“Top Gun: Maverick” MEGA REVIEW

When I consider blockbuster movie sequels over the past 20 years, there are few I have anticipated more than “Top Gun: Maverick,” the follow up to the 1986 hit “Top Gun.”

We’d heard rumblings about a sequel for many, many years. I wasn’t convinced it would ever happen. Sure, Tom Cruise has proven himself to be near immortal as he has pushed the limits of his body — and old school practical effects — in the terrific “Mission: Impossible” franchise. 

I just wasn’t convinced that Hollywood would want to create a franchise from a single film firmly rooted in the 1980s Cold War, Reagan-era pastiche. 

And if they did, I was worried it would lose all of charm the original movie imbued (see 2012’s “Red Dawn” reboot). 

After a three-year wait (the film’s original release date was July 12, 2019), “Top Gun: Maverick” has finally been catapulted into theaters. 

(I wrote a blog first on the film’s first day of filming more than four years ago!) 

The timing of the film’s release couldn't be better. 

The theatrical box office has taken a hit in the past 24 months. Some have been ready to relegate the movie-going experience to the annals of nostalgia in this so-called “new normal.”

And while there have been some recent blockbusters (like 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home”), you sometimes wonder if Marvel movies (and their ilk) are the only films mass moviegoers care about seeing on the big screen anymore. 

Leave it to Hollywood’s last true movie star to change the narrative. 

“Top Gun: Maverick” recalls a bygone era in the world of summer blockbusters. It is a film that avoids an agenda (thankfully) and reminds viewers how much fun movies can be when you don't need a “cheat sheet” to know what’s going on. 

I’ve already seen the movie twice (my brother-in-law took me for the second time a couple days ago). 

When I was a teenager, I remember eagerly anticipating the summer preview issue of Premiere Magazine. The editors would typically predict how each film would finish at the box office, and it was fun to learn about all the upcoming releases.

During those years, there were relatively few sequels. The summer movie season wasn’t dominated by a single genre (for example, “Forrest Gump" made ~$330 million in the summer of 1994 and finished second that year to “The Lion King”).

When I saw “Top Gun” in 1986, it was with my friend Mike Bartholet at Omaha’s Indian Hills Theater — in an auditorium that seated 810 patrons and featured a huge, wraparound screen that was originally built in 1962 to showcase films in the widescreen Cinerama format. 

It was an amazing experience. I was 13 at the time. You felt like you were in the movie. What teenage boy didn’t want to be one of those buff pilots zipping around the skies in an F-14 Tomcat?

“Top Gun” is the quintessential ’80s movie. It was built for the MTV generation and features one of the best movie soundtracks of the era (at no time in history has a hit soundtrack — and the resulting radio and music video airplay — been more important to a movie’s marketing than it was during those years). 

While “Top Gun: Maverick” certainly pulls on that nostalgia, it also feels effortlessly modern and fresh. 

Cruise collaborated with his screenwriter/director pal Christopher McQuarrie (one of the most fascinating scribes in the movie business) on the script (Ehren Kruger and Eric Warren Singer are also credited). The directing duties were helmed by Joseph Kosinski, who worked with Cruise on the sci-fi flick “Oblivion” and helmed Disney’s underrated “Tron” sequel “Tron: Legacy.” 

“Top Gun: Maverick” finds our titular protagonist Captain Pete “Maverick” Mitchell (Cruise) testing experimental planes (and avoiding promotion) at a naval facility in China Lake, California. As the movie begins, the aircraft he is testing (the “Darkstar” scramjet) has the set goal of reaching a speed of Mach 10. 

But irascible Rear Admiral Chester “Hammer” Cain (Ed Harris) — nicknamed “The Drone Ranger” — wants to shut the program down and shift financing to unmanned aerial vehicle programs. 

Maverick (being Maverick) decides to launch one last flight before the admiral’s arrival. Not only does he reach Mach 10 benchmark, he pushes the needle beyond. The move provokes the ire of Cain, leaving our hero in hot water and his future as a pilot in doubt.  

“The end is inevitable Maverick,” Cain tells Maverick as he scolds him for the stunt. “Your kind is headed for extinction.”

“Maybe so, sir,” replies Maverick, “but not today.”

That exchange pretty much embodies the spirit of “Top Gun: Maverick.” It is also likely why moviegoers over the age of 40 — who comprised 55 percent of the opening weekend box office (according to Variety) — have been singing its praises. 

As much as the first “Top Gun” celebrated youth, “Top Gun: Maverick” celebrates experience and the wisdom gained with age. 

At the behest of friend and former TOPGUN class rival Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazansky, Maverick is sent to NAS North Island to serve as a TOPGUN instructor for an elite group of pilots assigned a seemingly “impossible mission” (see what I did there) behind enemy lines to bomb an unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant. 

To be honest, the whole thing felt like they were training for the Death Star trench run in “Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope,” but I didn’t mind a bit (and I don’t think anyone else in the theater did, either). 

What was nice about having a hook like that in the story is that there was more “meat” (and more at stake) in “Top Gun: Maverick” than there was in the 1986 movie. The creators of the original often mention that it was essentially a “sports” movie — the fighter pilots being the talented athletes. 

The pilots Maverick is tasked with training are likable. Granted, Cruise gets most of the screen time in the movie, but there are some notable performances. 

While much of the focus is on Lieutenant Bradley “Rooster” Bradshaw (Miles Teller), son of Maverick’s friend and RIO Nick “Goose” Bradshaw (Anthony Edwards), some of the other members of the team stand out. 

In particular, Glen Powell’s turn as Lieutenant Jake “Hangman” Seresin was noteworthy. A number of people online have compared Hangman to Iceman in the first movie, but when you analyze the character point-for-point, he actually seems more akin to Maverick. 

Powell is an actor I recognized, but I couldn’t recall what he’d been in before (he played John Glenn in 2016’s “Hidden Figures” and was one of Stallone’s band of mercenaries in “The Expendables 3”). I have a feeling we’ll be seeing more of him in the future. “Top Gun: Maverick” will definitely increase his profile. 

I also enjoyed the team of Lieutenant Natasha “Phoenix” Trace (Monica Barbaro) and Lieutenant Robert “Bob” Floyd (Lewis Pullman). 

As the first female pilot to be featured in a “Top Gun” movie, it was nice to see Barbaro make the most of a fairly limited role. 

It should be noted that Lewis Pullman is the son of actor Bill Pullman. The elder Pullman also flew an F-18 Hornet on a deadly mission as President Thomas Whitmore in the 1996 movie "Independence Day." 

What was nice about the “Bob” character is that he didn’t look like a model who had just jumped out of the pages of a fashion catalog. (I mean, there are already plenty of pretty people in this movie.)

The look of the original “Top Gun” was inspired by the work of Bruce Weber (the photographer behind brands like Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, and Abercrombie & Fitch), and presented a more “idealized” view of a military officer. 

In addition to the aviators, Jennifer Connelly plays Penny Benjamin (a character mentioned in passing as being an “admiral’s daughter” Maverick once had a relationship with in the early stages of the original “Top Gun”). 

Penny owns the Hard Deck Bar (where all the pilots hang out) near the base. She is a divorced mom with a teenage daughter. 

(Note: During the movie, a song selected on the jukebox in the bar is number “86,” an homage to the original movie’s year of release.) 

As a love interest, I liked her dynamic with Cruise. As someone who turns 50 this year, I appreciated seeing two actors in their fifties — both incredibly well preserved — rekindle an old romantic relationship. 

It could have been overly melodramatic, but the filmmakers chose to take a light touch with the relationship. As a result, they achieved just the right tone. 

Obviously, the *real* star of any “Top Gun” movie is the mix of amazing flight sequences. Filmed in cooperation with the United States Navy (at a reported price of ~$11,000 per hour), the aerial combat sequences in “Top Gun: Maverick” are gorgeous. 

I love the fact that Cruise is committed to practical effects. We’ve all seen far too many modern movies with CG fighter jets — and those computer-generated images just don’t look or feel real. 

A pilot named Mark Scott — who graduated from a local high school here in the Omaha area — helped film some of the flight sequences featured in “Top Gun: Maverick.” I saw the story profiling Scott (a former Navy air-wing strike operations officer) on a WOWT newscast. He also appears as an extra in one of the movie’s bar scenes. 

As I mentioned earlier, the first “Top Gun” movie had a terrific soundtrack packed with pop hits. I originally owned the soundtrack on cassette tape and have Kenny Loggins' “Danger Zone” as a 45-rpm single (see picture below). Not long after, I purchased the soundtrack on CD. 

The soundtrack for “Top Gun: Maverick” is geared more toward the instrumental. Harold Faltermeyer’s “Top Gun Anthem” is featured prominently, with additional instrumentals by Lorne Balfe. That said, there are a couple of fresh pop licks by Lady Gaga and OneRepublic this time around.

The standout single (in my opinion) is “I Ain’t Worried” by OneRepublic. The song features a whimsical vibe in the spirit of Kenny Loggins’ “Playing With The Boys” on the original soundtrack (not a surprise since both songs were the backbone of a similar sequence in each movie). Trust me, the tune will be stuck in your head for days: 

There is also Lady Gaga’s “Hold My Hand.” The single (which plays over the movies mid-credit sequence) is power ballad done in the spirit of Aerosmith’s “I Don’t Want to Miss a Thing.” It’s a solid song, but is surprisingly “forgettable” compared to some of her famous hits: 

Overall, I wish they’d been able to craft a few more fresh pop standards for the soundtrack. I know that isn’t the trend today, but songs like Loggins’ “Danger Zone” and Berlin’s “Take My Breath Away” became two of the definitive Top 40 hits of the 1980s. 

As some of you know, Bridget and I are big UNO Maverick Hockey fans. Not only do we run a fansite for the team (mavpuck.com), but we’ve attended each and every home game during the program's 25-year history (crazy, but true). 

In the early years of the program, they played Faltermeyer’s “Top Gun Anthem” and Loggins’ “Danger Zone” (along with audio clips from the movie) during the pregame festivities. 

Sadly, the program shifted away from that over the years, but Coach Mike Gabinet (a former player in the program) pays homage to that tradition with the team’s postgame locker room tradition that awards players “Maverick” and “Goose” flight helmets for a standout performance: 

In the inaugural NCHC post game celebration, Jake Randolph was awarded top wing man/unsung hero (Goose award) and David Pope was top gun (Maverick award). Great to see the guys compete for each other and play as a team. pic.twitter.com/Cw9A6UBfx7

— Mike Gabinet (@Mike_Gabinet) November 11, 2017

In addition, the president of the University of Nebraska system is former naval aviator Ted Carter. The Naval Academy grad (who served as superintendent of his alma mater prior to his current stint in Nebraska) was a lieutenant at the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN) when the original “Top Gun” was being filmed.

A recent article in the Lincoln Journal Star discusses how Carter was tasked with entertaining Cruise during the movie’s production. Carter told the LJS: “They said ‘Go out and meet Tom Cruise, get him really drunk, and then we’re going to throw him in the swimming pool the next day so we can show him how hard this is.’”

Like Goose in the movie, Carter (call sign “Slapshot” because he played hockey at the Naval Academy) was a RIO (radar intercept officer) in the Navy. The article is worth reading and provides the perspective of a real-life graduate of the Navy Fighter Weapons School (TOPGUN), along with insights into Cruise and the movie. 

Speaking of the Naval Academy, Bridget and I attended a conference in Annapolis, Maryland, in 2016 — our hotel was just up the road from the institution. I purchased this “Maverick” T-shirt at a gift shop near the school: 

The “Top Gun” shirt below came from my brother and sister-in-law. They purchased it for me during a trip to Las Vegas last year. It’s one of my favorites and it was very thoughtful of them to get it for me: 

I’ve worn one of the shirts to each of my two viewings of “Top Gun: Maverick” — it’s obvious I need more themed shirts so I can attend additional showings.😉 

The early success of “Top Gun: Maverick” illustrates that movies driven by star power — and built for U.S.-centric audiences — still work in today’s marketplace. It also shows that “cinematic universes” — where audiences have to watch 20+ movies to understand what is going on — are NOT required to make a compelling movie-going experience. 

It’s also nice to see a movie geared toward a decidedly “older” demographic having box office success. 

At one point in my life, I was attending (at minimum) one movie per week at the theater. The movie-going audience has never been “monolithic.” Movie fandom is a tradition that is passed down from generation to generation, and this is a film that various ages can enjoy together. 

If this movie had been released back in 2019, I’m not sure it would have had nearly the success it is enjoying this year. “Top Gun: Maverick” has seemingly hooked onto something intangible in the current cultural zeitgeist. 

And timing is everything. 

After the global malaise of the past two years, people needed a reason to go back to the movies. They needed to be reminded about why they loved the communal movie-going experience in the first place. 

Movie theaters needed this. Movie fans needed this. The near universal praise of “Top Gun: Maverick” shows the unifying force movies can provide, if done right. 

More than anything, “Top Gun: Maverick” is a fun time at the movies. It doesn’t take itself too seriously. It is a likable movie that reminds viewers what made the theatrical experience exciting in the first place.  

For me, that makes it perfect.

Previous post: Book Review: “Assassin’s Edge” By Ward Larsen 

Movie Review: I Saw “Wonder Woman 1984” at the Theater... My Thoughts

The last time I saw a movie in a theater was Harrison Ford’s “Call of the Wild”... all the way back in February (read my review). 

A few days after I saw it, life as we know it turned on a dime and I haven’t been in a movie theater since. 

I intended to see a lot of movies in the theater last year. I started that effort off right on my blog a year ago. 

I published a blog post on Jan. 28, 2020 titled “The 5 Movies I’m Most Excited About in 2020” (it's entirely possible that post jinxed the whole year for all of us — I’ll never make that mistake again). Three of those movies haven’t even been released. 

Best laid plans and all, the year went to hell in a handbasket. 

I wasn’t sure when I’d get back to a movie theater. I’m sure many of you have felt the same way. 

As I’m writing this post, I should be getting ready to go to Baxter Arena to watch the UNO Hockey team take on North Dakota in front of a limited number of “socially distanced” fans. 

Unfortunately, the hockey series was postponed because of positive COVID-19 tests involving the Omaha Hockey team. 

I’d told my buddy Scott a few weeks ago that if the hockey series was called off I would go with him to Aksarben Cinema to see “Wonder Woman 1984.” 

Well, the series was called off and I just finished watching “Wonder Woman 1984” with him at Aksarben Cinema. 

“Wonder Woman 1984” was included in "The Five Movies I'm Most Excited About in 2020" blog post. 

And for good reason. 

When the first “Wonder Woman” outing dropped in theaters back in 2017, fans instantly embraced the fresh take on one pop cultures’ most enduring superheroes.  

“Wonder Woman” was a critical and financial success. Director Patty Jenkins’ superhero opus left many believing Warner Bros. had finally crafted a superhero movie that imbued the fun and excitement epitomized by Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

I really had a good time watching “Wonder Woman” at the theater in 2017. 

Jenkins is once again at the helm for “Wonder Woman 1984” (dubbed “WW84” in marketing materials). Jenkins also gets a writing credit on the sequel (her first since 2003’s “Monster”). 

In addition to her superhero credentials, Jenkins is slated to helm the next “Star Wars” theatrical film titled “Star Wars: Rogue Squadron” (which I’m very excited about). 

Considering all the career accomplishments and positive buzz a filmmaker like Jenkins has achieved the past few years, I was excited going into “WW84.” 

What could go wrong, right?

Unfortunately, some things went very wrong with “Wonder Woman 1984.” 

The film starts off well enough. The opening prologue sequence finds a young Diana Prince (Emily Carey) competing in a multi-pronged athletic competition on Themyscira against much older Amazon women. 

It is an entertaining sequence, and seemingly has nothing to do with the movie’s overall story arc. Prince learns a lesson about taking short cuts in life, and (depending on your interpretation) that lesson may or may not have anything to do with the rest of the movie’s narrative. 

(The only thing specifically referenced again from this opening sequence is a “golden warrior” that is the basis for a suit of armor Prince wears later in the movie.) 

The movie then jumps to 1984, and we find an older Diana Prince (the terrific Gal Gadot) leaping and lassoing her way around a 1980s shopping mall (as alter-ego Wonder Woman) in an effort to stop a robbery. 

Some of the opening 1980s references were a tad cheesy and cliche for my taste. However, the movie started off with a pace and energy that worked for me. 

(I was in 6th grade in 1984. Honestly, most of the nostalgia presented didn’t feel quite right.)

Unfortunately, after the first 20 minutes of “Wonder Woman 1984,” things slowed down dramatically, and the story became much less compelling. 

It was around the point that the Barbara Ann Minerva character (played by Kristen Wiig) was introduced that things lost steam. 

Anytime there is a nerdy/awkward/unappreciated supporting character in this type of movie, you know he/she is about to become a supervillain (in this case, a human cheetah that looked like an extra from “Cats”). 

In this movie, you can sense the plot device coming a mile away. 

It’s not that I mind predictability in a superhero movie. Most of them utilize tropes we’ve seen before. I just didn't find Wiig’s character (who works with Diana at the Smithsonian Institute) to be terribly compelling. 

I also didn’t find the Maxwell “Max Lord” Lorenzano (Pedro Pascal) character to be particularly interesting. 

Max Lord is a faltering businessman (a wannabe oil tycoon) who crosses paths with Minerva and Prince when he comes to the Smithsonian posing as a wealthy donor. 

What he is really after is the “Dreamstone” – an antiquity Prince and Minerva were asked by the FBI to identify among some stolen antiquities.

The Dreamstone is what all the drama centers around during the rest of the movie. The crystal itself (which looks like a plastic trinket you’d get in the gift shop at “The Wizarding World of Harry Potter” in Orlando) has sort of a “genie/lamp” power to it, granting wishes to those who use the stone. 

As I mentioned earlier, the film slowed down considerably during this entire sequence. 

By my count — after an entertaining first 20 minutes — they spent roughly 70 minutes setting everything up with the Dreamstone and the ramifications of using it. The entire flow got bogged down. They spent too much time on exposition. 

The filmmakers also decided to bring military aviator Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) back, even though he died in the first movie. 

I thought the “reveal” for Trevor’s return lacked imagination... and really felt odd. It’s almost as if the writers couldn’t find a clever solution for the reveal, so they quickly slapped something together. 

The reveal also didn’t jibe with how other wishes were granted in the movie — where things would just appear out of thin air. 

As it regards the Steve Trevor character in this movie... 

Fans will recall that Diana Prince’s charm in the first “Wonder Woman” movie came from various “fish out of water” plot points during the movie (as she experienced the norms and customs of World War I Europe). 

They tried to do the same with Trevor in “WW84,” showing the character looking/acting befuddled as he experienced some of the “social conventions” of the 1980s. 

I didn’t find the approach to be effective, and thought the 1980s setting actually “hampered” those moments. His “fish out of water” experience might have worked better if “WW84” had been sent in present day. 

To be honest, having this movie set in the 1980s wasn’t particularly “integral” to the overall narrative anyway. It’s as if some studio exec thought it would be fun to trade on 80s nostalgia. 

(My FB friend — and hair stylist — Nicky astutely pointed out that there was little-to-no music from 1984 in this movie. Additional tunes from that era might have helped the movie’s sense of authenticity.) 

But I digress...

When I go see a “Wonder Woman” movie (or any other superhero movie), I figure there will be a lot of action. 

The fact that there is a 70-minute stretch in the middle of “WW84” where little happens is a big problem — no action and no Wonder Woman heroics. 

The action scenes that do happen in the later movie didn’t exactly grab me. 

I’m not going to delve too much into the various plot points. I don’t want to give anything away. 

As I watched “Wonder Woman 1984” at Aksarben Cinema, I thought about how it might have been better with some liberal editing. 

I’ve mentioned before on this blog that I think movies have become far too long for their own good. This movie didn’t need to be 2 hours and 35 minutes.

Yet the runtime wasn’t the issue. The problem was the hodgepodge narrative, watered-down characters, and convoluted plot points strewn throughout “Wonder Woman 1984.”

Compared to another recent female-centered superhero movie set in a bygone decade — 2019’s entertaining “Captain Marvel” (read my review) — the flaws become even more apparent. 

For the record, I like a number of DC comic-based superhero movies from Warner Bros. I’m not being critical just because I prefer Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

One of the recent DC outings I enjoyed was 2019’s “Shazam” (read my review). While I didn’t love 2018’s “Aquaman” (read my review), that movie is better than “Wonder Woman 1984.” 

(Truth be told, my opinion of “Aquaman” has become more favorable with repeat viewings.)

I will say this...

Despite serious flaws in “Wonder Woman 1984,” I had a good time going back to a movie theater for the first time in 11 months. (Scott and I were the only patrons in the auditorium.) 

I was reminded how fun it can be to watch a movie in a theater. 

“Wonder Woman 1984” was released simultaneously on streaming service HBOMax in the United States, and I know some fans opted to watch the film that way. 

I enjoyed visiting Aksarben Cinema again after the long layoff. The cinema recently celebrated its 10th anniversary (its grand opening was on Dec. 10, 2010). 

Our business worked on marketing/promotional efforts for the cinema when it opened in 2010 (I even designed the initial logo for the theater). Attending a movie there will always hold a special place in my heart. 

I should also mention that “Wonder Woman 1984” features an “easter egg” in the middle of the end credit sequence. It was pretty cute, and tried to play on superhero nostalgia. 

But, honestly, even that fell a bit flat for me. 

At one point in the movie, Diana Prince says, “...greatness is not what you think.” 

That sentiment sums up my feelings about “Wonder Woman 1984.” The filmmakers tried to craft a capable movie, but the whole wasn’t greater than the sum of its parts. 

It just wasn’t a superhero movie that ever achieved “greatness”... 

Previous post: Should Kellogg’s The Elf on the Shelf Cereal Become a Christmas Tradition? 

My Epic Review of “Frozen II”

“Into the unknown...”

When “Frozen” debuted in theaters on Nov. 27, 2013, the girl power anthem “Let It Go” propelled the movie to $1.3 billion in box office receipts, and created a blueprint for Disney Princess movies in the 21st century. 

In the past, Disney generally sent sequels for its animated musical spectacles straight to home video (less-than-stellar sequels to movies like “Pocahontas” and “The Little Mermaid” come to mind). 

Here we are — six years after “Frozen” debuted — with “Frozen II” crystallizing itself at multiplexes around the globe (already breaking box office records). 

“Frozen II” starts off with King Agnarr of Arendelle (Elsa and Anna’s father) telling a tale to his daughters about their grandfather, King Runeard. 

Runeard established a treaty with a tribe in Northuldra — resulting in a dam being built on their tribal lands. 

(I realize as I’m typing this that the narrative of “Frozen II” already sounds way more complicated than the first movie.)

Anyhow, a battle occurs between the Arendelle people and the Northuldra tribe, and that enrages earth, fire, water, and air spirits. As a result, a magical wall of mist envelopes the forest. 

Agnarr (a boy at the time) narrowly escapes with the aid of a mystery entity — living to tell the story so Disney can add more coin to their record box office take in 2019. 

The movie then shifts to Elsa, Anna, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven enjoying a placid autumn in Arendelle. After the events in the first movie, the quintet seems to rule the kingdom with predictable spunk — a scene involving them playing charades in the castle is particularly cute. 

Elsa — our pale, emo-like queen — starts hearing voices (a siren’s call), which unleashes the elemental spirits (meaning the Arendelle people have to evacuate the coastal town). 

These events result in our heroes having to set out on a quest — to the Enchanted Forest — to figure out what the heck is going on. 

That’s pretty much the “spoiler free” setup in a nutshell. 

The original “Frozen” stands as one of my favorite animated movies (we have the soundtrack in our vehicle). 

I know there are some out there who have declared “Frozen II” to be superior to the first. I’m not quite sure I feel the same way. 

Let me start by analyzing where the new movie improves on the original “Frozen.”

The animation in “Frozen II” is superior to the first movie, and is rendered beautifully. That’s not surprising with the wizardry Disney employs in its wares. 

The story is deeper and more fully realized than the first movie. It might not be J.R.R. Tolkien in terms of “fantasy tropes,” but it achieves an epic quality. 

There is also a sequence I really liked where Olaf brings people up to speed on the “Frozen Saga” à la C-3PO in the Ewok village in “Star Wars: Return of the Jedi.” 

In my mind, though, the problematic aspect in the narrative is the lack of a clearly defined antagonist. “Frozen II” lacks a villain. 

This sort of “fairy tale” needs an antagonist to realize its full potential. 

It also needs an antagonist threatening our heroes so that when they make rash decisions (which certain characters do) it makes sense in the heat of the moment. 

That’s where I think co-directors/screenwriters Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee stumbled a bit. 

I also thought Kristoff was underutilized in the film. His character is whittled down into a one-note piano as he spends the film trying to propose to Anna. 

But enough of me pontificating on the story. What you really want to know about are my thoughts on the music. 

While the “Frozen II” soundtrack doesn’t feature an obvious hit like “Let It Go” in the lineup, there are some terrific musical stylings. As with the first “Frozen” movie, the songs in the sequel are penned by husband/wife team Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez. 

There is the Chicago-esque song “Lost in the Woods” (sung by Kristoff voice actor Jonathan Groff):

We’ve been trying to figure out what 80s pop song it reminds us of. As of this writing I’m leaning towards Chicago’s 1988 hit “Look Away”: 

On Good Morning America, Groff described the song’s sequence in the film (which channels 80s music videos) as “a joke for the adults.”

Since most of the film focuses on the relationship between Elsa and Anna, we get plenty of vocal triumphs by Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell. 

Menzel — whose rough-hewn mezzo soprano is like nectar from the gods — is showcased gloriously in the power ballad “Show Yourself” (along with Evan Rachel Wood):

Her voice is also spectacular in the haunting track “Aurora — Into the Unknown” (a song that’s been rolling through my head for days):

One minor quibble I have with the integration of the music into the story is that I felt (at times) like the songs didn’t mesh well in the narrative flow. 

It’s hard to describe without being able to pull specific examples from the film, but with certain songs in “Frozen II” it was like the filmmakers said, “Well, we need to put another song in here, so let’s break for a music video.” 

That wasn’t the case with the first “Frozen” movie. For example, the song “For the First Time in Forever” intertwined so well with the story — it set the scene, gave you insights into Anna’s character, and moved the story forward to the next scene: 

Therein lies the challenge with creating a sequel to a popular musical movie. The “Frozen II” filmmakers did the best they could to avoid being “Grease 2,” but it is hard to be as sharp as the original. 

Before I go I want to make sure to mention the little salamander (named Bruni) who becomes a sidekick for Elsa in the movie:

The little guy seems to be inspired by Rapunzel’s chameleon companion Pascal in Disney’s “Tangled”:

While “Frozen II” lacks the icy-smooth goodness of the first movie, it helps solidify the saga as something more than your typical Disney Princess movie. 

I think Elsa sums up my feelings about “Frozen II” best in the song “Show Yourself” — “Something is familiar / Like a dream I can reach / But not quite hold.”

P.S. — Be sure to stay through the end credits of “Frozen II” for an easter egg scene. 

Previous post: Review: “The Mandalorian” Season 1, Episode 2 (Disney+ Series)