Submitted by ImpossibleGuardian t3_zwnld1 in movies
I was late to the party and only saw Maverick this week, after reading glowing reviews over the last six months and hearing from friends how much they enjoyed it. I've seen the first movie countless times so after all the praise I'm not sure what I was expecting, but Maverick was just... fine?
The nostalgia beats were all there, but for me the script felt like it was at least one editing pass away from the finished product (every other line spoken by the rookie pilots was a painful cliche), Jennifer Connelly's character was present and that's about all you can say about her, and as with its predecessor the film seemed more than happy to present itself as a long-form Navy recruitment ad with zero self-awareness.
36 years later the flaws of the first movie can be played off as a pretty charming insight into the late-Cold War, 1980s action movie - and that’s arguably part of its appeal. Undeniably, Maverick offers a more coherent story and generally a stronger cast, but considering its incredibly positive reception it’s surprising how many of the pitfalls of original remained.
Particularly in contrast to other Tom Cruise vehicles of late like the last few Mission Impossible films, Maverick felt uninspired and almost limited by the script's intent to stick as closely to the format of the first film as possible.