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
ALL HAIL TOM CRUISE. The greatest movie star in all of history, brings tears to my eyes to see the world remembering that it’s okay to love Tom Cruise again.
So does this make the oft-mentioned Top Gun sequel more or less likely? There seems to have been rumblings around it forever, but I just don’t see it as something that Cruise would like to do unless he had to. But if it keeps the comeback momentum going? (which I doubt Rock of Ages will contribute to)
I think the TOP GUN 2 idea is just some bad-idea bullshit that SIR TONY SCOTT floats in interviews every few years just to see how it plays. He also publicly pondered a Warriors and a Wild Bunch remake, then as usual, said, “Eh, fuck it” and just went back to his usual surveillance-Denzel action wheelhouse… I don’t know why they’d risk meddling with utter brilliance, though I’d be first in line and see it 7,000 times. More Cole Trickle would be even sweeter. But I don’t think it’s ever gonna happen.
Unfortunately…I don’t think so. People are seeing the Mission Impossible sequel IN SPITE of Tom Cruise. And they come out, liking the movie but not having anything to say about TC. Brad Bird seems to be getting all of the credit here. I don’t think this is going to change a thing for Cruise.
CRUISE IS GOD. Everyone loves him.
Cruise is AMERICA. Nobody in the WORLD except movie geeks knows or cares who directed a movie. YEAH, RIGHT, Glamourboy, in Des Moines they’re beating down doors asking for “two tickets for the BRAD BIRD MOVIE!” Get real.
CRUISE is the sell, CRUISE is everyone’s real hero.
In spite of Cruise? That’s like seeing the Muppets in spite of the fact that there are a bunch of muppets in it.
Ask any random relative or co-worker who doesn’t see 100+ movies a year who directed Mission Impossible 4. 49 out of 50 will not be able to tell you it’s Brad Bird. Then give them the name Brad Bird and ask for his filmography. The same 49 out of 50 could not tell you a single movie. The 49th miiiight be able to tell you he’s with Pixar.
And Tom Cruise has the best moment in the Rock of Ages preview.
CRUISE POWER. GOD.
If I had a pick of ONE PERSON to take to a desert island for all eternity, and my options were KRISTEN STEWART or TOM CRUISE?
I’d pick CRUISE.
I came away from MI4 reminded of how much I’d missed seeing Tom Cruise on the big screen.
I know Cruise’s image has been tarnished in recent years, but Ghost Protocol has me bowing to his sheer awesomeness once again.
The fact that he actually flopped around on the top floors of the world’s tallest building like some kind of real-life Spider-Man makes him cooler than anybody I will ever encounter in my life.
Does he have a movie yet where he’s scaling those giant twin towers in Malaysia? If not, he’ll probably try to work it into MI5 or One Shot.
Exactly what research must one do in order to come to the conclusion that “people are seeing the Mission Impossible sequel IN SPITE of Tom Cruise?”
All due respect, Mr. Poland, but isn’t it usually a 30-35% drop for non-family films like MI:4 and family films usually drop more in the 5-10% range?
Given that — and the reported 14.5 mil, not 16mil, for Monday — wouldn’t Mission more likely be at 9.5-10 mil for Tues-Thurs and thus closer to 100-105 mil going into the weekend?
That’s a pretty big difference…
That said, it’ll still probably finish in the $175 mil domestic range and do huge overseas and be a giant win for everyone involved. So what’s an extra 20 million between friends…
Tom Cruise is the only thing keeping me from seeing MI4 at this point. I can’t stand him as an actor and think he pretty much ruins everything he’s in.
I’ll probably catch it on DVD but I just can’t bring myself to spend $10-$15 on a movie starring Cruise.
“Tom Cruise is the only thing keeping me from seeing MI4 at this point. I can’t stand him as an actor and think he pretty much ruins everything he’s in.”
You should be waterboarded then deported as a Communist.
Cruise is our collective memory of growing up, and everything we should aspire to be in life. Anyone who doesn’t love Cruise and model themselves after him is an asshole.
CRUISE.
Lex, what did you make of all the dirty bare manfeet in WARRIOR? I dug the hell out of them. I wonder what Tom Cruise’s feet look like.
Gross. And lame.
“Tom Cruise is the only thing keeping me from seeing MI4 at this point. I can’t stand him as an actor and think he pretty much ruins everything he’s in.”
Really? Really?
It’s statements like that that shows that people don’t really love movies and are just here to bitch. Born on the 4th of July, The Firm, Rain Man, Risky Business, Taps, Jerry Maguire, A Few Good Men.
Tom Cruise has given us some iconic roles and moments in cinema history, and that statement is just plain fucking stupid.
I don’t worship at his altar, but to deny him his place in film history is just palinesque stupidity.
All the couch jumping in the world cannot take away from the fact that he’s one of the hardest working actors alive, and has been so ever since he graced the screen. He studies his characters, shows up, and contributes magnanimously to every film he’s in. He has never been accused of phoning it in. In fact, one of the critiques of Knight and Day was that he was trying too hard to win his fans back.
The guy has been around for three decades, when other young actors have been crowned the next cruise and have flamed out. Look at the cast of The Outsiders. Many of the other actors are still familiar and working, but no headliners. It’s not easy to keep relevant after thirty years.
So all I have left to say to Krazyeyes is from the lexicon of Lexg, BOW.
Exactly, bulldog. Add to that Collateral, Magnolia, Interview with a Vampire and Minority Report.
Although I’ve seen Young Guns about six times and I always forget to look for Cruise’s cameo.
Just look at that list Krillian. And with the exception of Mission Impossible, not a sequel among his best work.
All the Right Moves.
CRUISE.
My question; is this a bigger coup for Cruise, or Brad Bird/Pixar/positive word of mouth? I’d say it’s even…it’s Cruise’s biggest hit in six years, Bird and Pixar’s justification for live action is justified (aka support for “John Carter” and “1906”) and is evidence that word of mouth still matters as MI4 continues to gain on Sherlock 2, even though almost no one predicted MI4 would come close when they were both announced as releases this month.
Or Tropic Thunder even…
After the couch-jumping shenanigans, I was quite prepared to reject Cruise in WAR OF THE WORLDS, but he was excellent.
oww, just pointing out that krazyeyes said he (or she) wouldn’t see mi4 because he can’t stand cruise – subjectively referring only to himself – he didn’t try to deny cruise’s rightful place in cinema. are people no longer allowed to express their dislike of actors here without a pile on? i have a friend who loathes tom cruise w/every fibre of her being, who cares.
(and watch cruise’s next movie have merely middling or crap success in the states, like knight n day. no rhyme or reason to what becomes a hit, being a decent movie can help. or not)
You’re still the best thing about this blog you hair transplanting, pudgying, faux anti-establishment George Romney voting….something
So Leahnz, seeing that you seem to have a similar distaste for Michael Bay, one could take it on faith that you have not seen any Bad Boys, or Transformers flicks, or that The Rock wasn’t fucking awesome. You’ve argued about the quality, or lack thereof, of many of Michael bay;s films. Somehow you still find it in yourself to see them because you love film. And like it or not, a Michael Bay movie is now an event film.
So yes, I do understand that you can absolutely detest an actor, (my absolute detest is Steven Seagal) and that’s everyone’s right, but when you say he has ruined everything he was in, you ARE in fact denying him his rightful place because essentially you’re saying that Minority Report, Born on the 4th of July, A Few Good Men, All the Right Movies, and all the other legendary movies in his filmography were all pieces of shit because he’s in them.
oh, fwiw bulldog i wasn’t so much referring to you re: my post above — tho i see now i used the phrase ‘deny his rightful place blah blah blah’ so i can see how you’d think it was you to whom i was mainly referring, your phrase just stuck in my head.
anyhow i don’t know, i’d say for someone for whom cruise makes their skin crawl, saying that he ruins every movie he’s in seems completely valid, because if you dislike the star of a movie, on whose perf it inherently hinges, then the entire movie will likely not work for you. for example, this is often the case w/me and brad pitt, whose ‘lights on but nobody’s home’ amateur-hour mediocre acting ability usually puts me off something fierce (and i say ‘usually’ because there are those odd instances where pitt is pitch-perfect in a lead/co-lead role – usually when he’s playing a weirdo – such as ‘se7en’, kalifornia, burn after reading; or priceless in a smaller part such as ‘true romance’, so there’s that), so i’d have to say yes, he ruins movies for me on a regular basis.
re: bay, first i think by definition you have to actually see a few flicks to realise you don’t care for them and can then decide you don’t want to part with yer hard-earned cash to be annoyed — i had to see the trannies in the cinema because of familial obligation (have a weird soft spot for the fist one, disliked the next two), otherwise i don’t pay to see bay movies in the cinema for the most part, i’ll catch them on cable/tv. i think the only michel bay movie i’ve ever seen in the cinema (apart from the trannies) is ‘the rock’ – it was fine, good cast – sorta before the insufferable layer of bay cheese-hockum became so thick as to suffocate me, and it didn’t take me long to realise he wasn’t my cup of tea and makes me wanna hurl for the most part. i’ve never seen bad boys II full stop, and tbh don’t regret it for a second)
If you make an extreme point about any thing in a room of people that disagree, then you are basically asking for a pile on. I have never ever understood your “EVERYONE HAS A RIGHT TO AN OPINION” spiel because this is not about an opinion. No one is invalidating the opinion. People simply seem to think it’s silly and if people think something that drastic is silly, then they have the right to pile on. It’s all about rights after all, right?
The thing about Cruise is that he has a strong work ethic. An almost insane work ethic. He also only has positive things to say about people* (compare with Pitt’s well-publicized comments about having the “bitch” role in IWTV and having to wear awful contacts). That might well be true, but people who are rich, handsome, and famous should not complain about a multi-million dollar job no one forced them to take. Cruise only talks about how privileged and lucky he is.
*Except when he criticized Brook Shields. I believe he later apologized. It’s kind of sickening that this nonsense is so well-known and widely discussed, which leads to the biggest crock of all…
Regarding the whole couch jumping thing… You have actors who do drugs, bring guns to airport, have violent outbursts, and the public forgives them. Yet, there was all this discussion about whether or not the public would “forgive” Cruise, and for what? Because he jumped on a couch and said he loved his girl-friend? He didn’t lose his mind in that moment — America did. The same America that had voted to keep Bush president.
Cruise does not strike me as a knowledgeable person. Caught the Letterman interview and he just seemed dull. Didn’t know Dubai gets its money from oil. Had no idea. But he does have a remarkable talent for choosing scripts, studying characters, finding people who make him better.
Does anybody know how to write in plain English? Every comment section on this site is filled with shouting, toilet mouth and general imbecility.
With all the alphabet soup it looks like everyone who posts here works for the US government.
Pardon me, Chucky, but do you have any Grey Poupon?
I can see someone having a problem with Cruise and its certainly no big deal to dislike an actor, but its just in the instance of this being a MI film, a franchise that only exists so we can see Cruise look cool, run fast, and jump like a monkey. I can see not liking Cruise and begrudingly seeing his films because he works with the absolute cream of the crop directors and your regard for Speilberg, Jorden, Stone etc.. outweighs your disdain for Cruise, but this is a film franchise that relies entirely on the appeal of its star.
Like the Beverly Hills Cop movies, Croc Dundee movies, and Rocky sequels, without the star there is just nothing much there.
Or if you hated Sandler, you might see Funny People or Punch Drunk Love but you would certainly not see Jack and Jill in spite of Sandler.
Where’s the WAR HORSE numbers?
Since no one mentioned it, let me just say that I thought Knight and Day was way better than it ever got credit for. It was a fun movie that played right into the Cruise is crazy persona. It’s not going to go into the Cruise panthanon, but it’s part of the solid singles Cruise has been hitting lately, including the engaging Valkyrie.
People can pile on all they want and it still won’t alter my extreme dislike of Tom Cruise. I disagree that he’s a good actor. He coasts on being Tom Cruise and trots out the same annoying tics and mannerisms in (nearly) everything he appears in. He’s certainly not the only Hollywood star who does this (George Clooney also comes to mind) but while I find Clooney generally charming, Cruise just makes my skin crawl.
Many of the films people mentioned about might have been fantastic … If only Cruise wasn’t in them. Every once in a while I’ll watch something with him and my main takeaway is always that the film would have been better without Tom Cruise.
Krazy, they are called Rain Man and A Few Good Men. END OF LINE.
People, get over it. Cruise has some wacky beliefs and has a wacky movie star persona. Who cares. What someone believes has no bearing on my enjoyment of a movie. It’s really good despite some flaws. If you like action thriller/secret agent movies, you have no excuse.
Cruise’s newly perceived craziness makes him more fun to watch. Ethan Hunt was boring as hell as a character before, but now every time he does something death-defying, I think of the real Cruise and go, yep, that’s probably something he would do.
Tom Cruise never coasts. Every actor who has worked with him have already attested to that. he is consistently and repeatedly always called the hardest working actor on any set he’s on, partly because he always has a lot invested in all the movies he’s in. He isn’t just an actor for hire.
Yes, you are entitled to hate his acting style all you want, but there are certain characters that are portrayed by certain actors that have just become legendary. Sure you may be able to picture other actors in those roles, but then it would have been a different movie and a completely different outcome.
Anne Rice hated and lobbied to have Tom Cruise removed from playing Lestat, and he worked to win her over, not with his toothy grin, but with hard work and his performance. You actually think Tom Cruise needs to do that at his level.
Anne Rice before she saw Tom as Lestat:”The Tom Criuse casting is just so bizarre, it’s almost impossible to imagine how it’s going to work, and it’s really almost impossible to imagine how Neil, David and Tom could have come up with it. I have one question: Does Tom Criuse have any idea of what he’s getting into? I’m not sure he does. I’m not sure he’s read any of the books other than the first one, and his comments on TV that he wanted to do something scary and he loved “creature features” as a kid, well, that didn’t make me feel any better. I do think Tom Cruise is a fine actor. [But] you have to know what you can do and what you can’t do.”
Anne Rice after: “From the moment he appeared Tom was Lestat for me. He has the immense physical and moral presence; he was defiant and yet never without conscience; he was beautiful beyond description yet compelled to do cruel things. The sheer beauty of Tom was dazzling, but the polish of his acting, his flawless plunge into the Lestat persona, his ability to speak rather boldly poetic lines, and speak them with seeming ease and conviction were exhilarating and uplifting. The guy is great.”
Writers could be the worst critics.
Dislike him all you want, but acknowledge that his performances have struck a powerful chord in the majority of moviegoers for the past thirty years. He has transcended beyond just being a pretty face, heck Brad Pitt is prettier. But Tom’s legacy is long and deep. BOW
i’m not convinced tom cruise has “struck a powerful chord in the majority of moviegoers for the past thirty years”, bulldog, that’s a big unquantifiable claim. you obviously dig the guy and he’s no doubt a (at least once) popular movie-star and celebrity and a seemingly very nice fellow, but i think you might find many people don’t consider him that gifted an actor — rather more likable, competent, solid and dependable, but rather unremarkable.
personally i have a theory about cruise, which is this: when he is challenged and not playing ‘tom cruise’ he can be disarmingly good and even brilliant, which is to say when he has a character to really dig into, something with a really differnt look and personality outside his own comfort zone that requires him to actually stretch – esp something ‘villain-esque’ – he can rock it. for instance, his most effective perfs imho:
david shawn in ‘taps’ – angry, rogue and unhinged
kovic in ‘born on 4th july – angry, disabled, balding activist
frank in ‘magnolia’ -angry, arrogant, insecure misogynist jackass
lestat in ‘interview’ (shoulda been w/river)- deliciously ego-maniacal lunatic undead creature of the night
vincent in ‘collateral’- sociopath salt-n-pepper-haired hit man
and i’ll throw in grossman in ‘tropic thunder’ – chubby bald foul-mouthed egomaniacle dancing comedic psycho-boss.
perhaps it’s because he’s not MEANT to be the ‘likable’/sympathetic leading man in these roles (kovic not withstanding perhaps) that tom seems able to break free of those constraints and do away with his ‘tom cruise’ patina, scuff it up and create some rough edges and pathos to make me forget i’m watching ‘tom cruise’ with the hair and the teeth, for which he deserves credit in my book. and that’s not to say i don’t ‘like’ him in any other roles, but ‘liking’ him doesn’t cut it for me as far as considering him a gifted thespian, something more is required beyond being solid and hard-working
I never said that the person on the street was giving Brad Bird credit for MI3…I meant that the Hollywood community…or at least what I’ve read and who I’ve talked to. Also, read the consensus of reviews on RT and you’ll see most of the credit being given to Bird. And for every story about TC being the hardest working actor in Hollywood, there’s another one about his Scientology tents on movie sets and crazy, frantic behavior. I was at Paramount when he they cut him loose…and I have to tell you, there were lots of happy people on the lot..he was known to be a serious, ego-driven maniac…one of those ‘nobody is allowed to look me in the eye or they get fired’ kinda guys. Another truth–Mission Impossible II was thought to be pretty lame–Cruise starred in it…it didn’t do well. Mission Impossible III is thought to be great…Cruise stars in it…it does well. Proof that people don’t run to see a TC movie just because of him.His best performance to date is that Scientology video.
Why does being a good actor necessarily mean you have to be versatile? In fact, what elevates a lot of successful actors starting out at least is that they know themselves well enough to go for parts that are best suited to them (and ignore the parts that are better for someone else). Sometimes that means saying you’re not right for a good role.
The hard work is in really figuring who you are and then finding the projects to highlight that. That’s the particular thing that makes one a movie star. I don’t think it ruins movies per se…Philip Seymour Hoffman is a great actor who can play pretty much anyone, but he’s still better as the villain in MI3 than he would be as Ethan Hunt.
Wait, Mission Impossible II didn’t do well while Mission Impossible III did? Did I read that correctly? With $215 million domestic, Mission Impossible II is the highest grosser in the series. With $134 million, part III is the lowest (for now). The same is true worldwide, part II made the most while part III made the least.
I dunno Leahnz….”personally i have a theory about cruise, which is this: when he is challenged and not playing ‘tom cruise’ he can be disarmingly good and even brilliant, which is to say when he has a character to really dig into, something with a really differnt look and personality outside his own comfort zone that requires him to actually stretch – esp something ‘villain-esque’ – he can rock it. for instance, his most effective perfs imho”.
Isn’t that the very definition of a gifted thespian?
Tom suffers, and may have been one of the first of the modern era, from what Leonardo and Brad and other pretty leading actors have suffered from, and that is in my view, a skewed analysis of the good work that you do. How dare you be both pretty and can at at the same time. So no deserved nomination for Rainman for you even though you held you own against one of the most talented actors of our generation in Dustin Hoffman.
For some reason its easier to see schlubs like PS Hoffman or P Giamatti, or weathered veterans like Clooney, or of course, the English, as acting towers to which all others must bow. But the mere fact that you believe it is when he is challenged by playing roles outside himself and that those are best performances to me makes him a thespian, because he is operating outside his comfort zone.
I love Hoffman, and Giamatti. I wish the two of them had more scenes together in Ides of March, hell I wish Ides of March was about their two characters because I thought they were the two most interesting. But when will they not play a schlub?
Cruise, DeCaprio, Pitt, have actually stayed away from very conventional roles and challenge themselves. While the industry falls over Johnny Depp every chance they get, sometimes for playing a different version of the same off centered whacky character in a different movie, these guys I think pay for their success.
Ironically, PS Hoffman was the best baddie of all the Mission Impossibles. Wish he would do more? And despite what you thought of Hangover 2, Giamatti was gold baby, pure gold.
Tom Cruse, in my silly easily dismissed opinion, is the reason MI4 is the biggest (non adjusted) hit of the series.
All due respect to bird and co. but this is a case of a decent(not great) movie over performing because folks wanna see a movie star they love in a comfort food role.
And that is no easy accomplishment.
See Beverly Hills Cop 3. Or the modest success of late model rocky/Rambo pics.
Being a star and making blockbusters aint easy.
To do it for nearly 30 years at this level is pretty near unprecedented.
And he’s still in his 40s.
Amazing.
reading that bulldog i’m trying to wrap my head around it (which is good because it’s making me attempt to clarify my position in my brainbox and sort out how i feel…)
re: cruise, like i said i think he’s certainly capable of some creative stuff under the right conditions, he’s not bereft of talent, but to a large degree and as a general rule he’s chosen the career path of a pretty-boy leading man/movie-star rather than an actor who regularly takes risks and dares to stretch beyond the safe and mundane; i kinda don’t see how you can look at his film-o-graphy and claim he’s stayed away from conventional roles in favour of challenging material – convention has been tom’s bread and butter since the year dot, with a sprinkling of more challenging non-leading-man character work, but that’s not the basket he’s put his eggs in.
whether the pretty boys get unfairly put in a box and overlooked for their perfs… i personally don’t think so, i rather think the opposite: that they’ve been rather dependant on their appearance to get as far as they have with the degree of raw talent they have. i don’t see cruise’s turn in ‘rain man’ for instance is anything particularly special or awards-worthy, merely solid… whereas you think of it as ‘holding his own’ with hoffman, i tend to think of it more along the lines of a middling tennis pro playing with a seriously gifted tournament champ, wherein the lesser player tends to lift their game a bit for a brief time not indicative of any deeper, rigorously applied ability.
as for pitt, yowza, i don’t think his looks have caused his talents to be overlooked in the slightest, just the opposite: i think his looks are the very REASON he’s been as successful as he is with just mild talent. if brad pitt didn’t look the way he does with his same level of ability, he would not be a working big-leagues actor and nothing can convince me otherwise. again i’m baffled how you can claim he’s stayed away from convention to challenge himself, as he’s taken much the same largely conventional pretty-boy leading-man path as cruise, with a similar sprinkling of flair, perhaps.
(leo…and johhny…i think they’ve had just about the success and kudos they deserve, weirdly, give or take. johnny has had the least conventional career path of the actors you’ve mentioned by quite a margin; his early career after jump street almost entirely consists of off-beat character work, hardly any reliance on pretty-boy leading man flicks to earn his keep, tho he does seem to have lapsed into a weird and wacky middle-age spread that i sorta hope will phase out at some point, or not, he’s seem like a contented family man with his priority shifted somewhat. it’s funny that the one actor you seem to disparage a bit is one who i believe has actually taken the unconventional career path you apply to the others…)
ha, well i guess at the end of the day i don’t agree with you much on this at all, but hey it makes for an intriguing debate rooted in subjectivity, which is always fascinating and good for some friction to keep one on one’s toes around here in the national debating chambre. and way longer than intended, sometimes i wish i didn’t type so fast)
Love the back and forth with you Leahnz. Made me think as well. Always a good time. Hope you and the little man in your life had a Merry Christmas, and I look forward to more debates in 2012. It’s chockful of debatable material.
We may take this Christmas movie season for granted because of the perhaps unrealistic box office expectations, but it was a virtual moviegoers wet dream, Brad Bird, Scorsese, Cruise & Downey & Damon & 2 doses of Simon Pegg, a crowd pleasing Muppets Movie, Cameron Crowe, Alexander Payne & Clooney, Reitman, Fincher & Zallian, 2 Spielberg flicks, and a partridge in a pear tree.
Yep, I had a good Christmas. hope everyone else did as well.
bulldog68 – you watched like 8 movies in the last 2 weeks ?
Oops, sorry, I actually had lost count of my MI’s…I meant to say that III was considered a dud and was a financial disappointment. But 4 is supposed to be good and is doing well.
same to you and yours bulldog, all the best and always a pleasure man (i got waaaay too much sun but otherwise christmas was all good, it’s pissing down with rain here now, a bit of a relief actually… there really wasn’t a christmas thread this year to spread good tidings and cheer to fellow bloggers, was there?)
on a glummer (more glum?) er, gloomier note, i found 2011 a bit of a fizzer, movie-wise. quite a few of the christmas flicks w/directors mentioned above haven’t opened here yet, but nothing really knocked my socks off this year, made me come out of the theatre all ‘holy shit!’ jazzed or super depressed or intensely thoughtful or any of that good stuff…bummer. maybe it’s me — i feel like a clock slowly winding down and it’s only my mid 40s, i don’t know how much longer i can keep up the pace, i’m fucking knackered
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that Pitt mainly stays in his comfort zone and rarely strays much from pretty boy leading man roles. Looking at what he’s done in just the last few years, with Inglorious Basterds, The Tree of Life, Burn After Reading, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, none of those are generic pretty boy roles that in no way challenge Pitt as an actor. And though I haven’t seen it apparently he is excellent in Moneyball. He’s a talented actor. And Jesse James is a masterpiece. One of my favorites of the last 5 years.
I like Cruise on screen, too, even if he is a bit loony. I don’t have to hang out with him. Lots of famous people are assholes. So are lots of non-famous people.
You know, I don’t get all of the hullabaloo about not seeing some one’s movies because of their personal shit – if you avoided the art because of nasty behavior on the part of the artist, where would that leave us? Have you read the nasty stuff that guys Miles Davis, Al Green, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, and James Brown did??? I’m sure as hell not going to avoid any James Brown songs, sorry!
I mean, people get all haughty about Mel Gibson – I would gladly see his next action epic and I’m Jewish. Who gives a shit? Hell, I would LOVE to see him try out a Judah Macabee epic, that could be awesome.
As for Tom Cruise, the guy comes off as a little loony, so what? To be fair though, I don’t see him as this incredibly gifted actor, either – Cruise is a true blue movie star, plain and simple. And yeah, that persona is a little more difficult to maintain as he gets into his ’50’s. I dug Knight and Day, but the dude is getting a little long in the tooth to really play some wide-eyed secret agent who never had a family.
Although I’m not going to be a hypocrite about this stufff – still will see his movies – people forget that he did come off as a MAJOR asshole after Princess Diana died. That was the probably the worst shit I would hold against him – he actually had a press conference talking about how the paparazzi should be regulated and there need to be more protections in place to protect people like him from them(since they apparently murdered Princess Diana, complete bullshit!), that was just ridiculous. Few things piss me off more than a celebrity asking for sympathy BECAUSE he or she is a celebrity.
That said, does it affect my enjoyment of Ghost Protocol all these years later? Hell, no.
Yes Sanj. In the office Secret Santa party I got Gift Cards for the movies. I used those motherfuckers bigtime. I am also on vacation so I had the time.
I think Tom Cruise did more than hold his own in Rain Man… I think he gave the better performance. Hoffman (who is a brilliant actor, no doubt) had the easier job in that movie, and the sort of showy role that gets Oscar’s attention.
Cruise was also brilliantly good in Jerry Maguire, another “comfort zone” movie. Cruise’s comfort zone is a place few other actors can go.
If you look at the list of directors Cruise has worked for, I think it’s hard to argue that he goes out of his way to be conventional.
The fact that Cruise actually made Lestat work was a minor movie miracle.