Directing: B+
Acting: B
Writing: B
Cinematography: A-
Editing: B+

There was a time when a sequel produced three decades after the original was a transparent cash grab easily predicted to fall on its face. Think 1998’s The Odd Couple II . Or better yet, don’t: some classic movies are better left to stand on their own. On the other hand, given the right production team, maybe even that sequel could have been made better today. In the right hands, Hollywood has the means to be far more sophisticated these days.

Such is the case with Top Gun: Maverick, a sequel 36 years in the making, and an objectively, notably superior film to the original. You don’t have to re-watch 1986’s Top Gun to fully appreciate Maverick, but it helps; it also demonstrates how the original film only barely holds up. It’s easier to imagine how novel it was three and a half decades ago, and thus how exciting and massively successful it was. But, the plot is exceedingly simple, serving mostly as (wildly successful) military propaganda.

The same could be said of this new film—and it does seem strange for me to admit how much I truly enjoyed 130 minutes of military propaganda. But, Tom Cruise’s star power cannot be denied, nor can the fact that movie stars of this sort are a dying breed. No one under the age of fifty these days falls in the same category. In a long career of countless massive hits, Tom Cruise is arguably still best known for this role as Navy pilot Maverick, and this film expertly trades on that nostalgia.

Credit must be given to director Joseph Kosinski (whose resume includes lesser fare like Oblivion, also starring Cruise), a team of writers including Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects, Edge of Tomorrow), and a team of producers including Cruise himself, for how deftly it’s done. Top Gun Maverick hits all the right beats, is expertly paced, has spectacular action sequences but is not over-stuffed with them, and even features an appropriately affectionate scene with long-ailing Val Kilmer. For fans of Top Gun, or even fans of Tom Cruise, this movie has just about anything you could ask for. One might consider Jennifer Connelly as one of only two female parts and as Maverick’s love interest to be extraneous, but I’m just happy to see an age-appropriate relationship (Cruise is 59, Connelly is 51).

Most crucially, and surprisingly, I would place Top Gun: Maverick in the same class as Mad Max Fury Road (2015), an action movie I adored because of its stunningly achieved practical stunts, with very minimal use of CGI effects. The same is the case with Maverick: the jet flight sequences were all shot inside and around real planes actually flying. The difference from what this film would have looked like shot mostly against green screens is striking, and the massive amount of work put into getting the footage proves it. The actors themselves got pilot licenses, and although they usually flew in the planes with another pilot, they were always in those planes, in the air.

Just like the previous film, the “enemy” they are up against—in this case, a uranium plant under construction in a “rogue state” strategically located to be very difficult to hit—is never named, for transparently political and particularly economic reasons: they don’t want to alienate any country where they could rake in box office revenues. In years past I might have been more cynical about this than I seem to be now. I get it. Plus, the vagueness of this “enemy” keeps the focus on the pilot characters themselves and off of any other particular nation. It may seem ironic for a movie so blatantly celebratory of a military branch, but it’s really the only way the film can work, particularly for a broad audience. This film’s massive box office take thus far bears that out.

Cruise and Kilmer are the only characters who return this time out, although Miles Teller is exceedingly well cast as “Rooster,” the resentful son of “Goose,” Maverick’s friend who (spoiler alert!) died in the previous film. Teller has arguably never disappeared so well into a role, thanks to an effective combination of a mustache much like Anthony Edwards’s had been, and a stunningly ripped physique. (That physique is displayed by most of the men filling out the “Top Gun” class this time out—with one woman, and whether that’s tokenism is up for you to decide—and yes, it’s all once again showcased in a shirtless sports montage, this time playing football on the beach.)

There remains a lot of angles by which one could criticize Top Gun: Maverick, but mileage will certainly vary. I was so genuinely entertained by it, I’m not much inclined to complain. I would hesitate to say this film has any particular point of view beyond “flying fighter jets is cool and fun,” which is very much to its benefit. It’s easily enjoyed by people of all walks of life, an increasingly difficult thing to pull off. I found its action and suspense so well executed, easily more so than its predecessor, that I will likely see it again.

Overall: B+