Edgar Cochran ✝️’s review published on Letterboxd:
Kosinski embraces the 80s cheese and orange-flooded frames with nostalgia as a proper tribute to Tony Scott, a man we miss dearly. The introduction follows every rule of the book to travel 40 years into the past and has the courtesy of acknowledging it is a sequel before anything else is done. The next step is the implementation of an amusing self-awareness in the character of Maverick, forcing Tom Cruise to acknowledge he is already old... capable, but old. We have two acknowledgment exercises so far. The third one stems directly from the second: Maverick is the protagonist, but not the all-conquering live-action figure that has no limits. On the contrary, the age itself forces the plot to make him a team leader instead of a one-man army or a man that outshines the rest of an average, forgettable team, unlike McQuarrie keeps insisting while he directs (I do know McQuarrie was a writer of this film).
There’s an interesting topic I don’t see anyone treating directly: immobile tenure. It is certainly for the convenience of the plot; otherwise, you wouldn’t be able to put Cruise in a plane. However, across all countries and their respective industries, there is a reduced number of people that decide to stay in a single job for a prolonged period within the same company or organization. Modern corporate “““philosophy””” catalogues that as “intellectual regression” and “stagnation”, something that can get you fired, or simply looked down upon (for the company I currently work in, it is the second). Staying in your comfort zone is never seen as a correct personal attribute.
Sorry, but f*** those capitalist thinkers! In a world so versatile, technologically accelerated, globalized, and economically unbalanced, remaining in a post guarantees (to some degree) financial stability. Technology, automation processes and A.I. do begin to take over manual work under this motto of “profit maximization” and “FTEs optimization” (a term I hate because it literally replaces the referral to a person with a time measurement, just like “Human Resources”).
So, Maverick decides to remain within an organizational structure and keep doing what he does best, saying “Yes sir!” to “authorities” younger than him. Due to age restrictions, he is commanded, in spite of reckless behavior, to become the leader of a flying mission.
The plot structure follows the typical action formula by the book in an astonishing way, so obvious it becomes self-aware. I swear, this film is a tongue-in-cheek exercise of self-awareness and acknowledgment (are you already taking the shots for every time I say the latter word?). More directly, it replicates the plot and sequences logic of the original feature and recreates it with modern visuals (to an extent): the introduction of the stubbornness of the protagonist, his humiliation conflict, the mission, the impossible odds, the crew that doesn’t believe in his questionable new leader, a collage of sequences featuring the leader training the crew for becoming the best version of themselves, the absolutely superficial female love interest of the protagonist (who is the only person in the film that is smarter than him), the leader proving that the impossible is possible and the obvious subsequent consequence of the crew starting to believe and respect the leader, the execution of the real mission, the invisible sidekick suddenly becoming visible for saving someone else’s life when you thought (s)he was about to be killed, the climax and the celebration.
“What the hell, Edgar? You just spoiled the entire film! Mark it as spoilers!” I didn’t, you have seen this film an exceeding number of times in the past already!
The action is stunning for a basic reason: it features real driving stunts by the entire cast. They were given personal training lessons by veteran flying and action stuntman Tom Cruise, debatably the most talented one still alive in Hollywood territory (Jackie Chan refuses to embrace mortality and keeps playing jokes on Death). Sometimes, the crew would film flight footage for hours just to come back with the it, analyze it, and reshoot it if necessary. It is one of those cases that art imitates life. The physical training was intensive for them, and physically demanding, up to a level of throwing up. Cruise has always set high standards for action filmmaking utilizing as few CGI as possible except when the worldbuilding is so disgustingly artificial that no option remains.
In short, it is an effective throwback to the formula that the 80s exploited so much, fully acknowledging (drink) itself as a mindless action set-piece and, for what it is intended to do, it is good. A rewatch wouldn’t hurt.
The real question is: are action sequels and franchises improving? Thoughts?
68/100
P.S. BOB
