Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
It's how a sequel should be done.
It paid homage to the original and gave you enough callbacks to and developments from those original characters to appreciate them as critical throughput.
Contrast that to Kathleen Kennedy's approach to Star Wars. Had Kennedy and Rian Johnson made this movie, Tom Cruise would've been a brain damaged homeless hermit suffering from PTSD and pan-handling in LA, Rooster would've had an awkward and unnecessary love interest and the main character would turn out to be Penny Benjamin's daughter, who learns how to fly in 2 weeks and ends up completing the mission on her own.
You can make a damn entertaining sequel without shitting on the original subject material and that's exactly what this did. At times it got a little heavy on the fan service but it was all fan service I LIKED. I mean the intro was completely shoe-horned in there and meant absolutely nothing, it was a blatant callback. And I didn't give a damn - it was still awesome.
And this is the first time I can remember Tom Cruise actually having romantic chemistry with the female lead. I mean Cocktail may be the last time I can think of him having a relationship in a movie that I actually bought. He and Jennifer Connelly work extremely well.
:-) Well said. I really liked how they handled Val Kilmer. I think he might have been dealing with cancer at the time of filming? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare:
It was a fun movie, though still pissed it was Goose's son and he would be in his late 30's to early 40's if it was chronologically accurate.
I remember they had a toddler-aged kid in the first one that was Goose's son. If that is supposed to be Rooster, yeah, the time line is more than a bit off. Would help a bit if the wife was pregnant at the time and the kid was born after Goose died.
Of course, this movie was completed a couple of years ago and has sat in the can because of covid. And do they actually say when the movie was set? If the kid was born in, say, 1984, and the movie is set in 2016, that would make him 32. If it was a child born after Goose's death, he could be around 30. If Rooster didn't go the Annapolis route immediately after high school and instead went to a normal college, then attended OCS later, the time line isn't too bad. Also, at least when I was in, it generally took a lieutenant about eight years to make lieutenant commander, so if he's portrayed as a lieutenant in this, he could just be a really senior one in his early 30s.
The hardest part to believe is that Mitchell himself is still (a) a captain on active duty, and (b) flying jets in his 50s.
But, it's just a movie - and from everything I've heard, a damned good one. So I'm more than willing to let it go. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
I’ve never seen the original. I’ve got it recorded so I can watch it ahead of this new one since it sounds like it’s pretty good.
Make sure you Vaseline your body up before watching and wear swim trunks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
I’ve never seen the original. I’ve got it recorded so I can watch it ahead of this new one since it sounds like it’s pretty good.
You are the first person (whos over 30 I presume) who hasn't seen Top Gun. [Reply]