Top Gun: Maverick
There are certain actors whose presence just radiates warmth. They are kind of incapable of being truly malicious on-screen, regardless of how they are cast. I feel that way about Jennifer Connelly. Even when she is in a role as intense as “Requiem for a Dream,” or even something goofy like “Career Opportunities,” there’s a sense of empathy towards her that is absolute. In “Top Gun: Maverick,” she brings to life someone we’ve only heard of, and gives her a personality and intelligence and conviction that makes her a worthy foil for Pete Mitchell, now in his 50s, but as arrogant as ever.
If an actor is going to return to a character for the first time in decades, it needs to be because there’s something to say about that character to merit it. It’s interesting that the two primary creative forces behind this sequel to the 1986 pop culture juggernaut both have “legacy sequels” that came at key moments in their careers. For director Joseph Kosinski, his big break as a feature director was 2010’s “TRON: Legacy”; for star Tom Cruise, it was a film he did the same year as the original “Top Gun,” Martin Scorsese’s “The Color of Money.” After “TRON: Legacy,” Cruise collaborated with Kosinski on “Oblivion,” and now, he brought the director on to continue the story of one of his most iconic characters. Is there anything left to say about Maverick, though? Maybe more than I initially thought.
“Top Gun” is a movie I enjoy more than I love. The collision of Cruise’s starpower, producers Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer and director Tony Scott (whom this movie is dedicated to, after he died in 2012) hit at just the right moment of the Reagan ’80s with its combination of patriotism, MTV-ready soundtrack and high-concept star vehicle strength. Now, it doesn’t have much weight emotionally, feels like a music video that’s 110-minute of military propaganda, and all the filmmakers involved with the film hit highs later that were more thrilling (Scott with “Crimson Tide” and “Enemy of the State,” Simpson and Bruckheimer with “Bad Boys” and “The Rock,” Cruise with his “Mission: Impossible” franchise) while touching on the same energy they captured in 1986. Was there really anyone clamoring for more “Top Gun” in 1986? Cruise, Bruckheimer, and Kosinski are hoping you think so, and honestly, they thought right; the packed house I saw this film with went nuts for the film.
In the “Mission: Impossible” films, Tom Cruise has used Ethan Hunt as a way of pushing the envelope in terms of death-defying stunts. His Hunt, in a way, is an offshoot of Maverick, someone who only feels comfortable when he’s challenging orders, and showing off his skills in front of people. He was always a bit of an outlier in the military need for people comfortable “following orders.” Maybe that’s why, 30-plus years after he graduated from the Top Gun Naval Aviator School, he’s a test pilot on the brink of court martial. When we first see him in this film, he takes a jet whose program is about to be scrapped and tries to take it to the limit needed in order to keep it going. The Rear Admiral (Ed Harris) is going to relish being the one who finally gets Maverick out…except he’s going to have to wait for another day. Orders from above him require Maverick back at Top Gun, where he’s going to train a dozen of the Navy’s best for an improbable mission. One of those pilots is Rooster (Miles Teller), who is Goose’s grown son, and whom still holds a grudge against Maverick after Maverick pulled his application for the Naval Academy. That, coupled with Goose dying as Mav’s rio at Top Gun, are plenty for him to hold over Pete.
The trick with “legacy sequels”- or really, any sequel- is how much to rely on call backs to the earlier films. Cruise’s instincts are so commercially-driven, and savvy, that I wasn’t shocked to see this film trade in nostalgia in terms of its opening credits sequence (which is practically identical to the original, right down to the credits font), the pilots playing sports in their off time (football this time, not volleyball), or well-timed flashbacks to the first film, especially when it comes to Goose. That said, there are some things that we miss; gone are Kelly McGillis as Charlie and Meg Ryan as Rooster’s mother, and the only returning pilot from the original we get is Iceman, now an Admiral, but still played by Val Kilmer. Kilmer’s health struggles are well-known now, and the way the film uses them is thoughtful and brings added emotion to his scene with Cruise; in just a few moments and lines of dialogue, we have 30-plus years of history and evolution between these characters given to us in a way that is a credit to the film’s writers- Ehren Kruger, Eric Warren Singer and Christopher McQuarrie- along with Cruise’s respect for Kilmer as both a performer and a person. That moment might be worth the price of admission alone.
If Charlie’s gone, who is Maverick’s love interest? That would be the infamous Penny Benjamin, the admiral’s daughter we heard about in the first film. This is Connelly’s character, and it’s a great tradeoff. At this point in Maverick’s story, someone deep in the same line of work would be wrong for a romantic partner- the reason Charlie works in the first film is because it ties into Maverick’s larger sense to rebel against the Naval system to sleep with an instructor; plus, did anyone really expect happily ever after for those two? Penny, who runs a bar near Top Gun and has a daughter, offers something different- the possibility of someone for Maverick to come home to at the end of the day. In a way, this is cribbing from “Jerry Maguire”- the career-driven hot shot who is forced to be a grown-up for the first time when faced with love and responsibility- but it works in the performances by Cruise and Connelly. If Maverick survives, this is where his happily ever after will happen.
Six paragraphs in- am I ever going to take to the skies in discussing this movie? Sure thing. As part of Cruise’s MO as an actor and producer, it’s important for him that we see things we never really have seen before in terms of set pieces. For “Maverick,” he and the actors went through an extensive boot camp that not only assured that A) we believed they were actually in the air flying, but B) that even the images of them in the cockpit were striking to witness on the biggest screen possible. (And yes, this is worth a trip to IMAX. It was my first since 2018.) Kosinski is no stranger to elaborate and challenging set pieces, and it’s a big part of why Cruise brought him on; whether these pilots are training in California or in the middle of a life-and-death fight behind enemies lines, we feel the danger they’re putting themselves in every step of the way. Claudio Miranda’s cinematography is thrilling, but not flashy, and that’s the way this should be. And then there’s the music, which brings together original composer Harold Faltermeyer, Hans Zimmer and Lady Gaga (who’s theme song, “Hold My Hand,” is woven beautifully into the fabric of this score) for a great musical experience that is both contemporary and a wonderful call back to the original film. If this is what you’re going for, you will not be disappointed. For me, there’s only so much one can do with these set pieces; the emotions have to land for them to truly soar, and while we get there, it felt like a long haul to accomplish that.
I loved the experience of “Top Gun: Maverick,” but in writing this review, I find my enthusiasm more for some things that have nothing to do with the air, and more to do with whether there’s a heart here. There was more for us to see from Maverick, and I’m glad I got to see it, but it wasn’t necessarily what Cruise and co. cared most about that thrilled me in this story.
