Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings318
Indian_Analyst's rating
Reviews42
Indian_Analyst's rating
The Top Gun (1986) never needed a second part, as the first part ended beautifully.
However, I suspect that the modern-day fighter aircraft industry needed a movie, which could retain the interest of fighter aircraft in the era of drones, resulting in this movie.
The plot is interesting (giving concession to the fact that it is a fiction), making it a definite watch at least once. The acting of the major characters befit appreciation. The stunt choreography is as good as the first part. In short, the movie lived up to the hope provided by the trailers released at least a year back.
End note: - The movie was made to show the necessity of using fighter aircraft in modern day warfare. However, the mission undertaken by the hero and his team, can only be best executed by weaponised drones. That will be the greatest irony and a question that will haunt every military aviation expert long after watching the movie.
However, I suspect that the modern-day fighter aircraft industry needed a movie, which could retain the interest of fighter aircraft in the era of drones, resulting in this movie.
The plot is interesting (giving concession to the fact that it is a fiction), making it a definite watch at least once. The acting of the major characters befit appreciation. The stunt choreography is as good as the first part. In short, the movie lived up to the hope provided by the trailers released at least a year back.
End note: - The movie was made to show the necessity of using fighter aircraft in modern day warfare. However, the mission undertaken by the hero and his team, can only be best executed by weaponised drones. That will be the greatest irony and a question that will haunt every military aviation expert long after watching the movie.
I am truly disappointed for wasting my time for a series that came with high expectations.
With respect to the story, I am appalled. It is clear that the writer hasn't bothered about the necessity of common sense in such stories. I strongly suspect that the writer changed the story midway for a possible sequence. At the end you will wonder whether the series is comedy or tragedy or spy-fiction.
As far as acting is concerned, I give only two people the credit for a reasonable appreciation. They are Fivel Stewart (Hannah Copeland) and Kristian Bruun (Janus Ferber). For the remaining actors, they resembled some characters of other actors. For example, Laura Haddock looked like Angelina Jolie (in the movie Salt) and Kaylah Zander looked like Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
In short, the series is meant for those who are in their late teens, especially when they have fancy imagination about clandestine services.
With respect to the story, I am appalled. It is clear that the writer hasn't bothered about the necessity of common sense in such stories. I strongly suspect that the writer changed the story midway for a possible sequence. At the end you will wonder whether the series is comedy or tragedy or spy-fiction.
As far as acting is concerned, I give only two people the credit for a reasonable appreciation. They are Fivel Stewart (Hannah Copeland) and Kristian Bruun (Janus Ferber). For the remaining actors, they resembled some characters of other actors. For example, Laura Haddock looked like Angelina Jolie (in the movie Salt) and Kaylah Zander looked like Mary Elizabeth Winstead.
In short, the series is meant for those who are in their late teens, especially when they have fancy imagination about clandestine services.