It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
Reading Rob Moore’s spin this morning, it looks like Paramount is blaming soft response from kids, not from women. Frankly, they probably missed both: women were not attracted by the techno-gadgety ads. Kids were not lured by an old actor in an old franchise.
Speaking of women, Maggie Q was underused in the promotions of the film. If you’re going to get someone for the sake of eye candy (and to appease the Chinese government?), then what’s the point in not really using them in your ads?
Maggie Q wasn’t featured for the same reason that has plagued the whole franchise from the start . . . Paramount took a TV series about teamwork and made it into the Tom Cruise show. These films are all about HIM. Blech.
DP, I think there’s a disconnect between this article, in which you criticize those who write about lofty expectations, and your last article, which was called “Weekend Ouch-stimates” and includes phrases like “Neither of these numbers makes this release look good” and “the opening is about a 25% lower than might have made the studio comfy.”
I’m not sure there is a disconnect, Eric.
I’m not say these expectations don’t exist. I am saying that the “should have” soehow cements the conversation into a single perspective… as would pulling two things I wrote out of a lot of things I wrote on the subject.
I am guilty of freezing ideas into cheap glibness as well. Guilty. But I really am trying to work somewhere beyond that.
History tells us that Mission: Impossible 3’s opening will probably be somewhere around the 10th best of the year.
I think the problem is that you like writing articles with attention-grabbing, contrarian openings, but that doing so at the start often undermines the more thoughtul conclusion you try to reach at the end– which is that everybody needs needs to take a step back and retain some perspective.
I appreciate that perspective in your writing, except when you lose it to go for “gotcha!” points on the other writers out there.
Those are truy pretty pathetic numbers, but I thought after an early bout of shaky-camera-means-good-movie, JJ Abrams managed to make a pretty darn good flick
Ironically, MI3 probably has the best script of any of the series so far, but i agree with DP’s comments that the movie looks too much like TV to qualify as a true event ‘movie’ in the best sense. JJ Abrams is a TV guy, and Cruise with his producer hat clearly panicked when MOVIE directors like Fincher and then Carnahan jumped ship. Whatever their faults, at least the De Palma and Woo editions looked like something you couldn’t see on TV, with some striking images and cinematic set pieces. I saw the teaser for MI3 in March and was struck by how bland and uninteresting visually and cinematically it looked. If Cruise had looked to a Raimi, a Ridley Scott, a Singer or even a Cuaron or Meirelles, that might have been more incentive for the public to get up from their TV’s and go watch a real movie movie rather than a large-screen TV special.
^ Bad news for the next Harry Potter film, then. Another franchise film directed by a TV helmer.
Well, Eric… not really a piece about Anne Thompson. She is one of many who tend to fall down this well. And as I say, it often includes me.
The same, I might say, is true of the recent flailings of the NYT. Sharon Waxman does not run her section. Editors do. The choice to only feature negative box office stories is not hers. But she does find people who will offer only one side of the story with remarkable dexterity. Today’s story offers a notably harsh comment from Paul Degerabarian, who suddenly is counting himself as a marketing and cultural expert… very unlike him.
And Eric… the reason these myths take hold is because very few of us are willing to ever call out other journalists, much less the big papers. It is not great for business. But repetition makes myth. And big papers get repeated by the lemmings (yes, I know lemmings is a misused metaphor given the literal actions of lemmings), no matter how off the beam they are.
A good point, Wreck… though the machinery may overcome his limitations. The question is not the look on that film so much as whether he really has something special to add to the mix. Unlike the M:I3 gig – or the old Alien gigs – the franchise tends not to want iconoclasts.
As much as I like Tom Cruise – and I do still like him, as he generally makes very good movies – “Mission: Impossible III” was nothing more than the most expensive episode of “Alias” ever. Of course, that’s 100x better than the second installment.
I saw it and liked it, despite my opinion of Cruise.
Nevertheless, the discussion of “should” as applied to this movie is not the same as “sports, where being #2 is a failure, even if being #2 means great success against all but one competitor.”
Here, the primary yardstick for “should” was the opening weekend numbers for the prior two movies in the series. It’s not as though Hollywood execs haven’t studied the past history of the series, the past history of sequels, the past history of tentpoles in early May, etc., in making an estimate of what a movie “should” do at the box office. This was an established brand, with an established star and good advance reviews. Do people stop drinking Pepsi because they don’t like the new ad? Or do women who have suffered from post-partum depression (and their families) or benefited from psychiatric medication (and their families) decide they don’t want to hand over their money to a man they perceive as a dangerous lunatic? When the newspapers are running people-in-the-street stories in which people are saying they don’t intend to see the movie and describe Cruise as a “psycho,” “scary” and a “freakbag,” was it the marketing campaign, or Cruise?
The Longest Yard was a comedy, with a budget that was about half of that for M:I 3. A 47 million opening on an 86 million budget looks a lot better than 47 million on a 150 million budget. The yardstick is profit and return on investment.
M:I 3 will certainly do better overseas than The Longest Yard. But unless Europe got a radically different marketing campaign, the comparison between markets would suggest that the publicity for Cruise’s antics in the US was the factor driving people away from this film in the US.
I’m not really following what you’re saying.
What is the myth that you’re countering here? What I’m hearing is this: M:I 3 didn’t underperform, the expectations were simply too high, and these expectations are a symptom of a larger problem.
If that’s accurate, then, again, your preceeding post comes off much like the sort of reporting that you’re arguing against.
The problem with the film is that no one asked for it. In the past 6 years I can’t recall anyone asking me if and when they were going to make another Mission Impossible film. The first two films were just not that memorable and didn’t wet audiences apetite for future films. Movies like Pirates and the Bourne Identity films leave the audience wanting more. If paramount never made MI3 I don’t think anyone would have really cared. You can make that argument that no one asked for another Scary Movie after how bad part two was, but that had a budget 1/3 the ammount of MI3. Although Cruises popularity might have dimished some over this past year, I bet if War of the Worlds came out this past weekend instead of last year it would probably have made the same ammount it did last July.
Good column. Should is the word that is required when a movie needs to reach a certain number to make serious profits–not just make its money back. I loved Paramount’s spin that there was such a long gap between the two sequel installments that this should be viewed as the relaunch of a new franchise! Also the research indicates that the male/female demo was much the same as the other Mission Impossibles.
…so could we say that “The weekend numbers for Mission: Impossible: III were not what they should be” for the film to bolster a Paramount regime that’s had its share of recent pitfalls?
Isn’t that the real story here? Paramount has invested a lot of time, money and capital into this film in order to allow the shaky studio to “step up” into the franchise big time. How does this soft opening affect Brad and his position at the helm?
And to further Anne’s comment, the ‘mount is spinning this latest MI movie as a “relaunch” in a similar manner to Sony’s early spin on Casino Royale. Is the public’s reaction to MI3 an indicator of how it will respond to Bond?
“Paramount took a TV series about teamwork and made it into the Tom Cruise show. These films are all about HIM.”
Bingo, the biggest problem with the films. The opening of the first film has to be one of the biggest “FUCK YOU’s” to the fans of a television show. The second confirmed this decision by pretty much limiting the “team” to Hunt and Ving Rhames when instead of opening it up to more players.
As to the fall out for Cruise’s career after the tepid weekend numbers…
Anyone who thinks that this is the definitive end to Cruise is jumping the gun, but it does suggest a slide has begun and unless he goes into major, major PR work then his days at the top of the pile will come to end. I wouldn’t rule out a lucky break by getting attached to project that returns him, but just how much will any studio be willing to gamble on risky big budget films that rely on his name at this point?
What is interesting among the chatter about how he alienated the more casual of his fans (rest assured, just like Jacko will always have die-hard supplicants, there will those who will keep the candles on their Cruise shrines burning until the end) that many pointed to other factors before they got to his attack on Brooke Shields and postpartum depression. But in talking to women about the whole “Is Cruise Over?” debate, I was told several times this was the thing that really turned them off of him.
The crazy hyperactivity, the younger wife, the bizarre “religious” views, the questionable sexuality and the idiotic rant against psychology/psychiatry were somehow ignorable. But when he started weighing in on an issue the goes right to essense of womanhood he crossed a line that was not forgivable to many.
Geez, the guy has been “top of the pile” for TWENTY YEARS! Has anybody in the history of Hollywood ever pulled off something like that?
It has to end at some point (and I’m not conceding that it has).
I think he also did A LOT of damage when he attacked the mental health industry and anti-anxiety or anti-depressent meds in general. There are many, many, people taking some form of mental health prescription medication. The way he attacked that on the Lauer interview along with Brooke Shields, I think alienated a lot of people.
And while I’m playing armchair psychologist, is it me or does anyone else see Cruise as the biggest undiagnosed Manic-Depressive/Bi-Polar that is just in the craziest mode of mania ever?
Personally, I blame Mimi Rogers.
She’s the one that converted him to that hokey cult that says psychiatry and psychology are evil. So now his unmedicated ass is unleashed on the rest of us, and we all have to deal with his particular flavor of “crazy”.
That Bitch.
I really think all of this speculation is a moot issue until we see the second weekend’s numbers. There is a good chance this film could just divebomb or it could hold at the trajectory of Batman Begins. I personally think it’s gonna fade, pretty fast, given the competition. I know the tracking has been reported as low, but Poseidon just feels like it could be huge to me, possibly even a $50 million opening. Between that and Da Vinci Code, the adult audience you need to keep those legs up might just be all but gone from MI:III by Memorial Day Weekend.
But haven’t we been here before? Wasn’t Collateral considered a disappointment, after its opening? Last Samurai? Vanilla Sky? All those films held pretty well. You can never underestimate this guy. That said, I think the super-spy genre has really reached a saturation point. XXX, Bourne, Bond, Austin Powers, Codie Banks, you name it, just too many.
Bourne and Bond are gonna keep chugging, but I think the rest will just fall by the wayside.
re: top of the pile for twenty years: Clint Eastwood, John Wayne, Cagney, Bogart, Cary Grant, and for the ladies Bette davis, Claudette Colbert, just a few off my head
There is something truly deranged going on when a film opens to $48 million on a non-holiday weekend and it’s a catastrophe (to quote MSNBC). How many movies never get to 48 mill at all? Who died and made some self-styled expert who predicted 60-70 God? What the hell difference does any of it make in the first place to anyone other than the folks at Paramount?
*sigh* All of this after-the-fact analysis is just annoying, because when it comes down to it, MI3 was better than the last two MI movies and better than 80% of the non-genre (fantasy/superhero) action movies released by Hollywood, but it ended up making almost the same opening weekend as Terminator 3, Bad Boys 2, Batman Begins and other sequels that came out years after the previous installment.
Seems to me that the weaker opening was more of a response to people sick of bad sequels, especially following previous bad sequels like MI2…and that’s the people who were old enough to remember it. I don’t think that Tom Cruise really would be very popular among anyone under 20 at this point.
On another note: Am I the only person able to watch a movie starring Tom Cruise and realize that he’s playing a fictional character in a fictional story and not let all of the Scientology/personal life crap affect my judgment of his work and that of the filmmaker? The problem isn’t Cruise, the problem is the media who makes a big deal out of everything he does, thereby feeding his desire for attention.
I agree EDouglas. I sat on it for a day and the movie still holds up pretty well. There’s nothing terribly innovative to MI3 (find me the law that says there should be) but a film that manages to hold your attention for 2+ hours is still something to value. Word of mouth on my end would seem to agree.
I reread Poland’s review today and it’s filled with prejudgements — line after line of what the movie IS NOT (see also: the dorks on this blog who insist the story MUST be about a “team,” and the normally fairminded Dargis cynically reviewing Cruise’s publicity in lieu of the actual film). If you think about it, MI3’s a pretty tricky movie to critique — so many traps to fall into — and I honestly haven’t come by a smart one yet, fresh or rotten.
DP does bring up a good point about the very risky opening scene, so ugly I felt it poisined much of the fun from the story, up until the eventual catharis in Act III. In that regard the second viewing will certainly go down easier than the first.
Can I just say THANK YOU for laying blame to the marketing. I said it on the other threads that it was the marketing that was all wrong. First, it was EVERYWHERE. You couldn’t escape it.
“Phil Hoffman became the Jamie Foxx of the film. That
Crow T, the reason viewers pick the team angle as one of the major problems they have with the MI franchise is because the original show is fondly remembered as a team doing impossible missions. It is a valid pre-judgement then that the films would keep even a semblance of this. I would argue that the first film did this pretty successfully. You had the opening sequence and the break-in at CIA as major team focused set-pieces.
In fact, I think people are being too hard on MI:1 anyway – I re-watched it a couple of nights ago and compared to the atrocious second film, its sleek, sexy and despite what people claim, it does make sense. It just doesn’t spoonfeed you. It had some wonderful supporting turns (Vanessa Redgrave looks like she is having a ball – Henry Czerny is a great hissable villain) and the CIA break-in is a DePalma masterwork.
I don’t think this opening is a disaster – as many people have pointed out, Cruise is not a mega-opener. I would have expected a major action film franchise with him, that has been largely well reviewed to do about $55 million and finish with about $180 million. I think it will probably creep to $140 – 150 million which will mean that studios may feel that Cruise’s stardom is dented but not finished. What it does mean is that the silver bullet in Cruise’s PR arsenal, ie, his superhuman ability to sell a film relentlessly by personal appearances, is tainted
Without the team angle and the rubber masks, the name “Mission: Impossible” is just a hollow signifier, which they basically knew all along. The entire thing was invented as a way to provide Tom Cruise with his own personal action franchise that would have a presold spy name owned by Paramount already attached to it. Marketing 101, except for the fact that they have to actually give the fans what they want every so often (maybe that’s why Paramount hasn’t ever released the series on video – they don’t want people to realize what the show was actually about).
Oh, I haven’t read David’s review yet… I guess I should go check it out.
Who says MI3 was a reboot? I saw nothing at all that pointed to that. Ethan Hunt was the same character as he was in the last two movies, except that he was older, thinking more seriously of retiring and settling down. Made perfect sense to me. And people who complained about the previous movies not being enough of an actual “team” should be delighted with the latest movie.
Yes, it is quite funny reading comments about how ‘MI should be a TEAM movie’. It becomes pretty clear who hasn’t watched MI:3 yet at that point.
It didn’t open up on a Memorial Day weekend like the previous films. That is the story for me here. And no, War of the Worlds wouldn’t have opened the same this weekend as it did on JULY 4TH WEEKEND. Sheesh.
I also have to admit, every story today is saying ‘Backlash! $48 million!”, which I think to the common reader makes no sense whatsoever. $48 million is a boatload of cash no matter how you cut it, and the difference between that, and say $80 million, just blurs for many people.
These stories would be justified if it opened like Kingdom of Heaven, not like Bad Boys 2.
“There is something truly deranged going on when a film opens to $48 million on a non-holiday weekend and it’s a catastrophe (to quote MSNBC). How many movies never get to 48 mill at all? Who died and made some self-styled expert who predicted 60-70 God? What the hell difference does any of it make in the first place to anyone other than the folks at Paramount?” from Cadavra
I agree. The way the media is making this into such an omnious prediction about Cruise’s future in the business is over-the-top, and smacks of “SEE! I told ya! We were right!” It’s a really GOOD opening for a third installment of a franchise that started 10 years ago, IMO. A whole generation later, an MI film is still opening to almost 50 million domestic! And not on a holiday weekend, to boot! We need some clearity here. Cruise films have never opened to Spiderman numbers. But he opens consistantly well…that is why he is on top of Premiere’s Most Powerful (actor) list. He’s consistant. But what is sad to me is the GLEE expressed by some regarding the disappointing numbers since the over-expectation was a bit absurd to begin with due to the time between these sequels, and the recent media bashing over-kill over everything Tom Cruise. SHOULD of made more! Well, I think it did a little less than what I expected, but geez! Not THAT bad.
$48mil might seem like a lot of cash for a movie that COST $50mil but this one’s total will be around $300mil+.
“Says who….BOB SUGAR?”
I think the movie would’ve stood out more from the others if Ethan was retired from IMF, and from there the marketing dept could’ve sold the movie as a “coming out of retirement” sort of thing, but maybe that’s asking too much from these films.
Absolutely right. This should not be about Cruise’s off-screen antics. Just because he’s bat-shit crazy doesn’t mean we can’t keep his work separate from his life. Some of my favorite actors (Wayne, Stewart, Loy) and directors (Ford, Hawks, Capra) were major right-wingers, but I’d have missed an awful lot of wonderful movies if I’d used that as an excuse to not watch them.
“Some of my favorite actors (Wayne, Stewart, Loy) and directors (Ford, Hawks, Capra) were major right-wingers, but I’d have missed an awful lot of wonderful movies if I’d used that as an excuse to not watch them.”
The problem is not merely that Cruise does stuff many disagree with or dislike. It’s that he’s changed his public persona into a crazed, confrontational nut. Wayne, Stewart, and Loy…their politics didn’t change their public personality (i.e. they expressed them without appearing to go loony). Cruise’s antics make it so that you can’t watch the film without some thought in the back of your mind that he’s phony. Watching him as an Italian DHL carrier was as convincing as watching him write physics equations off the top of his head.
Saw the film MI3 last Saturday in a 3/4 filled theater with mostly heterosexual males. Didn’t really want to see it, but not much out there to choose from…Sentinel? United 93? Came out yawning despite the special effects overload. Who cares anymore.
I agree Cruise is manic-depressive, probably Bipolar II since he hasn’t been spotted running down 405 naked…yet.
I think the defenders of the movie’s opening are forgetting one thing–it exists to MAKE MONEY. That’s why it’s there. It’s underperformance might be exaggerated, but to give it a gold star and say “Everyone’s a winner here” is not right for something that’s a blatant cash cow. If 150 million is all the movie was ever going to make, than why was it made? On a 150 million budget? To make excuses for a film, to give it handicaps, is something people do for “Moulin Rouge!” or “Master and Commander”. If a studio is going to lose money–or barely break even, or not make much money in any case, it should not be for something like “Mission: Impossible III”. We’re being deluged with sequels as it is.
Ummm, thanks for all the mental diagnosing, guys. I’m sure you are all qualified. I’m sure all the other actors in Hollywood are mentally sound and had a perfect childhood, and he’s the only one with extreme highs and lows.
I think Cruise is misunderstood, and he let his guard down during WOTW promotion, and said some things too strongly he probably now wishes he hadn’t…but crazy? He has strong opinions, and he is a passionate person. Hence his direction in life towards acting. Controversial, yes. Human, with human frailties, yes. But bat-shit crazy? Come on. I remember not too long ago that many interviewers were bored with his answers because he was so private. He kept his feelings to himself, and he was criticized for it then. Now, after being a bit overwhelmed by love (hey…who hasn’t been in their lifetime?), and speaking openly about his beliefs, he is being criticized again, but now as someone who should be more private. That was last year. During promotion for this film, he was a bit more calm and cool. But now, I’m sure he will clam up and never let interviewers get too close again. I’m not a Scientologist, but I love listening to Beck. What is the difference? I’ve never heard so many judgemental people in my life when it comes to Tom Cruise. People have been ape-sh*t crazy judgemental about an actor who has been making cool films for over 20 years. His track record in Hollywood is almost unmatched.
I’m a woman, and I still love Cruise and his films. His beliefs didn’t bother me because I know that’s just what they were…his beliefs. Not mine. I don’t have to be a Catholic to love Mel Gibson, either. OR a Muslim to love Ali. If people judge someone soley on their religious beliefs, than that’s just sad.
Is it just me, or are people WAY too into making fun of this guy? Oh, I forgot. He’s rich, talented, successful and good-looking. Nevermind.
Pwrgirl: the disconnect comes when Cruise uses his acting schtick to “sell” us on his magical love quest. If he’d been a bit mellow about it and simply said, “Hey, Katie and I are in love” I think you’d find a lot more people who’d accept it. But putting on this public display as if he was 13 is just… weird. 41-year olds who’ve been through two marriages don’t suddenly jumping on couches and acting like a drunken teenager.
Add to that his simply bizarre interviews — there’s really no other word for it — where suddenly he’s an expert in the history of psychology and medications, and you have a recipe for turning people off. Generally speaking, the public doesn’t like it when celebrities suddenly declare they are experts in a field or for a cause, unless they actually demonstrate some competence or intelligence in that arena. It’s like Pamela Anderson and PETA — animal rights is a worthy cause that’s worth discussion, but Pam Anderson telling people how to run their lives is going to cause a disconnect.
When a celebrity puts themself in a ridiculous situation — repeatedly — they’re gonna get slammed.
I don’t know if Cruise is crazy and I don’t care what beliefs he has. But when his expression of his beliefs become louder and more obnoxious than his movie-screen personas, it affects my ability to suspend disbelief. Whether or not that is the press’ fault or his is up for debate. All I’m saying is that when he was quiet about his personal life it was much easier to enjoy his movies.
But still, what’s that got to do with enjoying a movie? Did you see that Oprah show? I did. He jumped up and down like someone making a touchdown, you know…a guy thing. Not like a drunken teenager. And it wasn’t all jumping on couches. People seem to forget that he talked about his children, WOTW, Spielberg, and all the other cast members. But the only thing blogs write about is the jumping, like that’s all he did for an hour. Oh, and Oprah was screaming like crazy getting the guy fired up as well. Encouraging him, bigtime. “Whoo hoo! Tom!!” But again…who cares? He was talking about his personal life (like all other celebrities do), and promoting WOTW.
As for the Today thing, he was asked about it. Lauer brought it up. And yes, he said some things defensively…that was obvious. But the guy is human like all of us. And from what I’ve heard, he had just flown around the world. Hello…jet-lag. He was tired. And now, people think he’s “crazy” and his career is on a downward spiral because of that?
I’m not making excuses for the guy, because I don’t know him. But you have to admit that the hazing he’s gotten has reached absurd heights. It’s outweighed anything he did or said a long time ago. How long does the guy have to pay for something he said on a Friday morning talk show?
Again, what does this have to do with enjoying his films? I don’t care if the guy worships a tree. As long as he keeps making cool films, I’ll be there to see them. And that goes for how I feel about any actor.
pwrgirl, it has everything to do with enjoying his films. If I see Tom Cruise speaking Italian in a DHL uniform and I’m laughing cause he’s Tom Cruise speaking Italian in a DHL uniform, that makes the film less effective. It’s especially bad for Tom because often the reason we liked his films was because he was playing himself or his persona. Now that “playing himself” has different connotations, it does hurts.
“Did you see that Oprah show? I did. He jumped up and down like someone making a touchdown, you know…a guy thing.”
—
Uh, guys don’t talk about their girlfriend by jumping on couches. Not when they’re 15, not when they’re 20, and especially not when they’re 40. It rings completely and totally false. Trying to sell it as just a normal thing makes it stand out even more.
What do touchdowns have to do with it, btw? I don’t even know guys who celebrate touchdowns that way.
Interview With A Vampire, Taps, Legend, Colateral, Magnolia…yeah. He just plays himself.
Listen, I understand the arguement that people find it hard to separate an actor’s persona from a character he plays, but if you can watch Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, or any well-known actor with a strong personality, certainly you can give Cruise the benifit and suspend disbelief for a couple of hours too, and give into the story.
It’s just kind of sad to me that people ignore his talent and focus on a couple of entertainment interviews he did over a year ago. I saw Born On The Fourth Of July last night on tv, and the talent this man displayed in every seen just floored me. Incredibly moving performance. All this other extraneous crap about the guy doesn’t matter to me. His talent does. His films do. That’s the only point I’m trying to make.
We’re not talking about Robert Downey Jr. here. Every movie you listed above has Cruise playing a version of himself. There’s scary Cruise in Collateral, pumped-up-misogynist-but-sensitive Cruise in Magnolia, Cruise-in-the-woods in Legend…the man does not have a lot of range.
Stepping away from Cruise’s off-screen persona, and talking simply about his on-screen roles: since he became a star, all of his roles have been honed and streamlined to fit Cruise and his (limited) range. He’s very good within that range, but, like most superstars, he is who he is and rarely tries anything beyond that.
This isn’t a knock — Connery basically plays Connery and has for 30+ years at this point. Cruise is the same, as are other film superstars. However, until recently Cruise was excellent at maintaining his image on and off-screen. He’s now stumbled in that regard, and it’s hard not to see it as over-reaching.
“Cruise in the woods…” LOL! I disagree. There is a range there.
No, he’s not Sir Lawrence Olivier, or Boris Karlof where he looks completely different in each role, he looks the same, with some variations. But the roles you listed from my list confirms my arguement. He is completely different in each of those roles. An actors palate is his face and body. That is both an asset and a curse for leading men.
We could debate his talent on and on, but I really don’t think he became as successful as he has become over all these years just from his off-screen persona. I don’t believe that at all. He could have rode on that alone for a couple of years, but without talent, he wouldn’t still be as popular and as in demand as he is.
I’ve got to run, but it’s been an interesting discussion. Thanks.
Sorry..I meant “and actor’s palette.”
I know you’re already gone, Pwrgirl, but you’re being naive (deliberately or not). Nor was I referring to physical looks.
Do you honestly think that blockbuster success as an actor comes merely from one’s on-screen “talent”?
Shouldn’t we be putting Orlando Bloom, Adam Sandler, and anyone else who’s had a series of big hits up there with Tom and his “talent”? Stars are made by establishing an image and carefully honing and maintaining that image through a lot of careful marketing and selection of roles. Cruise was one of the best at that, but he’s faltered badly in the last few years.
Most leading men basically just play versions of themselves over the years…John Wayne, Jimmy Stewart, etc. basically crafted personas for themselves that would work regardless of the role. That doesn’t mean that on occasion they could bring up greater degrees of emotionality in a movie like The Searchers or Vertigo, but the basic characters they played were almost always the same. And so it is with Cruise, where it’s big news when he plays a character who curses in Magnolia (shocking!) or has a different hairstyle in Collateral.
Nobody’s saying he’s not talented, but like most leading men, he’s playing an idealized fantasy version, both on and off camera. When you start to get weird in real-life, you subvert that fantasy persona and it keeps people from being able to suspend their disbelief.
” . . . but if you can watch Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, or any well-known actor with a strong personality, certainly you can give Cruise the benifit and suspend disbelief for a couple of hours too, and give into the story.”
Pwrgirl, when was the last time you saw Pacino or DeNiro appear on Oprah, never mind hop up and down on her couch onstage? When was the last time you saw Pacino or DeNiro drag his new girl around the red carpet and kiss her while the cameras flashed and went off?
Pacino and DeNiro are extremely private, which works in their favor when I watch them on film. Cruise used to keep a lid on things and that helped me appreciate his performances. Lately, that’s getting tougher to do.
Wolfie – I assume you mean it’s getting harder for you to appreciate his performances and that you are not letting him off the hook for the amount of attention he’s been chasing…
I have no problem separating the art from the artist. I don’t want to stop enjoying movies or music or books due to the fact that an actor or writer or singer is a prick or weird or whatever. Ryan Adams is an asshole, but I love the man’s music. I think you have to separate the two.
“Do you honestly think that blockbuster success as an actor comes merely from one’s on-screen ‘talent’?”
Telemachos brings up a very good point. Cruise is well ensconsed in the industry machine. He is repped by the powerhouse talent agency, CAA. He gets first look/pick of the best projects. He has the toughest entertainment attorney, Bert Fields, on his speed dial. He can call anyone, anytime and get through. Even top studio execs return his calls.
Cruise is talented, yes, but he is also very good at playing the industry game.
David, it’s getting harder for me to separate Cruise the actor from Cruise the media personality because all of the attention – the jokes, TomKat, etc. – is everywhere. I don’t even have to look for it or participate in it. It’s at the office, at the breakroom lunch table.
I have asked a few friends if they think Cruise is a good actor. One responded that he is a savvy guy who knows what sells tickets. Others said he is good in the right projects and liked him in Collateral, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire. I personally enjoyed Risky Business, which was The Graduate of my generation.
Ten, 15 years ago, I had no trouble getting a group of people to go to the first show of a Tom Cruise film. Last summer, we saw WotW, but maybe that was because of Speilberg. No one I know wanted to see MI:3 this past weekend.
“No one I know wanted to see MI:3 this past weekend.”
Same here. I couldn’t get anyone I know to go with me. Females, especially, voiced their disgust with Cruise when I asked if they wanted to see it.
Excuse me, Spielberg. Somebody shoot me.
You guys make some good points. I understand where you are coming from. I hope this can all turn around for Cruise eventually. He’s too talented to be written off because of laying what he felt on the table for everyone to see, and removing some of the mystery.
Going to M:I-III tonight! Can’t wait~
“Saw the film MI3 last Saturday in a 3/4 filled theater with mostly heterosexual males.”
Lol. You took a survey?
“Is it just me, or are people WAY too into making fun of this guy? Oh, I forgot. He’s rich, talented, successful and good-looking. Nevermind.”
Pwrgirl, it’s because he’s out there making a fool of himself. There are plenty of people making fun of Lindsay Lohan because she *gasp* is a young actress who gets drunks frequently. I think Tom Cruise was begging for this the way he went on ragging about Brooke Shields, psychiatry and so on. Plus, he’s NOT good looking anyway. He’s gotten a weird creepy older man vibe. And his hair is always atrocious now. It’s almost as if he’s got a neo-bowl cut.
“It’s just kind of sad to me that people ignore his talent and focus on a couple of entertainment interviews he did over a year ago. I saw Born On The Fourth Of July last night on tv” for someone who wants us to ignore something that has happened over the last year you seem to want us to remember performances from over 15 years ago. Yes, he’s a talented man when he applies himself – but geez. Now it’s like he’s Mr Summer only interested in making movies designed to make lots of money. As if he thinks that if he stops for a while he won’t be as popular. If he went back to making smaller pictures (or just better non-action ones) I’d be able to handle him more. But at the moment he’s going around acting like a fool and when his movies are pretty bland action stuff (i loved Collateral btw) then it’s hard not to think about what an ass he is.
Anybody who did what he did on Today deserves all of this. He’s a tool. “I know about psychiatry. You don’t.” SHUT UP YOU IDIOT. You don’t know.
And I have no idea why u brought Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro into this.
You reminded me, Camel, even though you’re in Australia, that making fun of people for being “rich, talented, successful and good-looking” is pretty much the American way. God bless this country.
Marketing is very important. However, the best marketing in the world can’t make people want to see a movie if- for whatever reason (the star’s antics, the national mood, etc.)- people simply aren’t in the mood to see that film.
Camel, Cruise lost that awful cut last year. I’m enjoying hearing every female college instructor bring up Tom Cruise in a negative way from the Psychiatry bit a full year after the fact. Sheesh, let it die people.
I had no problems bringing people along for MI:3, but indeed there was a near shock that it was actually enjoyable afterward. Wow.
Tofu, he still has horrible hair. And bangs. Let’s not forget the bangs.
Might I point out again that $47 milliion in tickets is not “nobody.” It’s about 6 mllion somebodies… which is a lot. Just not what they hoped for.