Lewis Pullman

Thunderbolts* (2025): Familiar Marvel Characters Take Center Stage in an Unexpectedly Powerful Story

Posted on by Jack Drees

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

“Thunderbolts*” is directed by Jake Schreier (Paper Towns, Beef) and stars Florence Pugh (Oppenheimer, Midsommar), Sebastian Stan (The Apprentice, A Different Man), Wyatt Russell (Monarch: Legacy of Monsters, Black Mirror), Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace, Magic City), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Salem’s Lot), Geraldine Viswanathan (Blockers, Miracle Workers), Chris Bauer (The Deuce, True Blood), Wendell Pierce (Suits, The Wire), David Harbour (Violent Night, Stranger Things), Hannah John-Kamen (Brave New World, Killjoys), and Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Seinfeld, Enough Said). This film is about a group of antiheroes who work together on a mission where they must face the darkness of their pasts.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL.

Before we get into my thoughts on “Thunderbolts*,” I would like to take a few moments to discuss my current feelings about the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Every time there is a new Marvel Studios project out, I imagine that group as if they were a see-saw. The past couple years or so, I have come across a multitude of extremes. “The MCU is dead!”, “The MCU is back!”, “The MCU is dead again!”, “The MCU is back again!” Personally, the MCU is long from dead. And it always has been. There have been missteps along the way, sure. But many filmmakers would kill to have a project as successful as many of those coming out of Marvel. Yes, 2023 was a lesser year for the studio. Yes, “The Marvels” bombed… Yes, “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” underperformed… But in the same year, we also had “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” which was super successful. Marvel was down, but not out.

Then in 2024, Marvel churned out the highest-grossing R rated title of all time with “Deadpool & Wolverine.” And “Agatha All Along” also did well on the TV side.

Flash forward to 2025, things are not off to the best of starts. Sure, maybe “Daredevil: Born Again” is well received. But movie-wise, “Captain America: Brave New World” got old really fast. The box office was somewhat respectable, but it was low by Marvel standards. It probably would have been higher if the film did not have a 48% on Rotten Tomatoes. As for my thoughts on the film, I would say it is mediocre. It is the first Marvel film since “Endgame” I did not enjoy. That is honestly not a bad streak.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © MARVEL 2025

Now that much of the discourse of “Thunderbolts*” is finding its way online, I am not going to claim the MCU is back. Again, it never died. But I would say the MCU is in a great position right now because “Thunderbolts*” is an incredible time.

There is a sense of homogeneity from one Marvel movie to the next. While this film manages to maintain some of the cliches from prior Marvel projects, “Thunderbolts*” is undoubtedly unique when it comes to the span of the MCU. While the film features familiar characters, they have arguably never been this well written.

Photo by Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

Well, maybe except Bucky. He has been around for a bit. His role in “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is rather compelling at times.

“Thunderbolts*” goes beyond being a great comic book movie, which is not necessarily a detractor by itself, and gives one of 2025’s deepest narratives yet. This film is about a bunch of nobodies who are tasked to complete a mission together. Basically the Thunderbolts are Marvel’s version of the Suicide Squad. With there being two “Suicide Squad” movies, I would put “Thunderbolts*” in between them. It is nowhere near as bad as the 2016 one, but not quite as enjoyable as the 2021 sequel directed by James Gunn.

What makes “Thunderbolts*” in particular so compelling is its handling of the core characters. Again, these are nobodies. But in some cases, them being nobody is what makes them relatable. I think a lot of people will relate to characters like Yelena because the movie dives into her struggles of having no one by her side. After all, her sister died. She has been away from her parents for some time. She does not have a partner. The movie dives into various obstacles people can have with their mental health. This film came out in 2025, and knowing some of the things going on in the world, it feels like a movie some people will need right now. I can only imagine the conversation this would have gotten had this come out some time in 2020, or 2021, back when COVID-19 started to spread around the world. “Thunderbolts*” is playing a key role in kickstarting this year’s blockbuster season. It is undoubtedly a film that a ton of people are going to see. I imagine a lot of viewers are expecting to have fun. That is a core expectation of many of these tentpole releases. Having seen the film, I can say it is in fact, quite fun. But I also walked out of this film thinking about the people in my life, my social circles, and wonders as to what my future could present should I navigate in a certain direction. Maybe some people could see this film as a bit of a downer, but I think there is enough balance throughout the story to where it could wind up being some of the most fun one can have at the movies this year.

Photo by Marvel Studios/Marvel Studios – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

On that note, the humor in “Thunderbolts*” works very well. Just about every joke landed for me. The highlight for me throughout the film, in terms of comedy, is easily David Harbour. This comes as no surprise because I found him to be the standout of “Black Widow,” mainly because of his execution of that film’s more comedic moments. Neither of these films are quite “Guardians of the Galaxy” funny, but that is a tall mountain to climb.

In fact, if I had a critique for the humor, it would be that some of the jokes feel like rewrites of what we have gotten in other Marvel projects. This might not be a surprise because there are so many projects already out, but after so many of them, you are bound to follow a formula or repeat something that was done before. One joke that finds its way into the script is the characters talking about how dumb a particular name is. As someone who likes these movies, I have noticed an arguable overuse of this kind of joke. But rarely does it fail for me, and “Thunderbolts*” is not an exception to the rule. Not only did I find this film’s “name jokes” funny, but they also play a key role in the story down the line.

I am an MCU fanboy. I make an effort to see all the films as soon as they come out. But it does not mean I am ignorant of any drawbacks that come my way. And this movie has some. One that comes to mind is Julia Louis-Dreyfus as Valentina. I do not have anything against how the character was written, but if anything, I felt like Louis-Dreyfus was playing herself. Maybe this is due to watching a lot of “Seinfeld,” but when I look at Valentina and listen to her speak, I cannot help but picture a boss lady variant of Elaine.

Another flaw has to do with the pacing. That is if you can call it a flaw. The film has an entertaining first half, but eventually, things pick up fast and furious to the point where the latter half outshines the former. “Thunderbolts*” is a great film, but I am going to remember it more for the second half than the first, which was fun nevertheless.

Knowing the MCU’s track record as of late, this next flaw should not be a shock. Some of the CGI could be a smidge better. Granted, a lot of the CGI in the film is great, and collectively, the effects are much better than say “Black Widow” or “Thor: Love and Thunder.” But some of the computerized effects looked kind of obvious. Although even those that did seem obvious sometimes looked polished or buyable enough to the point where I could be forgiving of their presence.

While the CGI may not be perfect, one technical aspect that pleasantly surprised me was the color grading of the film. With some occasionally obvious effects aside, I cannot say I have seen an MCU film that looks utterly incompetent. Though a common problem I find with some of these movies is through the color palette. Sometimes the colors do not quite match the mood of the film. “Captain America: Civil War” comes to mind. While it is a more serious MCU installment, I thought the colors were a bit too gloomy and dark for what the film turned out to be, especially with the airport throwdown. The color grading in “Thunderbolts*” was also on the gloomier side, but it felt natural for the story that was being told, as well as the vibe that was lingering in the background. The colors were consistent and amazingly did not take away from the more fun moments of the film. The film was always fun, but in the back of my mind, it was also a bit of a downer when it dove into some of the characters’ struggles.

Another common MCU problem that fails to find its way here is the film’s villain. I am not going to dive into a ton of details regarding the character, but not only were they well written, but I thought they fit perfectly into the mental health motif. There is a climactic sequence involving said character that like several others in the MCU, is heavy on the special effects, but it winds up becoming a one of a kind battle that I do not recall ever seeing in this series of films. This is not my favorite MCU climax, but it is safe to say it is up there with some of the best.

Many of the characters in this film have appeared in other MCU projects. Thankfully, I can claim that you do not need to see those other films to understand what is going on in this one. While the film does reference a couple major events in the MCU that have been documented in other stories, I think an MCU first-timer can go into this film with no experience and have a good time with it. This story feels fresh, which is amazing to say considering the amount of familiar faces that make up the cast both on the film and TV sides.

Although for those who did see “Captain America: Brave New World,” there is one major event involving Bucky that is referenced in the film. It is resolved in a cop out-like manner. If you were looking forward to knowing more about that event, you get more. But not a ton. As much as I enjoyed this movie, this sort of shows the haphazardness of the MCU and how supposedly big setups in previous projects can be met with little payoff. Granted, the setup paid off. But perhaps barely.

If I had any other notes regarding the film, I will note that this is the first MCU appearance of Geraldine Viswanathan, and I thought she did a good job. At one point, her character kind of puts things into perspective for the younger people living in this universe, particularly how some of the major events such as the Battle of New York might come off as something that would now be covered in a history class. I thought that was a nice touch. For those who do not know Geraldine Viswanathan, she is a super talented young actress. This is not her best work. If anything, I recommend checking out the TBS series “Miracle Workers” if you want to get a true sense of Viswanathan’s comedy chops. But I am glad to see her make her way into the MCU.

By the way, there are two extra scenes during the credits. And without giving anything away, I got a big, fat laugh while watching the mid-credits scene. There is some line delivery in the clip that simply amounts to perfection.

Marvel Studios/MARVEL STUDIOS – © 2025 MARVEL. All Rights Reserved.

In the end, I would give “Thunderbolts*” two big thumbs up. This was a phenomenal time at the movies. Florence Pugh overdelivers in her lead role. David Harbour is comedy gold. Sebastian Stan is stellar as usual. And Lewis Pullman does a great job playing another supporting character named “Bob” following his efforts in “Top Gun: Maverick.” I am looking forward to seeing what the next few months bring in terms of blockbusters. If this year’s upcoming tentpoles are as good as “Thunderbolts*,” then the summer movie season is gonna rock. I am going to give “Thunderbolts*” an 8/10.

“Thunderbolts*” is now playing in theatres everywhere. Tickets are available now.

Thanks for reading this review! My next review is going to be for “Rust.” Yes, that one. The movie was not playing in too many theaters, but I was at the right place at the right time, and managed to check it out a few weeks ago. Look forward to my official thoughts coming soon. Also on the pipeline, I have reviews coming for “The Ruse,” “Mission: Impossible – The Final Reckoning,” “The Accountant 2,” “Bring Her Back,” and “Friendship.” If you want to read these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Thunderbolts*?” What did you think about it? Or, with this being the last MCU movie in phase 5, what did you think of this phase overall? Do you have a favorite film or TV show? Personally, my favorite project was “Deadpool & Wolverine” by a clear mile. Let me know your faves down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Riff Raff (2024): Having a Cast This Good in a Movie Just Shy of Being Solid is a Crime

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Riff Raff” is directed by Dito Montiel (Empire State, The Son of No One) and stars Jennifer Coolidge (American Pie, The White Lotus), Ed Harris (The Truman Show, Apollo 13), Gabrielle Union (America’s Got Talent, Bring it On), Lewis Pullman (Top Gun: Maverick, Bad Times at the El Royale), Miles J. Harvey (Supercool, The Babysitter), Emanuela Postacchini (The Seven Faces of Jane, Who is America?), Michael Angelo Covino (Keep in Touch, The Climb), Pete Davidson (Saturday Night Live, The King of Staten Island), and Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Stripes). This film is set during a family reunion when a criminal’s life is suddenly turned upside down.

February is typically a dumping ground for movies. Although in recent years, the month has had a few attractive titles at the box office that would bring in a vast audience. In fact, this year we had “Captain America: Brave New World” as the month’s hot ticket. I am not going to pretend that “Riff Raff” had anywhere close to the box office potential of Marvel’s latest film, but if you look at the film’s cast, it would, in theory, bring some unlikely viewers in the door.

With the film’s cast being the biggest selling point, I am not surprised to say that they collectively end up being the highlight. Each individual brings their A-game and they all have decent material to work with. Is the material award-winning? No. Will the material go down in the history books? Probably not. But if you are looking for an hour and a half to kill, this might do. Perhaps just barely.

If you like the vibes of Rian Johnson’s “Knives Out” combined with a bunch of Quentin Tarantino’s filmography, then “Riff Raff” is for you. This film features a peculiar family who all come together at the same place. Even families whose members vowed to never speak to each other after that one time they discussed politics at Thanksgiving can tell you that this is clearly not a typical family gettogether. On top of that, the film is violent, bloody, and visceral. It is not the most grotesque picture of all time, but it is rather dark.

You may have noticed in the last couple paragraphs that I refused to take select thoughts I had on the film to an extreme. This is a consistency I have noticed regarding the film as I write this review. “Riff Raff” is a film that lacks standouts, both positive and negative. Sometimes I wonder if that is worse than a straight up bad movie. Because at least you can remember a bad movie. It is an experience you want to forget, but it often stays with you for a reason. This movie, while it has its moments, feels kind of disposable in the long run.

That said, there are some standouts in this film, one of which is Jennifer Coolidge as Ruth. She is funny, charming, and brings a respectable energy to her role to the point where I can only see Coolidge playing this particular character. There are certain portions of the film where you can clearly see the nerves coming out of Ruth to the point where she even tries to defend said nerves by suggesting they turn her on.

When you put Jennifer Coolidge in the same room as Bill Murray, Pete Davidson, and Ed Harris for example, such a concept sounds promising. In fact, all of these actors do a great job with their roles and have solid chemistry with one another. If I had to be honest, if you have a cast this promising, I wish the script were pinched up a little more to make the experience of watching all of these people at the same time just a bit better. Going back to “Knives Out,” the great thing about the movie, and even its 2022 follow-up, is that the gangbusters ensemble casts of both projects had great screenplays to back up their performances. I am not going to pretend that the screenplay for “Riff Raff” is broken. It works, it functions. Again, just barely. When I look back at this movie however, if I were to recommend it to somebody, I would recommend it on the idea of watching all of these big name actors come together as opposed to selling them on what kind of ride they are in for. The actors seem to offer more to the film, and as a result, the experience, than the writer does.

For the record, this film is solely written by John Pollono, who co-wrote one of my favorite films of the past decade that I did not review, “Stronger,” which is about a guy who was injured in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. If I were to put these films side by side, I would easily choose to watch “Stronger” every single time. Although this is not to say “Riff Raff” is a heaping pile of malarkey. Pollono does a good job with “Riff Raff” by balancing humor with occasional drama. He also brings halfway decent stakes to the table.

I watched the film alongside my grandma as well as my mom. These two are not usually the target audience when it comes to bloody, violent films. Unsurprisingly, these two did not seem to walk out of the film thinking it was their favorite. But I would say in a way, the film seemed to do its job because it definitely generated a reaction out of them. The film has its hints of shock value, and there are some tense scenes where serious injury or bloody death seems imminent.

The film has some hilarious moments. There is one sequence past the halfway point featuring Pete Davidson and Bill Murray’s characters that had me in stitches. The sequence presents them with a neverending obstacle, and it was executed fantastically. “Riff Raff” is not the easiest film to identify within a certain genre. It is a little bit of an action flick. It is a little bit of a drama. It is a little bit of a crime story. It is a little bit of a comedy. When it comes to the comedy, it does not always hit, but when it does hit, it is sometimes a bullseye.

In fact, going back to those genres, one problem with this film is that it leans into being multiple genres at a time to the point where it never finds its footing and excels at one thing. It is like a more mature “Red One.” Although in this case, some of those genres perhaps barely surpass the “it’s fine” mark.

In the end, “Riff Raff” is neither great or horrible. It is the Little Caesars Pizza of crime movies. It delivers some enjoyment in the moment, but by no means is it going to sit in the hall of fame. Is “Riff Riff” going to end up being the year’s most memorable movie? No. In fact, it will likely be far from it. But there are also way worse options out there for your viewing displeasure. This is kind of in the middle of the road. It has been some time since I sat down and watched the movie so I am bound to forget some things, but truth be told, the more that time passes, the more I realize how forgettable “Riff Raff” becomes. The film has some decent moments that could squeeze it into a territory where I would say it is worth at least one watch, but I am nevertheless going to give “Riff Raff” a 5/10.

“Riff Raff” is now available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! I am sorry I have not posted a review for awhile. I have been busy with life, hobbies, as well as crafting the 7th Annual Jack Awards, which you totally should check out! It is available now for your enjoyment! That said, I do have more reviews coming including ones for “Nickel Boys,” “Mickey 17,” “Locked,” “The Luckiest Man in America,” “The Penguin Lessons,” and there is one film I saw recently that I have been debating as to whether I am going to review it or not, I just saw “Hans Zimmer & Friends: Diamond in the Desert.” It is a concert film, and I do not have a ton of experience with reviewing, or even watching those kinds of movies. That said, it was a great moviegoing experience and I would love to talk about it at some point. If you want to see more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Riff Raff?” What did you think about it? Or, what is a movie with a solid cast that you think could have been better? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Skincare (2024): Elizabeth Banks Marvelously Leads a Fairly Predictable Thriller

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Skincare” is directed by Austin Peters (More Than an Athlete, Give Me Future) and stars Elizabeth Banks (The LEGO Movie, Spider-Man), Lewis Pullman (Lessons in Chemistry, Top Gun: Maverick), Michaela Jaé Rodriguez (Pose, Loot), Luis Gerardo Méndez (Me Time, Half Brothers), and Nathan Fillion (Firefly, The Rookie). This film is about an aesthetician whose life turns upside down when a rival opens their business across the street from hers.

As someone who loves filmmaking, I often talk about some of my favorite directors like Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan, and Denis Villeneuve. Given my passion for what goes on behind the scenes, some of you might figure I am above talking about my favorite actors. That is not the case. If you want to know what, or in this case, who, sold me on watching “Skincare,” it is the same person who sold me on watching “Call Jane” a couple years ago, Elizabeth Banks. She is so incredibly dynamic and just a bundle of joy to watch in each one of her projects. She delivers on energy, personality, and can easily balance herself between comedy and drama. Additionally, with her time on ABC’s “Press Your Luck,” Banks also happens to arguably be my favorite game show host working today. I love this woman. I will watch her in almost anything. Granted, “Pitch Perfect” is not my cup of tea, and part of me has no desire to watch “Movie 43.” But I will watch her in almost anything.

In the case of “Skincare,” I came for Elizabeth Banks, but I stayed for the feature presentation, which ultimately impressed me.

If you have never heard of “Skincare” until this review, I cannot say I am too surprised. It is from a lesser known studio, IFC Films to be specific. And the movie opened in fewer than 800 theaters. But if I were to review this movie opening weekend, I would definitely recommend you see it. Especially over something like “Borderlands…” But I also would say if you have other options out there, I would not blame you for picking those instead. That is despite realizing that this movie would not be in theaters for that long. Because the structure of this movie is utterly predictable at times. Granted, there are glimmers of unpredictability sprinkled into what is ultimately a fairly formulaic script. But there are things about this movie that make up for that.

For starters, I like all the characters. I think each one is well written, and brought to life nicely by their respective actors. Going deeper into that idea, the rivalry between Hope (Banks) and Angel (Méndez) is one that had me intrigued from beginning to end. I almost cannot imagine anyone else playing these characters and this pair plays off each other perfectly. Knowing how much I liked their work together here, I would not mind seeing Banks and Méndez in another project together.

As for Elizabeth Banks on her own, praising her performance as Hope in this movie could come off as biased based on my established appreciation for the actor, but I am not kidding when I say she knocks her performance out of the park. Granted, knowing how the rest of the year will probably go, I do not think this performance will get a ton of awards buzz, but if there is any reason you should watch “Skincare,” Elizabeth Banks slaying her role should be at top of the list. I do not know where specifically I would rank this performance on Banks’s resume, but this is one of those that I can appreciate because of how unleashed Banks comes off at times, and based on the script, she is justified for coming off that way each and every time.

“Skincare” dives deep into reputation, specifically how it can change in an instant, and how you might not always have the power to change it yourself. It shows how our modern culture has allowed other people to paint a seemingly impressionable picture of you for everyone else to see. And said painter may have a certain power to them that makes it near impossible for you to get the public to not buy what said painter is selling. There is a scene in this film where we see Hope get hacked. Essentially, she sends a lewd email to all of her clients, and soon thereafter, all of her appointments are cancelled. That is just a small part of how this film deals with the way the public sees others.

Also, despite my complaint about this movie being by the numbers, it does not mean that it the script itself is bad. Granted, it does sometimes have the vibe of say a Lifetime movie, but when it is brought to life, it is done so with significantly better acting, more appealing aesthetics, and a vision that I bought into from beginning to end. And again, I can get behind it all because I found myself intrigued by all the characters, and I especially rooted for the lead. Everything makes sense and is wound together neatly. It is just that at times, some specific events that play out feel too familiar or as they are playing out I could easily paint a picture in my head of where things would be going only to have said prediction play out in front of me.

I had no idea about this as the movie was playing, but as I write this review, I found out the film is somewhat based on true events experienced by celebrity facialist Dawn DaLuise. The movie has quite a few similarities to those events, between how certain characters look and the way the locations are set up. But there are some noticeable differences too. Hope is dealing with different accusations and problems than DaLuise. The way the film goes about its problems had me engaged and they all flow together. But having read about DaLuise’s real life story, part of me is curious to know what would have happened had they done a more accurate take on the actual events. Granted, one of my favorite films of the past decade or so is “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood,” I do not always need 100% accuracy in my cinema. But knowing about some of what went down in real life, and what did not go down in this project, it begs me to wonder what it would be like to see a movie with a more true take on Dawn DaLuise’s story. Not that the movie we got is nonsensical, everything adds up and there is nothing that feels completely broken. To be real with you, “Skincare” is worth watching. It is one of the better movie experiences I had this summer and I wish more people checked it out. Hopefully it gets some more attention as the year goes on.

In the end, “Skincare” is quite a solid thriller, but it is unfortunately also overwhelmingly cliché and predictable. This movie is inspired by true events, but it is also true that this film has a structure to it that feels been there done that. The real reason why you should watch this movie is to see Elizabeth Banks put on a stellar lead performance. For me, Banks simply being in “Skincare” was its top selling point in the marketing. That said, having walked out of the movie, I can say that if I were to sell “Skincare” to you on the street, my appreciation for Banks’s performance would probably be the first thing that comes out of my mouth. A lot of the other stuff in this movie is just a bonus. I am going to give “Skincare” a 7/10.

“Skincare” is now playing in select theaters and is available to rent or buy on VOD.

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review, I have more coming! Stay tuned for my thoughts on “My Old Ass,” “Reagan,” “It Ends with Us,” and “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Skincare?” What did you think about it? Or, given how I mentioned Elizabeth Banks as a potential favorite game show host, I must ask, who do you think is the best game show host working today? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Top Gun: Maverick (2022): Tom Cruise Pilots His Way Through a High Flying Sequel

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Top Gun: Maverick” is directed by Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion, Tron: Legacy) and stars Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible, Risky Business), Jennifer Connelly (A Beautiful Mind, Hulk), Miles Teller (Whiplash, Fantastic Four), Jon Hamm (Keeping Up with the Joneses, Baby Driver), Glen Powell (Scream Queens, Hidden Figures), Lewis Pullman (The Strangers: Prey at Night, Bad Times at the El Royale), Ed Harris (Dumb and Dumber, Apollo 13), and Val Kilmer (Batman Forever, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). This film is a sequel over three and a half decades in the making, and follows Pete Mitchell once again as he finds himself in a situation where he teaches younger fighter pilots at Top Gun, including the son of someone he previously flew alongside, making matters personal.

“Top Gun” is a weird movie. I imagine that some people consider it to either be their favorite Tom Cruise movie or maybe even their favorite movie in general. To me, it’s neither. It’s a solid film, but in terms of Cruise’s filmography, it ranks down the middle for me. For all I know, part of why people like it so much could be for nostalgic reasons. I did not grow up in the 1980s, and if you want me to be real, looking back at “Top Gun,” despite the film’s evident advancements in capturing cinematic dogfighting, it feels like a product of its time. It has some cheesy dialogue here and there, the songs feel very much out of the 1980s time period, and the stakes for me did not feel as high as other movies. Then again, it is hard to have stakes when you have fighter pilots that are not actually going up against other fighter pilots, for the most part. But I will also give “Top Gun” credit because for a film where there is almost no threat to begin with, the film still has plenty of intrigue and gives us enough reasons to care for the characters, and not just because they are spiking volleyballs without shirts on.

The best thing about this sequel is that it successfully builds off of a key point of the original. Despite what I said about the stakes being low, there is a moment in the original movie where the main character of Pete Mitchell has to face an event with potentially dire consequences. Thankfully for him, the consequences are not as bad as they could have been. That is, until the events of “Top Gun: Maverick,” where they come back to haunt him, in addition to haunting one of his students.

I am glad that this movie has as good of a story as it does, because without those things, the movie would still be watchable for what it is, but I am satisfied to say that “Top Gun: Maverick” is not a movie that mainly relies on big, loud spectacle, and instead, blends such a thing perfectly into the material written for its respective pages.

On that note, however, my biggest positive for “Top Gun: Maverick” is the spectacle. Through my six years on Scene Before, I have always forwarded a singular thought. Movies are ALWAYS better in the theater. Even a movie as terrible as 2019’s “Cats” is better in a theater because of the weird spectacle. That said, if there is any movie that I recommend you go see in a theater right now, I not only recommend “Top Gun: Maverick,” but this movie commands your attention and it is one you need to see on the biggest screen you can. I had the privilege of going to see “Top Gun: Maverick” at a true IMAX cinema ten minutes from where I live. It was their first weekend open since the beginning of the pandemic, and walking out of the theater, I could barely even move because of how boisterous this movie was. And this movie was not boisterous because it looked like yet another cranked out Hollywood production with tons of digitzed effects, but because a lot of it was actually done for real.

Many of the film’s actors ended up using and flying real planes throughout the film. In an age where more and more movies are relying on green screen, or more recently, StageCraft, it is thrilling to see a film that pushes the boundaries of human limitations while also putting a pinch of reality in our fantasies. Tom Cruise, unsurprisingly, pilots a plane in this film. There are restrictions to his piloting, but knowing and seeing that only enhances the final product. I have had conversations with people where they said Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson is perhaps the manliest person alive. Sure, he’s got the LOOKS of a man with his big strong arms and attractive bald head. But let me know when he pilots a real military jet for audiences around the world to witness, as they bite their nails thinking, “this is the part where he crashes, isn’t it?”. No, seriously. I have watched a lot of movies. Between the previous “Mission: Impossible” and this movie, Tom Cruise is on a trend where he continues to captivate me harder into a scene than most actors, including ones that are perhaps more likely to be nominated for Oscars. And it is not because of how he goes through a scene delivering his dialogue, managing his physicality, and keeping his fellow actors in check. It is because of how much of a daredevil he has become over the years. Even in movies that were not well received like “The Mummy,” you could still look at Tom Cruise’s stuntwork and recognize the effort put into it. I am not saying “Top Gun: Maverick” is my favorite movie of the year. But it is a contender for the movie I will thinking about this year the most in terms of how it has projected me into an environment where I may has well been so close to falling to my death. For that reason alone, you should see “Top Gun: Maverick” on the biggest screen you can find.

However, “Top Gun: Maverick” also faces a problem depending on how you look at things. The movie, even though I believe modern audiences will enjoy it, gets too caught up in the good old days. The opening scene, while an amazing welcoming back to the “Top Gun” universe, only works because of how much it rips off the original movie. The midpoint of the film features an incredible scene between two characters. I will not say much more, but let’s just say that I, an aspiring writer, could not have written a better, more engaging scene between these two characters. You will know it when you see it.

However, there is another moment where everyone starts singing a particular song that did not feel authentic. It felt like nostalgia bait for the sake of nostalgia bait. There are movies that tend to rely on fan service and nostalgia that do such things well. I think “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” did it well when that movie came out. “Top Gun: Maverick” on the other hand, was a little on the nose and it did not land as well as it could have. Some might enjoy it, some might not. Although I thought it was great to hear “Danger Zone” once again. But that also goes to show how one can be emotionally attached to something and therefore perceive something as good. I liked the original “Top Gun,” but I never thought it was my favorite movie. The original “Star Wars” trilogy was something I watched incessantly as a kid, enjoyed immensely, and therefore it is part of why I felt a spark of joy when certain things happened in “The Force Awakens.”

That’s a minor nitpick, but I want to point out a couple things in regard to this film’s depth. First off, I think at times, the relationship between the characters of Pete Mitchell and Penny Benjamin (Jennifer Connelly) felt a tad forced at times. They had chemistry, but it was overall very off and on. I personally think Cruise had better chemistry with Kelly McGillis’s character of Charlie back in the 1986 predecessor. In my review for the original “Top Gun,” I said that I learned of Kelly McGillis and Tom Cruise, the actors, not getting along on set. Having searched more information on that as of recently, I would not know if that is actually true because the only source I have telling me that as of recently is the “Top Gun” IMDb page, which may not be the most reliable place to base one’s information. I will note that McGillis spoke out regarding this love interest shift not long ago, saying she is happy for Jennifer Connelly, so I am glad to see there are no hard feelings.

Speaking of depth, let’s talk about the enemy of “Top Gun: Maverick.” There are multiple references to “the enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” We do not know who they are. Apparently this is also the case in the original movie where the Top Gun pilots have to go into actual combat against another force. In today’s age, I kind of get why they never specifically identify an “enemy” in “Top Gun: Maverick.” The film business is about money, and if Paramount makes a “Top Gun” movie where they identify Germany as the enemy, then chances are they are never going to release the film in Germany as it would tick some people off. If the movie identifies Japan as the enemy, then they can kiss a Japanese release goodbye as some viewers would probably dislike seeing their country as the antagonist. Maybe this is to suggest that the pilots could go up against multiple enemies at the same time, but nevertheless. At a certain point of the movie, there is one specific enemy force that comes into play, but again, we do not know who they are. This movie is fiction, it is not based on actual war. It is not like we are watching “Dunkirk” or “The Patriot” where the sides are specific of an actual time and place, even if they involve fictional characters to further the story along. That said, even though I prefer the story of “Top Gun: Maverick” to the original, it is not free from nitpicks. Even so, you should see this movie. I give it a thumbs up, and I think it is a film that almost anyone can have a good time watching.

In the end, “Top Gun: Maverick” is a blockbuster you should see this summer on the biggest screen possible. I do recommend watching the original first as it does help you appreciate the story of this sequel more, there are many ways to watch “Top Gun” from home, but I do not recommend skipping out on “Top Gun: Maverick” during its theatrical run. Do not wait for Paramount+, do not wait for VOD, do not wait for the Blu-ray. If you are going to watch this movie, find the biggest screen with the loudest sound you can. Buy some popcorn, grab a soda, have a good time. Take your friends, take your family, this is certainly a crowd-pleasing movie that delivers the thrills. As of writing this review, I have tickets to go see this movie a second time with someone close to me. I am going to give “Top Gun: Maverick,” despite my nitpicks, a really high 7/10.

“Top Gun: Maverick” is now playing in theaters everywhere, including large formats like IMAX and Dolby. Tickets are available now!

Thanks for reading this review! If you enjoyed this review for “Top Gun: Maverick” and want to see more of my thoughts on the franchise, check out my review that I did in 2020 for the original “Top Gun” as part of my special Tom Cruise Month! Fun fact, I did this special partially because “Top Gun: Maverick” was not able to come out in 2020! Also coming up on Scene Before, I have two reviews on deck. Pretty soon you will see my thoughts on the new Netflix film “Hustle,” starring Adam Sandler as a basketball scout. My next review after that will be for one my most anticipated movies of the year, “Everything Everywhere All at Once.” I waited forever to see this film, I finally got to watch it with my dad last night, and I promise you I have plenty to say about it. If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Top Gun: Maverick?” What did you think about it? Or, which is the better movie? “Top Gun” or “Top Gun: Maverick?” Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!