If you wanna be like TC, throw away your SB and get an SLB -- 20% off with code FILMENTO: slidebelts.com/ Sorry this video took so long, guys. Paramount tried real hard to block it (they still might).
Bad writing advice: all stories need a villain. Good writing advice: all stories need a *conflict*. Some of the greatest stories are the ones about characters needing to overcome themselves
Actually the main villain is Maverick's past failure of causing Goose's death that led to his present-day guilt which creates all kinds of problems for his interaction with Rooster. The villain archetype can be represented in a non-tangible form, sometimes as ambiguous as the hostile environment of infiltrating the enemy base but it's usually secondary and less engaging if you treat it as the main.
Generally speaking, it's celebrated because of how thoughtful the movie was made. Not as a thought-provoking art piece, but a very well constructed blockbuster entertainment. There's sincerity in it that other blockbusters today don't possess. Tom Cruise didn't buzz the radio tower, he buzzed through his competition.
This. It was a perfect sequel where none of the references to the original felt forced. It didn't need to be thought provoking. It just needed to be entertaining and it definitely accomplished that goal for most people.
I know that this is going to sound weird to some people, but this movie felt like an actual movie and something that is worth experiencing at a movie theater. They knocked it out of the park with this one, and the ending of the movie brought actual tears to my eye. The best part of this whole thing is that they managed to revive an old franchise without screwing it up. Top-notch film!
There’s rarely any modern day movie that can bring you such a cinematic experience. You can feel the tension and the adrenaline, as if you’re actually flying one of those jets.
I think that the ammount of practical VFX is helping this movie as well, since it's not your usual almost everything CGI super hero movie, but instead they are just basically regular fighter pilots that have to fly impossible mission.
@@thatonedaniel98 Practical VFX plus a clear passion from the writing team and not just focusing in a cash grab nostalgia bait certainly does make a difference
I'm kinda glad this came out 40 years later. This movie formula of Top Gun can get old pretty quick. If this movie came out in 1989, it wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Movie started really good with the montage. Though that maybe producers have enough fuck you money to make something else than boring superhero film. Maybe just once, right? 1 hour in it's clear that it's just another empty void & safe cash cow.
I will never understand why people go see a movie part 2 or whatever and not see the ones before And then they complain when they don't understand what's going on
It's because it was made by people who knew what they were doing, and what they were doing was trying to make an entertaining movie as opposed to bombard the audience with a message
@@tonykennedy8483 The messages aren't the problem, it's that those messages are so blunt and unnuanced in their portrayals that they boil the entire film down to a simplistic, meaningless worldview. The people that want to put female empowerment, minority representation, and other sociopolitical talking points in their films don't understand the core of the movements they wish to profit off of. Take films like Mulan or Captain Marvel, for example. Having a film about female empowerment isn't the problem, it's that the writers, directors, producers, etc. believed that a woman being powerful was the same thing as empowering women, when that just isn't the case.
I was half way through the movie when I noticed there was no villain I thought they'd either introduce a generic boring villain, or make a "villain" out of the struggle and objective they had In the end, it worked out perfectly
Yeap the villain only serves as a narrative to push the characters into conflict, drama and making tough decisions based on what the earlier segments of the movie shows us. The plot is simple and doesn’t need it to be so deep for us to enjoy it. Great film!
My favorite moment in the movie is after it’s established that maverick “wanted to be the father rooster didn’t have”, we see roster say “talk to me dad” in the final act. We then cut to maverick telling him to “don’t think, just do.” Masterful storytelling.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom It wasn't simple. It was needlessly convoluted while still being completely braindead. Get the edgy bible, to send demons, to get the kid, to get her powers, to travel the multiverse, to kill other you, to take her place, to kidnap her kids, to make your made-up life real... And that's being "reasonable" lol. And the success? Marvel still somehow sells.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom I think Top Gun Maverick has the simplest plot....but it's more full of depth and nuance than a MCU movie. I mean, it's sure the plot of the first Star Wars, but as they said, it's about Maverick overcoming with guilt, passing of time, trusting issues, etc. I dunno if Wanda or Strange has the same gravitas in the MoM movie. Their personal conflics don't matter.
A note of caution: it is common in some movies to make the male and female leads former lovers who reconcile by the end of the film. I have seen this fairly often in low budget disaster movies. Contrived pre-existing conflicts between characters is also common, and was lampooned in the movie Hot Shots. Top Gun Maverick did these things properly, in part because of character development in the first movie. There are plenty of examples where it was not handled well.
I don't hear it come up a lot in reviews, but some people think Penny's character is superfluous even though she's been ingrained into the lore since 1986.
@@reikun86 And they're missing the point, she's the one that helps build Maverick up after being at his lowest point. She's not flying fighters or being the kick-ass action heroine that the "critics" want, but at the same time thoroughly feminine and a tribute to all the Wives, Husbands, Girlfriends and boyfriends of Fighter Pilots, who sactifice a lot and do their part in enabling the Operations of the USN. A carrier deployment can take months if not a year, where all they have to deal with everything at home, alone. And a lot of those "critics" simply cannot appreciate feminity, they think that women must be men to be deserving of respect. I think the ending is also better as it represents for who the pilots do it for in their heart of hearts, their family.
I was impressed with how they handled the "enemy" part of the story. I'm not actually a big Tom Cruise fan, but I was a kid when the original Top Gun was out, and of course loved it, so I had to see this one. I was pleasantly surprised with how well it continued from the 1st movie w/o completely copying it.
@@goldytwatus1674 I'm not even sure I like half of his movies, much less most of them. There are definitely some that stand out though. The 2 Top Gun movies are both great movies of his.
Another thing about this film is that 90% of the film is just setting up how impossible the mission is. Which then creates one of, if not the, most intense finales every.
And constant emphasis on how little time they have to do it in, when the admiral pushes the time to 4 minutes the pilots don't like it because they'll give enemy aircraft to intercept them I think in another scene they said they had 4 weeks to prepare but moved forward to 2 weeks I think? This happens a lot in mission impossible fallout
@@handsomesquidward5160 They did: they had to move the mission schedule up because the enemy was moving faster than they expected, hence giving the pilots even less time to train an already difficult mission plan.
Because letting the Uranium Factory ready would be dangerous not just to the Pilots but also the world They have to destroy the Factory before it starts or else they'll cause radiation outbreak if they bombed it after the factory is ready
The film is essentially PVE "Player versus environment", like a platformer or dungeon, where we as the audience, watch a team or pros do something even they think is a massive fail. Its something i always liked about OG Star Trek where the "Villain" is the problem of the week and the crew spends the whole episode finding ways to solve it.
The only issue is that we're not really given any reason to care whether they suceeded in the objective or not. All that mattered in this movie was that the pilots stayed alive long enough to come back. The uranium plant was never established as a big enough threat that warranted sending 6 top pilots for a crazy suicide mission.
@@xuvial1391 Objectively, yes but on a personal level, i wanted the mission to succeed because of the faith iceman put in maverick. To repay it and have the ending of him completing one last win before riding off into the sunset.
Disagreed, actually the main villain is Maverick's past failure of causing Goose's death that led to his present-day guilt which creates all kinds of problems for his interaction with Rooster. The staple message of the entire movie is about "Just do, don't think." which encourages you to combat your past mistakes by letting go and walking out of them. The villain archetype can be represented in a non-tangible form, sometimes it can be as ambiguous as the hostile environment of infiltrating the enemy base but that's usually secondary, which means it's usually boring and less engaging if you treat it as the main villain.
@@IN-tm8mw Iceman never cared if Maverick succeeded with blowing up the uranium plant. He cared that Maverick would reconcile himself and overcome his internal struggles.
@@Waterbug1591 In any narrative, you have the Plot Arc/Story Arc and Character Arc. Most of the main characters have Character Arcs in this movie and I see the movies theme of "Just do, don't think" as the tool used to complete these arcs and allow personal growth in order for them to survive the main villain being the hostile environment. I can't see Maverick past as the main villain, as that would imply that he's the source of every characters problem to overcome. Iceman wanted him to train others to think like him and reminds Maverick to follow his own advice in order to move forward. Thu i can understand your position, I'm the type that loves hostile environments as main challenges like in adventure games/movies.
My mom saw the original back in 1986 as a teenager and lived to see its sequel with her kids 36 years later. In her own words this was the first time she's ever seen a Hollywood revival of a pop culture classic that compliments the original instead of spitting on it. From my POV I never saw the first movie and I still loved this one because it successfully appealed to the modern audiences.
@@Senjinone Some people have no interest in the original and ended up watching this due to various reasons, like a friend/family member excited dragging them to watch it, casual curiosity of wanting to see it but not enough interest to want to spend extra time watching another movie just to watch this one. It's perfectly valid. Only reason I watched the original before watching this was that it was on HBO Go and I thought "why not, friend convinced me to watch this tomorrow anyway".
@@Senjinone I didn't know this was a sequel, and it never felt like a sequel so I was surprised after my cousin told me this was as good as "the first one". The movie was so good that it didn't need to use the fame and popularity of the old movie (unlike other movies) to held by itself
I remember me and my dad going into this movie to finally get it over with after three years of waiting and anticipation. Then all the sudden, this huge crowd of people came in and filled in every single seat. And when the movie was over, they gave the movie a standing ovation.
It just doesn't feel the same watching it from home The Canyon run practice where Maverick did it in 2:15 had my theaters clapping hands which is very rare
@@rezboifrybread I would totally rank the movie up there with along with The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, and all of the other great sequels that came out over the last decade's.
Whatever Matrix Resurrections did wrong as a sequel, Top Gun Maverick did right. Seriously, this is easily one of the best legacy sequels of all time. I wouldn’t mind seeing you compare the two films to demonstrate in detail why one works and the other doesn’t.
I honestly think Resurrections did everything wrong, not just as a sequel, and I can't believe Top Gun 2 did everything right... But they definitely did the right things... Right.
It's probably because everyone involved in Top Gun Maverick actually WANTED to do the movie and cared about it. Whereas nobody wanted to come back and make a Matrix sequel except maybe the actors just for fun. The only reason the director came back to direct the Resurrections was because they didn't want anyone else directing it because WB was going to make the movie regardless. So that's not a very good reason to put your all into a movie.
@@just_delta-2589 Not quite sure that’s the case, given that Lana said she returned as it was her way of coping with the death of her parents and close friend, as in he words, she could at least have Neo and Trinity back. But yes, in every other manner, TGM pretty much makes mincemeat of TMR, at least in terms of how exactly it was constructed and the direction it took.
@@ldragon2515 I mean, I felt like the movie pretty explicitly beat us over the head with the idea that a sequel was unnecessary and didn't need to be made at all and that "Neo" only came back to make a sequel for his game because WB would just do it anyway. Kinda just felt really on the nose and with the way the movie went it feels like that was the case.
@@just_delta-2589 I think Lana got so caught up with being “clever” with the idea of making a legacy sequel about the nature of that kind of film, that she forgot about everything else. That, and all the focus on the relationships between Neo and Trinity, because in her eyes, that is the whole core of the series, as opposed to everything else. Man, can you imagine if TGM was made in a similar manner? I really, really want to see Filmento compare the two films now. They really are worth comparing to see how to and how not to do this sort of film.
Tom is in excellent shape for his age, I think he still have at least 5 years left to make action blockbusters at high level. Clint Eastwood did "In The Line of Fire" at age 63, the same age in which Jackie Chan did "The Foreigner". Both films have a good level of physical stunts.
what makes this 10000x better is that i had no expectations for this, i was almost mad they made a 2nd TG movie, but this for once proved that sequel movie can be better than the original…
I think it works so well because it's relatable. it often never in real life feels like there is one villain to your life holding you back, but life's own obstacles and the environment around you that you have to push through and overcome.
My own two cents on why a story like this can work so well: Real life stories don't always have villains. Most of us don't have someone in our lives who's even remotely a 'villain' to us personally. Most of us don't have to fight a climactic battle against an alien superpower or massive kaiju. Most of us, as a result, may not really 'identify' with a big name hero on the TV screen fighting a noble fight against a villain or an adversarial power. What we can identify with, however, is effort, drive, and commitment, the will to succeed, and having situations thrown at us in life that we simply need to overcome. Whether it's a holiday weekend at a retail job or a top-secret mission for the military, sometimes a job is a job, and we and others might happen to be the ones there who have to get it done. It's relatable, it's believable, and it's compelling to present a story that doesn't just follow cliches and stereotypes, or even the 'rules' of storytelling, because life has a habit of not following the rules anyway. Like they say, the truth is stranger than fiction. Being able to admire someone who is living their life the best they can, and who has to rise to the occasion to fulfill their duty, in the course of what they do for a living (not because they're some magical superhero, and not against some unimaginable entity) is something almost anyone can do. We may like or look up to a superhero character, but we may struggle to identify with them or their stories until something human and ordinary pops up. The reason a story without a villain can succeed - and TG Maverick shows us beautifully - is because rising to the occasion is something that we can all do, something we can all identify with, and it doesn't require a villain to feel relatable, believable, or plausible.
I know it’s been said a lot in the comments, but this movie HAD to be seen in the theaters, and was a breath of fresh air after these last couple of years. I dunno if it was shown at every theater, but there was a message from Tom Cruise at the beginning thanking the audience for coming to the movies, and that little message set the tone for how entertaining the film was gonna be.
@@josephbassey1501 I agree that there's a big difference. Tom Cruise was willing to wear the old bomber jacket with the flags of Taiwan and Japan included (the trailers opted for different flags with the same color patterns). He knew that he was gonna lose the Chinese audience for the jacket, but he did it anyway. He also could've allowed Paramount to release this on streaming back in 2020, but he didn't. At the end, he was willing to wait, and he was not allowing cheap compromises to "sell more." I wish more of Hollywood was willing to stand their ground.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Here Here. I don’t think we’ll ever have another actor like him, but I am glad to know he’s here to entertain the people. Something other actors forgot a long time ago.
I think there was a time where he was getting really vocal about his personal beliefs, but when he noticed that he was alienating fans in this fashion, he put the brakes on it. He knows people don't come to see him, they come to see HIM - the action blockbuster movie star. And that seems to be his focus at the moment - making good movies.
id argue his consistent work on one off "only kind of dumb" sci fi movies is his strongest suit. oblivion, edge of tomorrow, etc, they all have neat central gimmicks that they STICK TO and actually use to motivate the way the story works, even if its kind of schlocky and not as well executed as say 2001 space odyssey, its still great seeing a neat concept executed 'competently' by a good actor.
Scientology stuff aside, Tom Cruise is what happens when you let someone genuinely passionate about their craft to have creative influence over the process - too bad most of the time the people with this power are some egocentric and mediocre actors.
Yeah. The original had that good ol' 80s cheese, and people either love it or hate it. This one was way more grounded... For the most part. For aviation nerds, the final fight was just... Wew...
the conflict in Top Gun Maverick was man vs his own limitations. and that has universal appeal. regardless of skin color or gender identity. what a movie!
Another thing great to mention about this movie on how it handles the external plot of the unnamed enemy nuclear facility. From its introduction the audience is given a real sense of goals, stakes, and urgency. Giving maverick a clear goal and destination in the story helps the audience to know what we are building towards (and helps us understand what is going on in the bombing run) Not only that but setting up deadline that maverick has to train these pilots in helps to give us a sense of urgency and allows stakes to be risen.
Yeah everything in the movie has the stakes up with time counting down and they actually respected that. Even the subplots like the romance (amend the relationship before he have no more reason to hang out in the base), beach party (build the team camaraderie within limited time), and even the sleeping with penny lol (before her daughter came back home). Once the briefing start, the movie keep reminding us on the clock ticking down and progress toward the goal is maintained, which is why the time limit feel real unlike most other movies.
That's actually one of the things that makes this movie superior to the original Top Gun: it has an actual direction and goal. Top Gun on closer inspection was actually rather... slice of life would be a good term for it. I mean the main gist of the story is Maverick attending Top Gun, having a relationship, being the best, and... that's it? Whereas here there's an actual goal to strive towards that informs the motivations of the characters and gives some real urgency that the original movie just didn't have.
@@warbrain1053 Unscathed? We have people like you crying over the US bombing terrorists to bits, yet stay completely silent when Russia, Turkey or any country that isn't the US decides to bomb shit up too.
A nice detail was the reason Maverick delayed Rooster's career was a promise Mav made to Rooster's mother. Mav accepted being the bad guy and never tried to explain to Rooster so Rooster wouldn't resent his mother.
Wait it's still in theathers? I ask this cuz I was working at the theathers till the end of July and the mocie coming out in May was still playing in July. Not even complaining it's that amazing, good to know it's still doing well
@@anangryaustralian8518 I think it’s like national cinema day here in England so they were doing 3 quid per ticket for a few films and top gun happened to be one of them
When you think about it, you realize Tom Cruise very rarely stars in a bad movie, in particular in the past decade. (Exception being The Mummy). He really knows how to choose good ones to make, and I would say he most of the time makes those movies way better than they could have been. This guy is a legend. And at this age he is still as handsome as ever! Top Gun Maverick may very possibly be the best of the best in Tom Cruise's filmography.
"Just don't break her heart again." When the daughter said that, I was so touched that I couldn't help it but cry... Only if I will ever have a daughter like that...
This film is cinematic perfection if I’ve ever scene one. To be honest with you it’s easily one of my favorite movies ever made. Hopefully it gets a sequel. Lol
This year has some great movies. Maverick is a masterpiece, and I honestly though it would be my top movie this year until I saw Everything Everywhere All at Once.
@@sharequsman596 Russia would never in a million years use a Tomcat though. They thought about this. Only Russia uses Felons and only Iran uses Tomcats so there's enough vagueness that it could be one or the other.
That one was computer generated. And by the way, all fighter pilots, including the Americans use dark visors, as sun protection. That the good guys didn't have those is inacurate and they probably did it so the viewers could see the faces of the US pilots. Which with real figher pilot helmets you couldn't.
@@petrairene Never got why Hollywood has such a massive problem with closed helmets. It's so stupid because we get really dumb things like helmets with lights _pointing inwards_ to light up the face of the actor in a dark set... I honestly think the custom pilot helmets were more than enough to tell the characters apart, and the dialogue would have communicated more than enough emotion, BUUUT I guess the selling point of this movie was having the actors ride an actual fighter jet, and obscuring their faces would have made everything pointless, since they may as well be stunt doubles... But they kept the oxygen masks on, and there was no stupid "I can't breathe... So I better take off the oxygen mask with oxygen" moment.
@@petrairene it works out because at the same time when you first see the helmet with visors it gives off an "evil look" for the enemy fighter jets in a way since they are all visorless
I think the success of this movie just proves that people are hungry for good character writing and something to relate to since we're getting so much soulless conveyor belt sludge these days.
I'm praying for Tom Cruise and really worry about his back bone too . It must be nearly impossible to carry the entire freaking Cinema Industry on his back . Not to mention his massive ball (@_@)
I think this is the point of this movie. It's his magnum opus and a call to action. He's not gonna be around forever but as long as he inspires someone else to care about real stunts as much as him, this movie will be worth it.
@@juanmanuelpenaloza9264 You're absolute right my friend . Just like how John Wick is a wake-up call to mordern making of action scene . Film like these are indeed much more valuvable than its own plot .
The finale of mission impossible might very well be his last action movie. Either that or he keeps doing these crazier and crazier stunts until he ends up dying in a volcano diving accident or something insane like that
It’s a shame they chose to market this film as “mostly practical”, because it’s a disrespectful lie that throws their effects team under the bus and will likely result in them not being acknowledged for all their hard work by awards voters. TG:M had more than 2000 VFX shots, even more than LOTR: Return of the King. The F14s were CGI. Stop perpetuating the myth that CG is bad. Shoddy, rushed visual effects are the problem. When made with great care and attention detail the viewer won’t even realize it isn’t real.
This has been a most enlightening case study for me, as one who doesn't necessarily default to writing in villains for the protagonists to compete against, and enjoys using things like monsters or interpersonal conflict to challenge the characters. Awesome video. Just goes to show, there aren't many rules a great writer can't bend or break for a good story... if any.
I finally got to see this movie and I loved that they didn’t define the enemy. It gave them a mission and all we cared about was seeing them succeed. I loved it.
Top gun maverick is remind me again why I really love movies. The experience you had when you watched it is really immersive. It's like a kind of emotion roller coaster. This is a perfect movie.
I always stumble back on this old review; and then I go rewatch the whole rooster and Mav against 5th gen fighters , gets my heart pumping every SINGLE TIME…
Studio Ghibli has shown for years how to make really wonderful movies without a villain. You don't need a villain to tell a good story. In real life, villains are rarely a thing: people usually oppose each other not from "villainy", but from conflicting goals, motivations, values, fears and so forth. People are human. And so any story without one, is inherently a more realistic, grounded story.
I think attack on titan also has a similar dynamic. In the 4th season there really isnt any villain, just people with differing opinions, aspirations, experiences and goals. I think Isayamas goal was to challenge the preconception of who we consider a villain in our life, because the one we call a “devil” may just be a hero and “savior” in somebody else’s life.
@@zackfair9325 yes you are right but peoples today have dreams, open eyes dreams LoL they dont even recognize an evil character X,,,D yes eren on the start was good the fact is that now is BAD :))) period
I went into this movie expecting just a navy recruitment ad, and what I got... was still a navy recruitment ad, but with an actual movie surrounding it so that was a very pleasant surprise.
This hit the nail on the head. The original Top Gun has a special place in my heart. Now the sequel does too! Easily the best movie I have seen this year!
I always found it interesting that there really isn’t a villain in the movie Sure there are the “enemy plane/helicopter fighters” but you never get to see their faces or know anything about them besides them having the mine It’s a cool detail because this story didn’t need a villain, they only served as a plot point for the story and an consequence for the heroes actions
Reminds me of Dunkirk Sure we know it's the Germans being the bad guys but you don't even see their faces at all Even when closely their face got blurred
Right even when sneaking around the airbase with the enemy soldiers, it wasn’t a close up of them, it basically them moving around the background as they snuck by
this also applies to the polar express :) the whole “no villian, so you create momentary struggles with risk that fills those gaps a villian would fill”
There's this game series called Ace Combat, a long-running and heavily story-driven series of arcade aviation games. In those games, you are a faceless mute pilot, fighting an air war, and apart from the obvious similarities, the games and Top Gun 2 are similar in which there really is no main antagonist, and the stories focus a lot on the "other side" of the war you're fighting. For instance, in Ace Combat 6 (2007). You fight a war against a nation that completely occupied your country. The antagonist is no one in particular but the enemy's entire military, and on the cutscenes, you get to see the point-of-view of two of the "bad guys", an old pilot _you_ wounded who ends up with some parentless children on the occupied capital of your country, and a cocky elite fighter pilot who ends up sacrificing himself fighting _you_ for their own men, they are hardly antagonists since only the latter guy opposes the main character (you) in some way, but I make it sound better than what it actually is, so moving on. Ace Combat 3 came out in 1999. It's way more futuristic and the last one chronologically in the series. You're not only a mute on a plane, you're an AI, and at first you fight for the "good guys" trying to prevent two military corporations from going to war with each other, but this game is unique in which at points outright lets you join any other faction fighting the complex corporate war, and you can follow each faction and each character. This is great, and something I want to see more of, but it kinda blows up when the bad guy appears and turns to have been controlling everything from the shadows, and you have to blow him up... Now my absolute favorite in this aspect is the first game in the chronology, Ace Combat Zero (2006), you fight enemy aces, elite fighter pilots, and they are your antagonists until you kill them or shoot them down, but they are _not_ the antagonists of the story. They have no grand plans, they are not recurrent villains, they have no more goals than serve their nation, chase glory, or enjoy the thrill of a fight, and you get to see what _they_ think of _you_ after they fight you. And this ties to the game's theme that war is far more complex than good guys vs. bad guys, etc. And in a way, _you_ are the antagonist of each of their singular stories. Also the framing device is very cool: A journalist seeking the player's exploits as a pilot to make a documentary. Most titles in the game series share the same fictional universe, and it's unique in which there are really no bad guys. You have groups of arguably bad guys, much like the rogue nation in Top Gun 2, but no single central antagonist... We see no crazy dictators, no rogue generals... Most of the times anyways... And even then you never face them off directly... The antagonists tend to be faceless militaries you are free to blow up (almost) free of guilt, and the stories are more about your exploits and rise from total nobody to legendary fighter pilot.
That's why I loved the movie from a writing standpoint as well; despite the fact their was no villain with a name, we didn't even know where the "enemy" was from, but they still managed to have stakes and make me give a shit about all the characters and what they were doing
This is the only movie where I truly felt the stakes, ie. do or die. Hollywood movies love to throw this phrase around but the movie did an absolutely stunning job of portraying the incredible risk and danger of the mission. The movie did its job, essentially preparing the audience for a tragic accident that leads to at least one character's death. And when the final act arrives where everyone is getting ready to execute this mission, as the audience, you're on edge because you're ready to see someone lose their life while simultaneously hoping that everything goes smoothly and everyone comes home. And when that happens, you can't help but feel an utterly triumphant feeling with the music emphasizing this. Truly an brilliant film and no wonder people are saying this movie single-handedly saved the moviegoing theatre experience.
I wasn't into the first movie because of how technical everything was. I don't know anything about aviation, so it was hard to understand what the characters were doing This movie on the other hand was a lot easier to understand. They had a mission and they had to know the logistics in order to complete
It fact..Top Gun was less technically accurate and Top Gun Maverick called out, coffins, corner, high hypersonic, split throttles, Hard decks and 5th generation fighters...to...perfection
I never watched the first Top Gun but watcing this movie, it made relive my love for jets. Aside from that it's quite relatable too. You may be good or even the best in what you do, but life will always find a way to challenge you and watches you how you overcome the challenges it throws at you.
People misunderstand the need for a villain. The story needs a protagonist, someone who moves the story forward. And it needs an antagonist, someone or something that serves as an obstacle to overcome. An antagonist can be: a person, an organization, an idea, it can be the passage of time, nature, etc.
Only halfway through and this is one of my favorite takes from you. On a philosophical level - there is no villain. Only my ego and ability, however sufficient, to perform.
The film doesn't have villians, it has obstacles. Hammer. Cyclone. Hangman. Rooster. The Run. Penny. Maverick's guilt. The Mission itself. The enemy fighter jets.
5:42 ... I like how the way they changed the time from 2.30 to 2.15 was by changing it to 4.00 first. It gives the audience an Illusion that the time that goes down is big, but in fact the time that goes down was only 15 seconds
Most war movies are a great example of this concept. Sure, you've got exceptions like T-34 and White Tiger, but in general, any good war movie uses the enemy as an ever looming threat, but never as a single, unified force. For example, in Rzhev, the Germans are only present on screen for about 20 minutes out of the entire movie. The company even witnesses a Russian armored assault at one point without ever seeing the Germans. However, their very existence puts pressure on the characters and forces them to act
Good observation. I want to see similar movies done in fictional settings, in which the goal is not to kill the evil space general emperor or whatever, but simply soldiers doing their thing. Starship Troopers is close to that, but the bad guys are bugs...
@@danieldominguez8135 Another good point. Generation War is another. There are only 3 times you see a Russian soldier up close across about 5 hours of film. First is when Friedhelm dresses as a Russian to escape Kursk, and luckily for him, he's read enough Russian literature to understand how we interact with each other. Second is when Wilhelm climbs into a knocked out tank to hide and finds the bow gunner still alive, if barely, and the third is when one tries to rape Charlotte, and is stopped by his commanding officer. Other than that, the only time you see Russian soldiers is as the average German soldier did, through the sights. Often times, it isn't even that, you just see Russian rockets landing on the German trenches, or muzzle flashes from a window. One of my favorite things about that series, and Rzhev as well, is how they captured the chaos of combat. In combat, the camera doesn't shake much, but it never stops moving, and it gives the feel of a panicked and adrenaline fueled soldier who is just firing wherever he thinks he sees or hears enemy, which any combat veteran can tell you is basically how combat goes
The canyon scene is NOT starwars. Only the tiny scene dropping the GBUs. The entire scene of the jets flying through the canyon comes from ACE COMBAT 7’s mission where trigger must travel through an entire canyon towards an enemy base
This movie was a delight. It's really satisfying, thrilling and brings you along for the ride. There is nothing fancy about the plot or the message, it's just a movie about overcoming adversity and pushing the limit that everyone can relate. Feels like eating the best slice of pizza
The look on Rooster's face when from when Pete selects him for the mission till he got on his jet, that's probably the best piece of acting in this film. I could feel what he was feeling.
I went into watching this movie without seeing the previous movie. I also couldn’t care less about planes and Tom Cruise. I was blown away by this film. I’ve been watching a lot of animated media from Japan. I was getting tired of seeing the same cookie cutter action I was getting from live action in America. (Hobbs and Shaw .exe) The action I was getting from anime was fresh and blood pumping. (But seriously what some of the animators from Japan can bring to life through animation is astounding) I thought I couldn’t get that blood pumping action from the live action in America anymore. My heart was racing when I saw a training sequence. This no villain, hot headed plane movie gave me the thrill of live action action again.
I've watched this movie three times in the cinema and every time I'm sitting at the edge of my seat. Truly the best cinema experience I've had in years
On an interesting note, this movie marks a big turning point in my life as a writer. When I went into the movie my head was stuck up on realism. I had a bad time because many of the scenes didn't make realistic sense, especially the ending when they both crash behind enemy lines and somehow steal a jet, and then with a that jet that is outdated af they take down a downright alien spacecraft. Its impossible. At this time, I was also nearing the end of a 7+ year struggle with Batman. I love the concept of a character that can be a super hero without super powers, but it just doesn't make realistic sense. What's more, anytime I try to envision a more realistic Batman he loses all the flashiness that gives him such wide appeal. Then I reread a blog post by Branden Sanderson, talking about hard magic and soft magic, and that's when I had a revelation: the only thing that matters are the rules of the story. As long as they don't contradict themselves, you can be as unrealistic as you want. My favorite adaptation of Batman comes from the Arkham games and, to a lesser extent, the movies. In both instances the creators give Batman a clearly defined toolset that doesn't contradict itself. Batman begins is a fantastic example of this, 'we will teach you to be invisible, before you could fight 6 men now you can fight 600' and even though these ideas are unrealistic they work because Nolan sticks to the rules and he explains them clearly well in advance of any big conflicts. Looking back at Top Gun Maverick it is ridiculous, but as far as the rules are concerned, I can't remember any contradictions and I can more or less understand what can or can't occur in any given scene. It never feels contrived, and as such I can now finally get behind all the endless praise that this movie gets. It never hurts to put some realism in a story, but don't let that get in the way of fantasy and fun. Rules will keep everything grounded when realism is thrown into doubt.
Happens often in WW2 Some American Pilot got shot down behins enemy lines and hid for days He managed to enter an airfield and studied the german planes controls carefully for the whole night without getting caught It was dawn and he took off with the german plane Luckily he managed to get out of there The other problem is the radio which he couldn't figure out. The ground troops fired at him because he was flying enemy plane He had to crash land and stop the military from shooting him thinking he might be a spy until a Commander that recognized him protected the Pilot His name was Bruce Carr
@@guts-141 I'm not saying the events of the movie are impossible, but they way in which they were done was very unrealistic. Bruce Carr took days to hide and plan his infiltration in the dead of night, while dealing with 20th century security systems. Tom Cruise crashed, and on the same day was spotted and engaged by the enemy (who most likely radioed his existence back to base) and almost immediately broke into a hanger bay in broad daylight while contending with 21st century security systems and protocols, and in a conspicuously unoccupied bay too. Then there's the second pilot also bailing, and the sci-fi aircrafts hunting them down.... I could be wrong. Maybe even crazier plane escapes have happened in real life, but the scene raises a lot of problems that the writers don't take the time to address. When you stick so many improbable events on top of one another it becomes difficult to get immersed, even if there is some grain of truth to it.
Your videos are some of the best on film criticism/analysis on UA-cam. Your analyses are spot on and I always find something new in the films you analyze.
Worth noting: Star Trek 4. Where all the other ST films went with the Wrath of Kahn playbook to use an eevil villain as the conflict, ST4 pulls its whole story from a simple misunderstanding - and manages to get some great character work and stakes out of it. Really good writing.
Penny Benjamin was mentioned in the first movie when Maverick was getting dressed down by the bald captain. She was the Admiral's daughter where Goose whispers, "Penny Benjamin?" This was a great way to make here a character in this movie.
You missed the mark by just that much... the antagonist is Maverick himself; His past, his character, his life decisions and the consequences that haunt him. All the antagonists you list are the humanization of those life decisions.
I loved this movie with all my heart, I thought it was because of the uniqueness that I loved it. But not thanks to you Filmento. Thanks for showing me what really made me love it.
I'm glad this video was made. So often UA-camrs think stories need a "villain" or a "character arc", or an "allegory", or some bullshit when really they do not. All a story needs is a story -- it needs to be educational & entertaining.
Actually, there is a villain, an unnamed regime that aspires to build nuclear weapons. This is similar to adventure movies about polar expeditions, shipwrecks or mountaineering, where the inheritent dangers of the environment are the antagonist rather than an individual baddie
For me, this might be the best video you've done m8. The way you describe this movie, its themes and narrative structure is absolute analysis perfection. You picked up on everything this movie tried to communicate and I applaud you for it. Well done sir.
If you wanna be like TC, throw away your SB and get an SLB -- 20% off with code FILMENTO: slidebelts.com/
Sorry this video took so long, guys. Paramount tried real hard to block it (they still might).
Hello. I have been waiting for this review
@@FrostyFrosto Thank you for watching!
i love your content!
Great video man!
@@Filmento
review movie 'nope' jordan peele!.
Bad writing advice: all stories need a villain. Good writing advice: all stories need a *conflict*. Some of the greatest stories are the ones about characters needing to overcome themselves
Every story is based on conflict. Good or bad. A villain is just a form of conflict, an easy one.
Definitely
Star Trek IV The Voyage Home worked under the same premise, the conflict not another villain, time and consequences
Actually the main villain is Maverick's past failure of causing Goose's death that led to his present-day guilt which creates all kinds of problems for his interaction with Rooster. The villain archetype can be represented in a non-tangible form, sometimes as ambiguous as the hostile environment of infiltrating the enemy base but it's usually secondary and less engaging if you treat it as the main.
@@Waterbug1591 that's not a villain, since Maverick's past failure isn't directly hindering his progress
Generally speaking, it's celebrated because of how thoughtful the movie was made. Not as a thought-provoking art piece, but a very well constructed blockbuster entertainment. There's sincerity in it that other blockbusters today don't possess.
Tom Cruise didn't buzz the radio tower, he buzzed through his competition.
This. It was a perfect sequel where none of the references to the original felt forced. It didn't need to be thought provoking. It just needed to be entertaining and it definitely accomplished that goal for most people.
He did buzz the General's face at the start tho
Didn't he buzz the tower at the end of the final mission?
But people like thought provoking art pieces that break the societal norm
@@triadwarfare too much of that and then it ironically becomes the societal norm instead
I know that this is going to sound weird to some people, but this movie felt like an actual movie and something that is worth experiencing at a movie theater. They knocked it out of the park with this one, and the ending of the movie brought actual tears to my eye. The best part of this whole thing is that they managed to revive an old franchise without screwing it up. Top-notch film!
There’s rarely any modern day movie that can bring you such a cinematic experience. You can feel the tension and the adrenaline, as if you’re actually flying one of those jets.
I think that the ammount of practical VFX is helping this movie as well, since it's not your usual almost everything CGI super hero movie, but instead they are just basically regular fighter pilots that have to fly impossible mission.
💯💯💯
This was a multi million dollar passion project, everyone working on this movie made it their magnum opus
@@thatonedaniel98 Practical VFX plus a clear passion from the writing team and not just focusing in a cash grab nostalgia bait certainly does make a difference
When you realize Top Gun: Maverick shouldn’t be a masterpiece. It should be the standard for the industry.
I'm kinda glad this came out 40 years later. This movie formula of Top Gun can get old pretty quick. If this movie came out in 1989, it wouldn't be nearly as popular.
Visually speaking, that's not really feasible to become the standard. Conflict writing and story-wise, I totally agree.
Exactly. Could you imagine if they did the new Star Wars 3quel's that good?
It’s beautifully said.
Movie started really good with the montage. Though that maybe producers have enough fuck you money to make something else than boring superhero film. Maybe just once, right? 1 hour in it's clear that it's just another empty void & safe cash cow.
As a person who had never seen the original Top Gun in it’s entirety, Top Gun: Maverick was and still is the best movie i’ve seen this year
I will never understand why people go see a movie part 2 or whatever and not see the ones before
And then they complain when they don't understand what's going on
*decade even though it’s only been 2 years
Did it sell
1 morBillion tickets?
@@deathpie24 Same
Did it sell
1 morBillion tickets?
The fact that a sequel of an "average" 80´s movie released 40 years ago is doing way better than other huge franchises is hilarious
It's because it was made by people who knew what they were doing, and what they were doing was trying to make an entertaining movie as opposed to bombard the audience with a message
action movies are dying. its all CGI battles now
@@Doflaminguard And aren't they boring. I zone out when the hefty CGI kicks in. Filmmento calls it best when he says it's noise
@@tonykennedy8483 The messages aren't the problem, it's that those messages are so blunt and unnuanced in their portrayals that they boil the entire film down to a simplistic, meaningless worldview. The people that want to put female empowerment, minority representation, and other sociopolitical talking points in their films don't understand the core of the movements they wish to profit off of. Take films like Mulan or Captain Marvel, for example. Having a film about female empowerment isn't the problem, it's that the writers, directors, producers, etc. believed that a woman being powerful was the same thing as empowering women, when that just isn't the case.
@@tonykennedy8483 Maverick uses practical than CGI as much as possible.
I was half way through the movie when I noticed there was no villain
I thought they'd either introduce a generic boring villain, or make a "villain" out of the struggle and objective they had
In the end, it worked out perfectly
I like hownitbwas a mission vs a villian
They faced the enemy like in the first movie, but it was probably a different enemy this time.
Yeap the villain only serves as a narrative to push the characters into conflict, drama and making tough decisions based on what the earlier segments of the movie shows us. The plot is simple and doesn’t need it to be so deep for us to enjoy it. Great film!
The villain is Iran.
the bad guys are obviously the USA
an illegal pre-emptive strike with deep interdiction on sovereign soil with F16s is clearly a terrorist action
My favorite moment in the movie is after it’s established that maverick “wanted to be the father rooster didn’t have”, we see roster say “talk to me dad” in the final act. We then cut to maverick telling him to “don’t think, just do.” Masterful storytelling.
Amazing how a film so simple and character-driven can have such emotional impact and kill it at the box office. Looking at you Multiverse of Madness.
But MoM's flaw was that it was too simple. And it's still a box office success.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom It wasn't simple. It was needlessly convoluted while still being completely braindead.
Get the edgy bible, to send demons, to get the kid, to get her powers, to travel the multiverse, to kill other you, to take her place, to kidnap her kids, to make your made-up life real... And that's being "reasonable" lol.
And the success? Marvel still somehow sells.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom mom was just plot bashing you over the head
@@CarSVernon Yeah it kinda is. Still feels like a mismatch comparison.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom I think Top Gun Maverick has the simplest plot....but it's more full of depth and nuance than a MCU movie. I mean, it's sure the plot of the first Star Wars, but as they said, it's about Maverick overcoming with guilt, passing of time, trusting issues, etc.
I dunno if Wanda or Strange has the same gravitas in the MoM movie. Their personal conflics don't matter.
A note of caution: it is common in some movies to make the male and female leads former lovers who reconcile by the end of the film. I have seen this fairly often in low budget disaster movies. Contrived pre-existing conflicts between characters is also common, and was lampooned in the movie Hot Shots. Top Gun Maverick did these things properly, in part because of character development in the first movie. There are plenty of examples where it was not handled well.
I don't hear it come up a lot in reviews, but some people think Penny's character is superfluous even though she's been ingrained into the lore since 1986.
@@reikun86 And they're missing the point, she's the one that helps build Maverick up after being at his lowest point.
She's not flying fighters or being the kick-ass action heroine that the "critics" want, but at the same time thoroughly feminine and a tribute to all the Wives, Husbands, Girlfriends and boyfriends of Fighter Pilots, who sactifice a lot and do their part in enabling the Operations of the USN. A carrier deployment can take months if not a year, where all they have to deal with everything at home, alone.
And a lot of those "critics" simply cannot appreciate feminity, they think that women must be men to be deserving of respect.
I think the ending is also better as it represents for who the pilots do it for in their heart of hearts, their family.
Wait... the male and female leads in hot shots don't have pre-existing conflicts. Or which characters do you mean?
I know what you mean. Like how they split up Han and Leia in The Farce Awakens.
@@LupusAries She also does that thing where she predicts the end of the movie at the beginning of the movie.
I was impressed with how they handled the "enemy" part of the story. I'm not actually a big Tom Cruise fan, but I was a kid when the original Top Gun was out, and of course loved it, so I had to see this one. I was pleasantly surprised with how well it continued from the 1st movie w/o completely copying it.
TOM CRUISE = LEGEND
you = LOOOOOOOOOSER
@@scottbarkley496 awww, a simp for Tom. I'm sure he'd top you if you begged hard enough.
@@scottbarkley496 LMAOOOO WHATTT 😂😂😂😂💀💦🗿
Everyone says that, I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan but I've seen and love everything he's in.
@@goldytwatus1674 I'm not even sure I like half of his movies, much less most of them. There are definitely some that stand out though. The 2 Top Gun movies are both great movies of his.
Another thing about this film is that 90% of the film is just setting up how impossible the mission is. Which then creates one of, if not the, most intense finales every.
Good evening Ethan,
This message will self destruct in 5 seconds
And constant emphasis on how little time they have to do it in, when the admiral pushes the time to 4 minutes the pilots don't like it because they'll give enemy aircraft to intercept them
I think in another scene they said they had 4 weeks to prepare but moved forward to 2 weeks I think?
This happens a lot in mission impossible fallout
@@handsomesquidward5160 so basically, TopGun 2 just a warm up for the next Mission Impossible installment?
Sounds good to me
@@handsomesquidward5160 They did: they had to move the mission schedule up because the enemy was moving faster than they expected, hence giving the pilots even less time to train an already difficult mission plan.
Because letting the Uranium Factory ready would be dangerous not just to the Pilots but also the world
They have to destroy the Factory before it starts or else they'll cause radiation outbreak if they bombed it after the factory is ready
The film is essentially PVE "Player versus environment", like a platformer or dungeon, where we as the audience, watch a team or pros do something even they think is a massive fail. Its something i always liked about OG Star Trek where the "Villain" is the problem of the week and the crew spends the whole episode finding ways to solve it.
The only issue is that we're not really given any reason to care whether they suceeded in the objective or not. All that mattered in this movie was that the pilots stayed alive long enough to come back. The uranium plant was never established as a big enough threat that warranted sending 6 top pilots for a crazy suicide mission.
@@xuvial1391 Objectively, yes but on a personal level, i wanted the mission to succeed because of the faith iceman put in maverick. To repay it and have the ending of him completing one last win before riding off into the sunset.
Disagreed, actually the main villain is Maverick's past failure of causing Goose's death that led to his present-day guilt which creates all kinds of problems for his interaction with Rooster. The staple message of the entire movie is about "Just do, don't think." which encourages you to combat your past mistakes by letting go and walking out of them.
The villain archetype can be represented in a non-tangible form, sometimes it can be as ambiguous as the hostile environment of infiltrating the enemy base but that's usually secondary, which means it's usually boring and less engaging if you treat it as the main villain.
@@IN-tm8mw Iceman never cared if Maverick succeeded with blowing up the uranium plant. He cared that Maverick would reconcile himself and overcome his internal struggles.
@@Waterbug1591 In any narrative, you have the Plot Arc/Story Arc and Character Arc. Most of the main characters have Character Arcs in this movie and I see the movies theme of "Just do, don't think" as the tool used to complete these arcs and allow personal growth in order for them to survive the main villain being the hostile environment. I can't see Maverick past as the main villain, as that would imply that he's the source of every characters problem to overcome. Iceman wanted him to train others to think like him and reminds Maverick to follow his own advice in order to move forward. Thu i can understand your position, I'm the type that loves hostile environments as main challenges like in adventure games/movies.
My mom saw the original back in 1986 as a teenager and lived to see its sequel with her kids 36 years later.
In her own words this was the first time she's ever seen a Hollywood revival of a pop culture classic that compliments the original instead of spitting on it.
From my POV I never saw the first movie and I still loved this one because it successfully appealed to the modern audiences.
Why the duck would you not download and watch the first one before watching this?!?!?!?!
@@Senjinone Some people have no interest in the original and ended up watching this due to various reasons, like a friend/family member excited dragging them to watch it, casual curiosity of wanting to see it but not enough interest to want to spend extra time watching another movie just to watch this one.
It's perfectly valid. Only reason I watched the original before watching this was that it was on HBO Go and I thought "why not, friend convinced me to watch this tomorrow anyway".
@@Senjinone I didn't know this was a sequel, and it never felt like a sequel so I was surprised after my cousin told me this was as good as "the first one". The movie was so good that it didn't need to use the fame and popularity of the old movie (unlike other movies) to held by itself
@@Senjinone because it never interested me, it's that simple.
Why would I watch a 36 year old movie I've only heard my mom talk about.
@@HAXAD because why not? Plenty of older movies hold up amazingly well. Top Gun is one of them.
I remember me and my dad going into this movie to finally get it over with after three years of waiting and anticipation. Then all the sudden, this huge crowd of people came in and filled in every single seat. And when the movie was over, they gave the movie a standing ovation.
I was critical of them postponing it but I'm damn glad they did. This needed to be seen in a theater. Tom Cruise knows what he's doing.
It just doesn't feel the same watching it from home
The Canyon run practice where Maverick did it in 2:15 had my theaters clapping hands which is very rare
@@guts-141 People were sniffing that they thought Maverick was dead.
Same at my theatre. The whole audience stood up and clapped and cheered. Beautiful to see.
@@rezboifrybread I would totally rank the movie up there with along with The Empire Strikes Back, Terminator 2, and all of the other great sequels that came out over the last decade's.
Whatever Matrix Resurrections did wrong as a sequel, Top Gun Maverick did right. Seriously, this is easily one of the best legacy sequels of all time.
I wouldn’t mind seeing you compare the two films to demonstrate in detail why one works and the other doesn’t.
I honestly think Resurrections did everything wrong, not just as a sequel, and I can't believe Top Gun 2 did everything right... But they definitely did the right things... Right.
It's probably because everyone involved in Top Gun Maverick actually WANTED to do the movie and cared about it.
Whereas nobody wanted to come back and make a Matrix sequel except maybe the actors just for fun. The only reason the director came back to direct the Resurrections was because they didn't want anyone else directing it because WB was going to make the movie regardless. So that's not a very good reason to put your all into a movie.
@@just_delta-2589 Not quite sure that’s the case, given that Lana said she returned as it was her way of coping with the death of her parents and close friend, as in he words, she could at least have Neo and Trinity back.
But yes, in every other manner, TGM pretty much makes mincemeat of TMR, at least in terms of how exactly it was constructed and the direction it took.
@@ldragon2515 I mean, I felt like the movie pretty explicitly beat us over the head with the idea that a sequel was unnecessary and didn't need to be made at all and that "Neo" only came back to make a sequel for his game because WB would just do it anyway. Kinda just felt really on the nose and with the way the movie went it feels like that was the case.
@@just_delta-2589 I think Lana got so caught up with being “clever” with the idea of making a legacy sequel about the nature of that kind of film, that she forgot about everything else. That, and all the focus on the relationships between Neo and Trinity, because in her eyes, that is the whole core of the series, as opposed to everything else.
Man, can you imagine if TGM was made in a similar manner? I really, really want to see Filmento compare the two films now. They really are worth comparing to see how to and how not to do this sort of film.
I wish Tom Cruise was young again so he could keep cranking out bangers for decades more to come
Seems many critics and fans call him “the last great movie star”
@@RangerMcFriendlyIn my opinion I think it's unfair to compare other actors to him. It's like comparing a regular car to a Bugatti.
...we can rebuild him. We have the technology
Well, he's only 60. He could keep going for 40 years for all we know.
Tom is in excellent shape for his age, I think he still have at least 5 years left to make action blockbusters at high level. Clint Eastwood did "In The Line of Fire" at age 63, the same age in which Jackie Chan did "The Foreigner".
Both films have a good level of physical stunts.
what makes this 10000x better is that i had no expectations for this, i was almost mad they made a 2nd TG movie, but this for once proved that sequel movie can be better than the original…
I think it works so well because it's relatable. it often never in real life feels like there is one villain to your life holding you back, but life's own obstacles and the environment around you that you have to push through and overcome.
That's... An actually clever way to put it.
Yeah, but there's still an effort here. Not every villain less story is good.
@@ThePrinceofHisOwnKingdom of course I’m just speaking on one aspect of why it worked here.
My own two cents on why a story like this can work so well: Real life stories don't always have villains. Most of us don't have someone in our lives who's even remotely a 'villain' to us personally. Most of us don't have to fight a climactic battle against an alien superpower or massive kaiju. Most of us, as a result, may not really 'identify' with a big name hero on the TV screen fighting a noble fight against a villain or an adversarial power.
What we can identify with, however, is effort, drive, and commitment, the will to succeed, and having situations thrown at us in life that we simply need to overcome. Whether it's a holiday weekend at a retail job or a top-secret mission for the military, sometimes a job is a job, and we and others might happen to be the ones there who have to get it done.
It's relatable, it's believable, and it's compelling to present a story that doesn't just follow cliches and stereotypes, or even the 'rules' of storytelling, because life has a habit of not following the rules anyway. Like they say, the truth is stranger than fiction. Being able to admire someone who is living their life the best they can, and who has to rise to the occasion to fulfill their duty, in the course of what they do for a living (not because they're some magical superhero, and not against some unimaginable entity) is something almost anyone can do.
We may like or look up to a superhero character, but we may struggle to identify with them or their stories until something human and ordinary pops up. The reason a story without a villain can succeed - and TG Maverick shows us beautifully - is because rising to the occasion is something that we can all do, something we can all identify with, and it doesn't require a villain to feel relatable, believable, or plausible.
Top Gun 2 is really the best movie to beat the original. Rare accomplishment.
And honor and respect it as well
There are only handful of movies to do that, but two others that come to mind are Shrek 2 and Sonic The Hedgehog 2
@@MinecraftWorld1954 kung fu panda 2 as well, empire strikes back too. Captain america...
@@Robin-be1zm those as well.
@@Robin-be1zm Nah, Tai Lung’s fight scenes alone already put Kung Fu Panda above its sequels, but there’s more reasons as well.
I know it’s been said a lot in the comments, but this movie HAD to be seen in the theaters, and was a breath of fresh air after these last couple of years. I dunno if it was shown at every theater, but there was a message from Tom Cruise at the beginning thanking the audience for coming to the movies, and that little message set the tone for how entertaining the film was gonna be.
Tom Cruise message didn't appear in my theater and I watched it twice. Second time was on IMAX
Had to look it up on UA-cam
Same. Top Gun Maverick just isn't the same if you watch it on a small screen. It should be watched on at least a 4K screen, if not larger.
@@guts-141 that’s a bummer. But I hope you enjoyed the film!
This Movie literally restored my faith in the film industry. It was fantastic
Not in the film industry
Just Tom Cruise
@@josephbassey1501 I agree that there's a big difference. Tom Cruise was willing to wear the old bomber jacket with the flags of Taiwan and Japan included (the trailers opted for different flags with the same color patterns). He knew that he was gonna lose the Chinese audience for the jacket, but he did it anyway.
He also could've allowed Paramount to release this on streaming back in 2020, but he didn't.
At the end, he was willing to wait, and he was not allowing cheap compromises to "sell more." I wish more of Hollywood was willing to stand their ground.
@@reikun86 Man, I have a newfound appreciation to the guy.
@@reikun86 he's truly deserving of the title Legend!
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Here Here. I don’t think we’ll ever have another actor like him, but I am glad to know he’s here to entertain the people.
Something other actors forgot a long time ago.
Tom Cruise is extremely awesome.
I know he turned into kind of a joke for a time, but his consistent work with MI series proves he's the real deal.
I think there was a time where he was getting really vocal about his personal beliefs, but when he noticed that he was alienating fans in this fashion, he put the brakes on it.
He knows people don't come to see him, they come to see HIM - the action blockbuster movie star. And that seems to be his focus at the moment - making good movies.
Tom cruise is a top notch actor, definitely my top five. There is rarely a movie he’s in that’s not at least interesting
id argue his consistent work on one off "only kind of dumb" sci fi movies is his strongest suit. oblivion, edge of tomorrow, etc, they all have neat central gimmicks that they STICK TO and actually use to motivate the way the story works, even if its kind of schlocky and not as well executed as say 2001 space odyssey, its still great seeing a neat concept executed 'competently' by a good actor.
I still think he’s a Scientology nut, but I can respect him for his talent and commitment to the craft of filmmaking alone.
Scientology stuff aside, Tom Cruise is what happens when you let someone genuinely passionate about their craft to have creative influence over the process - too bad most of the time the people with this power are some egocentric and mediocre actors.
As iconic as the og Top Gun is, I can’t for the life of me consider it better than this sequel. Call me a Cruise fanboy, but this film blew me away.
Glad that you enjoyed it!
and the set!
Top Gun is a very nostalgic and fun movie, but it’s not that good of a film
Yeah. The original had that good ol' 80s cheese, and people either love it or hate it. This one was way more grounded... For the most part. For aviation nerds, the final fight was just... Wew...
I love the 80s but I thought the OG was just corny. The bad kind. Meanwhile, Maverick is the best blockbuster of the year.
the conflict in Top Gun Maverick was man vs his own limitations. and that has universal appeal. regardless of skin color or gender identity. what a movie!
Another thing great to mention about this movie on how it handles the external plot of the unnamed enemy nuclear facility. From its introduction the audience is given a real sense of goals, stakes, and urgency. Giving maverick a clear goal and destination in the story helps the audience to know what we are building towards (and helps us understand what is going on in the bombing run) Not only that but setting up deadline that maverick has to train these pilots in helps to give us a sense of urgency and allows stakes to be risen.
Yeah everything in the movie has the stakes up with time counting down and they actually respected that. Even the subplots like the romance (amend the relationship before he have no more reason to hang out in the base), beach party (build the team camaraderie within limited time), and even the sleeping with penny lol (before her daughter came back home). Once the briefing start, the movie keep reminding us on the clock ticking down and progress toward the goal is maintained, which is why the time limit feel real unlike most other movies.
When you realise the movie is just what the US was doing from time to time, bombing nations and comming back diplomatically unscathed....
That's actually one of the things that makes this movie superior to the original Top Gun: it has an actual direction and goal. Top Gun on closer inspection was actually rather... slice of life would be a good term for it. I mean the main gist of the story is Maverick attending Top Gun, having a relationship, being the best, and... that's it? Whereas here there's an actual goal to strive towards that informs the motivations of the characters and gives some real urgency that the original movie just didn't have.
@@warbrain1053 Unscathed? We have people like you crying over the US bombing terrorists to bits, yet stay completely silent when Russia, Turkey or any country that isn't the US decides to bomb shit up too.
A nice detail was the reason Maverick delayed Rooster's career was a promise Mav made to Rooster's mother. Mav accepted being the bad guy and never tried to explain to Rooster so Rooster wouldn't resent his mother.
Just got out the theatre seeing this film and 2 mins later this comes out. Incredible timing and incredible film and incredible movie
Wait it's still in theathers?
I ask this cuz I was working at the theathers till the end of July and the mocie coming out in May was still playing in July.
Not even complaining it's that amazing, good to know it's still doing well
@@anangryaustralian8518 I think it’s like national cinema day here in England so they were doing 3 quid per ticket for a few films and top gun happened to be one of them
@@anangryaustralian8518 This movie will stay in theaters forever
I’ve been watching you for years, your analysis never ceases to impress me. The structure, cohesion, the editing, everything. The best.
Great movie. Great plot. Great acting. Great everything
A masterpiece
Like morbius
@@chocolatecookie2786 one cannot just simply compare a great movie to Morbius, they’d stood no chance.
Yo that random guy in a plane was the most intimidating presence I've seen in a while dude would not let up
Daddy filmento gave me a heart 😍😭
Agreed. Basically the plane itself felt like the threat.
Plot twist: he was a future Ace Combat protagonist
Tom Cruise really is the last great action hero.
Tom Cruise is who the Rock thinks he is.
Tim curry + tom cruise = tim cruise
@@piscessoedroen lol, spelling isn't my strong suit I guess
He is definitely ONE of the last great action heroes. Keanu's gun skills aren't cgi either.
@@Draco.Invictus very true
When you think about it, you realize Tom Cruise very rarely stars in a bad movie, in particular in the past decade. (Exception being The Mummy). He really knows how to choose good ones to make, and I would say he most of the time makes those movies way better than they could have been. This guy is a legend. And at this age he is still as handsome as ever! Top Gun Maverick may very possibly be the best of the best in Tom Cruise's filmography.
I don't know the context of Tom Cruise attacking Oprah with force powers and I don't need to. That clip is perfect.
@Robert Monroe propaganda, all this Tom cruise is weird talk never made sense lol
He’s a high level Scientologist, not exactly very psychologically sane when you’re near the lead of a cult that considers psychiatry to be evil
That edit was amazing.
"Just don't break her heart again."
When the daughter said that, I was so touched that I couldn't help it but cry...
Only if I will ever have a daughter like that...
This film is cinematic perfection if I’ve ever scene one. To be honest with you it’s easily one of my favorite movies ever made. Hopefully it gets a sequel. Lol
yeah, in about 30 years or so...
This year has some great movies. Maverick is a masterpiece, and I honestly though it would be my top movie this year until I saw Everything Everywhere All at Once.
try to stay alive for another 3 decades or so and you might get the chance to see it
This is the sequel...
@@Vyz3r EEAAO is a great film, but I still think TGM is better, if just by a hair.
Let’s be honest, the Rouge Nation pilot was more threatening then many villains.
I’d like to see a video on the original film.
*Rogue
Aka Iranian Pilot.
@@GeraltofRivia22 or possibly a Mercenary Pilot
@@GeraltofRivia22 probably russiam it was a su 57
@@sharequsman596 Russia would never in a million years use a Tomcat though. They thought about this. Only Russia uses Felons and only Iran uses Tomcats so there's enough vagueness that it could be one or the other.
Despite the short screen time he had, the enemy pilot in the SU-57 was pretty cool and mysterious. His flying skills were insane
That one was computer generated. And by the way, all fighter pilots, including the Americans use dark visors, as sun protection. That the good guys didn't have those is inacurate and they probably did it so the viewers could see the faces of the US pilots. Which with real figher pilot helmets you couldn't.
@@petrairene Never got why Hollywood has such a massive problem with closed helmets. It's so stupid because we get really dumb things like helmets with lights _pointing inwards_ to light up the face of the actor in a dark set...
I honestly think the custom pilot helmets were more than enough to tell the characters apart, and the dialogue would have communicated more than enough emotion, BUUUT I guess the selling point of this movie was having the actors ride an actual fighter jet, and obscuring their faces would have made everything pointless, since they may as well be stunt doubles...
But they kept the oxygen masks on, and there was no stupid "I can't breathe... So I better take off the oxygen mask with oxygen" moment.
@@petrairene it works out because at the same time when you first see the helmet with visors it gives off an "evil look" for the enemy fighter jets in a way since they are all visorless
Movie wise they all used dark visors
For viewers we can see their eyes eating G forces
It's just my opinions about it
Iran or N. Korea having fifth gen jets that are super acrobatic and stealthy is terrifying. Especially when our military is obsessed with pronouns.
I think the success of this movie just proves that people are hungry for good character writing and something to relate to since we're getting so much soulless conveyor belt sludge these days.
Damn straight.
I'm praying for Tom Cruise and really worry about his back bone too . It must be nearly impossible to carry the entire freaking Cinema Industry on his back . Not to mention his massive ball (@_@)
I think this is the point of this movie. It's his magnum opus and a call to action. He's not gonna be around forever but as long as he inspires someone else to care about real stunts as much as him, this movie will be worth it.
Especially at 10 Gs.
@@juanmanuelpenaloza9264 You're absolute right my friend . Just like how John Wick is a wake-up call to mordern making of action scene . Film like these are indeed much more valuvable than its own plot .
@@henryfleischer404 Amen to that my friend . Tom Cruise trully is a legend !!! One of his kind !!!
The finale of mission impossible might very well be his last action movie. Either that or he keeps doing these crazier and crazier stunts until he ends up dying in a volcano diving accident or something insane like that
Filmento, can you make a Part 2? Like, "How to Make a Good Protagonist like Maverick" or "How to Build Tension".
Yes please. this!
and how to make a movie without a protagonist
How about comparing it to Matrix Resurrections, as a follow up to that video too?
Sort of “How To Succeed At Sequel.” ;)
@@ldragon2515 YES!
PRACTICAL EFFECTS BEFORE CGI
That's my motto
It’s a shame they chose to market this film as “mostly practical”, because it’s a disrespectful lie that throws their effects team under the bus and will likely result in them not being acknowledged for all their hard work by awards voters. TG:M had more than 2000 VFX shots, even more than LOTR: Return of the King. The F14s were CGI. Stop perpetuating the myth that CG is bad. Shoddy, rushed visual effects are the problem. When made with great care and attention detail the viewer won’t even realize it isn’t real.
This has been a most enlightening case study for me, as one who doesn't necessarily default to writing in villains for the protagonists to compete against, and enjoys using things like monsters or interpersonal conflict to challenge the characters.
Awesome video. Just goes to show, there aren't many rules a great writer can't bend or break for a good story... if any.
It was more about overcoming difficulties and interpersonal problems than fighting bad guys
I finally got to see this movie and I loved that they didn’t define the enemy. It gave them a mission and all we cared about was seeing them succeed. I loved it.
Top gun maverick is remind me again why I really love movies. The experience you had when you watched it is really immersive. It's like a kind of emotion roller coaster. This is a perfect movie.
I always stumble back on this old review; and then I go rewatch the whole rooster and Mav against 5th gen fighters , gets my heart pumping every SINGLE TIME…
Studio Ghibli has shown for years how to make really wonderful movies without a villain. You don't need a villain to tell a good story. In real life, villains are rarely a thing: people usually oppose each other not from "villainy", but from conflicting goals, motivations, values, fears and so forth. People are human. And so any story without one, is inherently a more realistic, grounded story.
Fantastic example!
I think attack on titan also has a similar dynamic. In the 4th season there really isnt any villain, just people with differing opinions, aspirations, experiences and goals. I think Isayamas goal was to challenge the preconception of who we consider a villain in our life, because the one we call a “devil” may just be a hero and “savior” in somebody else’s life.
@@mk-ms6hc Eren is a villian he tries to destroy the world
@@zackfair9325 yes you are right
but peoples today have dreams, open eyes dreams
LoL
they dont even recognize an evil character X,,,D
yes eren on the start was good
the fact is that now is BAD :))) period
Your opinion is made immediately invalid by referencing anime bullshit
I went into this movie expecting just a navy recruitment ad, and what I got... was still a navy recruitment ad, but with an actual movie surrounding it so that was a very pleasant surprise.
Wait. Was that Halo 3/Mothergoat’s Prisoner without narration at 11:48?! Oh my 2006 heart!
The Darth Vader edit was so in point!
The ~3 second clip of Maverick talking to Ice in this video hit a whole lot harder than expected.
This hit the nail on the head. The original Top Gun has a special place in my heart. Now the sequel does too! Easily the best movie I have seen this year!
This movie was pure cinema.
I always found it interesting that there really isn’t a villain in the movie
Sure there are the “enemy plane/helicopter fighters” but you never get to see their faces or know anything about them besides them having the mine
It’s a cool detail because this story didn’t need a villain, they only served as a plot point for the story and an consequence for the heroes actions
Reminds me of Dunkirk
Sure we know it's the Germans being the bad guys but you don't even see their faces at all
Even when closely their face got blurred
Right even when sneaking around the airbase with the enemy soldiers, it wasn’t a close up of them, it basically them moving around the background as they snuck by
Technically , they were an enemy but no villains.
this also applies to the polar express :) the whole “no villian, so you create momentary struggles with risk that fills those gaps a villian would fill”
There's this game series called Ace Combat, a long-running and heavily story-driven series of arcade aviation games.
In those games, you are a faceless mute pilot, fighting an air war, and apart from the obvious similarities, the games and Top Gun 2 are similar in which there really is no main antagonist, and the stories focus a lot on the "other side" of the war you're fighting.
For instance, in Ace Combat 6 (2007). You fight a war against a nation that completely occupied your country. The antagonist is no one in particular but the enemy's entire military, and on the cutscenes, you get to see the point-of-view of two of the "bad guys", an old pilot _you_ wounded who ends up with some parentless children on the occupied capital of your country, and a cocky elite fighter pilot who ends up sacrificing himself fighting _you_ for their own men, they are hardly antagonists since only the latter guy opposes the main character (you) in some way, but I make it sound better than what it actually is, so moving on.
Ace Combat 3 came out in 1999. It's way more futuristic and the last one chronologically in the series. You're not only a mute on a plane, you're an AI, and at first you fight for the "good guys" trying to prevent two military corporations from going to war with each other, but this game is unique in which at points outright lets you join any other faction fighting the complex corporate war, and you can follow each faction and each character. This is great, and something I want to see more of, but it kinda blows up when the bad guy appears and turns to have been controlling everything from the shadows, and you have to blow him up...
Now my absolute favorite in this aspect is the first game in the chronology, Ace Combat Zero (2006), you fight enemy aces, elite fighter pilots, and they are your antagonists until you kill them or shoot them down, but they are _not_ the antagonists of the story. They have no grand plans, they are not recurrent villains, they have no more goals than serve their nation, chase glory, or enjoy the thrill of a fight, and you get to see what _they_ think of _you_ after they fight you. And this ties to the game's theme that war is far more complex than good guys vs. bad guys, etc. And in a way, _you_ are the antagonist of each of their singular stories. Also the framing device is very cool: A journalist seeking the player's exploits as a pilot to make a documentary.
Most titles in the game series share the same fictional universe, and it's unique in which there are really no bad guys. You have groups of arguably bad guys, much like the rogue nation in Top Gun 2, but no single central antagonist... We see no crazy dictators, no rogue generals... Most of the times anyways... And even then you never face them off directly... The antagonists tend to be faceless militaries you are free to blow up (almost) free of guilt, and the stories are more about your exploits and rise from total nobody to legendary fighter pilot.
man this is a good response. Ace Combat Zero with its Mission of Hoffnung does give this eerie feeling
great vid but the real reason we love filmento is the class he uses to bring in the sponsor
That's why I loved the movie from a writing standpoint as well; despite the fact their was no villain with a name, we didn't even know where the "enemy" was from, but they still managed to have stakes and make me give a shit about all the characters and what they were doing
Lots of movies dont have a villain with a name
This is the only movie where I truly felt the stakes, ie. do or die. Hollywood movies love to throw this phrase around but the movie did an absolutely stunning job of portraying the incredible risk and danger of the mission. The movie did its job, essentially preparing the audience for a tragic accident that leads to at least one character's death. And when the final act arrives where everyone is getting ready to execute this mission, as the audience, you're on edge because you're ready to see someone lose their life while simultaneously hoping that everything goes smoothly and everyone comes home. And when that happens, you can't help but feel an utterly triumphant feeling with the music emphasizing this.
Truly an brilliant film and no wonder people are saying this movie single-handedly saved the moviegoing theatre experience.
I wasn't into the first movie because of how technical everything was.
I don't know anything about aviation, so it was hard to understand what the characters were doing
This movie on the other hand was a lot easier to understand. They had a mission and they had to know the logistics in order to complete
It fact..Top Gun was less technically accurate and Top Gun Maverick called out, coffins, corner, high hypersonic, split throttles, Hard decks and 5th generation fighters...to...perfection
Why do so many writers forget the other types on conflict: man versus nature, man versus self.
6:50 it's also about how an old franchise like Top Gun can beat new movies at a meta level
Truly, the first movie that has brought me to tears in over 20 years.
I never watched the first Top Gun but watcing this movie, it made relive my love for jets. Aside from that it's quite relatable too. You may be good or even the best in what you do, but life will always find a way to challenge you and watches you how you overcome the challenges it throws at you.
The villain is not necessary, it is just a presentation of crises and obstacles, and obstacles can be presented in multiple ways
Watched Maverick last night. Great film ! The relationship between Maverick and Rooster make it more than just a mere sequel, it is a continuation.
I literally watched Top gun Maverick today and I regret not watching it in the theatre
National Cinema Day today. Every show in every theater is $3. Do yourself a favor go see it in the theater.
Ive never gone to the cinema to see the same movie twice and there's not many movies I would but I would happily watch this movie again.
Hands down the best movie since the Endgame! Soooo much FUN
Even though I fell asleep during the first half of the movie the end was a great rush experience I haven't felt in a movie in a long time..
People misunderstand the need for a villain. The story needs a protagonist, someone who moves the story forward. And it needs an antagonist, someone or something that serves as an obstacle to overcome. An antagonist can be: a person, an organization, an idea, it can be the passage of time, nature, etc.
Only halfway through and this is one of my favorite takes from you. On a philosophical level - there is no villain. Only my ego and ability, however sufficient, to perform.
The film doesn't have villians, it has obstacles.
Hammer. Cyclone. Hangman. Rooster. The Run. Penny. Maverick's guilt. The Mission itself. The enemy fighter jets.
5:42 ... I like how the way they changed the time from 2.30 to 2.15 was by changing it to 4.00 first. It gives the audience an Illusion that the time that goes down is big, but in fact the time that goes down was only 15 seconds
Most war movies are a great example of this concept. Sure, you've got exceptions like T-34 and White Tiger, but in general, any good war movie uses the enemy as an ever looming threat, but never as a single, unified force. For example, in Rzhev, the Germans are only present on screen for about 20 minutes out of the entire movie. The company even witnesses a Russian armored assault at one point without ever seeing the Germans. However, their very existence puts pressure on the characters and forces them to act
Dunkirk as well. You never even see the face of a single german soldier.
Good observation. I want to see similar movies done in fictional settings, in which the goal is not to kill the evil space general emperor or whatever, but simply soldiers doing their thing.
Starship Troopers is close to that, but the bad guys are bugs...
@@danieldominguez8135 Another good point. Generation War is another. There are only 3 times you see a Russian soldier up close across about 5 hours of film. First is when Friedhelm dresses as a Russian to escape Kursk, and luckily for him, he's read enough Russian literature to understand how we interact with each other. Second is when Wilhelm climbs into a knocked out tank to hide and finds the bow gunner still alive, if barely, and the third is when one tries to rape Charlotte, and is stopped by his commanding officer. Other than that, the only time you see Russian soldiers is as the average German soldier did, through the sights. Often times, it isn't even that, you just see Russian rockets landing on the German trenches, or muzzle flashes from a window. One of my favorite things about that series, and Rzhev as well, is how they captured the chaos of combat. In combat, the camera doesn't shake much, but it never stops moving, and it gives the feel of a panicked and adrenaline fueled soldier who is just firing wherever he thinks he sees or hears enemy, which any combat veteran can tell you is basically how combat goes
The canyon scene is NOT starwars.
Only the tiny scene dropping the GBUs.
The entire scene of the jets flying through the canyon comes from ACE COMBAT 7’s mission where trigger must travel through an entire canyon towards an enemy base
This movie was a delight. It's really satisfying, thrilling and brings you along for the ride. There is nothing fancy about the plot or the message, it's just a movie about overcoming adversity and pushing the limit that everyone can relate.
Feels like eating the best slice of pizza
The look on Rooster's face when from when Pete selects him for the mission till he got on his jet, that's probably the best piece of acting in this film. I could feel what he was feeling.
I went into watching this movie without seeing the previous movie. I also couldn’t care less about planes and Tom Cruise.
I was blown away by this film.
I’ve been watching a lot of animated media from Japan. I was getting tired of seeing the same cookie cutter action I was getting from live action in America. (Hobbs and Shaw .exe)
The action I was getting from anime was fresh and blood pumping. (But seriously what some of the animators from Japan can bring to life through animation is astounding)
I thought I couldn’t get that blood pumping action from the live action in America anymore.
My heart was racing when I saw a training sequence.
This no villain, hot headed plane movie gave me the thrill of live action action again.
I've watched this movie three times in the cinema and every time I'm sitting at the edge of my seat. Truly the best cinema experience I've had in years
On an interesting note, this movie marks a big turning point in my life as a writer.
When I went into the movie my head was stuck up on realism. I had a bad time because many of the scenes didn't make realistic sense, especially the ending when they both crash behind enemy lines and somehow steal a jet, and then with a that jet that is outdated af they take down a downright alien spacecraft. Its impossible.
At this time, I was also nearing the end of a 7+ year struggle with Batman. I love the concept of a character that can be a super hero without super powers, but it just doesn't make realistic sense. What's more, anytime I try to envision a more realistic Batman he loses all the flashiness that gives him such wide appeal.
Then I reread a blog post by Branden Sanderson, talking about hard magic and soft magic, and that's when I had a revelation: the only thing that matters are the rules of the story. As long as they don't contradict themselves, you can be as unrealistic as you want.
My favorite adaptation of Batman comes from the Arkham games and, to a lesser extent, the movies. In both instances the creators give Batman a clearly defined toolset that doesn't contradict itself. Batman begins is a fantastic example of this, 'we will teach you to be invisible, before you could fight 6 men now you can fight 600' and even though these ideas are unrealistic they work because Nolan sticks to the rules and he explains them clearly well in advance of any big conflicts.
Looking back at Top Gun Maverick it is ridiculous, but as far as the rules are concerned, I can't remember any contradictions and I can more or less understand what can or can't occur in any given scene. It never feels contrived, and as such I can now finally get behind all the endless praise that this movie gets.
It never hurts to put some realism in a story, but don't let that get in the way of fantasy and fun. Rules will keep everything grounded when realism is thrown into doubt.
Happens often in WW2
Some American Pilot got shot down behins enemy lines and hid for days
He managed to enter an airfield and studied the german planes controls carefully for the whole night without getting caught
It was dawn and he took off with the german plane
Luckily he managed to get out of there
The other problem is the radio which he couldn't figure out. The ground troops fired at him because he was flying enemy plane
He had to crash land and stop the military from shooting him thinking he might be a spy until a Commander that recognized him protected the Pilot
His name was Bruce Carr
@@guts-141
I'm not saying the events of the movie are impossible, but they way in which they were done was very unrealistic.
Bruce Carr took days to hide and plan his infiltration in the dead of night, while dealing with 20th century security systems.
Tom Cruise crashed, and on the same day was spotted and engaged by the enemy (who most likely radioed his existence back to base) and almost immediately broke into a hanger bay in broad daylight while contending with 21st century security systems and protocols, and in a conspicuously unoccupied bay too. Then there's the second pilot also bailing, and the sci-fi aircrafts hunting them down....
I could be wrong. Maybe even crazier plane escapes have happened in real life, but the scene raises a lot of problems that the writers don't take the time to address. When you stick so many improbable events on top of one another it becomes difficult to get immersed, even if there is some grain of truth to it.
Your videos are some of the best on film criticism/analysis on UA-cam. Your analyses are spot on and I always find something new in the films you analyze.
This movie was so, so much better than I had expected! This had more emotional impact than the original, and it was glorious!
I'm getting all excited just from the cut scenes in this video, almost makes me want to go see it for a third time!!
Thanks for explaining what i feel. Sometimes i just like a movie but can't explain why, a lot of your videos did including this one 😊
Worth noting: Star Trek 4. Where all the other ST films went with the Wrath of Kahn playbook to use an eevil villain as the conflict, ST4 pulls its whole story from a simple misunderstanding - and manages to get some great character work and stakes out of it. Really good writing.
Penny Benjamin was mentioned in the first movie when Maverick was getting dressed down by the bald captain. She was the Admiral's daughter where Goose whispers, "Penny Benjamin?" This was a great way to make here a character in this movie.
I have officially hit the point where I watch a film and immediately think: “I can’t wait to see Filmento’s video on this movie.”
You missed the mark by just that much... the antagonist is Maverick himself; His past, his character, his life decisions and the consequences that haunt him. All the antagonists you list are the humanization of those life decisions.
He didn't say there wasn't an antagonist. He's saying there's no real villain or bad guy
you missed the mark bruh
I loved this movie with all my heart, I thought it was because of the uniqueness that I loved it. But not thanks to you Filmento. Thanks for showing me what really made me love it.
An incredible movie from an incredible actor and movie maker. TC movies are so great because there is obvious love and care put into them every time.
I'm glad this video was made. So often UA-camrs think stories need a "villain" or a "character arc", or an "allegory", or some bullshit when really they do not. All a story needs is a story -- it needs to be educational & entertaining.
Actually, there is a villain, an unnamed regime that aspires to build nuclear weapons. This is similar to adventure movies about polar expeditions, shipwrecks or mountaineering, where the inheritent dangers of the environment are the antagonist rather than an individual baddie
"The Enemy" was said so many times during that movie, I honestly half-expected to see Cobra Commander revealed in a mid-credit scene. 🤣
Sometimes, you don’t need to have a villain to make a great movie. It can be great without one.
For me, this might be the best video you've done m8. The way you describe this movie, its themes and narrative structure is absolute analysis perfection. You picked up on everything this movie tried to communicate and I applaud you for it. Well done sir.
“Nameless Rogue Nation”
We all knew it was Iran