I think you're right Daniel. It's certainly not the best film we'll ever see but it's such a thrill ride or complete nonsense that we can't help but like it. Hard to believe but someone just claimed that this was a negative review. There are still some idiots out there! John.

@@moviecollector5920 you were kinda tough on it if we're being honest. The non-IMAX scenes, comparison to Tenet, and just stating that its better than the original is big negative by itself (which I definitely disagree with).

@@itsneight1260 Lol, if you want those fake reviews that don't want to anger die hard fans like you search elsewhere. He has to be honest about which looks better to him and the fact that the film is cheesy fun

Yes! I saw it twice in theaters and twice at home now. It is so good and so refreshing compared to what is out these days.

The box office would confirm what you've said there Timothy. John.

me too! once in imax and once normal. Imax for the win! I'm glad the disc has the imax scenes

I can well imagine how good Maverick looked and sounded after such an expense Scott but I bet it was worth every penny... or even, every cent! A couple of comments on here haven't much enjoyed this film but most of us seem to love it. Maybe it requires a decent home system to fully appreciate it, or a semi-decent cinema. John.

I saw it twice in theaters too! Well, if there's a movie to upgrade your home theater for, this is it!

Yep, we found exactly the same. The only difference being that the cinema we saw it in was in a room in this house! We did have a cocktail and a pizza beforehand just to make an evening of it though. Hic! John.

I think we'll all agree with you there Jonas. Well said. John.

​​@@moviecollector5920 Thank you, John. And great review as always. Jonas.

The original score/music soundtrack was way better no way this sequel is selling records/digital sales/plays like the original. Also the character that dies in both the loss in the first one hits harder on a plot point stance. Also considering the original was directed by Tony Scott I don't think that look of film and speed of the cuts can really be captured so kind of a different movie in terms of its accomplishment vs today's polished filled spectacular the other was more raw feeling in its angles and cockpit style shots. Overall the sequel hits on every front but lacking in Soundtrack/Score and perception of reality especially the first and last flight scenes of the sequel.

@@Tidbitkid I think the original is a better film but this one is a better thrill ride. I liked the use of the original soundtrack though even if it does mean there won't be so many LP's sold. Do we still call them LP's? Maybe it was CD's in 1986. John.

To surpass is to be greater than, that's fine if its your opinion though both films are awesome, they're both great at reflecting the times they were made. It is however one of those rare . awesome sequels, it's what James Cameron did with Aliens over Ridley Scott's Alien, it dosent surpass it but its a very faithful and respectful sequel. I've got to give Tony Scott a mention here, Top Gun is still one of the best live action films of the 80's, those ariel shots still amaze me!

He's currently the only person with sufficient popularity to save cinema as we know it. I think he actually knows that too judging by what he says in the Cannes Film Festival extra feature. He's always so good in everything he does. Amazing man. John.

He really has been cranking out pure quality lately!

I was one of those people that got goose bumps. I also laughed cried and held my breath at various times throughout my 3 theater viewings (first was in IMAX on opening night as well). It was the first movie I've had all of that happen in one movie maybe ever... at least ever since the first one. Hands down best movie of the year. Probably best movie of the decade unless something incredible happens.

Great memories recounted there chaps. Thank you. Films like this have to be seen on a big screen. I would have enjoyed seeing it at the BFI IMAX but didn't have the time. I expect it would have frustrated me a little though because it would have only been 4K video on that massive screen which might have been pushing it a bit. John.

This was great in IMAX! I wish I could have seen Tenet in IMAX

I think that train crash in The Fugitive took some beating back then. They were known as 'killer applications' in demonstration rooms because customers would hear the surround sound on them and then buy the whole caboodle to be able to reproduce it at home. As for the fantastic job on this 4K, there wasn't a cine to video transfer involved so it would have been a basic conversion from the video master file to go onto a 4K disc. Pretty simple process by comparison. John.

The only place I saw laser discs was at school where the teachers had documentaries on them. I have never watched a movie on laser disc.

@@MyFireVideos The cool thing was there some LD’s that had DTS like Jurassic Park, The Rock, Armageddon. Far better audio quality than any dvd I ever heard. There were even some discs that were in 1080i back in 1994

@@johnbruce4003 that's awesome. I'd love to watch one. I have watched a ton of movies on Beta tapes though! 🤣

@@MyFireVideos I remember Beta! There was a place down the street from me that rented them in the mid 80’s. There was only a few LD players that could play the 1080i discs. The best was the Pioneer HLD-X0. Never exported out of Japan. They ran about $5,000 in the mid 90’s. The converter to process the 1080i was separate. About $3,000. The discs alone ran around $120-250. Top Gun was available, T2 and a few others. LD was expensive!

I think Maverick is the better all-action, thrill ride but the original is a better film... if that makes any sense at all. I might change my mind if I watch them one after the other sometime though. When they're both as good as they are on 4K disc then who cares really? John.

I agree, it's a perfect sequel that builds on and improves upon the original while still honoring it.

Great post Itsneight, thank your for that. I suspect the original is a better film but Maverick is the better thrill ride. It's going to take a while to ascertain if that is actually true but at least it's a good excuse to have a 4K double-bill of both movies sometime soon and I'm sure you'll be doing that too. Maverick may not really be an IMAX film but films like this have to be seen on huge screes and even all the faux IMAX cinemas proliferating today should facilitate that so that's a good thing despite the downgrading of the once great name. Hopefully next year Oppenheimer will get the genuine IMAX treatment so make sure you find a genuine IMAX cinema with a 15/70 print for that one even if you have to fly there! And in that regard, see you at the BFI IMAX then! John.

@@moviecollector5920 thanks for responding John. Love your channel and content! Keep up the great work man. PS- its on my bucket list to be able to visit GB, and HMV store, and possibly see a movie there. I've never been the Europe before but want to go so bad.

@@itsneight1260 There's nowhere else in the world quite like the UK even if much of the rest of the world owes so much to it. London isn't quite the place it was 25 years ago but it's still unique as a capital city and has to be seen to be believed. Walking it is the only way to do it but it's quite a long way from the edge of the financial disstrict (the City of London) to the far reach of the West End around Harrods in Knightsbridge. Fortunately, the most successful video store in the nation is slap bang in the centre so if you haven't seen my video tour of FOPP then look that one up. The BFI IMAX is probably the top cinema in the country now and that's just the other side of the Thames so keep that in mind. Maybe I'll meet you there one day. John.

IMAX was truly an experience on this one for sure!

I can't imagine there are many people who won't enjoy this one David. It's probably even more exciting for youngsters because they haven't exactly had many films like it as it's been a staple diet of little more than comic book superhero films. John.

I love that families of all ages are watching this movie

I really appreciated using the original score and songs wherever possible. It self like a true continuation and so pleased they didn't completely mess it up like so many follow-ups do. John.

I'll be at the cinema with you Cooper! But it will have to be one of the good ones still left. John.

Yep! Don't miss IMAX if it comes back

@@MyFireVideos If it had have been an IMAX film I'd have made the time to get to the IMAX to see it but alas, only Christopher Nolan is still holding that torch now so I fear next year's Oppenheimer will be the last of them. We must all support that if arrives in genuine IMAX at any genuine IMAX cinemas anywhere near us. John.

I think you'll really enjoy all three Lauri but before you watch Tenet you'd better take at my review of that one because you won't stand a cat in hell's chance of comprehending it unless you do. I could see there was a clever, well made film in there but what on earth it was about was a mystery so I took the time to watch all the extras and went back and watched the film again. Eureka! Bloody masterpiece. Ever since then I've wanted to see it in genuine IMAX and the BFI IMAX did invite me up to see it 18 months ago when they did a one off screening but sadly I was too busy working to be able to get there. The Final Countdown is just a great flick that I dare anyone not to enjoy. It's largely forgotten now but I thought it was terrific fun right from day one. As for Tom Cruise, he's almost single-handedly keeping cinemas afloat these days. If oscars still had any merit after recent catastrophes at the awards ceremonies then I'd put him down for something but as it is, they're currently a bit of an embarrassment. Then again, he's the biggest star in the world today so he's probably not bothered about awards. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Well, I think that the Oscar gala is one BIG joke. Otherwise actors, producers like Tom Cruise should win at least once. Anyway about Tenet. I saw it in movies and I had difficult to understand all off it. My friend said he did not have difficulties - so I thought maybe I am dum. I bought Tenet UHD, but on the disk wasn't Finnish subtitles, so I have to buy it again. Some people here Finland say that C. Nolan is over rated. But I think those people don't understand that he is genius. I have all his movies. Generally I don't watch war movies, but Maverick feels more like adventure witch is full off different genres, like drama, comedy, thriller, and amazing action scenes. (..... yes and one thing I forgot to say. I have seen all of your videos and some of them many times. They are over all very helpful for person like me who does not have so much experience about filming. I am fan who collects some movies because I don't have that much money anyway. So I have to be careful).

@@laurihasko2153 Tenet is one of those films you really have to watch and then think about... and then watch it again. Once you work it all out, it's a masterpiece and quite possibly Mr. Nolan's best film to date. But Interstellar is so special it's hard to say which of the two is in the top spot. Dunkirk isn't far off either but not quite to the same level as the other two. I don't regard Top Gun: Maverick as a war film either. Thankfully, the fictitious Iranians aren't seen at all, except maybe in that attack helicopter and the jet fighters that appear during the raid, and that makes it all feel a bit anonymous and harmless. In reality, there is no way fighter bombers would be sent into an impossible location like that and instead those missiles that we see soaring past the jets would be targeted at the nuclear site rather than the runway and it would be job done. Maybe they'd be launched from the USA in the first place with no need for an aircraft carrier. Yes, it's all a complete load of nonsense but it's such good fun that it simply doesn't matter. John.

@@moviecollector5920 So in paper, it is not a mission impossible but impossible mission. Maverick uses this rogue nations word, I don't exact English word but US kind of means these axel of evil countries. Iran, Russia, North-Korea and many others. That climate, desert and mountains with snow is like Iran landscape. Maybe missiles can't hit the enemy base from the sky because they have this missile defence system. But if I remember correct, there was some reason why they have to use a little bit older fighter jets. (a war propaganda film) almost :)

@@laurihasko2153 Missile defence systems might have taken out the missiles Lauri, that's a good point. But the speed at which they fly in, I rather doubt they'd get them all. More likely is that the missiles would come straight in from above and nothing would stand much chance of stopping them. It's not a serious film in terms of having a grounding in reality but it's so much fun that none of this nonsense bothered me at all. Suspension of disbelief is fine in a film providing it's not taking itself too seriously. At least they cited Iran as the location of the requisite attack as I don't like it when film make up fictitious country names. John.

Don't turn it up too loud John otherwise something might blow a cone out. I did that once with Master & Commander but that was at the British Film Collectors Convention in the cavernous Victoria Hall in Ealing. John.

It might even sneak into the ten best 4K discs that I've seen Robert but I'd need to go through the whole process again and check the other ten or so best. I think the 2.40:1 'Scope sequences may be superior to the 1.90:1 because they've managed to reproduce the look of film in the 'Scope parts. I'd like to know how they did that but currently there is no information out there than I can find. John.

It's movies like this that make you think you always need a bigger screen. I've decided that I need a damned big barn for the job! John.

Home video projectors with laser lamphouses have come down in price so much recently David that I'm feeling the pull to visit a branch of Richer Sounds to see exactly how tempting they are. Brilliant that Top Gun: Maverick is still being screened in cinemas. There's life in cinema yet then providing the film is right. It seems that people want action adventures that have a bit of a grounding in reality rather than a comic book character in a costume... Batman, Spider-Man and Superman excepted of course though! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Finished watching your review. I'm sure when I saw it the IMAX scenes DID go full height. From ceiling to floor. Whether this means that the screen is 1.9:1 or if those scenes are 1.43:1. Will investigate it when I'm back there for Avatar on Friday. Also love Final Countdown, a favourite of my Dad and I.

@@defencemechanism The faux IMAX theatres tend to be 1.90:1 but it's possible there are some exceptions out there. IMAX as it always was, was 1.43:1 70mm film and generally known as 15/70 because the height of each frame is 15 sprockets. I believe Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' is getting a genuine IMAX release in March or April next year but I haven't checked for a while. That will necessitate establishing an IMAX is actually projecting a film before setting out. I'm confident the BFI IMAX in central London will be doing so as that's part of the British Film Institute so if they were to give up on film it would be a travesty really. And they do still have one of the country's top film enthusiast projectionists there as chief so we should be okay. John.

That is the perfect summary Frank. You should have sent me that before I recorded the review!!! John.

@@moviecollector5920 haha. Unfortunately I don't have the gift of foresight. Consult me on the next one! While I got your ear, are there any good "Battle if Britain" movies out on 4k that you would recommend? I know there is Dunkirk, but that was about a retreat. I'd like to see a victory in 4k lol. Plus I'm a huge fan of aviation. Your review of The Final Countdown was stellar too. I do have the Blu Ray of the original Top Gun, but I'm not sure if its worth it to upgrade to the 4k, because you can only do so much with the film grain, and that movie already has a great sound mix. Thanks!

@@frankbizzoco1954 HDR makes the 4K of the 1986 Top Gun rather special. Make sure the sharpness function of any telly or video projector is minimized or off and it should look very good. The sharpen function can make fine film grain look coarse which is what I think a lot of the reported problems are. My telly has to have a certain amount of sharpen on but the video projector certainly doesn't want any at all. As for a good World War 2 4K, the only other one I can think of is 'Darkest Hour' but that's probably not the type of war film you're thinking of. I don't think it's a particularly good 4K but the accuracy of how the story is told - apart from a ridiculous scene on a tube train towards the end that is there to move everything to a conclusion - is almost totally convincing. If it wasn't for what was done to get the British army and a lot of others off the beaches at Dunkirk the world might be a very different place today and that is largely the hidden story to that and what Winston Churchill went through. No wonder he nearly died from a heart attack. John.

Kef have produced some magnificent speakers. I hope they still make them in Kent in England though and haven't farmed production out to China! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Unfortunately my KEF Q5's say 'Made in China' on the back. The English adress is also printed, at the back so they are likely designed in UK but made in bloody China! I was surprised about that. I bought the KEFs secnd hand last week. I got a demo beforehand. They sound great. My partner has (more expensive) KEFs in his house, thats why i looked for that brand second hand. Its a nice upgrade of my (home cinema) sound system.

Video is certainly nothing to be embarrassed about any longer but it's funny how they're still calling it 'digital' whereas in the real world we all shoot video. There have been a number of movies shot on video now that look as good as film and this may be the best of them so far. It's not quite 70mm or IMAX but it's getting there. John.

I think digital can look cinematic if done right. This movie does it right! Dune also had an interesting path with digital as well

Paramount did at least agree to hold it back Tim but it's possible that Tom Cruise is powerful enough to put such a stipulation in his contract, however unlikely that may seem. As for cinemas today, they are pretty much all projecting video and around half of them here in the UK are 2K video so it's a bit hit and miss and therefore a bit of a risk to go to a cinema these days. Even the faux IMAX cinemas are only 4K video but they dress it up with the 'Laser' word to fool people into thinking it's laser projection when it's just the light source/lamp house. I gave up on cinema years ago owing to the decline in quality and only go today when I know a film print is being screened but they're even messing those up now (see my review of the 70mm of Death on the Nile for that as they struck the damned prints from the lowly 4K video master file!). Hopefully, Christopher Nolan's 'Oppenheimer' will help to restore my faith in cinema and what can be achieved when it arrives next year. That one should be a genuine IMAX film so I'll be first in the queue! Maybe I'll see you there if you're in the UK and can get to the BFI IMAX. John.

i suspect it's mainly the drive of Tom Cruise that enabled this film to be made and ended up the way it did. Not to say there wasn't a lot of skill, dedication and effort from many others but Mr. Cruise does seem to make the difference and the only major star still left who does seem to still make a difference. See if you find the image quality of Maverick comes close to the standards set by the movies shot on 70mm such as Tenet on your system. I should have gone through more of them but I only looked at Tenet and Orient Express and both were immediately perceptibly better on my video projector system. John.

What a night that must have been Chris. Well done. You should start a movie channel with memories to talk about like that. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Thanks for replying John! I will keep it to collecting and enjoying your channel!

@@chrisdausin And I'll enjoy having you here Chris. John.

I think you'll have a great time with it Levi. Apart from a couple of early comments on here we all appear to be really enthusiastic for Top Gun: Maverick. John.

You're in for a treat!

I lived just off the end of the runway when we had American F111's stationed here. Gawd, they were loud but so exciting to see... and hear. Didn't do my schooling a lot of good though. John.

You're going to have a great time Raymond. John.

Funnily enough railerswim, when I put the sequence from Tenet on, the sound was immediately better than Maverick through my system. But that was one sequence and may not be enitrely representative. Tenet is a cinematic treat though so that's two great 4K discs on the screen in here in one night even if I only saw a few minutes of Tenet. John.

My floor and settee shook but I was disappointed with the height channels. My amp told me that only the front tops were getting an an input and or course ditto output. My ears told the same story when I disconnected all but the surround tops. Checking other Atmos discs provided all 7.1.4 channels but TGM provided only 7.1.2. Very odd. It still sounded excellent but a mystifying minor let down.

@@malcolmknight6450 Turn the subwoofer up a bit or install a bigger subwoofer and you won't notice or even care where the sound is coming from Malcolm. Another trick is to put the original 5.1 setup speakers high on the rear wall and then you'll be enveloped in sound whatever the surround format, including original Dolby Stereo (aka ProLogic). John.

Thought the 4k was kind of warm...the audio was great though

@@HOOK_NOSE_JEW It was shot 6K video and mastered in 4K. There was no cine transfer process because it wasn't film therefore the 4K disc will surely have been a simple computer conversion to shrink it down to a file for 4K disc authoring much like we've always produced DVD's and Blu-rays. So what you're looking at is the same video that was screened in cinemas. That's a point I should make in any future reviews where the movie was shot digital video. John.

Morning James. Just coming up with a story to be able to make a film as entertaining as this was an achievement. Yes, it may be a load of nonsense but who cares when it's this entertaining and looks and sounds so good. Great fun from beginning to end. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Just watched it John, thoroughly enjoyed it again, nostalgic yet modern, Harold Faltermeyer's music is sublime, 80's music/ soundtracks I think of the "Top Gun" anthem and "Beverly Hills Cop" Axel F, classic tunes.

I think the extras were all worth while on this release.

That's a good point cburg. I don't suppose the score for this one was paramount (sorry about the awful pun there but it wasn't intentional) given the use of the original soundtrack for so much of it. He's still a great composer though so I don't suppose he minds being involved with a film but his music not being entirely dominant at the end of it. John.

The 2.40:1 sequences certainly look like film and I would really like to know how they achieved that because it was convincing. If it wasn't film then every film maker in the world who doesn't get the budget or permission to shoot on film should be using the same solution as they did in Top Gun: Maverick. Quite an achievement for a movie shot on video. John.

I think we're all much of the same opinion Paul. The new film is probably better in terms of being a non-stop thrill ride but the original is a better film from a critical standpoint. Not everyone will agree with that though and that's fine because I couldn't give a monkeys as I think they're both pretty terrific. John.

I agree!

I did actually say that in the review but it went on too long and I cut it out. I don't think they'd have done it for this movie because it's only the 'Scope sequences that have the film grain or whatever it is. There is no mention that I can find of 35mm being used but that's just what it looks like. The 6K action sequences have no visible grain at all. I wonder if they used the same camera as Le Mans '66 and it simply generates a perfect film look. If so, that's the camera all film makers should be using if they aren't shooting film. John.

For this and Fallout they didn't use that Dune process

@@vb8428 Thank Gawd for that V B. I thought the shaky cam nonsense had gone out of fashion until I saw Ambulance and it pretty much ruined that film. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I too don't like that shaky cam stuff. For instance in Tenet, those heavy cameras should make them shoot more action in wides but Nolan likes to make him shoot IMAX handheld in fight scenes

@@vb8428 I didn't notice Hoyte Van Hoytema chucking the IMAX camera around too much in Tenet but no doubt that will stand out more next time I put it on. I find it amazing that he's able to carry that huge camera on his shoulders. An amazing cinematrographer. John.

I think you and your dad are going to have a great time together JB. Have fun! John.

With family is the best way to watch I say

Thank you Bob. That 4K release of The Final Countdown is pretty fabulous. I still remember the 'Scope lens being askew for some of the closely confined interior shots but that's not the fault of the transfer or mastering. Other than that, I couldn't have wished for more of that classic, almost forgotten film. John.

I don't know why you're hanging about Rob. Move the Llama's out to a shed and bloody well get in there! This movie was made to be seen on a big screen and with the volume up loud so come on, get that home cinema back up and running! We're both well by the way. Thank you for asking. I hope things are getting organized in your new palace now, even if you're proving to be a little tardy on the most important room! John.

I still think Last Night In Soho is a better film Dave but that one's a different type of film and this one is a thrill ride. As a thrill ride there haven't been many that are better. Certainly not in recent years anyway. John.

Quite so Peter. Let's hope a few people have been reminded of the enjoyment of a cinema outing and that a few more adult oriented films come along to keep them going back for more. John.

I hope so. I hope there are more straight forward movies made like this one instead of what we've been getting. Jack Reacher with Tom Cruise is highly underrated! (The first movie)

I hope they're still shooting film for Mission Impossible. I can't remember now but I thought they were still sticking to film to give it that distinct, natural look. Having said that, the 'Scope sequences in Maverick look just like film so if that's a video camera producing it then that's the way to go if film is too expensive. John.

Thank you Erik. I was sat there thinking that it wasn't quite as involving as the best of the large format film releases but thought Tenet would be the closest in terms of how the two movies look. Immediately, perceptibly better but Maverick isn't so far away as some might expect which tells me that video really is getting there now. The 2.40:1 sequences in particular looked like very good 35mm anamorphic to me but there's no mention of that so it has to be a damned good video camera that accurately reproduces the look of real film. The same as that used in Le Mans '66 perhaps? John.

@@moviecollector5920 I saw Top Gun. Maverick in the theater - I too thought it looked very good, but I also thought it looked digital; it had that cold, sterile look of digital cinematography. Perhaps some digital films try to counteract that look by adding fake, digital grain (as you mention in this review) or printing the digital master on to film and scanning it back to digital (as you've mentioned Dune 2021 did in some scenes).

@@loekegaard9 I thought that Erik but there's no perceptible film grain in the 1.90:! sequences that we know for sure were shot with 6K cameras. I wonder if they've been crafty and used anamorphic film cameras for the 'Scope sequences but kept it quiet. After all, why use the 2.40:1 ratio at all if they've got 6K video cameras to use? John.

​@@moviecollector5920 ​It would be sneaky indeed if they did that. According to IMDb, they didn't shoot on film. IMDb is usually correct concerning technical specifications. If they used film for the 2.40:1 sequences but didn't declare it, I don't get it. Shooting on film is something that ought to make one proud.

@@loekegaard9 I agree Erik. It's just strange that a video looks so much like film for the 'Scope sequences but looks like video for the 1.90:1 sequences. All a bit mysterious. John.

I think he's the only major film star today. Maybe those old days have gone now. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Totally agree, the old days really are gone and I do not like what I see today!!

Merci de toujours prendre le temps de commenter et de me dire que vous avez aimé la vidéo Alain. John.

The room isn't the right size or shape for any more speakers yet Trevor. Hopefully we can get that sorted if we can afford it when the builders are in doing other things to get the house into the right format. To add speakers and keep the system THX would require THX speakers and Kef were selling a new THX speaker set with in-car type surrounds to go into the ceiling. Whilst they're unlikely to be as good as the tripoles of the original THX it doesn't really matter because it's the subwoofer that give the system the ooooomph! If the room gets increased in size and the screen moves to the adjacent wall then it will be possible to install two new tripoles for 7.1 and that won't sound much different to Atmos given the way the tripoles work. I've had Dolby surround systems for over 30 years now so I don't really feel the need to keep upgrading to the latest. I did try 6.1 when it first came out for the home but it wasn't as good as 5.1 so that didn't last long. That wasn't with my THX speaker package though so it would probably be much better with that and the addition of a third Kef TDM tripole at the rear. I was wary of seeing this one in a cinema because so many of them are using old 2K projectors that were never any good when they were new and that's why I thought it better to hold on because I just didn't have the time to get to London and see it in one of the few remaining top cinemas. I saw your latest video at lunchtime Trev. Mondo's had a few slip cases I was almost tempted to ask him for but to be honest, once the discs are on the shelves I rarely look at them anyway so I managed to resist. I'm pretty sure if my copy of Jaws didn't have a slip cover though I'd have been hassling him! John.

We're in agreement about the IMAX name George. What a shame they didn't come up with a different brand name to differentiate the new 4K video format from the giant 15/70mm film format. But at least these faux IMAX cinemas have huge screens even if I don't like the name they're using. Another comment advised me that the standard 4K release of Maverick doesn't come with the Blu-ray. As it happens, we don't actually need it for the reason you said. But it did give me the chance to check the 4K against the Blu-ray and the Blu-ray is so dull to look at after you've seen the 4K. It's the difference between a film and a video thanks to the advantage that High Dynamic Range adds. What a shame your Get Carter disc was faulty. I still have three faulty 4K discs that I know of but they all became faulty after they'd been run. It's possible a new player will be able to read them so I'll wait before trying to find cheap replacement copies. John.

Thank you Bushyman. I haven't checked Maverick against all the 4K releases of movies shot on 70mm (including 15/70 IMAX) but it's likely it won't come up to the overall quality of any of them other than perhaps those that had to use a dupe negative or parts of a dupe negative such as 2001 A Space Odyssey and My Fair Lady. It might give some VistaVision titles a run for their money though and that's saying something because it was shot on video for crying out loud. Let's hope all future productions shot on video can get close to the quality of this one. Having said that, most cinemas are still going to be using sub-standard video projection equipment so not everyone will benefit like we did when film got better and better. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I do miss the days when top quality film was used and more prevalent. I reside in an area with top quality theater choices and benefit from excellent presentations. We were able to view Top Gun Maverick in a cinema equipped with very good projector (digital). I do not know which model, but this particular cinema always has a better presentation quality than the local competitors. I greatly enjoy your reviews and thoughts. Cheers.

The 4K looks excellent on my system Tim so I hope you'll be pleased with it. Blu-ray hasn't got the near infinite colour range of film but HDR means that 4K is much closer. This one was actually shot entirely on video but the 2.40:1 sequences look just like film to me which is the biggest compliment that can ever be made to a movie shot on video. Why don't all movies shot on video look as good, that's the question? By the way, the LaserDisc of the 1986 film was pretty terrific and so is the 4K disc so evidently the original Super 35 shoot was done on the best quality negative stock. John.

And the sound for that sequence is fabulous Ernie so next time I see you I'm going to give you a gold star! Top Gun: Maverick seems to be a rather popular movie judging by the response on here. I couldn't keep up last night but caught up this morning. Phew. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Have not seen it yet John but it is at the top of my Cinema Paradiso list.Last weekend had Bullet Train but imho the less said about that one the better. The 4k and 3D of I the Jury (1954) shipped yesterday so by next weekend should have them. I can confirm that I will be at Chorleywood in April. Look after yourselves.

@@ernestmarsh9698 It will be great to see you again Ernie. The Chorleywood hall will be contacting me for payment sometime this month whereupon it will be all systems go. Once it's paid for I intend to start promoting it on this channel which was one of the reasons for starting it as all other advertising avenues had pretty much gone about ten years ago. Just maybe we can get some new people to take up the real (reel?) film collecting hobby. John.

I think you'll enjoy it Axel. And thank you for the information about the Sony Venice cameras. It appears they assembled a one-off for this film by the sound of it. John.

I get the impression you're rather pleased with it Clark! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Hi John, Yeah - I’m fond of Top Gun but Maverick was expectations obliterated. One of those rare films that got me to the cinema for repeat viewings on multiple formats (IMAX, 4DX, Superscreen and normal). And Tom Cruise - he’s took over Jackie Chan’s brave stunt work for the modern world of action cinema (although do wish he’d do more like 4th of July or Jerry Maguire). Top 3 films of the year 1. The Batman 2. Maverick 3. Banshees of Inershin Avatar: Way of the Water is my most anticipated though - mainly because James Cameron is favourite director

@@ColonelSternlove I am a big fan of James Cameron's films but I didn't much care for Titanic. Then Avatar looked so awful in every trailer and clip I ever saw that I've avoided it to this day. I realize that's not what you'll want to hear but I don't tend to like computer animation and certainly not the animation standards I saw in the previews for Avatar. The Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, True Lies and Terminator 2: Judgement Day are all great films. Amazing to think that one man directed them all. I think Last Night In Soho is the best film I've seen this year. Maverick is the best thrill ride film. John.

Seven times!!! Did you keep falling asleep?!? John.

What a shame. It's HDR that makes a video look more like film though so maybe it's not quite as bad as thought. You're not the only person to warn me though. John.

I did actually mention the mission being similar to the Death Star battle but edited that little section out as the video was droning on a bit by that time. I also thought it took an influence from the true Dambusters raid which would also be considered far fetched were it not true so maybe Top Gun: Maverick isn't quite as unbelievable as we think... then again, they'd have just launched those missiles at the target with no need for piloted jet bombers. Quite a few comments have told me that the 4K of Oblivion isn't as good as the Blu-ray. It could be because HDR makes it look warmer so might be worth checking further before investing too much money. I expect it's pretty cheap by now though so nothing to be too concerned about. John.

Afternoon Steve. Maverick is one to put on when you feel the need for speed! Not a great film from a critical standpoint perhaps but certainly a great film in terms of being a thrill ride and generally just terrific fun. John.

Don't blow your speaker cones out of their housings! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Noted! :)

The 'laser'' tag is only denoting the light source in these projectors Ghost so not as special as these places would like us to believe. We can actually purchase video projectors with laser lamps for home use now. If I have to make a change sometime then I'll see if I can look at one or two. Oblivion is a great science fiction film isn't it? It was completely unexpected when I purchased that Blu-ray. Normally, I'd expect someone to tell me about a really good film but so many come in under the radar these days. I suppose no one is going to the cinema much. John.

I haven't seen Behind Enemy Lines in years and don't remember it at all so thanks for pointing that out. I thought the whole mission was a bit of an updated Dambusters raid. That must have been a bit of an influence. John.

I hope you enjoy it as much as we did Andrew. If you like the original film then I think you're sure to like this one. John.

Evening Alex. I haven't had a look at Le Mans '66 again but I think it's similar in quality and appearance to the 'Scope sequences in Maverick. The 1.90:1 scenes didn't quite have the same filmic look and were more like video but much, much better than we usually served up with a movie shot on video. By the way, I don't think there was a 4K transfer because it was already a 4K computer file so would have just been put through a conversion to fit on the disc just like we've always done with anything shot on video for DVD or Blu-ray because there's no film to actually transfer. Movies shot on video should convert to a video disc release exactly as they looked in cinemas but with different compression software to facilitate the relevant disc authoring. John.

@@moviecollector5920 It could be recency bias on my part as I did not actual put my LeMans 66 disc in my player but I will say that I actually prefer 66 as a film. As for the term transfer you are correct again. I use the term generically for discs without thought. Keep up the great work I lesrn new things and do enjoy your videos

It's a big screen film for sure. The bigger the better. I intend to stick it on again and lie underneath the screen as close as possible just to prove I'm a complete nut! John.

I did look up Oblivion and I don't think I saw any mention of a 4K remaster in any of the technical specifications. Many comments have said it's not as good as the Blu-ray and I have to admit that it's piqued my interest. John.

I'd like a John review of Oblivion in 4K for sure!

Oblivion looks amazing ,copied this DP info 'The film was shot in 4K in Sony's proprietary raw image format, but for cost reasons (and over Kosinski's protests), both the digital intermediate and final version were done at 2K resolution. But got Oblivion with Passengers which was shot at 6K then dropped to 2 k. Both reference films. As for Maverick, got it today, not a fan of first but thought I'd try it out. As people say spectacle over substance. I advise people to watch the review by two ex fighter pilots, it maybe a spectacle and I will enjoy it but there's a lift more CGI than people think. 👍

Thank you Frostbeard. Good to have you here. John.

I think that involves wearing the dreaded glasses. I enjoy that sort of thing for short films or sequences so it would have been nice to have seen it with a couple of five minute 3D parts if it was shot in genuine 3D. John.

I'm hoping to get a Philips Kineton shortly which Noel Pratt (from the Home Cinemas video I did) is trying to get ready for me. I'll be keeping the original which Noel has upgraded in the hope that it will go back into service at the BFCC (www.bfcc.biz). I might do something if I do get the Kineton because that's going to be a complete change and a learning process for me. John.

@@moviecollector5920 - What is your current 35mm projector John? If you’ve previously covered this in detail please post a link to the video as I’ve yet to watch it. Thanks.

@@cheekster777 I havent't covered it in detail but it's a Spectra 90 which is a Chinese portable that were sold in pairs and shared a power supply. The idea was to take flicker shows out to the most remote parts of China. They were still being manufactured in Spain until about 20 years ago and many have been modified to operate as single machines. Mine just needs a brighter light for the BFCC shows. That's the plan anyway. John.

Quite a few people have told me that the 4K of Oblivion isn't quite as good as the Blu-ray which has piqued my interest. I may have to get it just to see what I think now. Actually, that might make for an interesting KZfaq video. Good excuse for another trip to HMV! John.

I've only seen Top Gun Maverick once Bob but it was in a THX cinema so that was okay! It's probably one of my favourite 4K releases so far and might even appear in the top ten in terms of image quality but pretty close if it's not in there. As for The Final Countdown - bloody wonderful film. John.

That's a shame. Quite a few comments have warned me now. John.

I should do a review of it Clark as it's a popular title right now. Check it against a couple of 4K discs that originated on 70mm though because I think you may find that Maverick is not quite as good as it first appears. It's easy to get a little over excited when you see picture quality as good as this but amazingly there are some that may be even better. One other thing that reviewers perhaps get wrong with a movie shot on video and released as a 4K UHD disc, is that they talk about a 'transfer'. Surely the 4K video master file would have just been converted in a computer to produce the relevant file to be able to author it onto a 4K disc. A transfer should denote a cine to video transfer and all the associated grading and mastering that goes on following that process to prepare it for the various disc, streaming and television broadcast releases. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I was actually thinking of doing a review John, I'll write some notes on it throughout the week and perhaps film a video on the weekend. I think the first 45 minutes of the film look the best on the 4K disc. I checked Murder on the orient Express and sure enough, it's a close call. Regards, Clark

@@ClarkTeddles Put the Wailing Wall sequence on from Orient Express and look at all the faces in the crowd. They should all be sharp where the focus is wide. I haven't seen anything else quite that good yet. Tenet is fabulous though but I don't think there's a comparable shot it just looks better than Maverick through the video projector here to 9 feet wide. Size makes one heck of a difference and separates the wheat from the chaff. John.

@@moviecollector5920 that wailing wall sequence has some of the best looking shots on the 4K format. I watch my 4K discs on a 55” display but I sit about 3 feet away from the screen, so I can see as much detail as possible. I plan to save up for a 4K projector in the future, I’m sure I will notice the difference when I purchase one.

I have Highlander on film George so I probably won't get the 4K for a while if I get it at all. I know it so well I could probably re-write the script verbatim if I had to. John.

One of the best thrill ride movies ever Leon. Possibly the best but I'd need to think about that some more. John.

@@moviecollector5920 it's what going to the cinema is all about for me, just pure entertainment. The cinematography was superb & it had an amazing feelgood factor about it, that somehow left me feeling euphoric. Maybe it was due to Dolby Cinema also being superb also?

I would love to watch something at a Dolby Cinema. I feel like a lot of local theaters still use 2K projectors and I feel like I may as well stay home at that point

@@MyFireVideos Dolby Cinema certainly is an amazing experience, especially as it's a 4k HDR presentation. I personally love going to the cinema that much, that I definitely wouldn't be put off standard 2d showings

That's apparently what was used to create the camera used Nic. John.

A few people have said the same thing Gaz but I wonder if it's the addition of HDR giving a warmer, more filmic look. I can't imaging that image noise reduction has been used as I believe it was shot entirely on video so there shouldn't be any noise but if there is, it's because the video cameras used were crap and I can't see that being the case. John.

I can't answer that but I do suspect that Dolby Vision will be slightly better because it does usually have a slight edge. Those that look at both honestly do confirm that there is rarely anything much in it with one sometimes being perceptibly better than the other. Tenet is a genuine IMAX film for the most part so a movie shot on video has done really well to look this good but it's still quite a way off. Encouraging for the future though. All movies shot on video would do well to use the cameras used for this film to stop the rot that really started with Star Wars Attack of the Clones. John.

@@moviecollector5920 thanks for your reply :-)

That's what I mean Ed because IMAX was first around in the 1970's and it's been absolutely brilliant right up to the recent downgrading of the name. With movies like this though these faux IMAX cinemas do at least provide big screens and that's important for action flicks. John.

I purchased The Final Countdown from WowHD so it might be worth looking them up as they appear to sell all over the world. The UK site is here if this acts as a starting point but they might have sold out long ago: www.wowhd.co.uk/ I don't think many people alive (or dead actually!) won't enjoy this sequel to Top Gun. It's a lot of fun even if it is too far-fetched to be taken seriously. Shut your brain off for 2 hours and 10 minutes and simply enjoy the thrill ride it will take you on. Tom Cruise seems to get better and better... just like me! John.

it was done with the latest version of Dune as well David but didn't work anywhere near as well on that if that is what they did with Top Gun: Maverick. I really did think I was going to see 35mm anamorphic listed for part of the filming process because the 'Scope sequences were so convincing but there was no mention of it. Dune looked more like video noise to me but that was because of the dark nature of the whole film I think. Next time I watch it I'll be more forgiving. John.

It might even rate in or very near the ten best that I've seen LeShark. Quite something for a movie shot on video and it proves once more that it can be done. John.

I also look forward to John's reviews

It's possible the colour is more accurate because of the addition of HDR. Having said that, it was a video to start with so it's not like it had to go through a cine transfer. I suppose the HDR side has to be mastered from scratch though so it's quite possible to get it wrong. John.

I haven't heard anything about Tombstone Joe so sorry about that. I thought that was a terrific film but I think I actually prefer Wyatt Earp from the same year, possibly because it's a more accurate telling of the true history. Both are great films though. If 'Cruising' has a 4K release then I'll almost certainly be getting that one. I avoided it back when it as new and still haven't caught up with it yet so I suspect I'll be in for another filmic treat when I do finally get it on disc. John.

Sadly Aemond, I saw the trailer all those years ago and have avoided it ever since. I don't like computer cartooning at the best of times and I simply couldn't bear the look of it. I just saw a still from the sequel and I feel the same way about that. Sorry. John.

Good to have you here. You'll find a good group of true film enthusiasts on this channel and there is always some good discussion going on about movies. John.

That's a little odd as I thought it was shot entirely on video. Surely there wouldn't be any image noise to reduce. Thank you for the warning. Many people have told me the 4K of Oblivion is a disappointment. John.

There are two IMAX cinemas in the south of the country and both are in London - the Science Museum and the Waterloo BFI IMAX - so I didn't have the time to get there. I did not want to see it in a sub-standard cinema so decided to wait to see it in the smaller THX cinema here. I think I made the right decision but even though it's not an IMAX film I bet it still looks fabulous on a huge genuine IMAX screen even if it doesn't completely fill it at all. The best thing about Maverick is that it's proved that video can do the job of film so I'm hopeful that the standard of what is shot is going to improve in other productions now even if most of the cinemas can't reproduce the quality owing to the poor video projectors being used. John.

It will be interesting to see how well the next Mission Impossible film does after this Top Gun runaway success James. Tom Cruise is arguably the only true film star left today so it's maybe down to him to save the ever dwindling band of cinemas that remain. Maybe the success of Maverick has given a reminder to the major studios that a good film can still bring in a huge box office reward. Having said that, it didn't help Last Night In Soho or Death on the Nile so maybe those days are gone now and this was a one off. John.

Thank you Swissbeats. I haven't seen the Back to the Future sequels - well, not on 4K disc anyway. I did see them years ago but I found they rather spoiled the original film for me so I'm a little wary of them now. John.

And I expect it will be the best Christmas present of the lot Nic. John.

I'd be interested to know what you think of the sound on Tenet through your system because the sequence I put on to check against Maverick had better sound. It was the car chase sequence. It outdid the bass on Maverick but may have been because the volume level was louder on the disc. Both are fabulous examples of near perfect home video. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Hi John I will have a look at my 4k copy of Tenet And let you know what l think

@@JohnTalksMovies59 Thank you John. It will be handy to know because all our systems are different. John.

I think it's better in the thrill ride aspect of the whole caboodle but it's likely the original is the better film. We had the same with Aliens in 1986 and Terminator 2: Judgment Day in 1991. Both of those were better rides and more fun but the original films were still the better film from a critical perspective. I don't expect everyone to agree with me there but that doesn't bother me at all as individual opinions differ and it's important that they do otherwise it would be a boring world. John.

I wanted to see it in a cinema Darren but I didn't want to risk something sub-standard so had to hold fast and wait for this 4K. If it's ever on at the BFI IMAX though I may have to take the trip! See you there! John.

I got it for about £30. That was when it was first released. WowHD UK was where I purchased it but I don't know if they still offer it: www.wowhd.co.uk/ John.

I think it's a rather special 4K disc release David. One for the Christmas list perhaps? John.

i didn't notice a lack of bass Kevin but the sound was so good that if there was a lack of bass it didn't notice. Often I feel the bass is rather excessive but the Kef THX system I have is probably designed for a much larger room. We used it five times in the cavernous Victoria Hall at the Ealing Town Hall at is shook the floor in there so a little over the top for average home use. As for the specifications of the UK and US discs being different, if they really are different then it's hard to believe one would be noticeably better than the other given how good the image quality is on this UK disc. John.

Thanks for the feedback John.

@@kevinweithers1223 You're welcome Kevin. John.

One thing to bear in mind Jim is that the original film was made in 1986 and this sequel would not have ever been conceived if that first film hadn't have been made. It was ground breaking and this one has followed in its footsteps. I think it's a better thrill ride but the first may well be the better film from a critical point of view. John.

@@moviecollector5920 When I rewatched it I just thought that it was very 80s. A bit lacklustre and slow in places but still a bit of a classic. It took me back to my teenage years:(;). The new one was better paced overall, better scripted, better plot. Almost made me wish I’d been able to become a fighter pilot. I did work in avionics for a while mins you. The technology in the planes is pretty incredible and it’s all on display in both movies.

@@jim_herd There was a plot?!? I thought it was all just an excuse to tie a few set pieces together to take us on a thrill ride. Now I'll have to re-watch it... well, that's a good excuse anyway. I really liked the use of much of the original music and score. The whole thing felt like a genuine follow up to the 1986 film and that in itself is quite amazing all these years later. I wonder if Tom Cruise will make another one in another 33 years. I always fancied flying through the sound barrier. Managed to do it a few years ago which is a highlight in my life so far. Next stop, the moon! John.

@@moviecollector5920 Yup. There was a bit more plot this time but I think they stole it from Star Wars;). We’ll have to wait and see how cheap a flight into orbit will get. Might ask Elon on Twitter if there are any spare tickets;).

@@jim_herd He's just sacked half the Twitter staff so he can probably afford a freebie space trip for you and I now. See you on the launch pad!

That's the way it was shot Vu Ville. It's a faux IMAX format without actually being shot in IMAX. The cinemas that now have the IMAX name emblasoned outside but aren't actually IMAX have 1.90:1 screens instead of the genuine IMAX 1.40:1 ratio screen. John.

I hope you enjoy it as much as we did Gary. There haven't been many thrill ride films as good as this one... ever. John.

@@moviecollector5920 ordered the std. version $30, can’t wait!

Tenet is a bit more complicated, that's for sure. But it's wonderful once you work it all out. Top Gun: Maverick is a brainless thrill ride so probably more repeatable. The Final Countdown is a wonderful film too. John.

I'm not sure I entirely agree Rhys but I know what you mean. In some ways film making has progressed but it's gone backwards in other ways. I found this one exciting because it's proved that video can fill the shoes of film when it's done with good enough equipment. It's not quite up there with the best film formats but it's not too far off. John.

@@moviecollector5920 I simply meant in the ability to film within the Jets and how the effects are close to being seamless with the practical shots, a few explosion shots were noticeable but shot for shot i couldn't point out the real ones from the fake ones if i tried.

@@RhysClark97 I do see what you mean Rhys. To get 35mm cameras into the cockpits in 1986 was an even greater achievement given that it shouldn't have been possible back then. That's why it was shot in the Super 35 format because the room wasn't there to include an anamorphic lens as well. Two great films in their own right though. The original was showing at The Empire for ages and I have it in mind that it was about a year. But it wasn't in the cavernous Empire 1 all that time of course and moved to the far smaller Empire 2 and then probably into the broom cupboard more commonly referred to as Empire 3. It doesn't seem like that long ago to me. It's quite sad to think that a movie is released to cinemas today and has a couple of weeks then it's all over and turns up on streaming channels and home movie discs three to four months later. No wonder we're not going to the cinema as often as we used to. John.

I loved it the first time I saw it all those years ago. I believe it was the influence for Top Gun where they took the filming of the jets even further than they dared in The Final Countdown. Watch my review of the 4K though because you get a pretty good look at the film in that. John.

I can't imagine that Mr. Cruise will ever get too old to act. I can envisage him resurrecting 'Ironside' with him in the title roll if he's ever too decrepit to walk. Apparently he has a new Mission Impossible film out soon so that should be another boost for cinemas around the world. Let's hope it's another great success and the major studios sit up and take notice of what makes a film a success and of more general appeal rather than lifting a nondescript superhero off the pages of a comic and issuing it to the limited demographic that obviously appeals to. Having said that, if films like Last Night In Soho can't find an audience then what hope is there? John.

@@moviecollector5920 re: Last Night in Soho, I think cinemas need to be bold and try to get older audiences back to screens, with cheaper ticket prices for smaller films. Why charge the same price for a fairly low budget drama as they do for a $200 million blockbuster? Never made any sense to me.

@@iansmith6166 As an example, in the late 1990's some of the top titles were taking 90% of a cinema's box office takings for the first two weeks of the run and a reduced percentage after that. Lesser titles might only take 50% of the box office. Somewhere in there lies the answer with regards to why the ticket prices are the same irrespective of what is showing. But it's a long time since I had any information about how the box office take is 'robbed' so I may be completely out of date now. John.

I think I'll look up how Oblivion was shot now that you've mentioned it John because it could be an early movie shot on sub-standard video cameras. It's been a while since I've watched it. Maverick certainly wasn't done with sub-standard video cameras and I find it encouraging that it's another movie shot on video that cuts the mustard. John.

@@moviecollector5920 Hi John. There is a major issue with Oblivion on UHD; I personally believe it is a botched encode of the film. I do not joke when I say that the blu-ray is sharper than the UHD. I've not seen this happen on any of UHD I've ever owned or demo'd. Only in this instance.

@@LaserLips2 I suppose it was shot on video before video was really up to the job but having said that, other movies shot on video before then seem to have fared well. I need to look into this. I was simply expecting that the addition of high dynamic range would make the already very good looking Blu-ray look more like a film print. Being a little softer wouldn't be a complete disaster but if the colour and density are not improved then the whole process would be pointless. Thanks for telling me your thoughts Khyan. John.

Always look into the distance to gauge the clarity of the image. Murder on the Orient Express is still out in front but Tenet isn't too far behind. I think Maverick would rate in the top ten or thereabouts and that's pretty special for a movie shot on video. It's another one that proves that video can do it. John.