TOP GUN: MAVERICK
Movie Review By Gracen Garceau, Maltide Robbe
MOVIE INSIGHT & BACKGROUND:
Summary
He is found back to where it all started, Top Gun, in southern California, teaching the class he once took….
Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell is back after thirty years of serving among the Navy’s best aviators. He remained to working as a test pilot, later on teaching young graduates, while dodging a raise in rank which would prevent him from flying ever again. Training a squad of Top Gun graduates for a special mission, he puts everything on the line one last time.
Background
Captain “Maverick” is cast by none other than Tom Cruise; recast from the original, Tom and Val Killmer made a reappearance in the new sequel to the original Top Gun. A movie that was originally made to increase naval admissions, but ultimately stole the hearts of the American population has finally been revived. The total movie budget was compiled of 170 million dollars in production alone. In the box offices though, total revenue soared over the billion dollar mark in North America alone. In July of 2022, total sales from box offices were 1.28 billion dollars, for the first time in Tom Cruise’s movie appearance history. Even his Mission Impossible movies didn’t break this feat, grossing between 546.3 million and 791.6 million, proving that America might have enjoyed watching the remake over the original (without considering the wealth gap between the thirty-six years of filming).
Top Gun Lawsuit
This new sequel ignited quite a debate between many, however, including the inheritors of the original Top Gun articles. Paramount is now involved in a lawsuit regarding the copyrights of the movie. The original author, Ehud Yonay, his widowed wife, and son took claims against the film this previous June; Paramount refused to renew the rights to the original film and charged with claims of copyright of the article. Paramount refused to pay the recompense for the stolen copyrights and now continue to dismiss the matter altogether. Paramount’s rights to the article expired in 2018; when the wife and son terminated a 35 year standing contract between the company. Allegations between the two parties still stand without an agreement as the prosecutors claim that the defendant stole “ vivid and cinematic details” from the article that “ wouldn’t have made the movie” as it stands.
CRITIC RATINGS
