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

“If you expect disappointment, then you can never really be disappointed.” — MJ Jones-Watson in “Spider-Man: No Way Home” 

It took me a while to get to the theater to see our favorite neighborhood web slinger’s latest outing in “Spider-Man: No Way Home.”

We had several things on our plate around the holidays. The movie we went to see on “Christmas Eve Eve” was “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” (read my review) — a movie we wanted to see before it left theaters. 

In the intervening weeks since “Spider-Man: No Way Home’s” release, friends on Facebook were wondering why Jon Brooks (of the famed Jon Crunch blog) hadn’t yet reviewed the newest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. 

I did everything in my power to avoid spoilers (which is difficult for someone who lives online). But I’m pleased to say that I was successful in that goal. 

Last night I finally saw “Spider-Man: No Way Home”... and I’m ready to share my thoughts!

SPOILERS AHEAD

I typically DO NOT do spoiler reviews, but this movie has been out for nearly three weeks (as I write this post). Since the movie is basically one giant spoiler anyway, I decided to give spoilers a go. 

So here goes!

The last time we hung out with Peter Parker (Tom Holland) was in 2019’s “Spider-Man: Far From Home” (read my review). In a mid-credit scene, TheDailyBugle.net’s J. Jonah Jameson (J.K. Simmons) outed Parker as Spider-Man — he was also framed for the murder of villain Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal). 

The identity reveal serves as the main plot device that structures the setup of “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” 

With Peter and pals sending out college applications as they prepare for high school graduation, this revelation negatively impacts the M.I.T. aspirations of Peter, Ned (Jake Batalon), and girlfriend MJ (Zendaya). 

Since the gang wants to stay together in college (and Peter feels guilty for hurting their collegiate opportunities), Peter visits Doctor Stephen Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) at the New York Sanctum to see if he can help. 

Strange believes a magic spell that causes everyone to forget Parker is Spider-Man would be the smoothest route to take. But the spell is corrupted when Parker — having second thoughts “mid spell” — starts asking for exceptions to those who forget. 

Strange does what he can to contain the spell amid Peter’s requests, but it isn’t enough. Things soon go haywire as a result of the spell. 

At this point, I felt a teeny bit aggravated as a fan. Both Strange and Parker faced dire consequences during the events of “Avengers: Infinity War” (read my review) and “Avengers: Endgame” (read my review). The two should understand the ramifications of messing around with things like magic. 

Surely both would avoid messing with the space-time continuum (or memory displacement, or whatever we call it in the MCU)... right?? 

I learned a long time ago to “willfully suspend my disbelief” with these movies, but you’d have thought a brainiac like Strange would have avoided such a move — especially since he found the “one” scenario (out of 14,000,605 scenarios) that led to the defeat of Thanos in “Endgame.”

But I digress...

Peter then tries the “old school” route of talking to an M.I.T. administrator (Paula Newsome) about reconsidering. 

As he is tracking her down on the freeway (she’s on her way to the airport), he is attacked by “Spider-Man 2’s” Dr. Otto Octavius (Alfred Molina). 

The trailers for “Spider-Man: No Way Home” revealed that Molina was going to be in this movie. At that point, fans knew this film was going to deal with the “multiverse” — we just weren’t sure how much. 

The 2019 animated film “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” (read my review) also dealt with the multiverse concept. In my review of that movie, I wrote: “It almost made me wonder what a live-action version of ‘Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse’ — with the same plot lines and characters — would be like. The more I’ve thought about the concept, the more I think it could work.“ 

While “Spider-Man: No Way Home” isn’t exactly a live-action remake of “Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” (and, sadly, Miles Morales doesn’t make an appearance), many of the same principles apply. 

At first, I assumed the only “multiverse” participants we would see would be the aforementioned Octavius, “Spider-Man” (2002) villain Norman Osborn/Green Goblin (Willem Dafoe), “The Amazing Spider-Man” (2012) villain Curt Connors/Lizard (Rhys Ifans), “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” (2014) villain Max Dillon/Electro (Jamie Foxx), and “Spider-Man 3” (2007) villain Flint Marko/Sandman (Thomas Haden Church). 

Strange tasks Peter with rounding up the various villains. They are to be put in cages in the basement of the Sanctum. With the help of Ned and MJ, Peter eventually gets the task completed. 

Of the villains included, I really thought Foxx got an upgrade here. I enjoyed “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” when it was released in 2014, but thought the character wasn’t handled particularly well. Electro could have been so much more in that film. It was nice to see Foxx’s character redeemed, and the character handled in a better fashion in “No Way Home.” 

The most compelling of the lot was Norman Osborn. Dafoe is consistently good in the role (and as an actor overall). It seems like he’s been 55 years old for the last 30 years. It was nice to have the character back. 

Osborn is also at the center of the film’s third act. 

Peter’s Aunt May (Marisa Tomei) works for an organization called F.E.A.S.T. (Food, Emergency Aid, Shelter & Training) that cares for the poor. Osborn ends up at the F.E.A.S.T. building, and Peter follows shortly thereafter. 

May encourages Peter to give Osborn a second chance. And, as Strange is about to send the villains back to their respective dimensions, Peter thwarts the attempt, hoping to “cure” the villains before their return. 

This is the second moment in “Spider-Man: No Way Home” where Peter comes across as being rather naive. While the concept of rehabbing the villains is noble, little thought is given to the potential pitfalls involved with changing someone from an alternate dimension. 

I know our hero is a high school student, but he has to have evolved based on all his superhero experience. Right?

Regardless, I stopped worrying about that when Ned created portals (using Dr. Strange’s sling ring) and discovered the Andrew Garfield and Tobey Maguire versions of “Peter Parker/Spider-Man” from the previous two film franchises. 

I want to say up front that I really liked Andrew Garfield’s take on Spider-Man. I know that his turn with the franchise — in “The Amazing Spider-Man” and “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” — wasn’t beloved like the MCU films, but I liked them. 

In particular, I have a soft spot for 2012’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” because one of the few voicemails I have saved from my mom (from the year before she died) was a message inviting me to go see “The Amazing Spider-Man” with her and my dad on July 3 that summer. I happened to be busy with a project that day, so I didn’t go with them. 

(Each time I listen to that voicemail message, I really wish I had taken the time to go see the movie with them.) 

The interplay between the three Peter Parkers is the best thing about “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” It’s something I never expected to see, and it is so much fun. 

At one point, before the final showdown, the three “Spider-Men” are plotting their next move. During the sequence, we see the Andrew Garfield and Tom Holland versions are wearing their Spidey suits. Maguire is wearing typical street clothes. 

Garfield asks Maguire, “Are you going into battle dressed like a cool youth pastor?” 

In my opinion, it was the funniest line in the movie — the delivery was perfect. 

Towards the end of the movie, Peter Parker (the Tom Holland version) has Doctor Strange cast a spell making “everyone forget who Peter Parker is.” The move is done in order to protect his universe from other multiverse entities (who are bursting at the seams to enter this particular universe). 

The spell works, the rift is repaired, and it is as if Peter Parker never existed. The question is how that all works. Is every trace of him gone? Are there any exceptions to the rule? 

After the spell is cast, MJ is seen wearing the black dahlia necklace Peter gave her in “Spider-Man: Far From Home.” Has she simply forgotten Peter, or is there more to it? 

To muddle matters, Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) visits with Parker at May’s grave (by the way, she died in the movie). Hogan says he knew May because of Spider-Man. 

The question is whether they will eventually remember Peter (maybe after the upcoming movie “Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness”), or if this is a chance for Sony (which owns the Spider-Man film rights) to make movies (separate from Disney’s MCU) integrating Tom Holland into future “Venom” movies (a possibility teased in a mid-credit scene featuring actor Tom Hardy). 

(Full disclosure: I haven’t seen either of the “Venom” movies, but the “memory wipe” in “No Way Home” could have been a way for Disney to “give back” Spider-Man to Sony for the time being.)

Anyhow... 

I really enjoyed “Spider-Man: No Way Home.” As mentioned, it did have a few flaws, and some of the decisions made by the principle characters were head scratching (to say the least). 

I’ve really enjoyed Holland's run as Spider-Man. In addition to his appearances in various Marvel Cinematic Universe properties, the Spidey-centric films “Spider-Man: Homecoming” (read my review) and “Spider-Man: Far From Home” (read my review) laid a solid foundation for the character heading into “No Way Home.” 

“Spider-Man: No Way Home” is a solid superhero movie. It might just be the best entry in the Spider-Man lexicon. 

You won’t be disappointed. 

>> If you enjoyed my review of “Spider-Man: No Way Home,” consider following me on X/Twitter: @TheJonCrunch 

Additional blog posts on “Spider-Man”: 

> “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: “Cobra Kai” Season 4 Faces its Moment of Truth  

Movie Review: “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” is a Sequel for the "Stranger Things" Generation

Since Hollywood is hell bent on the cyclical revitalization of existing IP, I wondered a few years ago what the future held for the “Ghostbusters” franchise. 

The original 1984 movie — which epitomizes theatrical comedies of that era — spawned a 1989 sequel, a Saturday morning cartoon (remember when Saturday was “Cartoon Day”?), a breakfast cereal (which was delicious), a Hi-C fruit drink (who doesn't love “Ecto Cooler”?), and a proton pack full of licensed toys, games, apparel, and merchandise. 

It also ranks as one of my favorite movies. I remember seeing “Ghostbusters” when I was 11, during its original theatrical run. I was staying with my older brother (who lived in Texas), and he took me to see it (we also saw “Gremlins” during that visit). 

Any time there is a theatrical revival of one of the movies (typically an anniversary screening), Bridget and I make a point of attending. 

The first attempt to bring back the franchise resulted in a female-led reboot in 2016, helmed by writer/director Paul Feig. I didn’t have my blog when that film was released, but I remember enjoying it at the time. It was a significant departure from the original, and the film had its critics. 

As I’m writing this post, there is a bit of controversy surrounding the 2016 film and the upcoming Ghostbusters Ultimate Collection Blu-ray box set. Specifically, the reboot film was left out of the set, prompting Feig to take to Twitter (the tweet resulted in Sony announcing they will include a code for a free digital copy of the film with the set). 

The success of the original “Ghostbusters” was largely dependent on the comedic personalities of stars Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harold Ramis — actors who had cut their teeth at places like Saturday Night Live and SCTV. 

Because their unique personalities were so integral to the film, any sort of 21st century reboot is a challenging prospect. 

Popcorn films during the 1980s were largely star driven. The actor on the movie poster was typically more important than the movie itself. It isn’t quite the same today (the possible exception being Dwayne Johnson, an actor who imbues a bygone era). 

Writer/director Jason Reitman (son of “Ghostbusters”/“Ghostbusters II” director Ivan Reitman) seems to have put the franchise in order with “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” 

The film works diligently to serve as both a sequel to the original franchise and a reboot for younger fans. 

It's a juggling act that has been tried before with older movie properties. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. 

In my opinion, one of the more successful attempts at this has been the streaming series “Cobra Kai” — a show that strikes the right chord as a sequel/reboot of “The Karate Kid” franchise (read my reviews of “Cobra Kai” Season 1, Season 2, and Season 3). 

“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” takes place 32 years after the events in “Ghostbusters II.” The original busting crew of Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (the late Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) disbanded long before due to a dearth of work. 

Spengler moved to Summerville, Oklahoma, to continue his paranormal pursuits from a dilapidated farm outside of town. As the movie begins, Spengler is trying to capture some sort of supernatural spirit (whose source is an abandoned mine). 

His attempt fails and he dies in the process. 

As a result, his estranged daughter Callie (Carrie Coon) and her children, Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace) relocate to the Summerville farm — a decision made as a result of being evicted from their apartment. 

Phoebe soon learns that the farmhouse is haunted. Finn discovers the original 1959 Ecto-1 ambulance in barn, and sets to work repairing it. 

As the film progresses, the kids encounter additional ghosts, entities, and spirits. 

Along the way, additional supporting players are introduced. 

Gary Grooberson (Paul Rudd) is a summer school science teacher (with an interest in seismology) who takes an interest in Phoebe’s supernatural suspicions. He is also a longtime fan of the work of the Ghostbusters team. (The original Ghostbusters commercial being shown on YouTube is a nice touch.)

Phoebe’s summer school classmate, Podcast (Logan Kim), is a quirky tech nerd who is fascinated with the haunted farm and serves as a loyal sidekick. 

Finn strikes up a friendship with a girl named Lucky Domingo (Celeste O’Connor), a high school student who works part-time with Finn at a retro drive-in diner called Spinners. 

The film itself is obviously built for the “Stranger Things” generation (I don’t think it was a coincidence that “Stranger Things” star Finn Wolfhard was cast in this movie). Frankly, I’m not sure that this film would have happened without the Netflix series paving the way with its supernatural nostalgia. 

While the original two “Ghostbusters” movies tended to be broadly comedic in tone, “Ghostbusters: Afterlife” plays things a little more serious. The humor serves as an accent rather than the point of focus. 

I really appreciated Reitman’s subtlety — in terms of story and direction — in “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.”

I know some have grumbled that the film relies too much on “nostalgia” and “fan service” moments. Frankly, I think that is an unfair criticism. 

These days, nearly every reboot/sequel property based on long-gestating intellectual property (IP) — such as recent entries in the “Star Wars” franchise — provide this sort of fan service. 

If Stay Puft Marshmallow “Mini Pufts” are an example of “too much fan service,” then I say, “the more fan service, the better!” I loved the sequences involving the little confectionery creatures. 

Jason Reitman was the writer/director/producer of the 2009 film “Up In the Air.” Parts of that movie were filmed here in Omaha. My brother-in-law Sean (who died in 2017) served as an extra in airport scenes shot at Eppley Airfield. 

In recent interviews, Reitman has talked about the family aspects involved in making “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” He was a 6-year-old when the original movie was released, and I’ve seen production photos of him spending time on set with his father. 

There are cameos in this film from some of the original cast members. While this could have been overblown aspect of the film, I thought it was handled in just the right way. 

I had a great time watching “Ghostbusters: Afterlife.” I loved the overall feel of the movie, the performances, and the tone. 

As Bridget and I were watching the movie, I thought to myself, “I’d like to see more adventures with these characters.”

To that point, be sure to stay through the entire credits scroll for both “mid-credit” and “after-credit” Easter eggs. 

Previous post: Book Review: Tech at the Center of “The Sentinel” by Lee Child and Andrew Child 

Movie Review: Villeneuve's "Dune" Offers Visual Appeal, But Is The Film Compelling?

As a science fiction fan, I sort of have an interesting relationship with “Dune.” 

I’ve seen every incarnation — every attempt — to bring Frank Herbert’s 1960s-era literary franchise to the screen. 

I’ve never read the original novel. I tried once in the 1990s; I just couldn't get into it. 

The first attempt to bring “Dune” to the screen was director David Lynch’s big-budget adaptation released in December of 1984. 

I remember the marketing for that film more than anything. I recall seeing commercials promoting midnight screenings. I also remember the chords of the soundtrack by Brian Eno (and his band Toto) feeling very distinctive. 

As was the case with sci-fi movies in that era (that didn’t come from George Lucas or Steven Spielberg), it looked strange, bizarre, and (to a 12-year-old kid) glorious. 

I didn’t see the movie in the theater. I’m sure the tepid reviews had an impact, but that hadn’t stopped me in the past (I recall seeing other oddball sci-fi movies like “Ice Pirates” at our local 99 cent theater — the Gemini 2 — during that era). 

My mom and I rented the movie on VHS when my dad was away at a work conference. It felt like a confusing mess at the time, but the visuals and overall style of the film stuck with me. 

Roughly 16 years after the release of Lynch’s “Dune,” the Sci-Fi Channel offered a three-part miniseries titled “Frank Herbert's Dune.” 

I actually own that miniseries on DVD. It certainly didn't have the budget, scope, and visual effects of Lynch’s cinematic vision, but the story was given room to breathe, and the production’s look left an impression on me. 

(The cinematographer for the miniseries was Vittorio Storaro, who brought a color-saturated “comic strip” look to the production — similar to the visual style he brought to the underrated 1990 film “Dick Tracy”).  

By now you know that “Dune” has been reincarnated once again. It was one of the movies I was curious about in 2021 (it was originally slated for release in 2020). 

Full disclosure: I didn’t feel a burning need to see another attempt to bring “Dune” to the big screen. But Denis Villeneuve is one of today’s best directors and I like his work. 

I’ve reviewed two of Villeneuve’s movies on this blog — 2016’s "The Arrival" and 2017’s "Blade Runner 2049".  The latter of the two had me excited to see where he could take Herbert’s sprawling tale. 

“Dune” tells the story of Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet), a moody young man who is trying to find his place in the universe (which is pretty much standard operating procedure for every young sci-fi/fantasy protagonist). 

His father — Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac) of House Atreides — is ruler of the ocean planet Caladan. Early on in the film, we learn that he has been tasked by the Padishah Emperor Shaddam Corrino IV (it’s a mouthful) to replace House Harkonnen as rulers of the desert planet Arrakis. 

Arrakis is the universe’s only source of “spice.” The spice has all sorts of interesting benefits. It has mind-expanding effects and is key for travelers navigating space. 

At play are various interests looking to control the flow of spice, including Fremen — Arrakis’s native desert dwellers. 

The other key player is House Harkonnen, the previous rulers of Arrakis. 

One of the narrative aspects that bogged down 1984’s “Dune” was the political web presented in Herbert’s novel. It can be a lot for a viewer to digest in a two-hour movie, and Lynch’s film had an early “info dump” that made it hard to get into the film. 

Villeneuve does a decent job doling out these plot points in more digestible dribs and drabs throughout his film’s 156-minute runtime. 

In addition to “Dune’s” spice-focused plot thread, a storyline involving Lady Jessica (Rebecca Ferguson) adds mystical elements to the overall plot. 

Jessica is Leto Atreides’ concubine and Paul’s mother. She is also an acolyte of the Bene Gesserit — an exclusive order whose members possess advanced physical and metal abilities. 

Paul is suspected by the Bene Gesserit to be the Kwisatz Haderach, a messiah-like figure who will bring balance to the Force... err... I mean... lead humanity to a more enlightened future. 

All of the aforementioned plot points lay the foundation for the story moving forward. The prevailing challenge with “Dune” is that a screenwriter has to give enough exposition to hook those new to the story, but avoid going overboard and turning the film into a world-building slog.  

Villeneuve’s “Dune” only tells about half the story presented in the novel (a fact that won’t spoil anything for those who are unfamiliar with “Dune”). Which means this film is primarily focused on setting the scene. 

I saw this at Aksarben Cinema with my friend Scott (who has also seen the 1984 film and the 2000 miniseries). He checked his watch at one point and said, “there’s a lot of story left to go... how long is this movie?” 

Villeneuve has mentioned that his grand vision is to make a trilogy — with the first novel occupying the first two films and Herbert’s novel “Dune Messiah” being the basis for the third. 

(A second film was green-lit shortly after the “Dune’s” opening weekend at the box office.)

Considering the fact that I was pretty familiar with the source material, I found “Dune” to be a bit slow at times (... my eyes got heavy at various points). 

That doesn’t mean “Dune” isn't an expertly crafted film with a beautiful visual style. It simply means that there is a considerable amount for viewers to digest, and it is worth preparing yourself for before going in. 

I couldn’t help but compare this to the new Apple TV+ series “Foundation” (based on works by Isaac Asimov). There are a number of similarities and some notable differences. The advantage that “Foundation” has is the fact that a multi-season series can take time to “deep dive” into all the world-building intricacies inherent in these types of science fiction properties. 

The main performers in “Dune” were all solid. 

Of note were a couple of supporting performances. Josh Brolin and Jason Momoa stood out to me. The reason I say that is because this territory can often find actors speaking lines in sort of a “regal monotone voice” that can be lifeless. 

Brolin (who played Gurney Halleck) and Momoa (who played Duncan Idaho) both infused some personality into the material. I think the production benefitted from their performances (small as those roles were). 

One aspect of the film I found to be less than stellar was the musical score by Hans Zimmer. All too often, Zimmer’s stylings in “Dune” felt more incidental than they did anthemic. I know that has become a trend in modern movies, but I do think a hummable soundtrack aids this genre. 

Some have proclaimed Villeneuve’s “Dune” to be the best science fiction movie in years. The film has received a variety of critical accolades (and will likely get several Oscar nods). 

I’ll be the first to admit that my criteria for what makes a movie “the best” varies quite a bit from high-brow cinema snobs out there. I don’t need art. I just want to be entertained and have a good time at the movies. 

As I mentioned earlier, “Dune” is a competently crafted film — it looks and sounds terrific. 

I’m not quite sure I’m ready to deify it at this point. I’ll see how the second part goes before I render my final verdict. 

It certainly isn’t for everyone, and it does require a bit of patience. Some viewers will consider that a virtue. I tend to favor science fiction and fantasy films that are more accessible for casual viewers. As a result, I found “Dune” to be something of a mixed bag. 

But that’s just me... 

Previous post: Movie Review: Bond Goes Awry in “No Time To Die”