Big question: Did Tom Cruise really save cinema? The two critics I spoke to think that, against all odds, he actually did—for a while at least. The Skinny’s events editor Anahit Behrooz has seen Top Gun: Maverick five times in cinemas, writing on release day: “Unfortunately, military propaganda has never been so sexy.”
She attributes the film’s irresistible rewatchability to the same thing she finds in all films she revisits: a certain musicality. “It’s like when you get a song stuck in your head and you have to listen to it over and over,” Behrooz says. “It has that same beat you’re anticipating and wanting to get lost in. It’s highly choreographed in terms of the action, but also the rhythms of the characters, the languor and sharpness with which they interact with each other. I think a lot of why I kept going back to it was almost like you were waiting for a beat to drop.”
Jack King felt the beat drop in Cannes last year, like Leo, and has devoted a sizable amount of his time as British GQ’s film and TV man to spreading the TG:M gospel. He believes that the appeal to spend as much time with the film as possible comes from a saturated climate “defined by cookie-cutter blockbuster IP, the time of endless sequels, prequels, reboots and spin-offs, heavy with CGI”, in which Maverick felt like something new—even though it technically is a sequel. It’s about the colors, the physical effects, the Hollywood romanticism, stunts, spectacle—and, yes, the Tom Cruise of it all. When a sequel feels novel, you’ve got to visit, and revisit, to fully let it sink in. (It’s why animation Oscar nominee Puss in Boots: The Last Wish is high up the ratings, too.)