It's not horror you know - it's just real good family fun.
The Mummy is directed by Stephen Sommers, who also co-writes the screenplay with John L. Balderston. It stars Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah, Arnold Vosloo & Kevin J. O'Connor. Jerry Goldsmith scores the music and cinematography is by Adrian Biddle. Plot sees Fraser as ex-Foreign Legionnaire adventurer Rick O'Connell, who teams up with Egyptologist Evelyn Carnahan (Weisz) and her cowardly brother Jonathan (Hannah), to try and stave off the apocalypse born out of the unleashing of the mummified remains of High Priest Imhotep (Vosloo).
It's true to say that "Indiana Jones" raised the bar for action/adventure films in the modern era, the kind involving treasure, artifacts and mystical perils. It's arguably true enough to say that with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" the standard has been set so high it's unlikely to be bettered. There's been a number of similar films to have come along post "Indiana Jones", films that have one thing in common, that the critics are scornful towards them whilst the box office has kerchinged with the sound of cash being spent by the cinema going public. "The Mummy" is one such movie. Universal rework their own 1930's creeper to deliver a high energy, effects laden adventure full of wit, stunts and eye candy fun. Yes it's "Indiana Jones" lite, but so what? We may be lacking an intellectual script, but for sheer guts, construction of set-pieces and interesting story, this delivers wholesome family entertainment. Cast are fine, Fraser comfortably files in for square jawed heroics and Weisz is suitably posh, spunky and sexy. Hannah revels in playing a wastrel type, while Arnold Vosloo is enjoying himself greatly. However it's ultimately the effects that win out, explosive and eye poppingly enjoyable, Sommers and his team have not pulled any punches in their willingness to entertain all the adventure film loving family. 7.5/10

Trying to cram action, adventure, fantasy, romance, comedy and horror into a single should not have worked, especially not in a Universal Monsters reboot, but 1999's _The Mummy_ is so much damn fun, that they manage to pull it off with aplomb.
_Final rating:★★★½ - I strongly recommend you make the time._

**A very good sequel, maybe even better than the first "Top Gun"**
I enjoyed this movie a lot. It has a straight and simple and yet captivating story and a lot of very good top tier action, and wich was done by using mostly practical effects and filmmaking and was not a CGI overkill, unlike so many blockbuster action movies nowadays.
The movie also stands out as an example for a very good sequel, which might even be superior to the first movie.
If you can see past the blatant and yet relatively sparingly inserted "US world police" prop***anda (which was in the first "Top Gun" as well), this movie can be a very fun ride for you, especially if you are into a somewhat conservative action movie experience. Thank you, Tom Cruise, for giving us such a movie in the 2020ies!
A very good sequel, maybe even better than the first "Top Gun".

As a teenager, nearly 40 years ago, I was consumed by the original Top Gun. It fueled my dreams of becoming a pilot, and Tom Cruise's charisma, alongside the adrenaline-pumping aerial sequences, left an indelible mark on my youth. When I heard the familiar theme song for Top Gun, goosebumps erupted across my skin.
While I had sky-high expectations, I confess to feeling a tinge of disappointment. After all, it's been nearly two years since the premiere, and the hype had settled. Yet, I found myself glued to the couch, unable to tear my eyes away. Maverick did its job - it satisfied the old fanboys. The producers flawlessly recreated the vibe of the original, masterfully capturing the essence of that 80s era, but with cutting-edge technology and cinematography. The film is a testament to their meticulous attention to detail.
But Maverick isn't just about nostalgia. For me, it's a celebration of aviation technology. Seeing the F-18 Super Hornet and the iconic F-14 Tomcat, my childhood fighter jet heroes, soar across the screen alongside newer generation aircraft was a joy for my inner tech enthusiast.
While the technical aspects are captivating, the film transcends the niche. Top Gun: Maverick is a universal experience, packed with heart-stopping action, engaging characters, and a compelling story that resonates with anyone who's ever chased a dream. It may not be the groundbreaking masterpiece that the original was, but it's a thrilling and nostalgic journey that will leave you breathless.

For me this movie was a letdown. Having watched the original Top Gun when it first came out, this version comes nowhere close to that one. Like most movies in the past decade or so, real originality is lacking. Seems like all there are nowadays are rehashes of older stuff. The supporting cast is lackluster at best.
There is nothing in this movie to get excited about. I suppose if you get drunk and need to sleep it off... go watch this movie.

You're not supposed to like this, very literally. IMDb will block your reviews of this movie if you praise it. Amazon (owned by the same company) is fudging the like ratio, and Youtube did the same with the trailer.
That makes sense. It really does.
Maverick is a patriotic action movie with a male lead that doesn't make the male lead look like an idiot. The white guy isn't evil. America isn't evil. It's a sequel that doesn't trash the heroes of the first film or attack the fans.
From start to finish it's just a solid apolitical action movie.
So of course you are supposed to hate it, it literally breaks all the rules of modern Hollywood.
And that was why it was the biggest blockbuster of the past few years. That is why it had returns that would be a mega-bock buster pre-COVID. It's the type of movie that people actually want to see, which is why it's under attack on certain sites. You're not supposed to know that people like it and they weren't supposed to make a movie that people wanted to see.
Everything has to be a propaganda piece.
But you want to know a secret? If this came out in the 80s it wouldn't have done well. It's not as good of an action movie as they had back then. It actually sort of sucks compared to a lot of the classic action movies of this genre.
But then it came out in 2022 and the rules have all changed. Today everything is racist or far left. So what you have here is a movie that is great... by 2022 standards... simply because it's not the crap that Hollywood is shoving down your throats and demanding that you like.

Top Gun: Maverick had a ton of praise when I finally got around to watching it and it did a relatively good job living up to it.
My main two complaints from the original have been entirely corrected in it's sequel: cheesy dialogue and terrible shot selection in the aerial sequences. The script has been vastly improved upon with updated dialogue just all around better acting than the original. There were not corny lines or interactions that felt awkward. The aerial combat sections are incredible, they are done with such precision and purpose. I could actually understand what was on and where the fighter crafts were in relation to each. These raised the stacks and hade me fully invested.
The overall story is pretty great. I loved how the recruits were training for a final "suicide" mission, instead of just graduating from the academy. The dynamics between Tom Cruise and his superiors/students were great and felt witty and genuine. The continued relationship with Iceman was touching as they seem to have a real connection that has lasted throughout the years, although I thought his illness and they way they presented it was a bit out of place. My one big complain his Cruises love interest. This plot really has no impact on the story and is just thrown in there for old time sakes. I did enjoy their chemistry together and it was cute to his interactions with daughter. But, I watched the original directly before this and was utterly confused on who she was. It was really odd to have a throw away line in the original be the main love interest in the sequel, but like I said, it did not have a huge impact.
The performances are spectacular in this film. Tom Cruise and Miles Teller are standouts and their back and forth is really fun to see, delivering some funny jabs but some series dramatic moments. Jon Hamm was great as a hard ass commanding officer. Glen Powell was a standout as well, his cockiness and rivalry with Rooster was great but complex.
This film is a blast, and I really wish I would have made the time to see it in theaters. I really enjoyed this and I am definitely not one who fancies these types of films, but it captured me.
Score: 87%
Verdict: Excellent

Really solid action-thriller with amazing stunts and pulls on the heartstrings without feeling forced. Tom Cruise is great as usual and Miles Teller was fine though didn't feel like he had enough time to shine, but his scenes with Cruise were good. Jennifer Connelly has aged really well and they did nice service for Val Kilmer's Iceman. Really solid, entertaining old fashioned blockbuster. **4.25/5**

nice movie

I'm a simple man, I see Christopher McQuarrie's name, and I get ready for some well-crafted action filmmaking.
This is easily one of the best action movies I've gotten the chance to see in theaters, grounded in a rock-solid emotional foundation. The screenplay does an excellent job giving us all of its payoffs in a mesmerizing finale, almost as well as the Wachowski's SPEED RACER. Impactful stuff.
Looks great, sounds great, feels great. Loved it.

This was a good movie. It has a pretty generic story, but its filled with a lot of heart and the right music at the right times. It also helps that on the technical side. It crispy clear video and amazing audio keeps you totally immersed.

**Wanna see the real cheesy, very 80s, bloodpumping, blockbuster movie? a movie that can lift your mood without being to complicated? a movie that can make you feel immerse in movie theaters?**
Say no more fam, cuz i presents you one of my favorite in 2022
TOP GUN MAVERICK
_**"Set 30 years after its predecessor, it follows Maverick's return to the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program (also known as U.S. Navy-Fighter Weapons School - "TOPGUN"), where he must confront his past as he trains a group of younger pilots, among them the son of Maverick's deceased best friend Lieutenant Nick "Goose" Bradshaw, USN."**_
—Wrathzo
I never thought, a sequel from 80s hits movie would be exceeding its predecessor. tbh i thought this movie would be suck and will be getting the fate like The Matrix Resurrections and RoboCop remake. But boy i was wrong, this movie is the definition of Awesomeness in Cinema.
Let me start with the Story. This movie doesnt have any complex story and some of it structure if im looking at it, kinda almost the same as the first one. But is it identical? yes? so it means they just copying it? no. what i mean is Peter Craig did take a few ideas from the first movie for a few scene (i think its a homage for the first movie) but the context has alot more meaning than the first one tbh.
Now Scoring, Lorne Balfe did great job for remaking the Top Gun Anthem... Damn it feels good hearing that theme again... and also, i want to applause Onerepublic and Lady Gaga for creating such an awesome soundtrack for the movie
Now lastly for cinematography and visual effect, its probably the first time in my life i got out from IMAX and said "i paid 10$ dollar for this movie? i feel like i should've paid more. This movie is too good". The sound design, the real action from fighter jet, the bloodpumping visual. It all works together creating this masterpiece. its been a decade since i feel this immerse on the movie.
**In conclusion, ill keep this short
This is the reason why Movie Theatre was created, now go watch it on IMAX. Trust me, you'll never regret it.**

**Best movie of 2022 so far, and I don’t see what could possibly top it!**
This movie is nearly perfect in every way. Top Gun: Maverick is a masterpiece, from the pacing to the acting to the cinematography to the character development to the casting to the writing. I can’t think of a single thing that didn’t blow me away. The intensity and intentionality of the action were magnificent and balanced with heartfelt moments of character growth and story. Tom Cruise’s best movie in a career filled with memorable and exceptional films.

This is how American movies should be made.
I have to confess I'd all but given up on Hollywood. The incessant woke indoctrination had led me to the conclusion, the US film industry, had little left to offer and then along came, Top Gun: Maverick.
A simple, well rendered, military action flick that reinvents the formula for success and doggedly sticks to it.
Everything about this film is polished. It comfortably updates the 80's original with style, verve and hands down top shelf acting from Tom Cruise and the cast.
I'm not a fan of NATO or US exceptionalism but this films such quality, it even had me cheering, irrespective.
Entertainment as it should be.....
10/10.

> Loved this movie. Even had me guessing to the end. Seems like every cast member picked to play their role was the only person that could pull it off especially for the song of Goose. 9.9/10 sequel never lived up to original this one did. 10/10

Haven't seen a movie this perfect in decades. It was most obviously written and directed with the audience in mind - no politics, no preaching, no gratuitous sex, no woke, no offensive casting or characters. Brilliant, simplistic screenwriting and thrill rides. The original, if you've seen it, was iconic as it was, and to know it makes the second film here more enjoyable, but even if you're not familiar with the background of the characters it's clearly presented enough to be a stand-alone enjoyable film.

💯 Best movie I've seen this year. You won't be disappointed.

_Top Gun: Maverick_ is a sequel that is a leaps and bounds improvement over the original film. There’s better acting from the entire cast, more of an emotional attachment between at least two of the main characters in the film, and subtle humor that actually lands. But the film’s constant need to fly in the same flight pattern as the original film comes off as more of a restraint than a fond recollection.
The sequel seems to highlight many of the shortcomings of the original film, which in retrospect seems like something you’d try to avoid. With its record breaking box office during Memorial Day weekend, _Top Gun: Maverick_ is an enormously thrilling sequel with unparalleled action sequences that has proven to be exactly what fans have been waiting over 30 years for.
**Full review:** https://hubpages.com/entertainment/Top-Gun-Maverick-2022-Review-Dont-Think-Just-Sequel

It seems like I have been watching the trailers for this film for years now - and you know what? Yes - it was worth the wait. The film is all about some truly exhilarating aerial photography that culminates in some super dogfighting and a good old dose of nostalgia. Tom Cruise is very much in his element as the ageing - and frequently not afraid to look it - eponymous "Top Gun" pilot drafted in by a rather sceptical admiral to train up a new squad for a very perilous mission to destroy an underground uranium enrichment facility. The team arrive - full of hormones - and he must whip them into shape, a task made more difficult by the presence of "Rooster" (Miles Teller) who is the son of his old mate "Goose" who came to a sticky end last time out in 1986. He also gets to rekindle his romance with bar owner "Penny" (Jennifer Connelly) whilst all under the protection of his former wingman, now the poorly retired admiral "Kazansky" (Val Kilmer). To be honest, the story isn't really up to much - there are some twists and turns, the script is not without some humour but there is no jeopardy really. We all know what is going to happen in the end. That said, though, everyone is on good form; the pace (aside from the interludes with Connelly which do rather abruptly slow things down a bit) is consistently action packed and the imagery from both inside and outside of these amazing pieces of machinery is not at all repetitive and is compelling to watch. Even the usual gung-ho, ye-ha stuff is kept to a minimum - this is a superior film depicting the US military at it's most competitive, but also at it's most intelligent - and I really quite enjoyed it. Big screen photography - don't wait til it is on the telly.

A lot of things in this movie do not make sense, like "why not use F-35?", "why didn't cruise missiles target enemy air defence and planes in hangars?" to name a few.
The original movie had some seriousness built into it, the sequel I think is closer to a comic book movie. Very similar to the original star wars, especially the action sequence at the end. Just a tad more realistic than black widow, you can clearly see the action comedy style of Marvel movies.
I think a lot of conservatives reminiscing Reagan years would watch it, that should be enough to make it a hit.
I think that is also the reason of the high score. To me the movie quality is more of 5 ~ 7 out of 10.
Just don't think too much when watching it, but I don't think that is too big a problem for the target audience.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://www.msbreviews.com/movie-reviews/top-gun-maverick-spoiler-free-review
"Top Gun: Maverick is the return of pure, nostalgic blockbusters, instantly becoming one of this year's personal favorites. The best aerial action sequences ever amaze even the highest expectations, not only due to the absolutely insane real stunts but largely because of the flawless contribution of all filmmaking elements.
The surprisingly emotional screenplay helps Tom Cruise deliver one of the best performances of his career. Perfect editing is essential to creating such realism, as well as raising the tension levels for one of the best final acts within the respective genre.
And, finally, the memorable score loaded with epic tracks makes the theater experience the only way this magnificent work should be seen.
Superior to the original in every way."
Rating: A-

What an excellent sequel - I, in fact, like it more than its predecessor.
'Top Gun: Maverick' is fantastic, simply put. I was expecting it to be good, but it's actually much more enjoyable than I had anticipated. The callbacks to the original are expertly done, the new characters are strong/well cast, it has plenty of meaning, music is fab and the action is outstanding - the aerial stuff is sensational.
The story is superb, with each high stake coming across as intended - parts even gave me slight goosebumps, which is a surprise given I'm not someone who has a connection to the 1986 film. It's all super neatly put together, I honestly came close to giving it a higher rating.
Tom Cruise is brilliant as he reprises the role of Maverick, while Miles Teller comes in and gives a top performance. Jennifer Connelly is another positive, though her role does kinda feel a tiny bit forced in order to have a love interest; given Kelly McGillis' [unexplained] absence.
Monica Barbaro stands out most from the fresh faces, though I actually did enjoy watching them all - which is something I thought the film may struggle with, adding new people, but it's done nicely; sure Jon Hamm and Glen Powell are a little cliché, though overall I approve.
A great watch - I'd highly recommend it, though naturally would suggest watching the previous film first if you haven't already.

**JJ Abrams should never make anything Trek related again**
This is an absurd piece of cinema. Another review said that only trekkies would like this, but the opposite is true. He creates action sequences that build up some momentum, but its resolution is never shown. Chekov (the skinny geek) holds Kirk who holds Scotty from falling down, in a ship that is in a failing orbit entering Earth's atmosphere. Cut to 5 second bridge talk, cut back and they're walking the corridor.
Are you joking?
This feels like a McG wannabe, that doesn't know how to create the over the top resolutions. But then again, no trekkie wants McG to touch Star Trek either.
This approach undermines both the ethos of Star Trek and Abrams’ own attempts at tension-building. By failing to lean into either intelligent problem-solving or fully-committed absurdity, these moments feel hollow.
The frustrating part is that Star Trek has proven over decades that thoughtful storytelling can be just as thrilling—if not more so—than high-octane sequences. Abrams’ refusal to trust the intelligence of his audience or his characters is a major reason why his take on the franchise divides fans so sharply.
Absurd. Even more absurd that the movie made a profit.

I will own up to actually quite enjoying this. It has less of the holier-than-thou moralism of some of the "Star Trek" features and is basically just a sci-fi adventure that pitches Chris Pine ("Kirk") and his crew against enemies as they say - both foreign and domestic! The dynamic between Pine and "Spock" (Zachary Quinto) still doesn't quite work for me; but Karl Urban makes for quite a good "McCoy" complete with all his daft metaphors. (The less said about Simon Pegg's "Scotty", the better - but fortunately, he features sparingly). The "Enterprise" must track down the arch-criminal "Khan" (Benedict Cumberbatch) - responsible for a bombing in London and then an attack on Starfleet Command - in dangerous Klingon territory and off they set armed with some distinctly dodgy torpedoes. There's a bit of jovial banter between the unlikely couple of "Uhura" and "Spock" which raises a smile, and Anton Yeltsin still has trouble with the computer comprehending his "w's". It's got plenty of phaser fights, the shirts get ripped quite a few times and the story has a bit of definition to help it move along. The last fifteen minutes do, however, drag out the ending just a bit too much - but hey, if you are looking for some high-end science fiction with a few twists in the plot and a good look to it, then you could do worse than this

**The following is a long form review that I originally wrote in 2013.**
_Star Trek: Into Darkness_, or _STID_, as the kids are calling it (which makes me sad 'cause it's akin to both STI's and STD's) is, in my unprofessional opinion, a step up from the previous instalment (which I did still quite enjoy).
Both J.J. Abram's 2009 film, as well as _Into Darkness_ did both, however, seem to have an issue I couldn't overlook in common. And that is that both essentially feel like an incredibly drawn out episode of a TV show. And I've seen next to nothing of the old _Star Trek_ series, so it's not from that sort of a view I've come to have this feeling. It's just a sort of unshakable notion I developed after a few minutes from the start during each film. Even in this aspect, _Into Darkness_ is a slight improvement on its forebear.
This new _Star Trek_ film is, unfortunately, riddled with plot holes. Some... Or at least one, is completely unforgivable. They're not enough to ruin the film per se, but it does make me wonder about Abram's ability to be a showrunner in the future if he can't even handle _Star Trek_. Right from the get go I had questions that could have easily been answered with only a couple of lines of dialogue's worth of effort. Which was sad, because it cast a pall over what was, at its heart, an enjoyable piece of cinema.
Despite these issues worsening as the movie progressed, a congratulatory word does again have to go out to Abram's and his team for their tweaked timeline. Working a way in which to successfully reboot the franchise, without belittling the integrity of the original was a great move (moreover, they've left themselves open for more deviations in the future, now that the concept is established). Very smart.
Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho and Anton Yelchin returning is of course a big plus for me. Completely unsurprisingly there just as fantastic as ever. But, that kind of Tumblr user would I be if I didn't give a special bit of praise to Benedict Cumberbatch (which all levity aside, is actually well earned from the Brit, who makes for a spectacular villain).
65%
-_Gimly_

Weak story for a movie with a huge budget.
Honestly, I think you will only like it if you are a Treky. In no other way you will be able to get any logic out of it and the fact that the Captain of the space ship is the first to get out to do field work.

Alita: Battle Angel packs in a lot, sometimes maybe a bit too much, but it’s still a fun ride, especially if you love action and top-notch special effects.
The movie’s a bit on the long side, and you can feel it at times, but the world James Cameron built is so detailed that the extra scenes actually add to the experience rather than taking away from it. It’s cool to see Cameron and Rodriguez work together, with Cameron handling the big-picture world-building and Rodriguez directing with his own high-energy style.
Rosa Salazar as Alita does a great job. She gives the character life and makes you care about her, even when the plot feels a bit thin. The story doesn’t quite match the level of the visuals and editing, which is a bit of a letdown because the world itself is so well-crafted.
Still, Alita’s got some powerful moments—like when she says, “I do not stand by in the presence of evil!” That line alone sums up her courage and spirit.
In the end, while Alita has its flaws, it’s definitely enjoyable. The action and effects make it worth watching, and Salazar’s performance keeps you hooked.
It might not be a perfect film, but it’s got heart, and I really enjoyed it.

Yeah, I didn't read the Manga. I was never a manga fan, but now that comic books are going the way they are... Manga is starting to look pretty good isn't it?
Anyway, it seems like a lot of the bad reviews are... political. You know, the, "people only like this because they are (insert woke insult)." and that's really not fair.
I'll go out there and admit that Alita's eyes kind of freaked me out. Too realistic, too cartoony eyes, and that left me with an unsettling feeling. It was creepy. It was creepy in the same relative way the Elves on the Shelves are creepy.
But the story comes fast and hard and leaves you very satisfied in the end. It kind of felt like Princess Monanoke kind of ending. And that is all with a story about someone that in really pretty innocent in a world that is really pretty horrific, and that is also a fun thing to watch.
But, yeah, her eyes kind of freaked me out. Aside from that, it was a totally enjoyable film. Give it a shot and ignore the politics.

**One not too terrible spoiler** This movie was full of potential. The beginning of the movie was fantastic, full of amazing James Cameronesque world building and attention to detail. Where the movie starts to go down hill is more of a suprise hole in the side walk that this movie fell down, because you don't see it coming. Up to and including the bar fight, the movie was amazing. RIGHT afterward the B team entered the cutting room floor, characters started doing things that went against their motivation, and honestly the least bit of work would have solved that, but none was put forward. It was like that for the entire last half of the movie. I DO hope there is a sequel, I would like to see that. I think it would be better.

I'm truly disappointed by critics. I just don't understand their philosophy about entertainment. This movie was a marvelous! Without knowing the source material and quizlet live, it made me interested in this world. I can't wait for the next chapter.