Movie Review: “The End of Oak Street”

By Jon Brooks 

You loved “Jurassic Park”… you enjoyed “Jurassic World”… now get ready to experience “Jurassic Neighborhood”…!

“The End of Oak Street” is the latest sci-fi thriller centered around dinosaurs to hit the big screen. 

I watched this movie yesterday at the theater and have been chewing on it ever since. It is either a brilliant new take on the “man vs. dinosaur” sub-genre, or it is a heaping pile of dino-poop. 

I can’t decide which. 

My nine-year-old nephew (who was at the same matinee) said it is “better” than “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” (read my review). Keep in mind, the kid is a dinosaur lover (and he didn’t think “Brand New Day” had enough action). 

But if the post-movie reaction from our group is any indication, feelings about this one will be all over the place. 

“The End of Oak Street” stars Anne Hathaway and Ewan McGregor. It was written and directed by David Robert Mitchell (who wrote and directed the 2014 horror film “It Follows”) and is produced by J.J. Abrams’ Bad Robot. 

The entirety of the film is set in 1982 in a neighborhood in Flowervale, Michigan (a fictional suburb of Detroit). 

David Robert Mitchell is a Michigan native. He was born in 1974. On the surface, this would seem to be a “nostalgia play” for the filmmaker. “Stranger Things” fans like myself are very aware that sci-fi thrillers set in the 1980s have proven themselves popular in recent years. 

I turned 10 in 1982, so my initial curiosity regarding “The End of Oak Street” was piqued by the setting. 

The film follows the Platt family as they are living life in Flowervale. It is late summer as the movie begins. Greg Platt (McGregor) and his wife Denise (Hathaway) are having a difficult time as a couple. Greg has had a tough time keeping a job (and is seen delivering pizza as a side gig in the movie). Denise is secretly writing a novel (and pondering divorce). 

The couple’s teenage children Audry (Maisy Stella) and Brian (Christian Convery) are both coping with the tension between their parents and the standard assortment of issues facing teens in these types of scripted dramas (bullying, crushes, a desire to go to your dream college, etc.)  

Much of the exposition about the characters plays out during a block party in the early stages of the movie. 

When a neighbor (Anne Gee Byrd) — who is proofreading Denise’s novel — asks Denise for help identifying a mysterious plant that has suddenly appeared in her backyard, the main plot is set into motion. 

After looking at a Polaroid photo of the plant, a local librarian (Emily Kuroda) tells Denise that this particular plant has been extinct for millions of years.

(It seemed odd to me that the librarian had a vast repository of jurassic-era plants on tap in her brain. It would have been more credible if the two had discovered it together by doing research, or something like that, but I digress…) 

In addition to the extinct plant, the Platt’s next door neighbor finds a large pile of animal feces in his yard. 

Then, our protagonists experience a peculiar “storm” that causes the power to go out in the neighborhood (along with the water no longer working). Greg and Denise search the neighborhood for the family’s missing dog Starbuck and soon learn that the entire area is surrounded by a jungle-like environment. 

Before they know it, the residential enclave is under siege by long-extinct dinosaurs. 

That’s the setup. The movie chugs along from there as our protagonists try to find a way out. 

“The End of Oak Street” has its exciting moments, but I’m not sure the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is only so much you can do with this type of movie as it regards nuance and characterization, but those aspects fell flat for me. 

I didn’t buy McGregor and Hathaway as a married couple. I didn’t buy those kids as their kids. Again, that isn’t really the point of a movie like this, but the familial aspects of the movie didn’t work for me. 

There was also a subplot about a neighbor girl named Jeanette (Jordan Alexa Davis) that felt unnecessary. I do wonder if additional character points were filmed for this movie, but ultimately left on the cutting-room floor in favor of a faster pace. It sure felt that way at times. 

There were also certain techniques in the movie that felt too “film school-ish” for me. 

For example, there is one particular sequence in the film where the Platt family is sitting in their living room talking to each other as the neighborhood is falling apart. 

The director uses a “split focus” technique during that scene. You can see the technique on display in this frame from the movie: 

It immediately brought to mind “The Chicago Way” scene in Brian De Palma’s 1987 movie “The Untouchables”. When De Palma used this technique, it helped illustrate Ness’s moral turmoil about the path Malone was suggesting, using very few words: 

In “The End of Oak Street” I felt like the technique was merely used because it “looked” cool. 

(I know it’s a minor quibble, but it immediately reminded me of Mr. Krainak’s “Film Theory & Criticism” class at UNO in 1996. We analyzed the implementation of framing and shot selection to create emotional resonance in a film.)

It is apparent that David Robert Mitchell is a talented director and screenwriter. I’d be curious to see what he would do with a bigger movie. He squeezes a lot out of this movie’s $85 million budget. 

At this point you’re probably wondering what my final verdict is for “The End of Oak Street”… 

The film moves along at a steady pace and there are some suspenseful sequences. Overall, it is an entertaining watch. 

It tries desperately to capture the retro magic of recent films like “Super 8” and films of the era like “Poltergeist,” but things didn’t click. (And don’t even get me started on the movie’s ending.)

In the end, “The End of Oak Street” didn’t quite work for me. 

(But my nephew loved it…)

Rated PG-13, Runtime: 1 hr, 40 min 

P.S. While this is a PG-13 film, there was an awkward “mating” scene in the movie if you decide to take the little ones… 

>> If you enjoyed my review of “The End of Oak Street,” consider following me on X/Twitter: @TheJonCrunch 

Related blog posts: 

> Movie Review: “Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom” 

> “Stranger Things” Season 1 Box Set Brings the Old School Cool 

> Review: “Stranger Things 2” Retro-Styled Box Set (4K Blu-ray + Blu-ray)

> “Stranger Things” Season 3 “Starcourt Mall” Teaser Hints at Possible Releasee Date… My Thoughts 

> Latest Trailer for “Stranger Things” Season 3 Looks Good, Right? 

Previous post: “Star Trek: Strange New Worlds” Jumps the Muppet

Watching “Legally Blonde” Outside in Downtown Omaha

By Jon Brooks 

I think it’s fun to watch movies outside. 

As video projectors have become more affordable for your average consumer, the idea of watching movies outside has lost some of its novelty for people. 

At least, that has been my impression. 

We used to do two “Dive-In Movie Nights” at our neighborhood pool during the summer. I was in charge of them for nearly a decade. Members used to enjoy them. Then, they started complaining about the movie selection (this isn’t the Sundance Film Festival, people!!).

Maybe it is because we live in a world where people can watch whatever movie they want, whenever they want. I dunno…

But I still think it’s fun. 

And apparently Omaha’s local arthouse cinema Film Streams thinks it’s fun, too. 

The theater is in the midst of its “Film Streams on the Green” series. The free outdoor screenings are being held this year from July 20 through Oct. 26 at Sonny’s in the Builders District in Downtown Omaha. 

Sonny’s is a seasonal outdoor bar with two locations in Omaha. 

The Aksarben Village location has been open since 2022 and we have attended a number of events there. The Builders District location opened on June 12, 2026, and is located at 724 N. 16th Street. 

The “Builders District” is the moniker given to the properties being redeveloped in the northern section of downtown between the Charles Schwab Field and Creighton University. The area is anchored by the Kiewit Headquarters and the company’s Innovation and Training building. 

It had been a bit since I had explored that area in downtown Omaha. Film Streams’ screening of “Legally Blonde” at Sonny’s gave me an opportunity to see the progress. 

The screening started at 7 p.m. on Aug. 17. It was in the low 80s (and the humidity was pleasant) when we arrived at the site and found our parking spot along 16th Street. 

“Legally Blonde” is Bridget’s favorite movie. 

When the movie was released in 2001, we saw it seven times in the theater. Bridget was “test shopping” a new AMC MovieWatcher membership (for a theatrical research company) that allowed you to see unlimited movies for a monthly fee. I purchased a membership as well, and we definitely put it to the test with “Legally Blonde” that summer. 

Film Streams had an information table set up near Sonny’s entrance. They had bags of theater popcorn set up on a table for attendees to snack on. 

There are tables and chairs set up under the pergola for patrons. We set up camp there because we were planning to get dinner from the Alley Taco 402 food truck that was on hand for the evening. 

In addition, there were a limited number of “low slung” seats set up on the lawn in front of the screen for attendees. There was ample space on the lawn for people bringing blankets and lawn chairs. 

I had a steak taco and Bridget had a cheese quesadilla from the food truck. (Bridget definitely got the better deal — I should have known that a $3.50 taco was a street taco, but it didn’t dawn on me at the time.) Both items were tasty and they were a nice snack to have before the movie started. 

In addition to the food, we purchased drinks from Sonny’s bar. The downtown Sonny’s features a bar built out of a retro camper (the Aksarben location features a bar built out of an old Airstream). I’d imagine this will become a popular spot during the College World Series. 

We both had Sonny’s Limeade mocktails ($7 each). Mine had mango and Bridget’s had blueberry. We had a second round later in the evening. 

There is a permanent LED wall that was used to show the movie. Before the movie, the screen was showing information about Sonny’s and the upcoming movie screenings. I would imagine they'll also have things like Husker Football games on there this fall. 

There are fixed restrooms on the property for attendees. (That was one of my first questions before we went down there.) Two of the restrooms are in a permanent shipping container (very nice) and two additional restrooms are in a trailer. 

Film Streams had a pre-movie contest tied to “Legally Blonde” trivia (done via phone) and offered some information on the theater and future screenings. 

Film Streams features two locations in Omaha — its original location in downtown (Ruth Sokolof Theater) and its second location in Dundee. Oddly enough, the only movie we’ve seen at Film Streams was the terrific documentary “Page One: Inside the New York Times” (back in 2012). 

I’m not sure why we haven’t been back (we saw several things at the old Dundee Theater back in the day). 

It was a lot of fun to watch “Legally Blonde” with a group of enthusiastic fans. It had been 25 years since we’d watched the movie with other attendees, and it was neat to experience that again. 

It also turned out to be a mild evening. It was a good night to watch a movie outdoors. Omaha’s weather lately has been “humidity soup,” so it was nice that it didn’t feel like a swamp. 

As I mentioned earlier, “Film Streams on the Green” runs through Oct. 26. If you get a chance, check it out. It is a fun way to spend an evening and an opportunity to get to experience some of the new developments going on in Downtown Omaha. 

>> If you enjoyed this blog post, consider following me on X/Twitter for more great content: @TheJonCrunch

Related Blog Posts: 

> History and Renewal Surround Coneflower Creamery in the Old Market 

Previous post: Say Goodbye to a Popular Book Format

Movie Review: “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is an Evolution for Our Friendly Web Slinger

By Jon Brooks

“Sometimes, Spider-Man has to do the hard thing. Even if it breaks Peter Parker’s heart.” — Peter Parker in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” 

As I was standing in the restroom, waiting for an open urinal after watching “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” one of my fellow viewers was rattling off all the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) movies he hadn’t watched since 2019’s “Avengers: Endgame” (read my review).  

It’s a pretty common affliction. 

One of the challenges in the “post-Thanos” era of the MCU is the fact that a number of the movies haven’t been nearly as compelling. 

Sure, there have been some gems like “Shang-Chi” (read my review) and “Spider-Man: No Way Home” (read my review), but many of the characters that moviegoers had grown to love (like Tony Stark and Steve Rogers) are no longer the beating heart of the series. 

I’ll admit that I have found myself less motivated in recent years to head to a multiplex to see the latest Marvel movie. I haven’t yet seen “Fantastic Four: First Steps,” “Captain America: Brave New World,” or “Thunderbolts” (but plan to view them on Disney+ at some point). 

So it was with a bit of trepidation that I sat down to watch “Spider-Man: Brand New Day.” 

My Spidey senses were tingling as I took my seat. 

Since the Marvel movies have been intertwined like a soapy TV series, I was wondering if I had missed something pertinent along the way. 

I’m sure other viewers have felt the same way. 

One thing I can say up front is that “Spider Man: Brand New Day” continues the Tom Holland-led franchise with all the wit, charm, and excitement that fans have grown to love in this series. 

SPIDEY’S MOVIE JOURNEY HAS BEEN FASCINATING 

Spider-Man’s theatrical history has been an interesting one. Creative choices haven't always come easy due to the fact that multiple entities have been involved with the property. 

Sony has owned the theatrical rights to the character since the 1990s. They also own the rights to hundreds of supporting “Spiderverse” characters. 

This came as a result of financial troubles at Marvel Entertainment Group during that decade (prior to Disney acquiring the company in 2009). 

At that time, the theatrical rights to other Marvel characters like the Hulk (purchased by Universal) and the X-Men and the Fantastic Four (both controlled by 20th Century Fox until Disney bought the studio) were sold for “peanuts” to generate quick cash. 

This is why it took awhile for the Spider-Man character to be integrated into Disney’s Marvel Cinematic Universe. Creative decisions have been a continual negotiation between Sony and Disney. 

Despite all the legal hangups, it has been pretty remarkable how well the “collaboration” has worked as it regards the Spider-Man franchise. 

WORKIN’ FOR A LIVIN’

In the early stages of “Brand New Day” we find Spider-Man (Tom Holland) working on his own, fighting crime in New York City. 

A spell was cast by Doctor Strange at the end of 2021’s “Spider-Man: No Way Home” that resulted in the world forgetting who Peter Parker is (done in order to save the world from a “multiverse” of problems). 

That meant girlfriend Michelle “MJ” Jones-Watson (Holland’s real-life wife Zendaya) and his buddy Ned Leeds (Jacob Batalon) are no longer in Parker’s life. 

The events in “No Way Home” were set into motion due to a disgraced Parker (who was publicly outed as Spider-Man by the Daily Bugle’s J. Jonah Jameson) trying to find a way for his two friends to get into MIT (all three were rejected by the school as a result of Parker’s alleged exploits). 

MJ and Ned were ultimately able to attend MIT, but our hero (whose alter-ego is no longer known to the world) has abandoned his academic endeavors. 

“Brand New Day” starts off with Spider-Man stopping various crimes around the city. Our hero is no longer a heretic. In fact, he’s a local hero. 

The character is evolving. As the movie progresses, we see emotional and physical changes in Parker. 

As much as I love Holland’s Spider-Man films, the character sometimes felt like a mere cog in the Avengers engine. 

Being Tony Stark’s protege was a cool hook for Parker. But being the “Iron Spider” kept the character from fully realizing his full potential. 

It’s readily apparent that the folks running Marvel Studios wanted to make the character’s powers less “gadget-based” and more “organic” in nature (similar to Tobey Maguire’s version of Spider-Man featured in the Sam Raimi movies). 

Like a teenager going through puberty, Parker’s “inner arachnid” is coming to the surface. For example, he develops organic web slingers (and has to ditch the mechanical version he’s been using), but the issues facing our hero go further than that. 

I have a theory on why this is taking place, and I will get to that in a little bit…

Anyhow, our hero comes across a new threat as he is chasing down ne’er-do-wells in the form of a mysterious individual (known only as V-Max) who is able to perform a “mind-control-possession” thing on unsuspecting victims. 

For some reason, this new “villain” isn’t able to control Parker’s mind, but he also can’t trust the words and actions of those around him. 

As a result, Spider-Man has to play a game of “who do you trust” as the narrative unfolds. 

WHERE IS SPIDER-MAN HEADED?

Parker also has to come to terms with how he is going to control his own biological changes… and how he is going to thwart the mind-control abilities of his antagonist. 

This becomes the crux of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day’s” second and third acts. 

We find Parker reaching out to Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), a man who has considerable experience concocting methods to “hamper” his inner Hulk. 

This eventually leads Parker to a moral dilemma, questioning whether or not these unique biological abilities should be controlled. 

The fundamental question is this: “Where is all of this leading?” 

It is apparent that Marvel Studios honcho Kevin Feige is laying the groundwork for a new X-Men movie. 

The mysterious V-Max (played by “Stranger Things” actress Sadie Sink) is revealed to be a character with “unique abilities”… a character that keen Marvel observers should be very familiar with.  

But how does Peter Parker/Spider-Man fit into all of this? There has to be a salient reason his metamorphosis is taking place.

My theory is that the genetically evolving Parker will be part of the new-look X-Men group. Yes, I know that sounds bizarre, but the possibility is there. 

Including Spider-Man in an upcoming X-Men reboot would be a smart way to spur interest. Moreover, it would pave the way for better box office potential. 

We’ve seen a lot of attempts to revitalize the X-Men movie franchise in the past. They need a new hook to get wary (and weary) viewers interested again.  

Practical considerations like this have to be considered in the current theatrical climate. 

I could be wrong, but that’s how I’m reading the tea leaves at the moment.

SOME THINGS I LIKED

One of the stronger characters featured in “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is Frank Castle/Punisher (Jon Bernthal). 

This incarnation of the character is pulled from Marvel’s “The Punisher” TV series (that also starred Bernthal). 

I haven’t watched the series, but I think I might check it out after seeing Castle in action in “Brand New Day.” 

Castle provides a rough-and-tumble “blue collar” sensibility to the movie. The character ends up aiding and working alongside Spider-Man. The odd-couple dynamic between the two is pretty entertaining. Overall, Castle was a nice addition to the lineup. 

It was also nice to see “red-hot” actor Tramell Tillman in the film playing Bill Metzger (who is head of the Department of Damage Control). 

Tillman is best known for playing Seth Milchick in the Apple TV series “Severance” (a terrific show, by the way). He also played a naval officer in last year’s “Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning.” 

Even though it isn’t the biggest role, Tillman gives you a lot with what little he has to work with. 

In addition to the new characters, “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” has a new director on board. 

The previous head of the “current era” Spider-Man franchise was Jon Watts. 

This time out, Destin Daniel Cretton was tasked with the directing duties. 

Cretton previously directed the 2018 Marvel movie “Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings” (read my review). 

In my review of “Shang-Chi” I wrote, “the likable vibe of [“Shang-Chi”] makes for a surprisingly strong viewing experience.”  

I think he was an effective choice to lead this entry in the “Spider-Man” series. 

The overall look and feel of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is different than the past films in the series. I liked the new vibe. 

I am hoping he directs more Marvel movies down the road. 

FRIENDS FOREVER, RIGHT? 

A key theme winding its way through “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is the future of Peter’s relationship with MJ and Ned. 

The three were a capable trio in the previous Spider-Man movies. More than that, there was a likable dynamic between the characters. 

I think one of the reasons “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is doing as well as it is at the box office has to do with Peter’s inner-turmoil as he lives a life without them, while yearning to be reunited with them. 

It has been a difficult four years for Parker. 

All of this makes Spider-Man a very relatable hero for the moviegoing audience. 

In my opinion, that is what ranks him among the best in the current crop of Marvel Cinematic Universe characters.

FINAL THOUGHTS 

For more than a decade, Marvel movies largely shaped the theater-going experience. They stood as stalwart tentpoles annually at the box office. 

It has been a rocky road for the Marvel Cinematic Universe the past five years, but there are hopeful signs on the horizon. 

“Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is a step in the right direction. It is an exciting movie with great visual effects and some terrific action sequences (although, my littlest nephew said he wished there was MORE action in the movie 😉). 

All that said, the key selling point of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day” is the human side of the story. We feel for Peter Parker as he deals with the emotional turmoil brought on by the decisions he has made. 

We sense his inner struggle as he attempts to reconcile an existential crisis brought on by factors outside of his control. 

The Marvel Cinematic Universe is at its best when the human dynamic is at its strongest. 

This is one of the strongest superhero movies in recent memory. 

Rated PG-13, Runtime: 2 hrs, 25 min 

>> If you enjoyed my review of “Spider-Man: Brand New Day,” consider following me on X/Twitter: @TheJonCrunch 

Additional blog posts on “Spider-Man”: 

> Movie Review: “Spider-Man: No Way Home” Does Not Disappoint 

> “It’s Spider-Guy” (Review of “Spider-Man: Homecoming”) 

> Movie Review: “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” 

> Movie Review: “Spider-Man: Far From Home” 

Previous post: Movie Review: “Project Hail Mary” is Amazing 

“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