Top Gun: Maverick

Top-Gun-Maverick

Welp, the summer movie season has officially taken flight (wink).

The day after I saw “Top Gun: Maverick,” a friend sent a text asking for my review. Thoughts were still swirling in my brain, and I hadn’t yet written down (or typed up) anything. So, I simply replied, “In three words or less: Totally worth seeing.”

And that seems to be the consensus among those who’ve already bought a ticket for this follow-up to the high-flying 1986 flick, with its macho bad-assery, extreme cheese factor, and scenes so steamy that every character was literally drenched in sweat. All. The. Time.

Good to see they got the A/C working for the new installment, which was postponed and delayed and held up again – for more than two years – before finally hitting theaters this past Memorial Day weekend.

But that wait? Worth every minute.

Tom Cruise is back, more than three decades after he bolted across the sky and into everyone’s heart as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, the Navy aviator with little regard for caution – or authority. He still looks the same, though slightly less boyish and cocky. But only slightly.

And as this “Top Gun” sequel kicks off – in almost identical fashion as its forerunner, with jets taking off from an at-sea airbase, with thumbs up signals flashing across the flight deck and Kenny Loggins crooning about that familiar “Danger Zone” in the background – Maverick is once again pushing buttons. And his limits.

Surprised? Me either.

After stern looks and tongue lashings from his higher ups, Maverick gets word from Admiral Beau “Cyclone” Simpson (Jon Hamm, meow): “You’ve been called back to Top Gun.”

But they don’t want him to fly. Oh, no.

“Everyone here is the best there is,” Lt. Trace/“Phoenix” (Monica Barbaro) states, matter-of-factly. “Who the hell are they gonna get to teach us?”

One guess.

In this high-stakes mission with its narrow training timeline and a success rate that requires “two miracles,” who else can teach this crew?

How about the guy who “can’t get a promotion, won’t retire, and despite his best efforts, refuses to die.”

For anyone who hasn’t seen the original (which may have only been me, until a year ago. I KNOW!), it’s not entirely necessary to see “Top Gun” to follow the action and story here. Through quick explainers and wistful flashbacks, “Maverick” fills in the blanks where necessary.

But, having seen the first flick will give a better understanding of the motivation, the journey, and the legacy of some of these characters. And those quiet moments of tight close-ups and determined stares? They’ll ooze the sentimentality needed to carry the weight of their significance.

“Maverick” dazzles while taking its audience inside the cockpit for every ride, with shaky camera effects – for real G-force effect; high-speed twists, turns, and spins that put us right behind the yoke; and those intense quick cuts, warning signals, and flashing instrument panels that’ll send your anxiety through the canopy.

This is a fun flick, plain and simple. Packed with action and nostalgia, “Maverick” hits every mark without wasting a moment or a look – or our time. The sarcasm and humor sprinkled throughout keeps the mood playful while being restrained enough for the audience to take the movie seriously.

The connection to the first film remains solid and profound, even 30-plus years later.

When the essence of something so beloved is nurtured and developed and held to an even higher standard than its predecessor, the audience wins. Based on the blatant corniness of some of the scenes and lines in “Top Gun,” this sequel really has no business being good.

But it’s not. “Top Gun: Maverick” is an exceptional, real-deal summer blockbuster.

And it’s, in three words or less, totally worth seeing.

You have just enjoyed the insights of Movie Addict Mel, a cinema dork and conversational writer. Follow her on Twitter @movieaddictmel, and “like” her Facebook page www.facebook.com/movieaddictmel.

Oscars 2020: The Battle for Best Picture

This year, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has selected nine titles to duke it out for its Best Picture prize. I once again saw all of them and have some ideas on which title(s) should take home Oscar gold.

Let’s just get to it, shall we? The nominees, in the order in which I saw them, are:

JOKER

What’s the big deal? This haunting tale of Arthur Fleck’s downward spiral into madness is highlighted by that captivating performance from Joaquin Phoenix. Director Todd Phillips’ masterful camerawork helps define this character’s mindset, and the artistic look of “Joker” breaths life into his desolation.

Will it win? No. Superhero – and supervillain – movies have only recently gained recognition as legitimate contenders. But at this point AMPAS would sooner shit a solid gold statuette than award Best Picture to a “comic book movie.”

FORD V FERRARI

What’s the big deal? American automotive designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and British race car driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale, SNUB) work to build a machine for the Ford Motor Co. that’s capable of taking on Ferrari in the 24 Hours of Le Mans endurance event. “Ford v Ferrari” goes beyond the sport to explore the relationships of its characters and the science behind the designs.

Will it win? Probably not. But Bale should have been recognized for his endearing, playful, and entertaining performance.

ONCE UPON A TIME… IN HOLLYWOOD

What’s the big deal? A 1950s TV Western star (Leonardo DiCaprio, up for Best Actor) and his stunt double (Supporting Actor nominee Brad Pitt) struggle to find big screen success in the late-1960s Hollywood. This fable sprinkles touches of Tinseltown lore among its otherwise outrageous, amusing, and moderately violent narrative. But this is quintessential Quentin, so what do you expect?

Will it win? Maybe. Hollywood LOVES movies about itself, so the title alone gives “Once Upon a Time…” a leg up. Pitt is fantastic and almost surely will take home the Supporting Actor award.

1917

What’s the big deal? Director Sam Mendes tells this stunning and engaging story the only way that makes sense – as one continuous take. Breathtaking and brilliant and told essentially in real time, this one-shot wonder literally follows two young British soldiers on a dangerous mission to deliver a message to the front lines during World War I. And, oh by the way, it’s fucking amazing.

Will it win? Yes. If you’ve seen the film, you know it, too. I don’t need to explain anything.

MARRIAGE STORY

What’s the big deal? This intuitive, honest, and uncomfortable examination of a crumbling marriage will hit you in the feels. Can we just for a second pause and reflect on that visceral shouting match that takes place in Charlie’s living room? My god! Scarlett Johansson, who finally seems comfortable onscreen, and Adam Driver more than deserve their acting nominations.

Will it win? While “Marriage Story” has a strong emotional resonance, I don’t think that’s enough to secure this year’s title. I would, though, love to see Driver steal that Best Actor win from Phoenix.

JOJO RABBIT

What’s the big deal? Absurd humor and whimsical visuals balance weighty issues in this World War II tale that’s saturated with subtle and obvious satire. Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis, who is outstanding and should have been nominated for Best Actor; I don’t care if he’s only 12) discovers a young Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) hiding in his home, causing Jojo to evaluate his loyalty to Hitler’s army. Take notice of the astute correlation between the film’s cheeky vibe and Jojo’s journey.

Will it win? Doubtful. But this is my second favorite film of the nine, so if a dark horse hopeful exists….

THE IRISHMAN

What’s the big deal? (Another) Martin Scorsese mobster flick, starring Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci, and Al Pacino. I know. Oh, and it’s five days long. I’m exaggerating, but barely.

Will it win? You know, I kind of hope not. I thought “The Irishman” was fine, but I wasn’t blown away (heh). I feel like this nomination stems mainly from the marquee names pinned to the film’s credits.

LITTLE WOMEN

What’s the big deal? Written and thoughtfully directed by Greta Gerwig (SNUB), this stunning adaptation of Louisa May Alcott’s novel chronicles the lives of four sisters, each very different and uniquely determined.

Will it win? I don’t think so, but wouldn’t that be a satisfying “up your ass” for Gerwig? And how about the inspired and powerful performances from Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh? Ronan could give Renée Zellweger a run for her Best Actress money. Fingers crossed!

PARASITE

What’s the big deal? What a bizarre mix of genres. Bong Joon Ho intentionally and sensibly intertwines these classifications, and the result is altogether fascinating. I dare you to look away. Filled with layers of symbolism, this flick will occupy your mind long after the credits roll (read this again). Yeah, we’re talking next-level symbolism here.

Will it win? It might, but I think this could be the “Roma” saga revisited. “Parasite” is also nominated for International Feature Film and most likely will take home that prize, leaving the night’s overall Best Picture title up for grabs – and awarded to “1917.” Wink.

And there you have it. But let us not forget: The Academy doesn’t care what I think.

Watch the 92nd Academy Awards on February 9 to see if your top picks take home a top prize.

You have just enjoyed the insights of Movie Addict Mel, a cinema dork and conversational writer. Follow her on Twitter @movieaddictmel, and “like” her Facebook page www.facebook.com/movieaddictmel.

1917

1917-sam-mendes-movie-poster

The new Sam Mendes epic war drama “1917” is a Best Picture contender for one simple reason: It’s fucking amazing.

Which, once I picked up my jaw from the floor, is exactly what I said to my husband after we saw the movie last week. He agreed.

Nominated for 10 Academy Awards, “1917” follows two young British soldiers on a seemingly impossible mission during World War I. The pair must venture through no man’s land and deliver orders calling off an impending attack to prevent 1,600 troops, including one soldier’s brother, from walking into certain death.

And when I say “follows,” I mean it literally.

Best Director nominee Mendes presents this story in one long, fluid shot (he gave us a taste of this in the opening scene of 2015’s “Spectre”). From the moment we meet Lance Corporals Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay) in an open meadow, we’re buckled in for the journey – every uninterrupted step of the way.

This one-shot technique (one of my favorites, when its use is this purposeful) allows Mendes to tell us this story essentially in real time. And his vision is nothing less than brilliant; his camera placement puts us squarely in the middle of the action.

The audience sees, learns, and experiences everything alongside and in sync with these characters, which creates a level of anxiety that must be felt to be understood. We know nothing beyond the frame of the camera, and that uncertainty heightens both curiosity and concentration.

And all the while this continuous scene refuses to blink, keeping us on edge and hanging on every. Single. Movement.

The occasional pivot or rotation or close-up gives a slightly different perspective and some additional detail, but our attention by way of the lens never deviates from its focus. And that slow zoom – the camera barely inching closer – on General Erinmore (Colin Firth) as he doles out this mission at the film’s start gives every indication of its importance.

If your heart isn’t already pounding out of your chest, those background drum beats add to the film’s intensity and fully express the significance of this race against time.

The tension is real.

In addition to calling shots behind the camera, Sam Mendes also gets his first writing credit here. Those efforts earned him an Oscar nomination for Best Original Screenplay.

I don’t see many war movies, but “1917” is beyond impressive. I was completely mesmerized and have been raving about this flick since I left the theater. As if the story itself isn’t fascinating enough, the seemingly seamless visuals will blow your mind.

“Stories are nothing unless you’re emotionally engaged,” Mendes said in an IMDb On the Scene interview.

His statement is a hundred percent accurate, and presenting “1917” as one long take was the only way to effectively tell this story.

I held my breath. I jumped. I winced, and I gasped.

And I loved every minute of it.

You have just enjoyed the insights of Movie Addict Mel, a cinema dork and conversational writer. Follow her on Twitter @movieaddictmel, and “like” her Facebook page www.facebook.com/movieaddictmel.