Since landing full steam ahead in theaters on May 27, the highly anticipated “Top Gun: Maverick” has grossed over $400 million at the domestic box office, making it the highest-grossing film ever. ‘year. Its score on Rotten Tomatoes is “Certified Fresh” at 97% on the Tomatometer and 78% on Metacritic.
But a movie critic on Letterboxd named Brett wasn’t impressed with this sequel to the 1986 cult classic. In fact, he was so bothered by the action movie that he gave it 1/2 star and wrote over 700 words on how he found the movie terrible.
“‘Top Gun: Maverick’ is a film where our heroes attempt to start World War III,” he wrote. “The US military is selecting pilots for a bombing of a near-complete Iranian nuclear facility, which was built ‘in violation’ of an internationally recognized treaty. This, of course, is the exact opposite of what happened in real life: the United States violated the JCPOA agreement with Iran, and the Iranian government continued to obey it even when we didn’t. were over. »
At no point in the film did any character admit that Iran was the enemy in question, but the fact that the target is an unfinished uranium enrichment site rules out China, Russia and North Korea. from the list of possibilities, making it a realistic potential hint. for the country. However, this film is clearly set in a fictional geopolitical scene. The temporary suspension of reality is the key to its enjoyment.
At 59, it’s unlikely — but not entirely impossible — that someone Tom Cruise’s age would be a fighter pilot in the US Navy, so the idea for his character, Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell , serving nearly four decades is a pretty preposterous base to start with. with.
“Like all successful fascist tales, this film portrays our enemies as both almighty and extremely weak,” Brett mocks. “To create a story where our ridiculously overfunded heroes can be underdogs, it is necessary to pretend that Iran has ‘advanced 5th generation fighters’ who are superior to American capabilities; this is mentioned several times, even if it is absurd.
And while Brett is right, you would think that someone who has watched over 1,500 movies and written over 650 reviews would be able to escape the current international political climate for two hours to watch a movie about an old man who pilot cool planes and short shirtless on a beach for no reason.
Speaking of which, our curmudgeonly review made no mention of the double erotic football game in sunny California, and, to quote Jane Austen, “What a pity, because I like to laugh a lot.”
Brett also noted that the film was military propaganda, which MintPress News senior editor Alan MacLeod shockingly discovered this week.
Her story took particular note of a production deal between the Department of Defense and Paramount Pictures, in which the film crew was granted access to military equipment and “[a]ssign a senior officer, post-commander, to review with public affairs the themes of the scenario and incorporate key talking points relevant to the aviation community.
This, however, is the norm for film production teams looking to make authentic military films. There is, indeed, an entire Hollywood office within the Department of Defense dedicated to working with production personnel.
“The Department of Defense has a long-standing relationship with Hollywood,” according to a Pentagon press release. “In fact, he has worked with filmmakers for almost 100 years with a dual purpose: to accurately depict military stories and to ensure that sensitive information is not leaked.”
In essence, “Top Gun: Maverick” was a fun respite from the contemporary political quagmire and two decades of perceived military failure in the real world. Alas, it’s not for everyone.
“While one can ignore the fiercely bloodthirsty nature of this movie, it’s still absolute trash,” he wrote. “’Top Gun: Maverick’ is a 131 minute long commercial for death. Aggressively unoriginal, wildly irresponsible with its messages, historically revisionist and shamelessly jingoistic in the name of fellatio to arms dealers. It’s a propaganda masterpiece to defend some of our nation’s worst character traits, and it’s a huge success. I left the theater depressed and hopeless.
I guess he lost that feeling of love…
Observation Post is the Military Times’ one-stop-shop for everything off-duty. Stories may reflect the author’s observations.
Sarah Sicard is an editor at the Military Times. Previously, she served as Digital Editor of the Military Times and Editor-in-Chief of the Army Times. Other work can be found in National Defense Magazine, Task & Purpose and Defense News.