‘Top Gun: Maverick’ cruises along with spectacle, nostalgia

Much has been made about how “Halloween Ends” might be a good movie but it’s not a good “Halloween” movie. No such danger with another 2022 legacy sequel: “Top Gun: Maverick” is undeniably a “Top Gun” movie. The team of five writers uses the 1986 original’s structure: Maverick (Tom Cruise) gets to the titular academy, then we see training for a mission, then we see the mission.

Flying high

Filling the downtime between wonderful blitzes of jet-fighter action imagery (a core reason to make this film, along with nostalgia) is de-facto character growth. This part of “Maverick” doesn’t matter to most viewers.

Director Joseph Kosinski has this sequel flying high because he and his team have updated how the maneuvers and dogfights are shot. Instead of cropping tight on the pilot, cinematographer Claudio Miranda foregrounds the pilot against luscious widescreen backgrounds of sky, mountains, or a swirling eddy of both.

---

---

Amid the dogfights, our heroes release flares that attract the seeker missiles. They explode like fireworks. New radar screens minimize spotters’ need to crane their necks. The film explains the Navy’s logistics and strategy enough so we’re not lost. Again, the villainous country is purposely generic and faceless.

Visually and aurally, this is a feast that should be seen at the cinema or in a home theater with a huge screen and Atmos sound. I admit that.

But still, if it’s awesome in the theater, shouldn’t it hold up at home, even on a laggard techie’s theater-in-a-box? The original “Top Gun” was a rental staple throughout the late Eighties; I don’t remember anyone lamenting how much it loses via a square low-def TV with back-of-the-set speakers.

Running the trench

If I admit that “Maverick” looks and sounds awesome, would fans be willing to admit that the other stuff isn’t very good? When I saw the runtime crosses 2 hours, I assumed complex characterization and plot for this century when action films (notably Cruise’s “Mission: Impossible” series) have become brainy and inventive.

That’s not the case. Nor should it be: This is a “Top Gun” movie, not an “M:I” film. Still, it is surprising that “Maverick’s” plot is basically the Death Star trench run.

Amid all the talk about the estate of one of the first film’s co-writers suing the studio for a lack of rights payments, it’s remarkable there’s no talk of George Lucas (or, I guess, Disney) suing. The only reason none of the pilots quote lines like “That’s impossible, even for a computer” amid the briefing has to be because “Star Wars” doesn’t exist in “Top Gun’s” reality.

It’s beefed up from “Star Wars,” granted. The trench that leads to the enemy uranium plant zig-zags, and the target itself – an honest-to-God air vent – is protected by cliffs. Two runs are required – the first must pierce the vent’s shield.

I pray for a “Hot Shots! Part Tres” so we can see more ridiculous zig-zags and the skin on the pilots’ faces stretched beyond what’s possible. Someone should go to Mach 100 and climb out of the cockpit shaped like Gumby.

Pulling the papers

Now for the characters. Rooster is the son of the original’s Goose. He’s played by Miles Teller, plus a mustache so he plausibly resembles Anthony Edwards. Although he’s about 40 – and Maverick is about 60 – the film doesn’t play up the age angle.

It’s cool for the target audience of Gen-X’ers to see that middle-aged folks still have what it takes, like Rocky in “Rocky Balboa.” But I thought piloting, like boxing, is a young man’s game; it might’ve been worthwhile to explore this subject.

Rooster is a latecomer to elite piloting because he was artificially held back in a “Top Gun 1.5” that doesn’t exist. Maverick “pulled his papers” out of fear that Rooster would get killed in this tough job, and therefore he would’ve failed the late Goose.

We get no further details – similar to the first film’s underexplored top-secret mission where Mav’s dad died. (Rooster also has a mom, played by Meg Ryan in the original; I think I caught a reference to her being dead in a throwaway line.)

Is it plausible that Maverick brazenly sabotaged someone’s career and is still employed – rather than imprisoned — by the Navy? Barely, by cinematic standards, because he’s a helluva pilot. We’re not intended to think too hard about it.

Nostalgic feels … for some, not all

“Maverick” does want us to think about Iceman (Val Kilmer) for the sake of nostalgia. He makes a glorified cameo and – mirroring the actor — has a debilitating throat condition.

Also tapping into nostalgia, we revisit the romance between Mav and Charlie (Kelly McGillis) that was the centerpiece of the original film’s on-the-ground drama. Oh wait, we don’t. McGillis wasn’t asked to return, and Charlie isn’t even mentioned. As McGillis said half-jokingly in an interview, she’s too old and fat.

Instead, Mav is taking up again with base bartender Penny (Jennifer Connelly), whose backstory happened in “Top Gun 1.5,” perhaps around the time Mav was “pulling Rooster’s papers.” In a cute scene, generational roles are switched: They try to hide their relationship from Penny’s studious teenage daughter.

It’s Maverick’s movie

Initially, the writers attempt a balancing act where we meet the new corps of pilots amid the reintroduction of Maverick. There’s a female pilot this time, and little is made of that; like Rooster’s age being a non-issue, that’s kind of refreshing.

The main takeaway from the next gen is that Rooster hates Mav’s guts (with good reason; you don’t just forgive someone for “pulling your papers”). He expresses this with glares across the briefing room, across the base, across the bar. Then he reconciles inwardly, reminiscent of the Mav-Iceman almost-clash from 1986.

Rooster gets some good moments, but “Maverick” is not falsely named: This is Mav’s movie, with the aerial action as his true wingman. Because of that, “Top Gun: Maverick” is a great “Top Gun” movie. However, it’s too predictably on-target to be a great movie.

IMDb Top 250 trivia

• “Top Gun: Maverick” ranks at No. 81 with an 8.4 rating among IMDb’s Top 250 movies.
• The original “Top Gun” isn’t as well-respected. It rates a 6.9.