4 out of 5

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski

If Tom Cruise is one of the last remaining Hollywood stars of his type – a leading man / woman with some type of untouchable celebrity aura – Top Gun: Maverick feels like it will be one of the last blockbuster tentpole flicks of its type, the kind of screen-filling action and accessible drama that’s just as calculated as a Marvel movie, but somehow less artificial. It’s a miracle of a thing that you may walk into with some bias – a dislike for Cruise, no affection for the original – and walk out swaying to its rhythm. For while Tom is the star, for sure, this doesn’t feel like the same type of stunt vehicles the Mission: Impossible movies are (which I really like, but I can see turning one’s nose up at spectacle, and notoriety for placing oneself in the middle of it); and while TG: Maverick is awash in nostalgia from its opening sounds and visuals, it is not a flick that rests on or requires that to function. Director Joseph Kosinski and a slew of writers (split between story and screenplay) found the right balance here, accepting the past, but making a modern movie – not trying to comment on or reject or necessarily better what came before; nod to it, understand it’s why you’re here, and move on.

And not to suggest things run that deep, but that is somewhat the theme of the movie itself, which finds ace pilot Maverick (Cruise) sort of at the edges of the government’s permissibility as an active pilot, then suddenly thrust back into Top Gun school as a teacher, for an “only you can show these kids how its done” emergency mission. With support from ailing now-Admiral “Iceman” (Val Kilmer), a kindling romance with an on-again, off-again flame (Jennifer Connely), and finding one of his trainees to be the son of Goose, callsign Rooster (Miles Teller), Maverick is constantly caught thinking of the past, and wondering if it’s the right thing for him to be where he is, doing what he’s doing. This line of thought maybe gets a little muddled, but again, the movie’s not trying to be a thinkpiece, just hit its marks and keep moving forward. This it does, superlatively.

I realize it’s not fair to criticize the effects of the 80s Top Gun, but it’s inevitable when comparing the flying scenes in the films, as TG: M just blows it away. Top Gun had some fun air stuff, but it wasn’t very tense, and I often found it hard to track who was where; employing the might Cruise production machine to get as real as possible with the footage, and surely backed by ace effects, direction, and editing, TG:M is edge-of-your-seat stuff, whether it’s in the training to get pilots up to spec, or the nail-biting final mission. I never lost track of anyone, and the piloting footage is breathtaking; truly a film that would’ve been worth seeing on a big screen, which is also indicative of that “old school” feeling. Not to discredit the works of CG artists and the modern blockbuster, but there’s a bigger-and-better vibe to everything nowadays (M:I included) that gets tiresome, whereas Maverick feels leveled out by mirroring the original’s pace. It’s just a better film this time around, written with actual characters, and allowing the flying and mission to feel like legitimate plot points – relevant to those characters – instead of afterthoughts because jets are cooool.

Though, yes, aspects of this “mirroring” do result in some occasional uneven footing. It’s not exactly because the movie tries too hard to make references, but it’s possible some elements – like Connely’s character – would have been worked in more effectively if she wasn’t there just to take the place of Charlie (Kelly McGillis) from the original, which, despite intentions, is how it comes across. Connely and Cruise work well together, and Kosinski shoots this stuff (and the updated shirtless volleyball scene) with a respectful eye, but the lead-has-to-have-a-relationship bit is a relic from the original’s era, and it’s one of the more standout details that feels questionable in the overall pic. Moments like this are few and far between, thankfully.

We had a wave of franchise followups some years back that harped on years passed from a sort of critical light, which perhaps led into the old-man actioners that followed. …Which perhaps encouraged the Mission: Impossible series to step up its game, which perhaps encouraged Cruise and team to want a Top Gun sequel to not be a M:I movie, landing us on something that manages to be nostalgic and fresh at the same time. If this ends up kicking off a trend of franchise updates that are similarly smart and celebratory, well, I’m game.