comment #1

source188 says ...

Yeah, so what. It was vogue for a while to call him out on what he did that summer but it's all forgettable and annoying to bring up now as much as War of the Worlds and that horrid Mission Impossible 3 are.

Still looking forward to Valkyrie though which is that most interesting project Cruise has been involved with in years.

comment #2

BurmaShave says ...

How is MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE 3 horrid? Just curious for another perspective, I thought it was fine, and miles better than the second one. Also, besides the ending, I thought WAR OF THE WORLDS was extremely effective, and featured one of Cruise's best performances. Notice, even in his darkest days, people really don't criticize his work, just his behavior.

comment #3

starfunker says ...

Tom Cruise is a fine actor. So what if he's a little nutty sometimes? When he does his work, his work is generally solid and good. Jumping on Oprah's couch should end his career?

How fucking shallow is this country? Jesus.

comment #4

BurmaShave says ...

Exactly. Errol Flynn was probably a Nazi who slept with teenagers. Do I care?

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

...wasn't he?

I agree that Mission Impossible 3 didn't put me to sleep like Mission Impossible 2 did.

comment #6

actionman says ...

MI3 is underrated. Great action sequences and a fun plot with a nasty Phil Hoffman performance.

I for one could care less about what Tom Cruise does in his personal life. As long as his movies are top-notch, that's all that matters to me as a movie lover. I think Lions for Lambs looks terrific and can't wait to see what Valkyrie is all about.

comment #7

MilkMan says ...

I agree with Burma. MI3 was a great action movie, and WotW was good up until the de facto Speilberg crap ending. Cruise is nothing if not an extremely hard-working actor, and I mean that he works hard as an actor to convince you that he believes in what he is feeling, which is a lot more than I can say about someone like Ben Stiller, who is constantly winking at the audience, letting them know that he knows how stupid his character is, viz. Along Came Polly, Meet the Fockers, and, from what I can tell vis a vis the preview, The Heatbreak Kid, which, by the way, I hope tanks, because Elaine May can write circles around the Farrelly's, and Grodin's work in the original was vanity-free; he played a real schmuck and never let you know that he was sorry about it. Cruise is one earnest individual, and that has to count for something.

And yes, Errol Flynn loved his sixteen year olds. So did Chaplin. And Seagal. No one loves the pre-pubes more than Stevie Seagal (pronounced See-gul, as in You Have Been Invited to Steve See-gul's Bar Mitzvah.)

Oh, no. Please don't get mad at me Ju-osh. Am I rambling again?

comment #8

OddDuck says ...

MI3 didn't set the world on fire, but definitely provided a satisfying ride and basically did its job. Definitely a cut above most other films in that genre, and obviously light years above that Woo MI2 dove-circle-jerk. So horrid? Uh, no.

And War of the Worlds was a pretty fun/scary ride as well with great cinematography.

Not everyone is gonna like all his films, but you gotta admit he generall raises mass-market films to a slightly more intelligent and more cinematically clever level.

comment #9

source188 says ...

Just to clarify, I am a Tom Cruise fan.

I found Mission 3 just dull with one well executed action sequence half-way but the pic just runs outta steam for me by third act and Michelle Monaghan has no chemistry whatsoever with Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman is just wasted in the movie. I hated the spy HQ scenes and hated Cruise' team. The whole thing was just a rehash of Alias. Sure, it was better focused that the first two but that ain't saying much. Ethan Hunt ain't no Jason Bourne.

As for WOTWs, the tripod-rising sequence was amazing, I was taken back by it but I think the pic comes to a major halt when Tim Robbins comes in and suddenly this jaunting and quite shocking blockbuster is reduced considerably in the basement setting and the third act just serves as a quick rap-up to a movie that wasted it's entire load by the end of act one.

Cruise has been progressively better in his roles, particularly within the past decade when he's taken more diverse roles in smart and even brilliant films and he has charisma which no matter how lame the film, he usually stands out.

Was that clear?

comment #10

MiraJeffAICN says ...

I'm sorry, but this shouldn't even be a discussion. M:I3 was easily the best in the series, but that's more because of J.J. than Tom. Yes the original had a couple awesome action sequences like a sweaty Cruise dangling from a wire, and the chopper in the tunnel, but the storyline was so convoluted, the film was rendered nearly incoherent, which is typical of DePalma's films over the last decade or so. (Think Snake Eyes, Mission to Mars, Black Dahlia). M:I3 had some thrilling action sequences, especially the rooftop jump which nearly gave me vertigo. Everyone completely overreacted to Cruise's meltdown (especially Sumner) last summer and now he's back on track with a couple movies that look pretty solid. No surprise who's getting the last laugh now.

comment #11

dre says ...

Agree with MiraJeff and others on the overreaction to Cruise the last couple of years. I thought M:I3 was solid and War of the Worlds very, very good (except for the son living ... bad move, Steven) and my favorite sequence was probably the tim robbins section. It was more like Signs but I think most audiences wanted ID4.

Anyway, I think Lions for Lambs is going to bomb and that people still have Cruise-lash but I'll be first in line for it. The new trailer looks very good (which is good since that first teaser trailer was god-awful).

comment #12

BurmaShave says ...

If it bombs it won't be because of him, it'll be because it looks pretentious and talky and because Redford hasn't opened a movie since THE HORSE WHISPERER. Sad, but true.

comment #13

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Nice Magnolia reference, Source.

comment #14

Josh Massey says ...

Lions for Lambs will likely be the first Cruise movie I don't see in theaters since Cocktail.

The man makes good movies, plain and simple. Since 1988, he's only made one truly bad one: Mission: Impossible 2. Even his lesser ones - Far and Away, The Last Samurai - have their moments. That said, his track record is likely not enough to get preached at for two hours by Robert Redford.

comment #15

erniesouchak says ...

"Bourne Ultimatum" is a great action movie. "MI3" is not.

comment #16

Spacelamb says ...

I just don't get the Tom Cruise-bashing. A few years back he was the most boring celebrity alive ("I love my kids", "I love working with Steven" etc). Now it's all couch-jumping, placenta-eating, Brook Shields-baiting with his child-bride along for the ride and people are actually complaining?! Other boring celebrities just go to rehab but Cruise has really raised the bar. Also, I was amazed at how much fun M:I3 was and everyone I recommended it to at the time agreed. WOTW is the only new movie I've seen since Lost Highway (what, '97-ish?) where I actually felt scared at times, and I saw it at home on DVD. I reckon the hating is just cyclical and he needed to get it out of the way.

comment #17

OddDuck says ...

Bourne Ultimatum is indeed a truly great action movie. Of course MI3 ain't in the same league, but I think most would agree it's a "good" action movie. And in a world of Die Hard IV's and Rush Hour III's and Transformers, merely being "good" sounds pretty fucking great to me.

comment #18

MiraJeffAICN says ...

Eh. Bourne Ultimatum was certainly edge of your seat entertainment but a great action movie? What was the story again? Now just for that movie, but the entire trilogy? Basically JB enlisted in some gov't program and has only himself to blame for his memory wipe. That's the entire trilogy. How retarded is that? Ultimatum had some thrilling action sequences but nothing about the plot made any sense. No one cared. No one was interested. People went for one reason only and in terms of visceral thrills and pure action set pieces, Greengrass completely delivered, but don't start preaching about the greatness of the Bourne films. Their entire premise is paper-thin. Oh, and the Bourne character is boring. There's nothing charismatic about him. He's just a blank slate. A survival machine. I'll take John McClane and his four movies any day of the week.

comment #19

christian says ...

the media created cruise bash fest was disturbing. yes, he said some stupid shit regarding psychiatry, but i like that he says what he thinks and doesn't hide behind a publicist. i didn't totally buy him as a joisey dock worker in WOTW but i believed he believed and he was good.

comment #20

Mr B says ...

AICN, to be devil's advocate, I'll take visceral, real, intense, and just extremely well done over high concept one liner fantasy any day. Don't get me wrong though, I love me some Die Hard (the first one).

comment #21

BurmaShave says ...

"They spend three hours going to this planet, and the alien turns out to be her fucking father!" -MiraJeff AKA Mr. Garrison

comment #22

Spacesheik says ...

WAR OF THE WORLDS was pure shiite yes - I saw that at the Odeon Leicester Square London on fucking OPENING day and audiences left the theater telling each other 'that was bollocks' or 'that was really stupid.'

But MI3 was a good picture, JJ Abrams did a good job with that - the climax was a tad anti climactic but by and large it was a very solid action picture, miles and miles ahead of that Tom Cruise / John Woo vanity catastrophe MI2.

I am intriguied by VALKRYIE but I dont think Cruise can ever attain what he had before: commercial success *and* the love of the public as a matinee idol.

comment #23

hcat says ...

I’m sure Paramount is awfully relieved they don’t have a Tom Cruise movie this year, it might have crossed $50 million and broken their perfect record.