magazine outlets, anyone with a keyboard can declare his- or herself a film critic. And they're likely to have the taste they grew up with; making them tout super-hero movies, horror films, broad comedies and sequels for prizes. (And some who used to know better, like Owen Gleiberman, seem to have decided getting in line with the crowd is the way to sustain a career, rather than championing anything challenging.) I feel like there are few serious gatekeepers left; I'm not sure there's anyone out there whose recommendation I fully trust these days. So a 78 Metacritic score, given the tone of what reviews I read, does nothing to persuade my against my original judgment on the film.

Also, sadly true.

[danfrank]

You needn’t have added the “get off my lawn” coda, Tee. I don’t think what you said was curmudgeonly, just an honest expression of dismay about the clear de-sophistication of taste among the filmgoing public over the last decades. I’m right with you on this one. I like your insight about people not outgrowing their childhood attachments. It’s one thing to enjoy re-watching films of questionable taste that you enjoyed as a kid (I certainly do this at times) but another to stay in a state of arrested development, never developing more refined taste. I don’t have judgment about people enjoying the occasional mindless entertainment, but knowing that this constitutes the entire diet for the vast majority of filmgoers is just sad. For what it’s worth, I pretty much couldn’t stand the first Top Gun, and won’t be seeing this one.

[Mister Tee]

It really is interesting to me that there haven't been many reviews about Top Gun: Maverick on this board.

Well, I'll explain/attempt to speak for Old Farts United.

You'd have to put a gun to my head to make me see this movie, let alone spend theatre prices. I waited for home video on the original (mere VHS, then), only really watched it for its minor Oscar nominations, and found it exactly what it appeared/what the reviews had suggested: utterly vacuous, synthetic Hollywood product that epitomized all the worst of the 80s, both culturally and politically. I guess, technically, you can't call a 36-years-later sequel part of a franchise, but it sure ain't anything original, either. To me, it falls into the same niche as any Marvel or or DC or Jurassic movie: machines built to drain wallets, with not an ounce of soul involved.

I'm not 100% snob -- I can see the appeal of pure entertainment -- but since I flat-out DIDN'T enjoy the original, I have no expectation I'd derive any pleasure from this.

But, you might counter, the reviews aren't that bad. And, honestly, that may be the part that depresses me most about this. I read a number of those reviews, and, almost universally, they speak of the original as, if not good, at worst an object of nostalgia from their childhoods. Now, I've long contended the one unbridgeable generation gap is our level of tolerance for the crap we saw in formative years. I don't expect anyone who wasn't in my age cohort in 1959 to have much affection for The Shaggy Dog -- yet it sits warmly in my heart to this day. However: I was 24 when a followup, The Shaggy D.A. was released, and it didn't even cross my mind to go see it. I'd outgrown it.

The issue for me, today, is I don't think people outgrow their youthful attachments; they just keep going to see minor variations on the same. I knew movies were in trouble in the late 90s, when I saw grown adults dressed as Princess Leia and Chewbacca, standing in line for yet another re-release of the Star Wars movies. These people weren't outgrowing their youths; they were doubling down on them. Given that an increasing percentage of the film-going audience has never known a time when seriously-intended movies were anything but a late-year/awards-centered phenomenon, if they keep anchored to what they grew up on, it's going to be ever-thinner versions of what was garbage to begin with.

And this has now crossed over to the realm of film criticism. With the shrinking of legitimate newspaper/magazine outlets, anyone with a keyboard can declare his- or herself a film critic. And they're likely to have the taste they grew up with: making them tout super-hero movies, horror films, broad comedies and sequels for prizes. (And some who used to know better, like Owen Gleiberman, seem to have decided getting in line with the crowd is the way to sustain a career, rather than championing anything challenging.) I feel like there are few serious gate-keepers left; I'm not sure there's anyone out there whose recommendation I fully trust these days. So a 78 Metacritic score, given the tone of what reviews I read, does nothing to persuade my against my original judgment on the film.

So, does that answer your query? If so, consider this wrapped up.

Now, you kids get off my lawn.

[gunnar]

I enjoyed Top Gun: Maverick and think that they made the right decision to hold it back so that it could be seen on the big screen. It would not have had the same impact if seen at home through streaming. I found it to be fairly predictable, but it was still fun. I didn't think it merits any Oscar consideration, except maybe in some of the technical categories.

[Sabin]

It really is interesting to me that there haven't been many reviews about Top Gun: Maverick on this board. I know that technically this is the Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board which, y'know, is going to attract a certain type of folk. I'll forgo the "gIvE iT tO tHe BlOcKbUsTeR" conversation that happens every year. (My answer: it won't probably won't be). Right now, this film is beloved. I was curious how audiences would respond to its streamlined simplicity and the answer seems to be pretty well. It dropped a mere 33% over the weekend, probably en route to #1 of the year thus far. It has a 97% on RT (78% on Metacritic; either way, higher than CODA). More than that, it seems to be a culturally unifying event on both sides of the political divide. Its very existence and success seems to be taken as a response to the status quo: against cynicism, against superheroes (except for fatigues), against franchise (except it's a sequel).

I'm lukewarm on it, but I definitely think it's success is telling of a shift in attitudes on some level. I'm inclined to think that it getting pushed back until after COVID was a blessing in disguise, where its retro enthusiasm could serve as some kind of merit.

[anonymous1980]

SENIOR YEAR
Cast: Rebel Wilson, Sam Richardson, Mary Holland, Zoe Chao, Justin Hartley, Chris Parnell, Angourie Rice, Alicia Silverstone.
Dir: Alex Hardcastle.

A high school cheerleader falls into a coma after a cheerleading stunt gone wrong. She wakes up 20 years later and decides to go back and finish high school to become prom queen. The concept has potential. There are a lot of laughs to be had (potentially) with someone experiencing the 2020's Gen-Z culture for the first time. There's also satirical potential in there as well. But unfortunately, hardly any of that is in this film. You can see some glimpses of it but they often resort to low-hanging fruit for their jokes. Rebel Wilson is actually a fine actress and gives an actually pretty good performance which made the film not-too-terrible and with a few chuckles here and there. But overall, not great but not completely terrible Netflix content.

Oscar Prospects: Zero.

Grade: C.

EMERGENCY
Cast: R.J. Cyler, Donald Elise Watkins, Sebastian Chacon, Sabrina Carpenter, Maddie Nichols.
Dir: Carey Williams.

Three college students, two black and one Latinx, find themselves in a bit of a pickle when a drunk underage white girl is found unconscious in their residence. Their hesitancy to simply call 9-11 due to some very good reasons lead to a number of complications. I have to say big props to this film for the big swing. This film combines a college party comedy, a thriller and a drama about institutionalized racism into one film. It's not always successful in this combo but when it is, it flies. The situations these characters get themselves in manages is both absurdly funny and yet also frustrating and sad due to its circumstances. It is definitely a film you will talk about after seeing it.

Oscar Prospects: If eligible, a longshot for Screenplay.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

TOP GUN: MAVERICK
Cast: Tom Cruise, Miles Teller, Jennifer Connelly, Jon Hamm, Glenn Powell, Lewis Pullman, Monica Barbaro, Ed Harris, Val Kilmer.
Dir: Joseph Kosinski.

It's the sequel to the 1986 hit with Maverick returning to train a group of young fighter pilots on a top secret mission to blow up hidden uranium enrichment site by a rogue nation. I confess: I was not a fan of the original film so I wasn't really all that excited to see this. The rave reviews that were surprisingly showered by this convinced me to give it a try. I have to say: It is actually really good. I was resisting throughout the film but it won me over. It is, suffice to say, better than the original. It manages to have better action sequences and a better more substantive script (co-written by Christopher McQuarrie who seems to make every Tom Cruise project better). Tom Cruise does what Tom Cruise does best. It didn't blow me away but unlike the first one, I'd watch this again.

Oscar Prospects: Original Song and Sound are strong possibilities.

Grade: B+

[Sabin]

Mister Tee wrote
I'd guess the film will easily get the Ex Machina nominations -- screenplay and visual effects. But it could also get editing, production design, score...and possibly best picture, since we insist on ten nominees every year.

I have no idea if EEAAO will have a shot at a Best Picture nomination but I have no doubt that A24 is going to push it. It just became their highest-(domestic) grossing film surpassing Uncut Gems (which in retrospect, they should have found a way to push harder) and that achievement alone will inspire some form of push.

[Mister Tee]

Weighing in late of Everything Everywhere All at Once.

Sabin is certainly correct about the intensity of the following it has: the young guy who took my ticket had his eyes light up seeing which movie I was going to; he told me it was great (maybe was surprised an oldster like me was seeing it). I can see how, for a young guy, it would evoke that response. It's certainly got vitality, and freshness; just from the trailer, you could tell it wasn't just the same old thing. Whether it's enough on its own to merit the enthusiasm is another matter. I had a bit of trouble with the opening sequences -- a frenetic pace was set from the get-go, and my brain was so busy reading the subtitles that I sometimes missed a key phrase spoken in English. But I adjusted and, like Sabin/okri, followed it with pleasure much of the way -- not always up to speed with it, but happy to take the kinetic ride.

Such films, however, have a kind of built-in problem: at a certain point, they need to focus the vast imaginative universe they've created toward some kind of satisfying finish. This is a tall order, something at which even exceptional artists have failed. I'm sorry to say this film doesn't pull it off: after lots of cynical "life is random and meaningless" posturing -- and suggesting both that your life might have gone better without your long-term marriage, and that your rebellious daughter is actually an agent of evil -- it falls back on "we all need to love one another, baby" as cleansing coda. Worse, it pounds that one note for roughly half an hour -- the film could have ended at multiple points before it finally fades to black, without losing a bit of its content.

This doesn't necessarily make that final half hour unbearable. Visuals are impressive throughout, the acting -- especially by Michelle Yeoh and Stephanie Hsu -- is far better than genre films typically provide, and there's some welcome humor sprinkled throughout. I can see why, especially during the dry movie season that is pre-September, people would get hyped for this. I just wish it had lived up to its loftiest goals.

I'd guess the film will easily get the Ex Machina nominations -- screenplay and visual effects. But it could also get editing, production design, score...and possibly best picture, since we insist on ten nominees every year.

[Reza]

Worth noting: there is ZERO mention of the enemy nation they are doing this offensive operation. At the time of the movie's writing, North Korea is in the news. Today it's Russia.

Wish it had been Ukraine for real - if only to see how the same white nations who are condemning the Russians would have supported the United States.