The Film Experience

No one feels the same way about any film. Thus, Team Experience is pairing up to debate the merits of each of the big awards season movies . Here’s Chris James, Travis Cragg and Cláudio Alves duking it out over Top Gun: Maverick.

CHRIS: I couldn’t think of a better movie to have reignited the box office this summer than Top Gun: Maverick. The sequel arrived 36 years after the first became a blockbuster in 1986. Personally, I never loved the original. Despite fun, pop-culture defining moments, it often felt like a scattershot action movie with nauseating jingoism. My expectations for the sequel were low, but the film blew past them like a fighter jet passing Mach 10.

Central to my enjoyment of Top Gun: Maverick is the renewed focus on character over spectacle...

Yes, the flying scenes are astounding, making use of the biggest of movie theater screens. The third act flying spectacular certainly has sound you can feel. Thankfully, the inherent drama between Maverick (Tom Cruise) and Rooster (Miles Teller) provides just as much fireworks as the dogfights in the sky. The action only matters because we care about the interpersonal tension between all the people in the jets. In fact, the whole crew is aces, with Hangman (Glen Powell) and Bob (Lewis Pullman) being standouts. It’s pure popcorn fun through and through!

So Travis and Cláudio, hold my hand and take me through your thoughts on Top Gun: Maverick.

CLÁUDIO: Funnily enough, while I liked the movie a great deal, it was for the opposite reasons you mentioned. To me, this box office giant is all about the sensorial excitement of its formal execution. It's the coolness of classically assembled action cinema for which the plot and characters are a mere underlying structure on which to build a palace of audiovisual thrills. Sometimes, that's enough. Indeed, I often yearn for kinetic energy over a beating heart when it comes to action cinema.

Some may read this as a backhanded compliment, but the key to Maverick's success is that it doesn't try to do much narratively. Kosinski and company keep things minimal and tightly focused on delivering exciting visions, propulsive sounds, and heart-stopping daredevil feats. What emotional arcs there are, register in broad strokes and blunt style, simple enough ideas that resonate with sentimental gusto while never standing in the way of mechanical showboating. In other words, I had a lot of fun watching this deeply unchallenging picture that never – not for a single breath – holds itself as more complex than it really is.

If I have some big complaints, they mostly center on its needlessly overextended length, the tastefulness of its color palette when compared to the original's pop flashiness, and the waste of a game Jennifer Connelly. Of course, one must also contend with this franchise's jingoistic streak. But at least, things are made so vague in the sequel as to make the militarism taste more abstract than a genuine call to arms. Thank heaven for small mercies.

TRAVIS: When I think of this movie, I am reminded of the classic The Far Side cartoon from the 90s, where three people are gathered under the "Didn't Like Dances With Wolves Society" sharing their feelings. I have however had a full year of defending my position, so I am comfortable with being a minority now.

There is an overlap in the Venn diagram of our opinions on Top Gun: Maverick, and that is the appreciation of the action scenes. Any moment where I felt my patience being stretched to the limit, they'd throw in a big zooming plane, and so it's hook me in once again with a dose of adrenaline.

But that's mostly where my positivity ends. My frustrations with the film generally fall into "objective" and "subjective", and I will start with the former. I am not at all on board with the script getting an Oscar nomination, because something that relies so heavily on checking off so many elements from its predecessor doesn't scream "best of the year" for me. Where others seem to be happy wallowing in the senses of nostalgia, I felt a sense of being cheated when witnessing bar singalongs, topless beach sport, training missions going wrong and air tower buzzing. I think it's OK to include an occasional Easter-Egg level of the planes flying upside down, etc, but the lack of significant differences between the two films just felt lazy to me.

How do you two feel about the nomination for Adapted Screenplay?

CHRIS: There’s no shame in being on the small, yet mighty "Didn't Like Top Gun: Maverick Society.” I’ll just be playing shirtless sports in the sun with the fans (though I might need to do a few more push ups).

I’m a fan of the Adapted Screenplay nomination, even though it wouldn’t be my top pick in the category. This is the year of the blockbuster (see also Avatar and the various MCU films), and if one of them were to end up in Screenplay, I’m ecstatic that it was Top Gun: Maverick. I understand what you say about the “box-checking” nature of this second chapter, Travis. In particular, the romance feels shoehorned into the film. Cláudio, you were right to call out Jennifer Connelly for being underused, even though she has a delightful presence in the film. However, all of these callbacks are ornamental. The central story really worked for me and the film is structured for maximum impact.

Though the conflict between Maverick and Rooster stems from events in the first film, it feels completely contained to this film. It’s a rich enough conflict to build a blockbuster on. Tom Cruise does a great job of balancing Maverick’s rebellious energy with his grief, still processing the open wounds from Goose’s death. There’s a mission at the center of the film that continually ups the literal stakes in the script. However, the emotional journey is where the actual stakes are at, which is why the third act climax pushes these two men to let go of their shared anger and grief to work together and trust one another. Yes, the plot machinations to get there aren’t always subtle, but they’re effective.

What are your thoughts on the Adapted Screenplay nomination, Cláudio? Additionally, what did we think of its other nominations?

CLÁUDIO: I confess to being a bit flabbergasted at that nod. For me, the Top Gun: Maverick script works best as a metatextual consideration of cinematic nostalgia, hinging everything on the figure of Cruise, whose screen presence supersedes the character at all turns. It's not that the script is terrible. It merely feels minor and anemic, a barebones structure that doesn't quite possess the propulsive energy its biggest fans are so quick to attribute to it. As much as I appreciate the thrill ride of Maverick, the whole thing's too damn long. That particular failure feels more closely tied to the script than to matters of editing or directing. Another objection lies in the anonymity of the young pilots beyond our main characters. I can't figure out why one would introduce (and name!) so many figures to then neglect them beyond their part in composing the background of wide shots.

Still, excluding the scripting conundrum, I'm all in for its other nominations. Above all else, Top Gun: Maverick is a showcase of classical moviemaking in the blockbuster model, pulling from tradition even as it appeals to the latest technologies. It's a dazzling achievement, unchallenging but never less than excellent. Indeed, if anything, the big story regarding the picture's Oscar performance isn't a victory but a loss.

How exactly did Claudio Miranda miss a Cinematography nomination after all the acclaim from critics and industry alike? Do you have any theories, Travis? And what do you think of Miranda's lensing?

TRAVIS: My only rationalization of Miranda's snub (definitely the biggest from this season's nominations) is that he is not as prolific as someone like Roger Deakins and therefore the branch doesn't know and/or love him as much. But that's based merely on a cursory look at imdb. I do acknowledge that his cinematography is exciting (and it'd be the second time I have begrudgingly praised his work for a Best Picture nominee I dislike, after Life Of Pi) but, putting Empire of Light aside (as I haven't seen it yet yet), I wouldn't want to remove any of the other nominees as I think they are also deserving of their acclaim.

I read an article in Variety entitled "How The Top Gun: Maverick Team Captured The Soaring Sound Of Jets", for which the answer seemed to be "they recorded the soaring sound of jets". Is that Oscar-worthy sound design? Putting silly pettiness aside though (and acknowledging I have not enough technological knowledge of the Sound category to make that a serious critique), I will concede the tech nominations for the film are deserved.

But I am yet to reveal the biggest reason I felt cheated by the film, and so I will now steer the conversation that way to get your reactions. It is of course legitimate for someone to feel removed from the magic of a film because of a poor script, or an actor doing an impression of a famous person rather than inhabiting them. For me the way a movie asks you to suspend your disbelief in the basic laws of physics is also crucial. I am not a no-fun spoilsport - I have seen every one of the Fast and Furious films and enjoy when they project cars into space or drive through high-ride Dubai towers. But I think there is a fascinating thesis yet to be written about how genre filmmakers let the audience know that it is all an enjoyable joke.

The Daniels were able to do it this past year, as were the filmmakers behind Bullet Train. But Kosinski and the writing team for Maverick failed.

And so I am 100% on board with Neil deGrasse Tyson when he pooh-poohs the end of the Maverick prologue where, instead of floating gently to the ground and joining some barflys, Tom would've been turned into mush when ejecting from a plane at Mach 10.5. And whilst that bar scene was played for laughs, it didn't feel like an invitation for the audience to come along for the ridiculous ride of anti-science. I was removed from the film at that point, and found the task of getting back on board with the characters to be too much of a hill to overcome (outside of the action scenes). (In fact, there is a small part of me that would like to re-watch the film with Allison Willmore's theory in mind, as it certainly feels like that very different take on the movie might work for me.)

OK, there it is. Chris, Cláudio, we may be debating this film from very different platforms of perception, yes?

CHRIS: I think you're correct. I knew I was going into a big studio blockbuster and was so wowed by the technical direction of that opening that I decided not to question the physics of the act. Leaps in the laws of gravity and physics never bother me much in movies, where we're allowed to dream big. Instead, I judge a movie by its own internal logic and law of physics. This is the basis for my love of the Fast and Furious franchise - the bigger and stupider, the better. I don't think that Top Gun: Maverick posits that the movie is a "joke," like the films that you mentioned. If anything, it sells us on Maverick as a larger than life, invincible force - like a folk hero that people hear of, but never see. Top Gun: Maverick takes this individualistic icon and asks him not to save the world using his strengths, but to teach other people how to save it.

Just to wrap this conversation up, I'd love to hear who everyone's MVP and LVP of the picture.

The strength of the movie lies in the ensemble. We've seen so many franchises try and fail to usher in a new generation of stars (see Shia LaBeouf swinging from CGI trees in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). The new Top Gun recruits may rely heavily on some of the archetypes from the first film, but they all fly off the screen and are fun students to play off of Cruise's Maverick. Glen Powell cements his status as the go-to loveable douchebag with Hangman, even getting a full arc that made me cheer. Miles Teller doesn't just make Rooster a sullen, one-note adversary for Maverick. Even though the Great Balls of Fire singalong is a direct callback to the original, it illustrates that this person has a life and joy outside of his trauma. Lewis Pullman steals each scene as Bob, an adorable nerd you'd want to take home to your mother. While a gratuitous callback, the beach football scene was wonderful because the film had done a good enough job selling through the team dynamics.

As for least favorite part, I'll agree with Cláudio that Jennifer Connelly is under-written. She's winning and luminous in the role, but the movie didn't quite make me believe that this character would hop back to Maverick after such a long absence. How thrilling would it have been to have Kelly McGillis reprise her role. Even if Penny isn't written as a love interest, this could make the character more thematically relevant to the story. With nearly three decades past, Penny should represent a different life taken, rather than one that just stuck around, waiting for a sequel.

Top Gun: Maverick plays it by the books, but does so in an elevated enough way that it reminds us why certain plot structures are tried and true. This is the old-fashioned blockbuster we deserved and hopefully this ushers in a new era of contained blockbusters that visually dazzle while also provoking emotion. The cinematic universe style of blockbuster popularized by Marvel has watered down each individual film. They become commercials for a brand or a filler TV episode in a grander marketing plan, rather than a story meant to entertain.

TRAVIS: A big emphatic YES from me to the Kelly McGillis mention. If they can bring back Val Kilmer including his physical limitations, the absence of McGillis just highlights the stereotypical discriminatory trend of these "types of movies" to use the female characters within limitations. Your comments about Connelly's role highlight that even more for me.

Thanks for this discussion, guys. Whilst there are still parts of me that wonder if we all watched completely different films, your insights have me feeling grateful that there are plenty out there who received the movie in the way that I REALLY wanted to. (Maybe it's the disappointment of that outcome that makes me sour.) I have enjoyed every serve and volley here.

The MVPs are the whole team behind the aviation action scenes. They were definitely the saving grace, and I am on the same page as you in hoping that this is the start of a callback wave of non-superhero action movies that care about the characters' motivations more than setting them up for their appearance in an upcoming instalment.

For me, the LVPs immediately after seeing the movie were the younger actors. Cruise, Connelly, Hamm, even Harris in a cameo, gave us the classic characters who have charm and charisma, whereas for me the new team seemed to be trying too hard to emulate that, and therefore came off as too cocky andcliched. (Yet another compete contrast - Chris' MVP vs my LVP - that fascinates me so much (but not enough for me to ever re-watch the movie for another assessment!))

CLÁUDIO: I love your choice of MVP, Travis, and would tend to agree with it. My affection for this film depends on its audiovisual qualities more than the characters or even the actors playing them. Still, shout out to Bill Pullman's hotness as Bob and Glenn Powell's star power. Like many other movie fans, I'm excited to see what Powell does next, if he'll remain a shining presence as a supporting player in douche roles, or if he has some leading man capabilities within him.

As for LVP – which I can't help but observe is one letter-shuffling away from VPL – it's got to be the writing of Connelly's character more than her performance proper. Indeed, while I've never paid much attention to Kelly McGillis's character in the original, both of your comments make me wonder what this sequel could have been like with her in it. There's that romantic conundrum, the criminal waste of Manny Jacinto, and the needless overextension of the narrative past the point when it starts to lose gas, my major qualm with the script's putative structural brio.

Closing this discussion, I'd like to thank you, gentlemen, for a fabulous convo. Standing in the middle is fascinating, though my heart is more aligned with Christopher's love than Travis's skepticism. A rewatch may change that. One must recognize that there'll be an inevitable downgrade as I experience the picture at home, away from the theatrical extravagance that makes it hard to care about whatever the story is doing. Whatever the case may be, our discussion has made me excited for a revisit with Maverick and his crew. I can only hope the readers share the same enthusiasm, regardless of where they land on the debate.

What side of the debate do you fall on for Top Gun: Maverick? Keep the conversation going in the comments.

other "split decisions"

All Quiet on the Western Front - poetic or vacuous?
Avatar - extraordinary or recycled?
Babylon - thrilling or interminable?
Banshees of Inisherin - masterpiece or shrug-worthy?
Elvis - stylish spectacle or skin-deep fun?
Everything Everywhere All At Once - essential or exhausting?
The Fabelmans - joyous or phony?
TÁR - utterly engrossing or underwhelming?
Triangle of Sadness - facile or multi-faceted?
The Whale - moving or just plain bad?
All Quiet on the Western Front - haunting or boring?