Upside of Taps

From Risky Business to Mission: Impossible III, Tom Cruise had a good 23 year run...and now it's over.

Not his career, obviously, or the power that comes from being a big star with a huge fan base -- Cruise is still fairly secure in these realms. But something fundamental changed this weekend with the somewhat disappointing earnings of Mission: Impossible III. What's over and finished now is Cruise's rep as a nearly invincible box-office powerhouse.

He may rebound in a year or two -- not financially, but perhaps with a really good film and a superb performance. Maybe. He could luck into it. What he needs is to make another Jerry Maguire or another Born on the 4th of July -- something that exudes sweat and struggle and personal growth.

But he'll never be Mr. Financial King Shit again. Not in the realm he's enjoyed for the last 15 years or so. Not after the bruising he took this weekend.

With the $46 to $47 million brought in by M:I:3, there is solid numerical proof that Cruise' drawing power has diminished. The $57 million earned by John Woo's M:I film in 2000 means a drop of $10 or $11 million for the just-opened film.

But if you adjust for roughly a 15% inflation in ticket prices since 2000, M:I:3's 2000 ticket price earnings is more like $40,000,000. So it's really $57 million vs. $40 million -- same franchise, same Cruise, same everything. That's significant.

"His career is far from over and he's still a player...but he's not where he was," says a veteran marketer. "I know that the people at Paramount wanted to see $300 million last summer out of War of the Worlds, and that they were disappointed with the $234 million it wound up with. It was all the Scientology shit and jumping on the couch and criticizing Brooke Shields.

"With these grosses and all the competition to come this summer I would say M:I:3 won't do much more than $125 to $150 million in this country. It'll be off a minimum of 40% next weekend. There's no way it can crack $200 million domestically."

If I know Cruise he'll be making smart, well-rigged films for at least another two to two and a half decades, and perhaps longer than that. He'll just have to take less money, is all. He's been making films on a percentage-of-the-gross payment basis for a while now, and he will probably continue to do that.

Cruise is an extremely wealthy man. He and whomever he's with as a domestic ally and his daughter Suri can live in the lap of luxury for the rest of their lives without Cruise working another day in his life. Which is an absurd proposition, of course. The guy is an energizer bunny. He'll never stop. He can't.

But he's melted himself down over the last year or so. Women are said to have gone cold on him. His image isn't quite that of a Michael Jackson-esque freak, but he seems to be in that ballpark. For now, at least. If he's smart (and he is), he can damage control his way out of this, to some extent. Just downplay the weirdo stuff and focus on the work, the work, the work.

Next up (according to what I've read): the Glenn Ford role in James Mangold's remake of 3:10 to Yuma, and (according to the IMDB) the role of renegade American pilot Billy Fiske in Michael Mann's The Few.

Onward and upward. He'll earn a bit less, but what's that? This a big opportunity for the guy. He's begun of those life passages that can lead, with the right attitude, to non-material riches.

<< previous | next >>

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on May 7, 2006 at 8:10 AM

comment #1

Scott Mendelson says ...

People, please recall. If Paramount really expected War Of The Worlds to reach $300 million, then they were just being silly. Tom Cruise has NEVER had a film come even close to $300 million, and Steven Spielberg has 'only' had 2 (ET and Jurassic Park, both genuine cultural events and both opening on June 11th, natch). Studios cannot expect every film to break the record books and they should stop spending accordingly. If MI3 makes $200 million (it's possible, as Cruise's movies usually have good but not HUGE openings but terrific legs and totals o f 4x the opening weekend), then Cruise will (sob) have his third highest grossing film ever.

The market and expectations have gotten so insane that if Tom Hanks merely doubles his highest opening weekend (that would be $60 million) on DaVinci Code, then many many people will claim it's a dissapointment and sing much the same song ('it's his hair!' 'he's not as big of a star', 'the book scared off people due to contraversy', etc). Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise are now stars for grown-ups and they usually make grown-up movies. Thus, you can't expect the same teen-fueled opening weekend records with these guys. They never delivered on that score, but they almost always deliver in the final gross.

Scott Mendelson

Posted by Scott Mendelson at May 7, 2006 8:30 AM

comment #2

Mike Gebert says ...

I agree with the general drift of the statement above (that expectations have gone nuts when $234 million is a disappointment) but I would point out that, if Cruise has never had a movie hit $300 million, Top Gun was the highest-grossing movie during what was otherwise a late-80s slump (when no movie between Beverly Hills Cop and Batman reached the $100 million rentals mark, that day's equivalent of the $300 million gross mark). So it is reasonable to think that there was a time when he could pull in as much money as anything not called Star Wars could make at the box office.

That time was when he was 24.

Posted by Mike Gebert at May 7, 2006 8:48 AM

comment #3

David Harper says ...

Although disappointing, coming in the range of $46 to $47 million, it is definitely not the end of the world nor will it kill the movie. I have no doubt this film will carry over $200 million especially with this being the weekend before finals for many schools across America and next weekend being the kick off weekend for the coming bomb that is Poseidon.

From every person I have spoken too, they have loved it and have been spreading massive word of mouth, which I really do believe will be effecting it and giving this movie legs unlike those for most action tent pole flicks of the summer. This movie will carry right up to Da Vinci's doorstep, and in all honesty I would not be surprised if it made another $40 million next weekend. I've spoken to 30+ people in the past day who are waiting a week until school gets out to go see it, and even those who were anti-Cruise with the whole Scientology bit are either spreading the word after seeing the film or they are relenting to the onslaught of this film being one of the best crowd pleasers in years. The king is not dead. Long live the king. This movie will make its money and take its place next to the rest of Cruise's giant hits.

Posted by David Harper at May 7, 2006 8:57 AM

comment #4

Suki Jonze says ...

My interest in Tom is totally over, regardless of the marketing and Hollywood hype. Mixed with what he did to Nicole, the Brooke bashing and the fake Oprah meltdown, I have zero drive to see him on the big screen. DVD only.

Posted by Suki Jonze at May 7, 2006 9:17 AM

comment #5

Mathew Meyerotto says ...

This is a soft opening. There is "Cruise Fatigue" but I don't think it's as bad as you and others say it is. I have to say that if I had to see a big hollywood film right now that it would probably be MI:3. As much as I want to dislike Cruise I do like that he gives it his all. I think the film will have legs. The word on the net is that it's better than the critical 'haters' are saying it is. Even Roger Ebert came off as a 'hater' in his review saying that the film is well made and will appease it's audience but he didn't care for it. Normally Ebert will give a film a pass if it is worthy of its audience.

Posted by Mathew Meyerotto at May 7, 2006 9:38 AM

comment #6

Aamir says ...

I am, and always have been, a huge fan of the guy. I think he makes interesting movies with the most talented people and gives each movie everything he has.

However, I think that the Cruise image jumped the shark when the first M:I came out. M:I was the first film that he produced and I think something fundamentally changed from that point on.

I remember watching him on VH1 during the M:I 2 publicity tour thinking, what the hell is Tom Cruise doing introducing videos? I cannot help but think that if it was just Tom Cruise the actor, he would not do all the publicity that he does for movies that he produces.

This is not necessarily a liability. For the longest time, Cruise was known as the most boring interview. He would not go off message. The difference was that the message then was well managed, it was essentially Pat Kingley's message. Now its the Scientology message and that is a huge turn-off for everyone, even those, who like me, think that if people want to follow Scientology, they should.

Posted by Aamir at May 7, 2006 10:02 AM

comment #7

Kevin Ma says ...

I think it's a little too early to call. After all, M:I-3's opening is still larger than his last couple of films, and still exceeds the 3-day total of the first M:I (then again, after adjusted for inflation and whatnot....who knows?). Plus, it'll probably be a worldwide hit since his scientology thing hasn't really affected his popularity outside of countries with Oprah.

Posted by Kevin Ma at May 7, 2006 10:23 AM

comment #8

Tom Brazelton says ...

I never understood the appeal of Tom Cruise. To me, he seemed like some kind of small-fry jock that couldn't make it in sports and decided to bring that same "WIN! WIN! WIN!" mentality to acting because it would help him bag chicks.

Posted by Tom Brazelton at May 7, 2006 10:25 AM

comment #9

Nick says ...

Jeff, I hope you'll keep writing relatively long pieces rather than just two paragraph blog entries now that the new format has kicked in. Insight and analysis (plus, you know, subjective color and venom) are what I come to HE for. Links are cool and all, but you'll keep writing actual *pieces*, right?

That said, Tom Cruise is a movie star, and he always will be, and he deserves to be. I like him because he's clearly ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. All that "Tom Cruise is gay" nonsense just misses the point. Gay is simple. Gay is boring. Tom Cruise is something bizarre and pathological that nobody can quite figure out. He is an insane robot.

Also, he tends to appear in terrific movies.

Posted by Nick at May 7, 2006 10:41 AM

comment #10

Dr. Smith says ...

Tom Cruise broke the first rule of show biz when he "came out" with all the Scientology, couch-jumping, medical advice, criticizing Brooke shit: leave 'em wanting more. He should have remained an enigma. He still is, in a way, but now we know too much and we don't want any more.

Posted by Dr. Smith at May 7, 2006 11:45 AM

comment #11

Kyle says ...

I wouldn't write MI3 off just yet. The opening isn't terrible and the word of mouth could keep the drop small. Maybe it was a low expectations thing, but I really enjoyed the flick -- and that seems to be the consensus of most of the people I've talked to about it. In fact, I wouldn't be totally shocked if it holds on to the number one spot next week because of its good word of mouth and the general public's apparent complete lack of interest in Poseidon.

Posted by Kyle at May 7, 2006 11:50 AM

comment #12

Bob says ...

Dissapointing, moderately-amusing news, but I'm not sure this means he's "over." The thing is, I'm not convinced Cruise being unlikable is really that important to whether or not he continues to succeed at this kind of film: He's NEVER been "likable." He's the guy who was "too handsome," he spoke "too on message" in interviews.. he had sex appeal to women and gay men, that was the main thing. Tom HANKS is "likable," the guy mom and grandmas want to introduce to their daughters. If HE pulled all this nonsense people would feel personally betrayed. Cruise's star-power has never been about being "likable," it's about being RECOGNIZABLE. His crazy-ass will be just fine, M:I3 or not...

Posted by Bob at May 7, 2006 12:16 PM

comment #13

Birckhead says ...

It should be noted that next weekend really only is bringing out Poseidon a movie that you have even pointed out is not tracking well and i would not be surprised if it does about 19 million much like Kingdom of Heaven last year (big budget, big director, no real stars). I have not heard of anyone who si even saying that it is on their list of movies to see. No matter what anyone says it will not be the Day After Tomorrow or even Troy for that matter leaving the next weekend wide open for Tom to take in a good 28 million. This is a movie with legs adn word of mouth is going to be good, the audience i saw it with clapped at the end and seemed to be digging it the whole time even with the absurdity of the stunts.

Posted by Birckhead at May 7, 2006 12:20 PM

comment #14

Daniel Zelter says ...

To be fair, none of the MI films grossed as much as War of the Worlds. If Paramount wanted that kind of box office, they should have cast him for another tentpole film, not a sequel. Third sequels tend to be where films lose money if the second sequel doesn't do in a franchise.

Scott: I think Hanks has more expectations since The Terminal, Ladykillers, and Polar Express were all duds.

Anyway, even if MI3 has a similar box office next weekend, you can bet Paramount's going to be gutting the film from at least 1,000 of their theaters and probably taking a loss in the process. Though at least they weren't as arrogant and/or stupid in their theater count as New Line was for Hoot.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at May 7, 2006 12:30 PM

comment #15

Mark Grasinski says ...

Daniel, I believe that it is a mistake to call the Polar Express a box office dud. It cost a lot of money to make but it grossed 300 M worldwide and about 175 in the U.S. It was rereleased this past Christmas and made an additional $10-$15in the iMax format alone.

Posted by Mark Grasinski at May 7, 2006 12:56 PM

comment #16

zoey says ...

I agree with the majority... the news of Cruise's demise is greatly exaggerated. I'll see MI3 in the weeks ahead based on good reviews and good word of mouth and the fact that I liked the first two installments. And if it turns out to be simply a ratcheted-up Alias episode, I won't mind that either, since that will still make MI3 better than most of the crap out there.

Posted by zoey at May 7, 2006 1:00 PM

comment #17

Lee G. says ...

It's funny, Chris Rock might've been right. If you need an actor, and he/she costs too much...WAIT. Cruise has fallen into that realm. If this means he finally gets to use some of those acting chops he showed off in Magnolia and Collateral, great. But if he's going to do what he's been doing lately, not only will he have women thinking he's a freak, but the oublic will get bored with what he's putting out. Is there any other bullet-proof actor out there that may lose his mojo? Tom Hanks, maybe? If you want Hanks, and need him for a movie, WAIT. His time should be near too.

Posted by Lee G. at May 7, 2006 1:33 PM

comment #18

Corey3rd says ...

it's been a long time since Tom has had effortless hits. The man works the press and pub machine 24-7 to get his films to over the 100 Mill hump. He's never completely recovered from the box office underwhelming duo of "Eyes Wide Shut" and "Magnolia."

How many weeks after it was released was he out promoting Vanilla Sky? Minority Report? Last Samurai? Collateral? War of the Worlds? He's not one of those actors who does the chat shows the week before the opening and then moves on to the next project or golf game. He's full throttle. He's down at Best Buy escorting people over to the DVD display.

And until last year, I think people enjoyed it. But now he's that guy who keeps coming over to your house to talk about the stuff he's done to his car. And you keep telling him to shut up and go home. But he won't. We're sick of the babytalk, the fight with Brooke, the questions of why he hasn't married that girl - at least a simple civil ceremony.

Even though MI:3 is playing at a nearby drive-in, my wife refuses to see the film. And until last year, she would always watch Cocktail when it aired on cable.

Tom is wearing out his welcome. He needs to just turn on the charm and just cool down on the rest of his life.

Posted by Corey3rd at May 7, 2006 1:52 PM

comment #19

alfred says ...

I have no desire to actually PAY to see MI:III.
If it comes on usa, I'll take a look at it.
I think I maybe the only person ever to like MI:I.
I mean, sure half the time you have no idea what's going on, but doesn't that make it more fun? It's like you are with Ethan Hunt; putting thr pieces together and end up shocked,happy,sad when Ethan is.
I had hoped (like with the first Austin Powers that had Mike Myers heavily involved) that the same director and basic format would be used for the sequel. I was wrong and throughly dissapointed with what looked like some incredibly self aware mystical action adventure thing.
I hope he ends up making less vanilla sky personal growth movies. The less I know of Tom Cruise the better.

Posted by alfred at May 7, 2006 2:54 PM

comment #20

Dixon Steele says ...

MI3 has a bang-up opening, some first-rate set pieces (the Vatican sequence, the Bridge attack) and a great villain in PSH. It also has a disappointing ending and that's crucial.

It's true, a lot of people (not just women) are now turned off by Cruise over the Brooke bashing, but if he keeps on making good movies, he'll always have an audience.

Did Paramount oversell the movie? They have a lot riding on this one and it seemes they may have gone too far, resutling in... not enough.

All, of course, IMHO.

Posted by Dixon Steele at May 7, 2006 2:55 PM

comment #21

ROC says ...

What strikes me about the whole M:I3 weekend box-office debacle is that I have yet to see anybody point their finger at the franchise itself. Was anyone outside of Paramount clamoring for a third trip to this consistently unsatisfying well? Is there anybody who looks back with genuine fondness at either of the prior Mission Impossible movies? How many people even remember what they were about? Did the creators ever bother to turn government agent Ethan Hunt into a memorable, unique character a la James Bond or Jason Bourne? IMO the entire M:I franchise has utterly failed to create any identifiable resilient personality of its own (other than, arguably, Tom Cruise's), so it doesn't surprise me at all that the public's response to this third go-around has been tepid at best. After all: fool me once...twice...three times??? Fat chance.

Posted by ROC at May 7, 2006 2:57 PM

comment #22

Colin Moriarty says ...

Minority Report, even with Spielberg's name attached, opened with an underwhelming $35 million.

Vanilla Sky, The Last Samurai and Collateral each opened with around $25 mil.

And now M:I-3 does $48 million, and all these box office analysts are labeling it the biggest bomb of his career, which is ridiculous. Even if it had done 60, these people would still have been writing it off -- that's how much petty desperation there is to tear Cruise down.

I think the primary reason that kept the flick from opening with, say, 90, is that M:I-2 was one of those movies that everyone saw, but most flat-out hated. The original wasn't exactly warmly embraced either, but has become more highly regarded in recent years, probaly since the sequel was so nauseatingly stupid.
But of course it's more interesting to speculate that it's because of Cruise's "erratic behavior." (For the record, I found the Lauer lashing obnoxious, but don't see the big deal about him goofing around on Oprah, where an audience of women was clearly loving and applauding him.)

The third Mission is clearly not going to be another War of the Worlds, but it could easily be another Batman Begins, which also opened with less than 50, but went on to do over 200. Word of mouth should be deservedly solid for M:I-3, as well.

Minority Report, even with Spielberg's name attached, opened with an underwhelming $35 million.

Vanilla Sky, The Last Samurai and Collateral each opened with around $25 mil.

Posted by Colin Moriarty at May 7, 2006 4:38 PM

comment #23

Paul Kolas says ...

I just got back from seeing "Mission Impossible 3", and as far as I'm concerned it was pretty damned nondescript. The action sequences had a certain can you top this flair, but even they are fading from memory, partly because of their claustrophobic and cluttered feel. The movie was nothing more than a bigger budgeted "Alias" episode, replete with its chop chop editing style and no nonsense tone. Just substitute Ethan Hunt for Sydney Bristow, and there you go. I can see where Manhola Dargis is coming from in her assessment of J.J. Abram's inability to make a picture that feels larger than life. He may be the kinetic, multi-tasking energizer bunny wunderkind for the small screen, but he ain't no Steven Spielberg, and there isn't a frame in "Mission" that has anything close to the Saturday matinee feeling of wonder of "Raiders of the Lost Ark". I'm not impressed J.J.

As far as Tom Cruise goes, you can see that fevered, manic look of desperation in his eyes, that "I have to re-connect with my public" panic button being pushed in every scene. I wish I could say I feel sorry for him, but I don't. He's his own worst enemy, and there were too many times that "Mission" felt like a vanity rub-a-dub between Cruise and Abrams. The script was a lazy mash of the usual muddled intrigue. Does anyone really care what the rabbit's foot is? I don't. And as good as he is in his vastly under utilized villain's role, I almost wish, subversively, Hoffman had used his "Capote" voice to threaten Cruise and Michelle Monaghan, just for the comic relief it would have provided.

Posted by Paul Kolas at May 7, 2006 5:35 PM

comment #24

Roy "Griff" Griffis says ...

MI:III completely underwhelmed. Abrahms was trying hard to bring heart and depth to the backstory, including doubling the standard "girl in jeopardy" quotient and throwing everything at you except a kitten being threatened with drowning, but Mr. Cruise didn't sell the emotional involvement convincingly. And yes, in spite of myself, I found myself watching Tom Cruise, not Ethan Hunt. While the makers of the franchise have pulled the canny trick of surrounding the star with people known more as actors, the Cruise-life continued to intrude on the filmic world. Finally, to digress, when is some good soul going to give Ving Rhames a part worthy of his talent? He's perfected the gruff black guy with a heart: somebody give this man something to do!

Posted by Roy "Griff" Griffis at May 7, 2006 5:53 PM

comment #25

Chris Austin says ...

I agree with everything Colin Moriarty said, and would note one other factor...

Remember this slump we've allegedly been in? Declining admissions? Ever-nicer home theaters, and smaller theatrical-to-DVD windows? I'm not here to be an apologist for Cruise's star power, but if all of the above are supposedly here to stay, a $48 million 3-day opener on a great-weather weekend with schools still in session isn't something we should expect to see much more of, except when the most kid-friendly atractions come along.

In watching the relentless hoopla (both promotion and reaction), I've been reminded of 1987, with Michael Jackson trying to follow up the biggest seller in history. His tirelessly promoted album, Bad, sold millions of copies and spawned five # 1 hits. But the media verdict: it was no Thriller. That's when the image metamorphosis from "one-of-a-kind talent" to "isolated freak" really kicked in.

There's no question that a lot of Cruise's perceived wounds right now are self-inflicted, but given his skill with PR in the past (or sense to use the right people), only a fool would count him out if he wants to make nice/talk sense. The question is: will he get back to work making solid movies and selling them professionally, or will the issues that separated him from his original PR team lead him to eventually marry Lisa Marie Presley? (Metaphorically speaking, of course.)

Posted by Chris Austin at May 7, 2006 6:13 PM

comment #26

Daniel Zelter says ...

Mark: Compared to most cg cartoons with celebrities, Polar Express was a disappointment. Even Chicken Little did better than it.

Corey: I don't think people expected Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut to be big. PTA and Kubrick aren't known for blockbusters. And Cruise made up for it with Vanilla Sky, which Paramount wasn't sure to release post September 11. He just couldn't seem to sell himself on Collateral. Part of the problem with that one was the DV made it look like some low-budget slasher film rather than a drama.

But I think it was around the time of Minority Report that his popularity started slipping. Sure, it made a lot of money worldwide, but for a PG 13 film with Cruise, it had a poor gross. The Nicole break-up did him in. People felt more sympathy for her than him; and it didn't help that he tried to do damage control by dating Penelope Cruz. It seemed fake, compared to his relationship with Nicole, which probably was fake, if you catch my drift, but at least seemed real.

Colin: To be fair to Vanilla Sky and Last Samurai, those were R-rated films released during the holiday season, and during the LOTR frenzy, thus depriving them of the really big bucks. Minority Report was also competing against Lilo and Stitch.
But MI3 had absolutely no competition-although some suggest Cinco De Mayo-and still bombed. If it had done $60 m, you could at least blame sequilitis, but it did even lower than that.

Posted by Daniel Zelter at May 7, 2006 6:58 PM

comment #27

goldenhorse says ...

ROC -- that's a very good point, and I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed it out too. I think most people felt burned by Mi II which was one of those movies that everybody saw, but nobody liked.

Posted by goldenhorse at May 7, 2006 7:36 PM

comment #28

spotted reptile says ...

I won't see MI:3 nor will I buy it on DVD, for 2 reasons: it's not an interesting spy franchise any more, it's an action flick and they bore me fartless these days; and the Cruise yuck factor is so high in me that I couldn't stomach even five minutes of it. I didn't see WOTW for the same reason. I tolerated Cruise when he was an actor, since he became a star he repulses me.

His eyes are cold, his smile is almost a grimace. There is no warmth in his screen persona, and no heart. Everything is calculated. I get the impression he feels himself to be above his audience, and he creates a wall between himself and them that the viewer is not invited to overcome.

There are far more interesting actors out there - Clive Owen, Jake Gyllenhaal, Russell Crowe - whether playing action or character, good or bad, these men make me interested in their roles and want to watch them on screen. Cruise makes me want to head to the restroom.

Posted by spotted reptile at May 7, 2006 7:57 PM

comment #29

Dave says ...

I walked out of MI2 six years ago feeling pissed off and ripped off. I was so angry that I promised myself I'd never again pay money to see a Tom Cruise picture. And I haven't. When I eventually see MI3, it'll be on DVD, either borrowed or pirated. Not a penny will go to this calculated goof, whose media meltdown leaves me laughing my ass off.

Posted by Dave at May 8, 2006 1:54 AM

comment #30

Steven Silver says ...

If I had to list all the possible endings for MI3 in order of what I and most audiences would want to see, watching Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman engage in fisticuffs on a set that resembled a rejected locale for one of the Saw movies would have to rank just about at the bottom of the list.

MI3 is half of a great action movie. Unfortunately, that half is the first half. After the bridge sequence, it feels like a balloon slowly deflating. The movie's flaws: a weak love interest with too much of a physical similarity to Katie Holmes, an underwritten villainous role that nearly squanders the talents of Philip Seymour Hoffman, a poorly conceived McGuffin in the "rabbit's foot" and, worst of all, the failure to come up with a showcase set piece finale, quickly overwhelm the viewer.

The last year at the box office has proved that merely reserving a summer weekend for a big picture and blanketing the talk show circuit with promotional appearances is not enough to lure wary viewers into theaters. MI3 is certainly better than last summer's bombs like Stealth and The Island, but I came away from it with the feeling that, with the exception of a couple of scenes like the bridge sequence, I could have been watching a few episodes of 24 back to back.

I agree that Tom Cruise's antics have damaged him at the box office, but I don't think the relative failure of MI3 is his fault. Does anyone seriously think this movie would have fared better at the box office with Brad Pitt or Matt Damon as the lead? Put Cruise in the right vehicle and he will still deliver. Where Cruise's antics will hurt him in the future will be if and when he attempts smaller vehicles like Jerry Maquire or A Few Good Men. Put Cruise in one of them right now and you will get a bomb of epic proportions.

Posted by Steven Silver at May 8, 2006 3:33 AM

comment #31

Ju-osh says ...

Two questions for anyone who either saw M:I3 or had a part in its construction:

1. Did anyone really believe that they were going to kill Mrs. Hunt?

2. Did anyone actually think that Ethan Hunt might die from self-inflicted electo-shock?

And these were supposed to be the dramatic and emotionally engaging moments?!

Posted by Ju-osh at May 8, 2006 8:11 AM

comment #32

Storymark says ...

"1. Did anyone really believe that they were going to kill Mrs. Hunt?"

Given the way the very-simmilar pilot episode of Alias played out, yes, I thought it was a possibility.

"2. Did anyone actually think that Ethan Hunt might die from self-inflicted electo-shock?"

Not for a second.

Posted by Storymark at May 8, 2006 10:54 AM

comment #33

cathar says ...

I found it curious that Tom's biggest feat of derring-do in the movie, snatching the "Rabbit's Foot," is never shown. Did they run out of money by that point? I also found it underwhelming that the movie ends with a measly fistfight in an apartment. Truly a cynical assemblage of film. But Cruise's "co-stars" all apparently had good agents, particularly Keri Russell. And the scenes where Tom had to react to his girlfriend-fiancee were simply embarassing. He looked determined to "act, dammit" but couldn't ever quite do it. Lastly, he's now at the age where he has to watch the closeups, the crinkling round the eyes was way too obvious. A sad waste of 2+ hours, in the end.

Posted by cathar at May 8, 2006 4:45 PM

comment #34

dubbs says ...

I found MI3 to be a "circus blockbuster," in that it delivers on the oohs and aahs, but it's just a bunch of singular moments stuck together with no distinct, cohesive style. No matter how jaw dropping the action sequences are, they have practically no subtext or context to them, other than thinly veiled plot points ("get the rabbit's foot," "intercept Hoffman's character on the bridge.")

In a way, this movie doesn't work because it can't decide whether it's about a high stakes global threat - the rabbit's foot falling into the wrong hands - or Ethan Hunt's personal problems - losing his wife, losing the team member he trained. That Hunt's problems take priority undermine the grandiose feel of the movie, and audience interest, because the idea of Hunt fighting to avert a disaster gets lost in his personal problems. Fair enough, but it's sort of a mixed message.

Also, no offense to Cruise, who I actually think is a very good actor, or the rest of the cast, but Philip Seymour Hoffman blew the damn doors off the movie. He was too good in his performance, in that Cruise and practically everyone else was playing catch-up to him, acting-wise and narratively.

Posted by dubbs at May 9, 2006 12:58 PM

comment #35

Roy "Griff" Griffis says ...

After a little more reflection, it occurred to me that one of the real problems with MI:III (they couldn't even give an actual title) was the very Big-ness of it. The big stunts, the big CGI. The general unbelievability of the action. I think audiences have left behind the huge action-adventure that tries to ground itself in the "real" world, while still allowing Tom Cruise/Ethan Hunt to be slammed into the side of a car by an explosion and see him stagger away with a little head shaking, yet leap the breech in the middle of the bridge. Most people recognize instinctively that Ethan would be in traction, if not a wheelchair, after that impact. We've been Bourned. The two Bourne films gave us a hero who was within the bounds of reality. Someone could do almost anything Bourne was forced to do (if they'd had lots of training and nothing to lose). At the same time, we saw him get progressively more beat up, and we believed it. I doubt anyone believed anything that happened to Ethan Hunt.

Posted by Roy "Griff" Griffis at May 9, 2006 4:23 PM

comment #36

Michael C says ...

Not to say that all the tabloid hoopla over Cruise didn't play a part, it probably did, but I think there are two bigger reasons why MI3 is underperforming, namely: MI & MI2.

Can anyone name for me the last time a franchise reached a third installment with the first two installments representing so little by the way of audience love and cultural impact? I'm sure that studios that judge success only in box office dollars rate these as big hits, but no one speaks of them or rewatches them with any kind of affection. The first film is notoriously incoherent and memorable only for the breaking into the CIA set-piece and the second one is completely forgettable. Franchises cannot sustain on hype alone, and I think the audience caught on this time.

The marketing campaign certainly promised more of the same. The ads didn't offer even a hint of story or character or any reason to see the movie. "Here's your disposable action scenes," it seemed to be saying, "Now go see it like the lemmings you are."

No one I know showed any interest in the movie past mild curiosity about Hoffman as the villian. I'm as sick of this Cruise nonsense as most, but if he turned up in a quality product I'd still go see it. My friends and I still rewatch Minority Report with enthusiasm. I think people should focus less on the Cruise circus and more on how Hollywood insults the intelligence of the public by ramming one disposable, pointless piece of action fluff down their throats after another and then doubles over in shock when we don't say "Thank you sir, may I have another."

Posted by Michael C at May 10, 2006 6:58 AM

comment #37

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Worldwide this thing will do bang up business and it will make a fortune on DVD. I dont see the problem except for people looking to take Cruise down a few pegs.

And who else is out there to take over? There is NO ONE. Ford is 70. How did Will Smiths I ROBOT do? Colin Farrell is box office poison. Brad Pitt had a huge hit with MR AND MRS SMITH right? It wont make what MI 3 will.

So its a little premature to write Cruises 20 million obit.

Posted by Dave Polands Gut at May 10, 2006 8:18 AM

comment #38