![]() ![]() The acting-as-punishment routine takes this mentality to its lowest depth. If you want that little gold man, you've got to pay some kind of physical price. It's common wisdom now to say that, if you want get an Oscar nomination, especially as Best Actor, it helps to play somebody terminally ill, or struggling with a chronic condition (" Shine"), the loss of mobility (" Born on the Fourth of July," " My Left Foot," " The Theory of Everything") or a deformity (" The Elephant Man," " The English Patient") or wear lots of makeup to look more like a famous historical figure (" Lincoln"), and so on. Its frenetic editing was a perfect match for this generation’s scrolling Tik Tokers, and its nostalgic dreaminess the perfect fit for many boomers who want to be reminded of better times.It's the most extreme possible variant of the tendency to mistake Most Acting for Best Acting. That’s a perfect description of the mass entertainment “Top Gun: Maverick” provided. As the Chicago Tribune’s Michael Phillips wrote in his review, "It’s a pretty good time, and often a pretty good movie for the nervous blur we’re in right now. A yearning for a time when we could all go to the movies and not be triggered by any political messaging. Maverick’ feeds on pure unadulterated nostalgia of a yesteryear when Republican vs Democrat resulted in nothing more than polite political disagreements. “Top Gun: Maverick” was the cure for millions of Americans, a 2-hour antidote that made them forget about the hysteria. ![]() Right now, the world has to deal with potential nuclear war, remnants of a scarring pandemic, an economy in decline, and political divisiveness. It’s no coincidence that the enemy is unidentified in the film, it’s also quite obvious Kosinski and Cruise didn’t want to bring any political baggage to their movie. “Top Gun: Maverick” is almost like a period piece, a movie that felt like it was set in a bygone era of America, one where wholesomeness was present and political polarization was non-existent. His replacement, Joseph Kosinski, just played the hits, as they say. Know what? Originally-attached Tony Scott would have probably made a similar sequel if he were still alive today. It’s massive pop entertainment with an incredibly pulse-pounding score and slick production. The film is implausible but ABSOLUTELY NOBODY CARED. Whereas in 1987, they were saying “please, stop making ‘em like this.” I heard a lot of “they don’t make ‘em like this anymore” comments from people. A 78 on Metacritic is impressive, so is a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, critics clearly ate up the nostalgia factor with this one. I was mixed on it in my review, but upon watching it for a second time last month I can admit that there’s something to be said about a movie that just wants to entertain you in such an old-school fashioned way. It came at the absolute right time when moviegoers were, finally, feeling comfortable enough to go back to the movies. The sensational success of “Top Gun: Maverick” might not have been possible any other year. Joseph Kosinski’s film has grossed $1.48 billion globally, including $716 million domestically. ![]() Here’s what I wrote about the “Top Gun: Maverick” phenomenon back on 11.29.22: If you remember, Cruise and Spielberg had a major falling out in 2005 during “War of the Worlds.” The rift was due in part to what Spielberg felt were Cruise's off-camera antics messing with the film's box-office grosses. Maybe Cruise didn’t “save” the industry, but he definitely delayed the impending collapse of the theatrical experience. Seriously, ’Maverick’ might have saved the entire theatrical industry.” Here’s a great video from yesterday’s Oscars luncheon - Steven Spielberg telling Tom Cruise to his face, “You saved Hollywood’s ass, and you might have saved theatrical distribution. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |