Top Gun: Maverick

Top Gun: Maverick. The Entertainment Answer contributor Rusty Ryan – Linkedin | does a deep dive into Top Gun:Maverick. Therapy for him. A great read for the rest of us. He hits on so many good points as he writes about a film that quite literally took us all by surprise.

MY CONUNDRUM – TOP GUN: MAVERICK.

Rusty Ryan

Exactly what kind of voodoo is going on here? On one hand, It’s an overt retread of the original movie using the same music, same characters, and same basic storyline. It’s predictable and blatantly manipulative. Sequels rarely live up to the original, much less surpass them. But somehow Top Gun: Maverick is entertainment on a grand scale that surpasses the original 1986 Top Gun, and is one of the best movies I have seen in years. I was caught off guard and certainly not expecting such an impressive film. It seems the public agrees. As of this writing, the movie has become the sixth-highest grossing movie in domestic box office history. Its supersonic trajectory recently overtook James Cameron’s Titanic and Marvel’s Avengers: Infinity War.

So what gives? How did they pull this off? Aside from minor nuances, the storyline for both films is practically interchangeable. Consider this recap that could pass for either movie: Pete “Maverick” Mitchell is an incredibly talented fighter pilot. He possesses an aerial skill set that is so instinctual, that it’s almost otherworldly. He is also aggressively reckless and he is not above breaking the rules of engagement in a contest or a dogfight. These actions sometimes put the lives of others in danger. In addition, this “fly without thinking” nature is a source of constant consternation to his commanding officers. Most would love nothing more than to punish, demote, or remove Maverick from active duty. Yet, when they consider the very essence of their objectives, there is nobody that they would rather have on their side during an important mission. Our protagonist also suffers from internal demons, including strong feelings of guilt. This conflict is a threat to him, his team, his mission, and his love interest. In the end, Maverick must pull himself together and fully engage in a way that ensures team unity, making it possible to defeat a formidable (but unnamed) enemy. And if that is not enough, this purification must also help him get the girl that is very close to getting away.

So why is this carbon copy sequel superior to the original? I should be able to watch a movie and then report on whether the film succeeds as entertainment. That’s the easy part. But more importantly, I should be able to provide logical opinions on how, and why, the film achieves such praise or condemnation. As of now, just classify me as equal parts perplexed, befuddled, and flummoxed.

I also work at a local movie theater. Top Gun: Maverick has been playing here non-stop since late May. For the first two weeks, it played to packed viewings in our largest theater, which sports a 50-foot screen. When other summer blockbusters like Jurassic World: Dominion and Lightyear arrived a few weeks later, Top Gun: Maverick was relegated to smaller screens to give the newest releases the prime theater and maximum seating capacity. But as interest in those movies wained, Top Gun: Maverick was still consistently filling the seats. It became evident that the fighter jet epic needed to be moved back to our biggest screen. About a month into the movie’s run, I started to make a point to ask all ticket holders if this was their first viewing of the Tom Cruise film. Almost every person had seen it at least once or had the movie recommended to them by someone else. And some were even on their third or fourth trip. There was also a notable contingent who had seen the original as well as the latest installment and were now bringing their children to see this one. It reminded me of the “generational passing of the torch” that Star Wars fans are sharing by taking their children and grandchildren to see the latest installments in the space saga. I could sense something more was at play here than just movie-goers seeking good entertainment.

THE ORIGINAL 1986 FILM.

It’s important to look back at the original Top Gun starring Tom Cruise and directed by the late Tony Scott. Using the original as a baseline might prove beneficial when trying to analyze the “secret sauce” that has made the sequel so successful. The 1986 film did not end up on any critic’s Top Ten lists, but it was the highest-grossing movie of that year. Box office receipts aside, Top Gun was also an important film because it became a highly influential cultural phenomenon. During his 1986 syndicated TV show, film critic Gene Siskel jokingly suggested that the Navy put an officer in the lobby of every theater because of the recruiting potential of the film. Weeks later, the Navy did just that. Enlistment in the Navy skyrocketed by 500% that summer. The film also influenced a few fashion trends: flight jackets flew off the racks and sales of Aviator sunglasses by Ray-Ban rose 40%. Interestingly, it was only a few years earlier that Cruise had sported Ray-Ban’s Wayfarer sunglasses in Risky Business, resulting in a similar spike in sales.

The film itself was pitch-perfect summer action escapism. Crisply directed by Tony Scott, who chose to forgo his usual visual flair instead of a straightforwardly presented tale. Missing are his usual quick edits, dissolves, constantly moving camera and the grainy over-exposed scenes that populate many of his films. But there are some flashes of his signature visual moments like the opening sequence featuring the crew of an aircraft carrier working as jets take off and land, or the sweaty, sun-drenched beach volleyball scene filmed like an MTV music video. The areal combat scenes are spectacular, especially those containing striking shots achieved by mounting the cameras on the speeding jets. This technique gave audiences an exciting point of view and one they had never experienced in fighter jet movies.

Tom Cruise delivers a solid performance as the larger-than-life fighter pilot Maverick. It’s obvious that young Cruise was already comfortable in front of the camera and this movie cemented him as an A-list star. And aside from a few missteps, he has kept a tight hold on that title for over 35 years. The supporting cast was a nice batch of young acting talent who would soon use this film as a calling card for bigger roles. Val Kilmer is mesmerizing as Maverick’s cocky nemesis, Iceman. And while Iceman’s arrogance makes him seem like the villain, Iceman is also a gifted pilot and a more mature decision maker. Iceman correctly recognizes that Maverick’s unconventional flying style could pose a threat to the team. Kelly McGillis held her own opposite Cruise as Maverick’s love interest and instructor. Anthony Edwards plays Goose, Maverick’s fun-loving navigator, and a loyal friend. Meg Ryan, in the role that put her on the map, is Goose’s wife, and ultimately his grieving widow. Also, watch for other soon-to-be-recognized young actors Adrian Pasdar and John Stockwell. The final battle includes a young Tim Robbins, who played Cruise’s replacement navigator. All this new Hollywood talent was balanced by some noteworthy character actors. These include Tom Skerrit, Michael Ironside, and the always enjoyable James Tolkan.

The soundtrack album was a huge success boasting over 9 million copies sold. The musical score featured addictive, synth-infused music from composer Harold Faltermeyer. His recognizable keyboard style was responsible for another very popular soundtrack just a few years earlier when it was featured in Beverly Hills Cop. The soundtrack also featured multiple pop hits: “Danger Zone” sung by Kenny Loggins and “Take My Breath Away” sung by Berlin. The latter went on to win the Oscar for best original song. Older pop songs were also given new life such as the karaoke classic “You’ve Lost That Lovin’ Feelin’” sung by The Righteous Brothers.

And if all that is not enough, this film is also credited with popularizing personal ownership of home videos. For those of us who remember the early days of the VHS phenomenon, all new tapes were priced around $100 and were sold mainly to video stores. The only economical way to obtain a copy of a movie was to rent it from a store or tape it off a cable-TV broadcast. Top Gun changed that. It sold for a retail price of just $30 because of an ad by Pepsi Cola at the beginning of the tape. This promotion was so successful that all other VHS manufacturers reduced their prices and soon buying these tapes to own became a common practice.

THE 2022 SEQUEL

As stated earlier, the sequel sports an overabundance of similarities with the original. Both movies not only exist in the same universe, but these twins also share the same DNA. The opening credits of Top Gun: Maverick are practically a shot-by-shot match to the 1986 film. This includes the same score, fonts, edits, pacing, and scenes of a support crew on the deck of a carrier as planes take off and land. All this is again showcased with the pulsating sound of “Danger Zone”. As the film starts, our hero is still choosing to politely ignore orders, risk his safety, and push another multi-million dollar aircraft to the breaking point. And no self-respecting Top Gun opening segment would be complete without some form of Maverick’s well-known “fly by”.

Knowledge of the 1986 Top Gun storyline is by not a requirement as the new film provides ample flashback scenes. These clips from the first film ensure that all the vital story elements of the 1986 film are covered. In the new movie, our hero Maverick is still the risk taker, but the years have matured and settled him down a little. Gone is that impulsive chaotic nature due to his inability to contain all of his combustible energy. But that “holding back” does not apply to his flying. Maverick is still the cocky, self-assured pilot, and has no trepidations about challenging the limits of his aircraft, or himself. He still respects his commanding officers and never tries to deflect any condemnation that is directed toward him as a result of his actions. For the past 35 years Maverick has been constantly on the brink of expulsion, but fortunately happens to have a very important person on his side. Surprisingly, that would be his old rival, Tom ‘Iceman’ Kazansky (again played by Val Kilmer). Iceman is now an Admiral, and his insight into Maverick’s unique skills is what has kept Maverick’s career alive for so long.

Like he has done numerous times in the past, Iceman pulls Maverick’s neck off the chopping block to train a specially selected group of young and talented jet pilots on a nearly impossible mission. We are reminded early in the film that Maverick still is dealing with feelings of guilt from the death of Goose. To complicate matters, Goose’s son happens to be one of the young pilots that Maverick is charged to train. Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw (Miles Teller) blames Maverick for his father’s death. An already emotionally charged situation becomes a minefield as Maverick seeks Rooster’s forgiveness, while he ponders sending this young lieutenant on a mission where the odds of survival are relatively low.

As if that is not enough, Maverick is reunited with a special person from his past, Penny Benjamin, played by Jennifer Connelly. She has felt the sting of Maverick’s impulsive nature before and is in no hurry to reconnect with him. But the years have changed Maverick, who now finds himself having legitimate feelings for her. These feelings start to shake his “lone wolf” bedrock. He senses that there is someone out there who can provide a safe emotional shelter for him as he is faced with his inevitable end as a Navy pilot. The sequel not only showcases numerous emotional situations but also chooses to dive deeper into them. Gone is the “music video” style that was present in the original which tended to gloss over some of the intimate moments. Maverick and Penny are given time to grow feelings for each other and their connection seems real.

The movie makes good on a much-anticipated reunion between Cruise and Kilmer. What begins as a fan boy’s dream, quickly becomes genuinely emotional. After all these years of build-up, a lessor filmmaker could have easily mishandled this scene. But director Joseph Kosinski (Oblivion) mixes just enough verbal communication with close-up shots of each actor’s facial expressions. This task is more impressive when considering Iceman is essentially suffering from the same type of throat cancer that has left Kilmer without the use of his voice in real life. A heavy-handed approach would have come across as pandering and opportunistic. In the end, we are left wanting more of the two together, but nonetheless satisfied with the moment.

Cruise’s name gets top billing on all marketing materials, but the real star of the film is its ultra-realistic flying sequences that involve real aircraft. Cameras mounted on the outside of the jets provide exhilarating high-definition imagery as the F-18s speed past mountains and other natural landmarks. Some of the most exciting supersonic sequences come from inside the cockpit. The actors are being rocketed through the sky with such momentum, that the G-forces have a noticeable effect on their expressions, breathing, and speaking. This adds to the realism of the scenes. The actors trained for three months to help them handle the effects of flying in a fighter jet. And it comes as no surprise that Tom Cruise does some of his flying stunts. The World War II P-51 Mustang that Maverick is shown tinkering with, and flying, is Tom Cruise’s personal airplane.

Three new screenwriters collaborated on the sequel including Christopher Macquarie, the writer who penned the masterfully deceptive crime epic, The Usual Suspects. The writers studied the original Top Gun script because of the vast amount of references that have been incorporated in the new movie. These callbacks are impressive as they include the obvious, as well as the seemingly insignificant. Dialogue that came across as throwaway comments in the original is expanded in the sequel. We will explore many of those specifics in the next section because it’s this attention to detail that contribute to the success of this film.

Cruise’s performance is solid. Much like his character of Maverick, his acting ability has matured. He has more control of his body movements and can communicate feelings using minimal changes via facial expressions. In acting terms, Cruise still comes across as more of a traditional Hollywood “Leading Man” as opposed to a serious actor devoted to the craft. But over the years, his performances in his films have always been well above average. And it’s proven that he can shine as displayed in Magnolia. Cruise’s performance in that Paul Thomas Anderson film was nothing short of mesmerizing. He should have been awarded the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor that year. The use of seasoned actors Ed Harris and Jon Hamm adds heft to the overall story, but the viewer does feel somewhat shortchanged due to their limited screen time. Acting standouts from the talented young pilots training with Miles Teller include Monica Barbaro, Lewis Pullman, and Glen Powell.

The iconic sounds of Harold Faltermeyer’s original score are back, this time enhanced by composer Hans Zimmer. Loggin’s “Danger Zone” feels right at home, again highlighting the opening sequence on the aircraft carrier. The updated part of the soundtrack includes new contributions from Lady Gaga.

So, back to the whole reason for this exercise. How is this movie so successful? Somehow Top Gun: Maverick has delivered a superior sequel critically and financially. Its final return on investment will be staggering. The film is already shattering box office records and has yet to be released on home video. Here are three theories I have been tossing around as possible reasons for its success:

Top Gun: Maverick

NOSTALGIA & HOMAGE VS. REPETITION & APPROPRIATION.

Some Broadway purists and critics have openly disparaged the musical compositions of Andrew Lloyd Webber as repetitious and sometimes unoriginal. The thought is that he repeats certain riffs or melodic themes throughout his musicals. The official word for it is “contrafaction”. In layman’s terms, by the second or third time a particular melody is repeated within the totality of a musical work, it begins to create a “familiarity” in the mind of the listener. The result is a connection to that part of the brain that reacts positively to nostalgia. Of course, this technique also runs the risk of making the listener feel like the composer has gotten lazy because they are being fed variations of the same tune over and over. But the overwhelming comfort that comes with the familiarity we feel emotionally, often trumps the “I’ve heard this before” thoughts in our head.

When it comes to movie sequels, the key seems to be holding to the original by hitting those warm nostalgic memories in a respectful or reverential way, while providing new elements that make the latest installment feel fresh. This is an extremely hard mark to hit. Many times, these “sure-fire” sequels come across as merely uninspired attempts to cash in on the popularity of the previous hit. If viewers sometimes get the feeling that this is something they have seen before, they probably have. The trick is making the viewer respond positively to it.

When Star Trek: The Motion Picture picture opened in 1979, it was greeted with unenthusiastic reviews from critics and fans alike. The scale and production budget of the movie were massive. This resulted in a long, overly complicated story, that added many new elements. The pace was a far cry from the tightly produced, hour-long segment shown every week on television. The film still featured the original cast that an entire generation of television viewers had grown to love, but they became lost within the grand scale of the film. Long-beloved characters came across as detached and this affected the emotional connection that the TV viewer had grown to expect. Although the film did return more than twice its original budget, fans were not clamoring for another installment, and the studio had similar trepidations.

Thankfully, in 1982, a second film in the series was released. This time they played small ball. They simplified the story, drastically reduced the budget, and added more of the fast-paced action that fans were used to. But most importantly, they went back to the roots of Star Trek in a cleverly respectful way. The filmmakers played the nostalgia card by pulling from a single episode of the 1967 season called “Space Seed”. It featured a villian named Khan, just one of the countless foes that Captain Kirk had bested over the years. The use of Khan (played by Ricardo Montalban in both the TV episode and the film) proved to be the perfect spark of nostalgia that saved the franchise. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan made seven times its original budget and became the most beloved, and highly-rated movie in the series.

When it comes to sequels, devotees of the original can usually tell if the latest installment comes from a place of respect or profiteering. Movies often become very personal because of the emotions they create. In what doesn’t seem like a big ask, the viewer is simply expecting a repeat of the original positive emotional experience. Unfortunately, most sequels come across as nothing more than a carbon copy of the first installment. The experience can include familiar elements, but most feel like they were assembled on the movie production conveyor belt. Because expectations were high, this letdown amplifies the negative experience.

Top Gun: Maverick is nothing, if not reverential. It’s practically a celluloid museum proudly displaying everything that has become iconic within that universe. But not all of this art is painted on massive canvasses or sculpted as life-size statues. Many are very subtle or cleverly hidden. Unless you are looking, you might not even notice most of them. It’s everywhere in the visual: photos, dialogue, wall plaques, clothing, and vehicles. Those touches of the “familiar” are also embedded throughout the audio: musical score, pop tunes, and music cues. Here are a few of the audio and visual call-backs. None of these were by chance. They were elaborately planned and executed:

The Duplicate Opening Sequence – As mentioned before, everything in the opening credits is a shot-by-shot and sound-by-sound redo of the original four-minute sequence. The only difference rests in the names of the new cast and crew, but amazingly, it seems as fresh as it did 36 years ago.

Penny Benjamin – Maverick’s new love interest (Jennifer Connelly) was limited to a few casual lines in the original movie. Maverick and Goose have a short chuckle when remembering Maverick’s’ relationship with Penny, who happened to be the Admiral’s daughter. Meg Ryan also mentions her in a short sentence. Her role has now been expanded to a central figure that doesn’t seem forced.

The Bell Chime From The Soundtrack – Let’s admit it, that specific note hit by the bell chimes at the beginning of Harold Faltermeyer’s soundtrack tune “Top Gun Anthem” will forever be synonymous with the Top Gun brand. That single bell chime on a blank screen alerts the viewer that it’s “Go Time”. That familiar bell cue is used overtly and subliminally throughout the film. Sometimes it’s loud, signifying a dramatic scene transition. Other times the use is much more subtle but still powerful. One example is when Ed Harris, who plays a Rear Admiral, is begrudgingly forced to tell Maverick he’s going back to Top Gun. At that moment, that bell sounds as Cruise’s eyes become full of life. And the audience is sharing the same emotion in unison along with Maverick.

He is finally going back. And after 36 years, so are we.

The Clothing – Yep, it’s all back. Aviator sunglasses, flight helmets with those cool fighter pilot names, and the leather flight jacket covered with all the patches. If you just focused on the pilot’s wardrobe, you would be hard-pressed to differentiate 1986 from 2022.

“Talk To Me Goose” – As cliche as it seems, the use of the phase from the original feels right when a distressed Maverick resorts to using it again. As a bonus, Rooster gets his turn when he seeks Goose’s guidance with “Talk to me Dad”.

The Vehicles – Of course, there is flying galore and this go-round provides a multitude of high-tech aircraft, as well as a World War II plane. Maverick’s motorcycle seems unchanged. It comes in handy as he appears to be the only person able to get his motorcycle onto a restricted area for another chance to race a jet aircraft speeding down the runway.

“Buzzing The Tower” – The storied fantasy of many aviators: making a high speed, low altitude pass by the control tower. Also, known as a “Fly by” or High-Speed Pass”. Well, duh! This is essentially standard equipment in any self-respecting Top Gun movie! The high-speed pass on the aircraft carrier tower happened to be the first F-14 footage shot for the original movie.

“Great Balls of Fire” – In the original Anthony Edwards as Goose plays the Jerry Lee Lewis tune on the piano at a bar to everyone’s enjoyment. Actor Miles Teller (playing Goose’s son) also plays the tune to a raucous crowd of fellow pilots in their watering hole. Teller taught himself to play “Great Balls of Fire” on the piano so he wouldn’t require a double.

Sand Sports as Team Builders – Midway into the film we get the mandatory sport-themed outdoor team-building music montage. This time the location has moved from a volleyball in a sandpit to football on the beach. Sweaty, shirtless (only the males) pilots run, throw, laugh, battle and bond. It still works.

“Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer Films” – The film brandishes a “Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer Films” logo. This was done to honor Don Simpson, the late friend and producing partner of Jerry Bruckheimer. Simpson had long championed a Top Gun sequel but unfortunately passed away before it became a reality.

Original Director Tony Scott Tribute – As if all that previous heart-tugging nostalgia isn’t enough, the final scene offers one more sprinkle-covered donut for the road: Maverick and Penny flying into the sunset in the P-51 Mustang, transitioning to photos of Maverick and Goose next to a photo of Maverick with Rooster, and then a final title card simply saying “In Memory of Tony Scott”. Amen.

REBELS WITH AND WITHOUT A CAUSE.

Whether we can openly admit it or not, we love rooting for the rebel. That person who stands apart from everyone else by openly ignoring the conventional rules of conformity. While we usually choose not to take the same actions in our jobs, lives, or relationships, we practically lionize that independent spirit who does. This is the person who does or says things we wish we could do. Over the years, cinema has been filled with countless variations of the “rebel” story. And when their motivation is for the greater good, we can overlook the protagonist’s character flaws, especially when it produces a beneficial outcome.

In some cases, it’s rebelling for its own sake. A memorable example is the 1953 Marlon Brando movie The Wild One. Brando plays the leader of a motorcycle gang that forcefully occupies and terrorizes a small town. About mid-movie, the leather-clad Brando is asked what he is rebelling against. “What have you got?” Is his simple answer.

On other occasions, the source of the rebellion is unknown. In the 1955 movie Rebel Without a Cause, James Dean was acting out, much to the bewilderment of his parents. Dean’s character was also desperately searching for the reason that caused his angst and behavior. Ultimately, it turned out to be just a normal part of dealing with the emotions, and uncertainty associated with growing up.

Another frequently-used rebel storyline involves school teachers who are charged with inspiring students that have proven to be a challenge to previous instructors. Conventional teaching methods just don’t reach those kids, and the protagonists are forced to use creative, albeit non-traditional, methods to turn them around. Many times these methods break long-established rules and cause concern among administrators or parents. The late ’80s was chock-full of many of these movies, including the 1988 film Stand and Deliver with Edward James Olmos. 1989 gave us two more with a similar subject matter: Dead Poets Society starring Robin Williams, and Lean on Me with Morgan Freeman.

But the example of a rule breaker that might be the closest to our fly-boy Maverick is Dirty Harry Callahan from the franchise that started with Dirty Harry in 1971. The long-running Clint Eastwood series of films featured an internally tortured cop who already knew which criminals needed to be locked up, beaten up, or just blown away. But all those pesky rules and procedures that he was expected to afford the bad guys kept getting in his way. In his mind, his methods were better and more efficient. And while we root for his successes, the behavior also has many downsides. These include the constant frustration of his superiors, openly guilty criminals getting off on technicalities, and the burden of court cases involving civil rights was usually costly to the taxpayers. In personal terms, this behavior usually resulted in putting those closest to him in danger.

Maverick might not be packing a 357 Magnum and is more of a respectful “ask for forgiveness instead of permission” type of person. But Maverick has much in common with the Eastwood character. Maverick is certainly a “rebel with a cause” just like Inspector Callahan. While his methods don’t sit right with his commanding officers, Maverick instinctively knows the best and most efficient way to achieve a goal. And in his mind, the result is more important than following the approved process. His actions put many in his orbit in danger and he certainly has a knack for costing the taxpayers lots of money when it comes to his multi-million dollar aircraft.

AMERICANA AND TODAY’S POLITICALLY CHARGED CLIMATE.

You’d have to be living under a rock if you haven’t noticed that political discourse in this country has been turned up to 11. People are screaming at each other on every form of social media. This constant and exasperating drumbeat has many wishing for a simpler time, or at least a less combative one. Top Gun: Maverick provides a two-hour respite that is sorely needed. There is still plenty of conflicts, but there are established guardrails and absolutes to keep everyone on task. Most of the tough decisions come with answers grounded in black and white. The movie makes no pretense. It’s not curing cancer or sounding the bullhorn heralding social change. It is simply attempting to pull everyone together for a positive shared experience. It openly avoids all those flammable subjects that have managed to tear this country into angry factions. Instead, it focuses on life, death, sacrifice, loyalty, passion, respect, love, friendship, teamwork, dedication, love of country, and course, “The Need For Speed!” Perhaps it’s that simple.

SO, THEREFORE . . .

After all those gyrations, my quest to find the hidden recipe that makes Top Gun: Maverick exceed expectations still do not have closure. But, the process of researching various theories is not without its benefits. I am walking away with one insight: All this processing over filmed entertainment can be exhausting. For this movie, maybe it’s time to just shut off the analytical part of the brain and let the film dictate the emotions. It can be a wonderful ride when a talented filmmaker takes the wheel of the car. We don’t have to be responsible for the route. All we have to do is look out the window and experience the scenery that the driver chooses to provide. Director Kosinski has hit the bullseye on a target that often gets completely missed. He has delivered a sequel that respectfully (and lovingly) embraces the original while elevating the original brand to new heights.

Over the past century, movies have been a powerful voice heralding enlightenment, social change, and cultural revolutions. They also champion highly emotional cathartic journeys. They are an important part of our lives. But do not downplay the importance of mindless escapism and predictability as well. Top Gun: Maverick is still held over at many theaters and is now being pulled back for special “Appreciation” runs. So get out of that comfortable home cocoon that the past two years has created. Go see Top Gun: Maverick in an actual movie theater. Do not settle for streaming a sub-par viewing on your iPhone, computer, or television. If we ever needed an example, Top Gun: Maverick embodies everything on the checklist when listing the reasons we go to movies.

The success of this movie will likely prompt Hollywood executives to consider the resurrection of other older “classics”. Most will be subject to eye-rolling, but that won’t stop it from happening. Knowing this, I am formally putting in my request for someone to start planning a sequel and gathering up the original cast of The Goonies. Take my money now!

About The Author