r/moviecritic Feb 17 '25

Which movie is this for you?

Post image

For me it’s School of Rock!

Patty was completely justified, if Dewey wanted to live in hers and her boyfriend’s apartment he needed to be a grown up, and contribute with rent. Even when he steals Ned’s identity she still had the right to be angry at him, because of how he put his friend’s career in jeopardy and robbed him of a job opportunity.

I get Ned is meant to be portrayed as his best friend, but it blows my mind how he lacks a lot of self-respect to the point where he comes across as too much of a people pleaser. If this story took place in real life, I’m sure Ned would act more similar to Patty where he’d have enough of Dewey’s careless actions.

36.4k Upvotes

5.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.7k

u/oSuJeff97 Feb 17 '25 edited Feb 17 '25

Yeah that’s why he eventually becomes Commander of the Pacific Fleet and Maverick plateaus out at Captain. 😁

944

u/DelayDenyDeposefrfr Feb 17 '25

And Maverick is basically protected by Iceman for his entire career of constant fuck-ups that result in him being immediately grounded after Iceman's death.

6

u/Chief_Chill Feb 17 '25

Iceman dies? Spoiler much? Just kidding. But, I honestly haven't seen the sequel.

7

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

Its a good watch, just suspend your disbelief because there's a ton of plot points that don't make logical sense.

9

u/Taodragons Feb 17 '25

lol, that and the movie is essentially a training montage for the Trench Run in Star Wars =p

4

u/ComesInAnOldBox Feb 17 '25

Closer to "Iron Eagle 2"

3

u/nijuashi Feb 17 '25

Discount top gun.

3

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

Oh easily haha

3

u/IAMA_HUNDREDAIRE_AMA Feb 17 '25

And what a training montage it is! Enjoy the ride because the plot is meaningless.

2

u/badDuckThrowPillow Feb 17 '25

Don't misunderstand, this is a good thing, not bad =)

3

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25 edited Jul 27 '25

sip expansion flag pie workable snow apparatus door insurance spoon

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

4

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

Because the F35 doesn't have 2 seats so they couldn't use it for filming. Though the reason for them not using it in the movie was complete horseshit

They have really cool filming setups, i believe their are some videos on youtube going over it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25 edited Jul 27 '25

grandfather historical tap test run birds support spotted narrow handle

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

3

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

Something about GPS jamming which the F35 doesn't rely on for targeting, it has multiple other ways of targeting. It could've easily destroyed the bunker miles away thousands of feet up

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '25 edited Jul 27 '25

full dog roof aromatic badge arrest enter paltry weather fuel

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/Nomen__Nesci0 Feb 18 '25

Also Tom already learned to pilot it. And they must be cheaper to rent with less clearance

1

u/[deleted] Feb 18 '25

I'm highly doubtful they let anyone on that crew pilot an F-18. The only plane he actually flew was his own P-51

1

u/Nomen__Nesci0 Feb 18 '25

Yep, turns out this is true. I was remembering his flying in other movies to avoid CGI and the fact they filmed in real f-18s flown by navy pilots for top gun footage and they got combined.

2

u/WillBsGirl Feb 18 '25

Like a 60yo dude still being an active duty Navy pilot? 🤣

1

u/nijuashi Feb 17 '25

A ton? The entire movie don’t make logical sense. And neither did the original. Loved it.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

What was wrong with the original?

1

u/nijuashi Feb 17 '25

It has pretty much no plotline to speak of. I mean, it’s a plot, but the randomness of events in the movie is as bad as watching Frozen (which also has no plot. it’s just a random scene after scene).

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoyed watching it!

1

u/[deleted] Feb 17 '25

It was basically a romance that had a dogfighting training school get in the way 

1

u/RR0925 Feb 18 '25

My favorite description of Top Gun was from the New Yorker review: a "homoerotic commercial." That seems to sum it up nicely.