Silvermoth
Krakoan native
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Messages
- 23,647
- Reaction score
- 7,985
- Points
- 103
1. Magneto
2. Hanna
3. Sigourney Weaver as "The Big Guy"
2. Hanna
3. Sigourney Weaver as "The Big Guy"
Ya know, I don't care for him offscreen, but I've recently developed a newfound appreciation for Tom Cruise's career. He is probably the purest example of a classic "Movie Star" we have. Depp, Pitt and DiCaprio are the much more contemporary model - they try to be "actors' actors" (Depp mostly succeeds, Pitt and DiCaprio have more mixed results) and shed their movie star images at every turn. Cruise, on the other hand, embraces his. He's aware that he's no chameleon - he knows how audiences see him and want to see him, and plays to that. He never phones it in, and he has a specific presence, persona, intensity and charisma that always delivers and elevates his movies above whatever they would have been without him. And when he does break his usual mold, he does so with a sense of humor...never too seriously, so the audience can go, "haha, I can't believe that's Tom Cruise!" (ala Tropic Thunder and Rock of Ages) with him in on the joke, rather than being the punchline (ala when Costner tried to be British or Travolta in most of his villainous roles).
To me, the difference between "actors" and "movie stars" is that movie stars don't necessarily try to disappear in their roles - they know the audience comes to see them, and the persona they've come to expect from them, and they are all about giving the audience what they want. These days, we mostly have actors. Which isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong, but Hollywood used to be heavily populated by both. A good movie star is really hard to find these days, and Tom Cruise is a pretty damn great movie star, imo.
So true. What a great film Drive is.Kisses the girl then literally kicks in some dudes face. Gosling hands down, first, second and third.
See, in half of those (Jerry McGuire, Last Samurai, Rain Man), I felt he was still playing to his movie star persona, what people expect to see from him - the confident, sometimes cocky, jaded guy who still has a lot to learn. I agree they're good acting performances and never meant to suggest otherwise. He just doesn't take on a completely different persona from what audiences are used to seeing from him like the Daniel Day-Lewises and Gary Oldmans of the world. Magnolia and Fourth of July are the only two in which he really branched out beyond his comfort zone and succeeded, imo. I didn't care for him in Interview with a Vampire. But then, I didn't care for most of the performances in that film other than Kirsten Dunst.While I do agree with you, I do think Cruise has put in some great acting performances throughout his career too. Born of the Fourth of July, Magnolia, Interview with the Vampire, Last Samurai, Jerry McGuire, Rain Man.
Again in my original post, I mentioned he does branch out for the sake of comedy. To brilliant effect.Les Grossman would disagree with you.
![]()
Also,
![]()
He's still "Tom Cruise" in Collateral, just "Tom Cruise as a Bad Guy." But again, that's not a bad thing at all. I loved him in that movie.Also,
![]()
He's still "Tom Cruise" in Collateral, just "Tom Cruise as a Bad Guy." But again, that's not a bad thing at all. I loved him in that movie.
He's still "Tom Cruise" in Collateral, just "Tom Cruise as a Bad Guy."
Well needless to say, I disagree - See bullet's post above - plenty of people saw Vincent as "Tom Cruise as a Bad Guy" (hell, some people probably only know Collateral as "That Movie With Bad Guy!Tom Cruise"). He was just playing a more ruthless, deadly version of his usual charismatic, intense, cocky persona that audiences love.I think that's more your pre-conceived notions of Cruise more-so than his actual performance, then. I myself do not see Tom Cruise when I watch Collateral. He completely disappears into Vincent, imo.