Top Gun: Maverick

★★★ out of ★★★★

Top Gun: Maverick (2022)

Runtime: 131 minutes

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action, and some strong language.

What's amazing about Top Gun: Maverick, a sequel that hits theatres over three-and-a-half decades after the original, is that it has a sense of relevancy even after arriving so late.

Director Joseph Kosinski, with a script from writer Peter Craig, largely avoids the problems that made the first installment a rather flimsy one. Top Gun: Maverick is undoubtedly more technically accomplished, stunning, more focused, more emotional, and finally, has a sense of competition. Someone seated near me complained about its patriotism, but that feels almost non-existent in a film with genuine heart in the right place.

Set 30 years after its predecessor, Top Gun: Maverick sees its titular character return to the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (Top Gun), where he is tasked with training a new group of recruits into successfully pulling off a seemingly impossible mission: to destroy a uranium bunker in hellish terrain that is heavily guarded with extensive defensive mechanisms.

Among the group that Maverick (Tom Cruise) has to train is Lieutenant Bradley "Rooster" Bradshaw (Miles Teller), the son of Maverick's deceased best friend, Goose. Rooster is bitter about Maverick for some particular reason (won't spoil), while Maverick also meets some characters from the past, like Iceman (Val Kilmer) and Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly), who was only verbally mentioned briefly in "Top Gun".

Maverick is also battling demons from the past, as well as his relationships in the present. A strict and rather displeased Admiral Beau "Cyclone" Simpson (Jon Hamm) is often in disapproval of the dangerous tactics and methods Maverick employs to teach his students: one involving a breath-taking circle dive that almost involves in a disastrous plane crash. Lieutenant Jake "Hangman" Seresin (Glen Powell) is the equivalent Iceman to Maverick for Rooster. Hangman always puts on an arrogant attitude and unremorsefully insults Rooster during intermittent meetings.

Top Gun: Maverick is also about teamwork and how people should put aside their differences and preferences to collectively do all the better. While it's message may not be novel, it's a basic building block in a narrative that is more focused on the characters themselves without falling into many traps that threaten to drag its 131-minute runtime.

What else can I say about the technical aspects of Top Gun: Maverick? Thrilling scenes that involve disorienting, awe-inspiring dives are undoubtedly a marvel. This is such a visceral and stunning experience that it feels like a shame to not have experienced this. Scenes like this - and they do appear in the trailers - are an effective bandwagon and reasonably explains why Top Gun: Maverick has amassed almost $1.5 billion as of writing.

What's also impressive is that Top Gun: Maverick offers more human characters and explores more about Maverick's struggles and relationships. A heart-breaking scene with Iceman will potentially move the viewer to tears. Kilmer, who was diagnosed with throat cancer in 2014, delivers a more monumental and genuine performance in less than half of his screen time in "Top Gun". Cruise also gets a chance to shine, as his character is also presented with more hardships, like letting go of the past, and reconciling with Rooster. There's no more sudden cut when Maverick starts breaking down into tears; it is honest and true.

The plot, while looking quite similar in terms of structure and content, feels more focused, perhaps because an additional 22 minutes to its runtime helps make each subplot important and less unnecessary. Cruise and Connelly have more believable chemistry, and Maverick's hardships and Penny's responses come with more truth and impact. There is also one laugh-out-loud sequence that accompanies it afterwards, although it feels cruel to spoil it.

In my "Top Gun" review where I noted that "the sense of tension and competition [] should be inevitably ubiquitous throughout the time-limited programme", Top Gun: Maverick properly supplies it, with a more properly developed nemesis, a precise performance, and more personally sensitive dialogue. There is real conflict and tension throughout most of the scenes, and you'll often be stressed and worried about whether they can survive and make it out in time. Of course, other performances from Charles Parnell, Lewis Pullman, Monica Barbaro and so on are also game. There isn't a moment where the performances feel dishonest or forced.

However, some of the Third Act sequences feel quite Deus Ex Machina. Although the prospect that characters make sacrifices to save their teammates are always believable, it feels perfectly well-timed, as if the arduous journey couldn't have a little more struggle and dilemma. Still, it remains consistently engaging whether or not things are going to wrap up happily.

Top Gun: Maverick handles many elements so well that it feels like a letdown when the film recycles several things, and yes, mistakes from the previous film. Many reconstructed scenes or elements make Top Gun: Maverick fairly predictable, especially during the opening and closing sequences. Even though it provides a deeper exploration on grief and romance, it also ultimately decides to back away from the territory by shifting jarringly to motivational sequences and back up in the air. But these are all relatively minor complaints in the sequel that is undoubtedly a narrative, emotional and technical improvement over the first one. 

This completes the full circle for Maverick, but because this installment made a gazillion amount of dollars, (Miles Teller announced) they'll make a spin-off focusing on Rooster. If they do, let's hope they once again have the burning focus and fire Top Gun: Maverick possesses.

Update: Top Gun: Maverick has won one Academy Award.