It has been over 35 years since the original "Top Gun," and it has become such a cornerstone of popular culture that the real Top Gun School – or the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor program, more popularly known as TOPGUN – actually imposes a $5 fine to any staff member that quotes the iconic 1986 film.

The original film was such a roaring and surprising success that it grossed $357 million against a production budget of only $15 million despite its initial mixed critical reaction. It put Tom Cruise firmly on the map for blockbuster action heroes.

So, what has changed in the 36 years since its debut? A lot in certain aspects, not much in others. One thing is certain: "Top Gun: Maverick" is one of those rare occasions that a sequel feels worthy of gracing the big screen.

Last action hero

One thing that has stayed the same since the original film is the action, which is still great

You can count on Tom Cruise to deliver one key aspect in each of his films. The film can be a terrible mess of plotholes, insensible and ridiculous storylines sprinkled with absurd acting, but – if it's an action flick – you can be sure that Cruise's scenes will certainly be entertaining to watch.

Whatever you think of the man's personal beliefs and ideas, his professional attitude you have to appreciate. Cruise has accepted that audiences come to theaters to see him and his stunts, so he does not cut any corners to deliver the product that people have paid to see.

The great thing is – just like Jackie Chan whom I could write an entire essay of admiration on – his work in the action scene always involves a unique aspect. In one film it's helicopter stunts, in another it's motorcycles, it's climbing the tallest building on Earth, it's hanging from the side of a plane, it's dogfighting in military jets – one consistent stunt, or cliche some might say, is in every film there's a scene of him running at full speed, but other than that he always finds ways to spice things up and bring something original to the table.

The genre of action films has been seriously overpopulated since the late 80s when the original "Top Gun" came out. The genre has grown out of the action hero subtype of films that has seen the fall of such greats as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone. It had its adolescence in the 2000s with the "Jason Bourne" series and the shaky-cam craze.

Now, we are back to a plateau of sensible action films that can hold the camera steady for longer than a second and that actually give the audiences what they crave: Uncut action sequences with practical effects in all their glory for everyone to see. The likes of Keanu Reeves have helped immensely in repopulating the genre with such flicks and in the meantime showcasing that such films and such scenes were what audiences were hungry for and that such flicks are incredibly profitable.

What Cruise has done through all of this is nothing short of amazing: He has maintained his action demeanor, his outlook on what a good action film should look like throughout three decades, ignoring the crazes, the trends of the day, staying true to his ideals. The ideals that have now finally become the norm that audiences expect: Clean, physical action unfiltered and unsullied – mostly – by computer generated-imagery (CGI) and camera trickery to hide the incompetence of actors.

Today, the professional standard for anyone in an action film is to learn to fight, train for the physical and when the camera rolls try to capture as much of the stunts in the frame as possible. That has been the standard of Cruise for as long I can remember. Like I said: Put aside the personality and applaud the professionalism.

Need for speed

So, after a long-winded Cruise missile, let's get into the meat of the matter: How does the sequel fare compared to the original?

The original was the story of Pete Mitchell, code-named Maverick, a daredevil Navy pilot ace, who is accepted into Top Gun, Miramar's elite Fighter School where the impulsive young pilot had to compete with the best of the best, including Tom Kazansky, the Iceman, a brilliant and highly competitive fellow student. Maverick is assisted by Nick Bradshaw, or the Goose. Together, they have great time at the academy that is until the unfortunate demise of Goose caused by a maneuver that Maverick had undertaken.

In the end, Maverick graduates – losing out on the Top Gun trophy to Iceman – and upon his graduation is thrust into action where he shoots down three enemy fighter planes alongside Iceman who shoots down one as well. His heroic deeds do not go unnoticed and he returns to the academy as an instructor.

The original was a perfect blend of great action and unmistakable cheesy 80s scenery. The actors were all perfectly cast. The story was simple enough to form a foundation and not lead to too many plotholes. The dialogue was thoroughly entertaining most of the time.

It quickly became a staple of the decade and a classic and an icon was born.

After more than 30 years, the sequel picks up the story with Maverick, one of the Navy's top aviators, where he belongs, pushing the envelope as a courageous test pilot and dodging the advancement in rank that would ground him.

After a series of circumstances land him in hot waters, Iceman – who has now become an admiral – sends Maverick to train an elite group of aviators for an urgent mission, which is to bomb a foreign country's unsanctioned uranium enrichment plant – yes, the country goes unnamed but it is a little on the nose admittedly.

The plant sits in a deep depression at the end of a canyon and is defended by surface-to-air missiles and fighter jets operating from a nearby air base. Maverick plans an attack with two pairs of jets which will fly through a canyon and destroy the plant as he reluctantly accepts to train the group.

Among the group is Lt. Bradley Bradshaw – or the Rooster – the son of Maverick's late best friend Goose.

Into danger zone

The film does a great job of establishing the strained relationship between Maverick and Rooster, who have a sort of estranged uncle-nephew bond between them.

A relationship that forces Maverick to face the ghosts of his past. He is a relic of a bygone age, in a world that is fast changing with any familiar faces that he holds dear quickly fading away one by one – and at this point I must point out that I greatly enjoyed the return of Val Kilmer as Iceman in a fashion that was respectable and gave the character, and the actor, the chance to gracefully leave the story on their own terms which I think means a lot.

What surprised me the most about the film was the emotional weight and the family dynamic it carried which mostly comes down to the relationship that stands at the heart of the film. This is not a story about pilots but two men, one who has lost his closest friend and the other who has lost his father.

The years of cinematic acumen that Cruise has accumulated over three decades really helps the film as his more matured acting holds up the dramatic scenes well. Meanwhile, Miles Teller plays the role of Rooster impeccably – the first scene he is in you would be forgiven if you mistook him for Anthony Edwards who played Goose, that is how much he looks and acts like his character's late father.

The supporting cast also does a fine job in their roles though their characters only manage a serviceable rating in my books as they are not given much to work with to flesh them out – and I am completely fine with that as most other long-overdue spontaneous sequels to iconic movie properties would have made the story revolve around the supporting cast with the original heroes sidelined in the background. I much prefer to have the story of Maverick centered, continued and concluded.

The action part, on the other hand, is hands-down jaw-dropping.

For the production, actual fighter jets were rigged with special cameras to film the actors who were actually in the planes in the back seat as real pilots flew them around. Cruise designed a unique three-month "boot camp" to train the actors with flying roles to get them used to aerobatics and high g-forces, and to develop the spatial awareness they would need to operate the camera equipment.

The actors also had to learn lighting, cinematography and editing to properly run the cameras, because, as producer Jerry Bruckheimer put it, "when they're up in the jet they have to direct themselves essentially."

All of this effort to make it as practical and real as possible pays off enormously in the film. You truly are immersed in the scenes as if you were actually in the cockpit of the jet – especially if you see it on a truly big screen.

The sounds are indescribably good as the roar of the engines makes your hair stand up.

All of it put together makes for an action film that you will not forget anytime soon, and for years when you want to unwind and have good time and watch a great action movie, "Top Gun: Maverick" is sure to be on the top of your list.