Paid me $8.50 to see Top Gun: Maverick My local movie theater inadvertently boosted my appreciation for the movie this past weekend. Three minutes later, the voice suddenly died, minus the dialogue, and I was immediately drawn to the high jet, the caffeinated cast, and the enduring allure of its star. Then the voices come back, the story unfolds, and the reality begins: it’s not a real plot, but an elaborate business plan, half video game, half draft movie. It’s the perfect structure for Tom Cruise to bash a genre blockbuster.
Historians may finally see the film as a turning point — one that rekindled the enthusiasm of audiences, young and old, to pay homage to their cinema halls.film critics may also single out Top Gun The sequel is a bold reinvention of the classic war genre.
Does it fit the classics? That’s true, but only Cruise would set out to design a combat epic without a specific enemy, so there’s a lack of focused rooting interest.Or the danger of marginalization, sex or even gore – all the hallmarks of war movies can be traced back Road to Glory.
The war movie is built around a mission, Cruise’s mission to train two teams of F-18 pilots to fly through the mountains and take out a uranium enrichment facility (whose we don’t know). Can Cruise survive the onslaught of the unnamed jet pilots who turned to him? Will he and his students face challenges other than a fierce game of open-back football on a peaceful beach?
They certainly will.but the release date Top Gun: Maverick It coincides with the publication of a new book that reminds us once again of the “classic” approach to war cinema – in this case, a book called The best years of our livesThe driving force behind it was Samuel Godwin, a legendary indie producer who represented Cruise’s antithesis both personally and professionally.
In 1944, Godwin was fed up with war and war movies, but was fascinated by the trauma faced by returning veterans trying to reintegrate into small-town America. The war basically destroyed them.In nurturing his project, Godwin took the steps prescribed by filmmakers of the era: He purchased the film rights to a best-selling novel, titled honor me Via McKinlican. He then paid Kanto to write the script, even though his novel was written in blank poetry.
Disappointed with the results, Godwin next sought out a talented playwright, Robert E. Sherwood, to rewrite it under the supervision of brilliant filmmaker William Wheeler (roman holiday). The new script is exemplary, albeit a bit literary.but even if best year In pre-production, Goldwyn was in talks with stars like Fredric March, Dana Andrews, and Myrna Loy, warning they would play characters that were severely damaged or even suicidal. One recruit was Harold Russell, whose actual battle wound left the hook on his hand in the movie.
The stubborn and iconoclastic Godwin ignored rumors that his films were too dark for fans. Discreet producer Joseph Breen thought the film’s first cut was too sexy; he even timed the kissing scene with a stopwatch.
Their fears were proven wrong: The film was a critical acclaim and a box-office hit, winning seven Oscars, including best picture (the impact of which is detailed in Alison Markle’s new book) , titled Create the best years of our lives).
Almost a century later, it is certain that Tom Cruise will be taking a very different route when developing his film. There will be no best-selling novels; no great playwrights.several layers of writers are asked to be maverick: The credits list lists five characters whose work is based on two other writers who were in turn “inspired” by real people featured in a 1982 magazine article.
The final product must pass not only the code (or its contemporary equivalent), but also the strict DoD Media Office.
The resolution of geopolitical issues remains more ambiguous. China’s censors, traditionally critical of war films, have yet to approve or reject Cruise’s blockbuster, while Tencent, a major Chinese financier, quietly backed out of its major financial commitments early in production.
So did the movie succeed? It scores highly on charts that reflect audience and critique acceptance. Overall, critics paid tribute to Cruise’s strong skills as a filmmaker.But as John Anderson Wall Street Journalthe film exacerbated his concerns about “where the movie is going and the lack of creativity on the screen.”
In the Cruise films, war is an exercise in detached excitement.This is not an ominous prelude best year. suddenly Top Gun: Mavericka senior officer looked at Cruise’s confident smile and said, “I don’t like that look.” Cruise responded, “It’s the only thing I get.”
The “look” is enough to satisfy millions of ticket buyers.