I’m not a big fan of remakes and reboots, especially when they come 36 years after the original. So, despite my admiration for Tom Cruise and fondness for Top Gun, I admit I was a little hesitant when Top Gun: Maverick was first announced. All of my fears were dispelled in the first ten minutes of the movie. Top Gun: Maverick is a well-made, visually stunning film that reminds us all why Tom Cruise is a superstar. The film has flaws, most notably the use of predictable tropes, but it never becomes tedious. It’s a magnificent film that harkens back to the days of megastars and blockbusters, before both terms were supplanted by superhero movies.

Tom became a celebrity after starring in the 1986 film Top Gun. It depicted Maverick’s character enrolling in Top Gun, an elite training school for US Naval aviators, and how he learns to trust his instincts and work as part of a team. It introduced us to Goose, his comrade, and Iceman, his foe-turned-friend. The sequel to 1986’s Top Gun is called Top Gun: Maverick. Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell, the protagonist, is now a US Navy veteran. He should have been an admiral by now, based on his service record, but he is still a Captain (or as he reminds everyone, a highly-decorated Captain). Iceman (Val Kilmer), his old pal, is now an admiral, and he assigns him to a mission that takes him back to Top Gun. Maverick now has a near-impossible mission to train a group of young Top Gun graduates. The catch is that the group includes Bradley ‘Rooster’ Bradshaw, the son of Maverick’s late wingman Goose, with whom he has a tense relationship.

Top Gun: Maverick doesn’t offer anything groundbreaking in terms of plot. It can be formulaic and clichéd at times. The protagonists are archetypes that we’ve seen before. And, unlike the F-18s and scramjets on display, the plot twists are obvious from a mile away. Despite this, the film is entertaining. Yes, it’s predictable. No, it’s not boring!

The battered veteran, the prodigal son, the underdog, and even a ‘forbidden’ romance are all used in Maverick, and they are all used well. It neatly and tightly packages them in a well-made presentation, ensuring that they do not appear dated or stale. That is why Maverick is successful. It is still current and relevant. Yes, you are served old wine in a new bottle in this film. The bottle, on the other hand, is sparkling, and the wine has never tasted better, making the entire experience quite enjoyable. Director Joseph Kosinski has done an excellent job of maintaining the Top Gun feel while incorporating newer elements. My only criticism is that, if they were so eager to include so many throwbacks to the original, they should have included Take My Breath Away as well. Maverick feels unfinished without ‘his’ song.

It’s difficult not to draw parallels between Maverick and the original, especially since the film opens with the same soundtrack and evokes nostalgia with the familiar setting and Maverick’s trusty Kawasaki. Despite being pitted against one of cinema’s most iconic films, Maverick emerges victorious. The sequel is not a better film, but it succeeds in completing a far more difficult task: tying up loose ends and bringing a nearly four-decade-long story arc to a close. Maverick is about redemption and comebacks, if Top Gun was about coming of age. It brings Maverick to a crossroads in his life and career, where he recognises that he is running out of time but is unsure how to let go. Tom Cruise has done an excellent job of capturing the character’s obstinacy and charm. In addition, he has allowed Maverick to mature and become wiser over time. Despite the larger-than-life setting, he comes across as relatable, and the audience will quickly warm to him.

The supporting cast delivers competent performances. However, Tom outshines them, partly due to his natural screen presence and partly due to the writing not allowing them to do much. This is one area where the sequel falls short of the prequel. Here, the supporting characters aren’t as well developed. We know very little about their lives and motivations, with the exception of Rooster. They’re archetypeps, and they’re here to help Maverick’s arc progress. Despite the limitations, the actors, especially Miles Teller as Rooster and Lewis Pullman as Hangman, perform admirably. Penny Benjamin, Maverick’s new love interest, is played by Jennifer Connelly (an in-universe joke for anyone who has seen Top Gun). But there aren’t any sparks between Penny and Pete. Despite their limited screen time, veteran actors Jon Hamm and Ed Harris deliver strong performances, while Val Kilmer’s cameo is nothing more than good fan service.

The film’s true selling point is its breathtaking aerial sequences and cinematography. It was refreshing to see some real action, especially in fighter jets, in an age where we have become accustomed to CGI magic. In terms of visual aesthetic and thrill of dogfights, Top Gun: Maverick easily outperforms its predecessor. In fact, it’s not an exaggeration to say that it may even rival Hell’s Angels in terms of aerial sequences’ novelty. The fight scenes are more thrilling and exciting than any extravagant stunt seen in Hollywood in a long time. They give you goosebumps and have elicited gasps of admiration on several occasions. It’s easy to see why Tom Cruise was adamant about delaying the film’s release for a big-screen release after seeing them.

In some ways, the movie is a meta-homage to Tom Cruise’s life and career. It may be unclear to the current generation why he is such a big deal, but he was once the most recognisable face on the planet, a screen icon. A slew of superheroes from the Marvel and DC stables have taken his place atop Hollywood’s summit over the last decade or so. Tom Cruise’s last-ditch effort to stay in the game is Top Gun: Maverick. “The future is here, and you’re not in it,” an admiral tells the ageing Maverick in a scene early in the film. “Perhaps so, sir!” says the hero, smiling. But that’s not the case today.” For me, the exchange encapsulates the film’s purpose. The man dubbed “the last superstar” has stated that he will not leave without a (dog)fight.