Saw it Today: My Thoughts

Overall, it was an enjoyable movie that is a fitting tribute to the first.

It was moving to see Val Kilmer return as Iceman.

My major problem with the film, however, was Tom Cruise.

He can't act anymore.

Its like everything he says and does, every gesture, is clearly thought out and delivered, almost like from a robot.

There is no soul left in the man from all his years of Scientology 'auditing' and it shows.

The humanity is gone. Paint by numbers acting.

And its this 60 year old man who is trying so very hard to look young!

At one point, when he was wearing his white uniform, that I said : 'he looks like a gay man that tries so hard with his appearance; dyed hair, botox etc'.

Its a little tragic.

That said, its an enjoyable film and worth a watch.


Is someone a bit jealous of how Tom Looks?


considering I'm decades younger, no


You have a fixation with gays.


lol! I'm not gay but my boyfriend is!


I'm going to disagree on Tom. Now, I was never a fan of his. I've seen some of his movies but they were never my kind of movies. The only one I ever actually owned was 'Legend' and that was more for the cheesy 80s fantasy stuff......And the Outsiders....but I don't consider that a Tom Cruise movie. Anyway, my point is, I don't have any fixation, love, crush, attachment to him. It made me sad how creepy and weird he got with the Scientology though. When I first started getting really into actors is was around 1995 or so...Batman Forever era. Val Kilmer is my favorite movie Batman and Nicole Kidman was my first real Hollywood Starlets that I noticed. I wanted to be as beautiful as her, OMG. I then found out she was married to Tom Cruise and thought that was cool. then all the weird stuff followed and I just didn't care. He wasn't a guy I went to the movies for...ever...I haven't even seen the Mission Impossible movies...not a one.

So seeing this film was really the first time I actually sat down in a theater and watched one of his films and I thought he looked great. If he had botox, I thought he looked fine. He looked great in the beach scene and the love scene. There were moments where I thought 'Am I attracted to Tom cruise!?' lol.

I can maybe agree with you on the acting. Maybe that's just how the old school guys work. But I also wonder if it's because of the movie. I haven't decided yet on if I love or hate the fact they just pretty much remade the original beat for beat. But it doesn't give a lot of time to Maverick really delving deem with Rooster...He doesn't get a lot of chances to really get angry or sad...Not saying he doesn't...but the film itself is very surface level. Great for a fun summer movie...not so much if your looking for deep acting chops. Not saying it's a bad/good thing but I can see where you think his role was wooden's almost like it's supposed to be. I dunno.


Since the scientology stuff came out along with the infamous Oprah couch.... Tom Cruise seemed to have shifted gears in terms of projects. He found his niche with the "up the ante" stunts in the MI series and seems satisfied with that.

But his run in the 80s 90s and even 00s is fantastic, as far as his performances. He really does have range. Nominated for Born on the Forth of July. Rain Man... A Few Good Men... Jerry Maguire.... Magnolia... The Firm... Collateral.

I've learned if I set aside my thoughts on his personal life... I can really appreciate what a fantastic actor he really is.


Oh definitely. That's why I really try not to focus on their real lives and political, religious, or whatever drama. If I did that, I would never watch another movie again.

And his movie timeline definitely makes sense. He did do more serious dramatic movies early on and he did good with them. then the action movies started and gave him more thrill and joy...and mass popularity. I feel like normally you see it go the other way where the action star wants to be a 'serious' actor. His movies, for me, were just nothing I was ever really that interested in. I liked comedies...comic book movies...I remember when the first Mission Impossible came out and I am just not in to the modern action James Bond/spy style movies so never saw it. But it was a big deal when it came out. I remember U2 or, at least, the Edge did the theme song and it was a big thing. With the knew one coming out to theaters and I just renewing my AMC stubs card, I might need to take some time to go back and watch them all.


There was a lot of bad acting in this movie, but I think it's because of bad writing as well. The first Top Gun had good writing, bad acting but it was impossible to dislike any character.


the acting was overall pretty good; its just Cruise I can't stand anymore. Terrible acting.


It was better than I expected. For the first 30 mins it looked like it was going to be a retread of the 1st, hitting all the beats...the bike riding alongside the jet, the beach sequence etc. But once the main plot kicked in it improved.

The main mission created a lot of tension, and the relationships between the characters, mainly Cruise and Teller were very convincing. For a movie of its type the overall acting quality was very good.

And the flying sequences were the icing on the cake. They were genuinely impressive, fast and furious but you could understand what was happening.

One caveat though. The main mission at the end. Spoilers ahead.

Strategically it made no sense. They sent 4 fighters, leaving the rest on the carrier. They blew up the airfield, but they knew the positions of the missile batteries, and also that other planes may intercept. So why not send the rest of the squadron at the same time to deal with these threats and protect the initial 4 fighters? They could also have set off at the same time and flew under the radar.