A few weeks ago, one of my relatives walked into our house (on their way to swim at the neighborhood pool across the street) holding a tallboy can that looked like a beer.
I wouldn’t have thought anything of it except for that fact that the relative in question was my nine-year-old niece!
I'd love to have seen the look on my face, because I was confused, wondering if I'd awakened that morning in an alternate universe where 21 was no longer the legal drinking age.
She left the can sitting on the counter. And after the crew walked over to the pool, I snatched it up, and studied the labeling.
“Liquid Death” it said (in an Old English-type font) and the liquid inside was labeled as “Mountain Water.”
My fears were initially allayed. The beverage was nothing more than water.
I thought maybe it was like the old idiom that states “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” It’s just packaging, after all. What harm could it do?
Suffice it to say, our family ended up having a fun and spirited conversation about this after the fact via group text.
I told Bridget: “This is my next blog post.”
It’s obvious on initial glance that Liquid Death canned water is designed to be provocative. “Murder Your Thirst” is the brand’s tagline, and it is canned by Austrian beverage company Starzinger (the brand itself was concocted by former creative director Mike Cessario, the mind behind promos for Netflix shows like “Stranger Things”).
The name Liquid Death evokes the term “liquid courage” (a euphemism used to describe alcoholic beverages and their ability to make you do unusual things).
They sell both “sparkling” and “still” waters. On the descriptions of the sparkling variants, it reads “Liquid Death Sparkling Water doesn't just look like a beer, it is actually carbonated like a beer.”
(Being carbonated like beer essentially means less carbonation than typical sparkling water drinks.)
The answer — “Yes and highly recommended” — epitomizes the approach the brand takes with its website (and aluminum can) copy.
In the intervening weeks since I was introduced to Liquid Death (and after having procured four cans for this blog post), I have shown the beverage to various parents I know to gauge their reactions — friends, relatives, members of our neighborhood pool, and even the woman who cuts my hair.
While my research is firmly planted in the anecdotal realm, the parents I showed Liquid Death to were rather surprised. The overarching sentiment seemed to be: “This looks like a gateway product that could encourage underage drinking.”
As mentioned earlier, that sort of controversy is part of the brand's unique selling proposition. Like it or not, they don't shy away from it.
This Liquid Death commercial — set to Judas Priest’s song “Breaking the Law” — epitomizes that vibe as viewers see young kids partying while drinking the beverage:
The brand has apparently supplied various online influencers with Liquid Death. Others have found it on their own.
The main question in all of this is whether or not a product that *looks* like beer — even if it is just a harmless can of water — can have negative consequences as it regards underage drinking.
That is certainly a subject for debate.
It sort of reminds me of the “candy cigarettes” they sold when I was a kid. Did those chalky sugar sticks make a kid more likely to become a smoker later in life?
In my case, the answer was no. But I’m not everyone.
I will say this... as someone who doesn’t consume alcoholic beverages, sometimes you can feel a little out of place at parties and gatherings when you aren’t partaking in the adult beverages offered. In those instances, it is possible holding a Liquid Death water might make you look less out of place.
The other question is whether or not the Liquid Death water is any good.
I drink a number of sparkling water brands. In recent months, I’ve been into Spindrift and BUBBL'R sparkling water brands. The latter of the two has become a favorite of mine.
I’ve sampled Liquid Death's “Mango Chainsaw” and “Severed Lime” sparkling water flavors.
Both of them were just okay, in my opinion. Neither was particularly remarkable. Frankly, the lower carbonation level in the drink (which is done by design) made the beverage seem somewhat flat to me. For me, this genre of drink really depends on its “bubble” factor (as far as I'm concerned, the more bubbles the better).
In that regard, it does make me wonder if Liquid Death’s viral popularity is largely smoke and mirrors — unremarkable canned water that is basically buoyed by unorthodox packaging and marketing.
When the novelty wears off (which it will), does the product have the legs to survive?
I’ll let you decide for yourself.
In the meantime, you can purchase Liquid Death at select online retailers like Amazon and at brick-and-mortar outlets like Target, 7-Eleven, and Whole Foods.
In early 2018, I started seeing mention on Twitter of a new thriller novel titled “The Terminal List” by an author named Jack Carr (a former Navy SEAL).
Many of the people I interact with on Twitter were looking forward to Carr’s debut novel. It sounded like something I would be interested in reading. I’ve long been a fan of the thriller genre, and the premise seemed intriguing.
So I pre-ordered a copy and set my sights on reviewing it.
When you start a blog — or any sort of creative pursuit — your main hope is that people will enjoy it. Throughout 363 posts (as of this writing), I'm primarily fueled by feedback and interest from readers.
When I reviewed Carr's “The Terminal List,” I never imagined it would become my most viewed blog post. But as the years have progressed — and as Carr has built a legion of loyal followers — the review steadily rose and has become the top performing post on my blog (read my review).
In my review, I described the novel as “a story that stings the throat and clears the sinuses — bold, brutal, and unwavering.”
Carr does a terrific job marketing his books — and his love of pop culture is evident. I am the same age as the author, and grew up with many of the same influences.
My mom and dad took me to the theater to see most of the macho military action movies of that era. I fondly remember seeing movies like “Rambo: First Blood Part II,” “Commando,” “The Delta Force,” and “Invasion U.S.A.,” with my parents at our local multiplexes.
I was also a fan of the TV series “Magnum, P.I.” as a kid, and remember watching it with my parents on Thursday nights (keen-eyed readers will find several references to the show in Carr’s work).
My love of mystery and thriller novels began at a young age. I remember loving “The Hardy Boys” series during elementary school, reading WWII-related children’s books like Bernard Glemser’s “Radar Commandos,” and later developed a passion for "grown up thrillers" when a high school literature teacher gave our class the assignment of reading a Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum novel (I chose Clancy’s “Patriot Games”).
When news started percolating about a filmed adaptation of “The Terminal List,” I was curious to see how Hollywood would interpret Carr's well-drawn thriller.
And, when it was announced that Chris Pratt would star in a series adaptation of the novel on Amazon Prime, my initial curiosity transformed into pure excitement. A multi-episode series would allow the filmmakers to dive into the story and explore the characters in a more significant manner.
“The Terminal List” chronicles the exploits of Lieutenant Commander James Reece (Pratt) here on the home front in Coronando, California, after his SEAL team (operating out of Incirlik Air Base in Turkey) conducts an ill-fated mission in Syria (Operation Odin’s Sword) to eliminate a chemical weapons specialist known as “Chemical Kahani.”
In the aftermath, Reece questions his recollection of the particulars that transpired during the covert mission, and starts to question his own judgment as the leader of Alpha Team.
Moreover, when a surviving team member mysteriously dies stateside (of a suspected suicide), Reece believes the cause of death isn’t a cut-and-dry case.
Is Reece paranoid, or is he on the right track?
He worries that Kahani is targeting his men, but soon learns there is a greater conspiracy afoot — a conspiracy that puts our protagonist, his wife Lauren (Riley Keough), and daughter Lucy (Arlo Mertz) in extreme danger.
With the help of intrepid reporter Katie Buranek (Constance Wu), Reece starts to put the pieces together.
Things are not as they seem, and Reece soon finds himself in the center of a maelstrom that reaches the highest corridors of power.
Somewhere, somehow, someone is going to pay.
The eight-episode series manages to imbue the spirit of Carr’s novel, and Pratt (a surprisingly versatile actor) becomes the embodiment of Carr’s protagonist.
As is the case with many page-to-screen adaptations, there are a number of differences between the book and the movie — far too many to highlight in this review.
In general, I was fine with the changes made to the story and its various settings. Producer/director Antoine Fuqua (“Olympus Has Fallen,” “The Equalizer”) and showrunner David DiGilio (along with his writing team, who worked on much of the production via Zoom due to the pandemic) do a yeoman’s job navigating these intricacies, and create a compelling narrative for the screen.
One interesting stylistic choice was the show’s moody production design.
“The Terminal List” is a dark revenge tale. The production employed a dim, dreary, and desaturated color palette (and lighting scheme) to hammer that point home.
Characters are often lit in shadow, giving things a “noirish” feel. Some viewers might question the aesthetic. Taken in total, I think the effect largely worked.
There are also moments in the story where Reece questions his sanity — stylized flashback/hallucination/dream sequences are utilized and allow for additional nuggets in Reece’s backstory, giving the character more texture in the process.
For me, the highlight episode of the season was the sixth, titled “Transience.”
I won’t go into any specifics, but I found it to be an entertaining chapter. I’ll simply say that it had sequences that reminded me of the 1982 film “First Blood.”
There are also various “easter eggs” from the novels strewn throughout the eight episodes of “The Terminal List.”
For example, @Marc_Harris3 on Twitter pointed out a shot in the series where a bottle of honey and a small box of half-and-half sits in front of Reece and his coffee mug:
Small @TerminalListPV detail I haven't seen anybody talk about yet but is that Honey is see with his Coffee. 👀👀
Another detail from this book is the inclusion of Reece’s 1988 Toyota FJ62 Land Cruiser. In this video, Carr (a Land Cruiser aficionado) gives us a tour of the actual vehicle used in the series:
Small details like that illustrate the care the filmmakers put into the series.
In addition to Pratt — who gives his most nuanced performance to date — there are a number of notable performances in “The Terminal List.”
In particular, some of the smaller roles stood out to me.
I really enjoyed Tyner Rushing as pilot and former Army Aviation Branch Warrant Officer Liz Riley. While there wasn’t much meat to the role, the filmmakers did a solid job giving the character some nice morsels as they outlined her background and friendship with Reece.
Former Navy SEAL Jared Shaw plays Special Warfare Operator First Class Ernest “Boozer” Vickers, a member of Reece’s team. Again, it wasn’t a big role, but the character is memorable.
Shaw (who also serves as a technical advisor on the show) received a pre-release copy of “The Terminal List” back in 2017, and gave it to Chris Pratt (who optioned it soon thereafter).
I also enjoyed seeing Jai Courtney in action as antagonist Steve Horn, head of Captstone Industries. He’s familiar with this territory, and I’ve enjoyed the actor’s work since his roles in “Jack Reacher” and “A Good Day to Die Hard.”
There are also some small cameos of note in the series (including an entertaining appearance by Carr himself in the third episode). I enjoyed seeing former Navy SEAL Remi Adeleke make a brief appearance in “The Terminal List” as well.
I first became familiar with Adeleke when Bridget ordered me one of his KEJO Wear t-shirts — a design we saw Neil Brown Jr. wearing on an episode of the CBS series “SEAL Team”:
Overall, I had a good time watching Amazon’s adaptation of “The Terminal List.” The episodes move at a brisk pace, and Pratt’s performance elevates the narrative.
As a longtime fan of this brand of thriller, I was heartened to see the care and craftsmanship that was put into the eight-episode season.
There are so many wonderful print properties waiting to be developed. I hope the success of “The Terminal List” paves the way for more of these stories to make it to the screen.
“The Terminal List” sets a new standard for thriller adaptations. Even if you haven't yet read Carr’s novels, I think you’ll find a lot to like in this series.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
