Good flick. Mostly the same. The most impressive thing about it is how well Tom Cruise has held up, especially compared to his costars.
Top Gun: Maverick
- Thread starter Snake Plissken
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Which has bigger significance for 2022.
Hayden returning as Vader.
Cruise the super thespian stunt man hybrid.
Detective Batman and his scary bad ass car.
Choose wisely
The bigger significance is that Cruise looks the same after nearly 40 years... while Hayden doesn't after only 17.
And in the time Cruise has not aged, there have been 6 different Bat-actors in live action alone.
And in the time Cruise has not aged, there have been 6 different Bat-actors in live action alone.
Knightstalker
Super Freak
Have to see how Hayden goes in the next four episodes of Obi Wan but right now I’m leaning toward Cruise, it would be a mistake to ever underestimate him.
Feel for Kilmer..has throat cancer
Spartan Rex
Super Freak
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 8,130
- Reaction score
- 379
Scientology’s top necromancers earn their keep.
Seriously though I saw a plastic surgeon go over all the stuff he believes Tom has had done over the years. It’s rather extensive but also subtle compared to other aging A listers. You’ll notice Tom gets caught every so often with a very puffy face which is a result of some of the procedures.
He has looked older in the promotion tour.
Cruise in Top Gun.
Disney Plus has a limited audience, and based on comments in the Obi-Wan thread, the show is mediocre at best, so is far below Top Gun's quality.
Rogerbee
Super Freak
A somewhat oversimplified way of looking at it, but, yes I guess it is! LOL!
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 13,003
- Reaction score
- 4,489
I wasn't expecting much from this movie until a couple days ago when reviews started coming in. Saw it last night and it was indeed terrific. Cruise was great in it. A couple scenes pushed the limit of believability but it was entertaining from start to finish, I never found myself checking the time and wondering how much longer. The action looked very good and there was a lot of it. Fantastic sequel, especially when you consider the time passed.
MeatHookGekko
Super Freak
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,091
- Reaction score
- 1,358
There's a saying in Hollywood - You can age in the face or you can age in the body.
If you stay in really tip top shape, your face will be thin and without weight, your age will show quite a bit.
If you put on weight and keep weight on, your face is fuller, which looks rounder and younger, but your body starts to look heavy/pudgy. Which becomes more pronounced if you are short.
The other issue is doing PEDs and HGH and the like, which is going to be needed to train constantly or take the beating you do for all those stunts. That kind of stuff makes your head grow bigger ( Look at Barry Bonds) and then you have to balance it out by putting on mass so it's not so alarming looking, again, a rougher trade off for shorter people.
Obviously Cruise looks very good for his age, but it's not like he looks like he did in the first Mission Impossible.
Imagine if how good you'd look if you didn't have the stress of paying bills, driving yourself, cooking for yourself, sitting in traffic, dealing with a ****** boss, cleaning your own bathroom, doing your own laundry, running your own errands, getting nagged when you get home from work, etc, etc and all you had to do was work out, sleep 8-10 hours a day and doing acting stuff. And you were supported by chefs, personal trainers, make up people, assistants, etc, etc.
Cruise has the best life and the worst life at the same time. Imagine living every day where everyone has incentive to lie to your face about everything, no one wants to be genuine around you and everyone wants something out of you like they were milking a cow .
OK, the married people here will understand that, but for the single people here who didn't take the path of utter masochism, imagine that kind of daily mind numbing existence.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2014
- Messages
- 13,003
- Reaction score
- 4,489
After seeing this it has to be Cruise, and I'm far from his biggest fan. I would love to see Cruise opposite Keanu in a Heat style crime thriller. I have always liked the first Top Gun film but I'm shocked that this sequel turned out so well in the present day.
Timemeddler
Super Freak
Top Gun: A New Hope. I absolutely LOVED IT!!!
Rogerbee
Super Freak
It's just as Maverick said, you have to manage your expectations. I try not to let hype get to me and go in neutral with an open mind.
Rogerbee
Super Freak
Top Gun: A New Hope. I absolutely LOVED IT!!!
LOL! Exactly what I thought!
in 4700 theaters! A new record!
The Mrs did not see the first one yet so we watched the original the night before then watched this new one the next day. We both loved it. I know some people will prefer the original, but in this case, I preferred the sequel. This surprised me because Top Gun was one of my all-time favorites from when I was young.
I did dislike one thing from this though:
Apart from the above, everything else was a positive for me. Even the test pilot stuff was good in my opinion (I read this was a sore point for many).
About the Hornets, the Hornets never had the same gravitas as the Tomcats on screen IMO. Something about the Tomcats in the first movie gave them more gravitas, a bigger "wow factor", and the Tomcats were very much characters in that film (in the same way the Enterprise is a "character" in Star Trek). The Hornets here did not have that same impact IMO, and I'm not really sure why.
That said, I am glad that of the modern jets of the Navy, they went with the Hornets.
On the combat side:
I'd definitely watch this again.
I did dislike one thing from this though:
Spoiler:
Apart from the above, everything else was a positive for me. Even the test pilot stuff was good in my opinion (I read this was a sore point for many).
About the Hornets, the Hornets never had the same gravitas as the Tomcats on screen IMO. Something about the Tomcats in the first movie gave them more gravitas, a bigger "wow factor", and the Tomcats were very much characters in that film (in the same way the Enterprise is a "character" in Star Trek). The Hornets here did not have that same impact IMO, and I'm not really sure why.
That said, I am glad that of the modern jets of the Navy, they went with the Hornets.
On the combat side:
I'd definitely watch this again.
F-14 > F-18The Mrs did not see the first one yet so we watched the original the night before then watched this new one the next day. We both loved it. I know some people will prefer the original, but in this case, I preferred the sequel. This surprised me because Top Gun was one of my all-time favorites from when I was young.
I did dislike one thing from this though:
Apart from the above, everything else was a positive for me. Even the test pilot stuff was good in my opinion (I read this was a sore point for many).
About the Hornets, the Hornets never had the same gravitas as the Tomcats on screen IMO. Something about the Tomcats in the first movie gave them more gravitas, a bigger "wow factor", and the Tomcats were very much characters in that film (in the same way the Enterprise is a "character" in Star Trek). The Hornets here did not have that same impact IMO, and I'm not really sure why.
That said, I am glad that of the modern jets of the Navy, they went with the Hornets.
On the combat side:
I'd definitely watch this again.
It's just a cooler and better looking aircraft. It's also my favourite aircraft of all time, and part of why I love the VF-1s from Macross/Robotech.
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Similar threads
