‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Outranks the Original

And ‘Pleasure’ is a fascinating look at an underexplored industry.


Though aviator sunglasses and beach volleyball have rarely been so beautifully photographed onscreen, there’s precisely little to compliment about Top Gun (1986). Before getting acquainted with it a couple years ago, I figured it at worst would have the same overriding problem of, say, an Esther Williams vehicle — boring on land but exciting in the water — just with MGM swimming pools traded for wide-open skies sliced through by the dart-like planes steered by the title program’s cocksure young pilots.

But take away the luster of Tony Scott’s forceful, hyper-aestheticized naval-chic images — Top Gun is maybe the most ravishingly shot military propaganda ever made — it’s shockingly tedious, with supplemental action sequences so spatially confusing they can’t get your heart racing. They mostly play like slideshows. Everything is tethered to a lifelessly written story about an arrogant-but-talented 20-something pilot, Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Tom Cruise), with a lot of growing up to do; he’s eventually somewhat tamed by a freakish brush with personal tragedy and a romance with an instructor (a chronically hunched-over Kelly McGillis). It’s a movie, essentially, about learning to channel one’s stubbornly individualistic spirit into something productive for the collective, and accepting that you’re really good at something without being off-putting about it. 

Read the full column, on Top Gun: Maverick and Pleasure, on 425.


Further Reading


Posted

in

by