That he is even better than Bruce Willis to hide the fact that he is such a shitty actor. Looking by people posting here, I get the impression that even people who hate him as a person still say that he is somehow a good actor. What? You guys obviously never had acting classes because I, who did, can say that he is a one-dimensional actor who, just like Bruce Willis, simply knows how to pick good movies.
shareMaybe you should watch Born on the Fourth of July or Magnolia, you fool.
shareYeah, Born on the Fourth of July is a good call out.
Tom did a better job of demonstrating his range earlier in his career before he fell in love with being an action character.
Yes, I wish he still did character pieces like it - he was nominated but I think he could have won that year if it wasn't for Daniel Day-Lewis.
shareYou, as someone-who-took-acting-courses, should watch Magnolia, Collateral, Minority Report, Interview with the Vampire, A Few Good Men, Risky Business, Jerry Maguire, Rain Man, Vanilla Sky, and The Last Samurai.
Notice he's very different in many of these films. Poncy, aristocratic Lestat is miles away from insecure Joel, neither remind me of Frank Mackie, and if you're still blinding yourself, his cameo in Tropic Thunder his basically everything Tom Cruise's classic persona is not. Even the films where he's "Classic Tom" (Minority Report, Mission: Impossible) he's still great at that role.
Second point: although he does have range, an actor without range is not a bad actor. John Cazale didn't demo a lot of range in his too-short film career, but he owned that insecure gangster hard. Tommy Lee Jones doesn't stray far from his "hit", but he's so good it doesn't matter.
Finally, if you evaluate Cruise's best work, his range, his talent (Frank Mackie alone should be enough), might I suggest that you, as someone-who-took-acting-courses might want to keep your day job.
I get it guys, you have a hard on fo Cruise. I give you Born of the forth of July (which I already mentioned btw) and Minority report.
"I suggest that you, as someone-who-took-acting-courses might want to keep your day job."
And your typical provocative answer coming from morons on Internet. I already have a good job with a good salary and don't intend to go for acting, but just for your information because your head seems thick: just because someone has a bad judgment when it comes to evaluate others in any sort of area, doesn't make him bad in it automatically.
I get it. YOU have a hard on for Tom Cruise. I think he's a nut job, but I can't fault his acting.
You seem to be saying that since you took acting courses, you are better qualified to judge Tom's acting skills. I think is a subjective art form, that is rubbish. If someone took painting classes are they better qualified to judge paintings? No. Painting by the book does not insure a great work of art, just as someone with no training whatsoever can paint a masterpiece. Art is SUBJECTIVE. Just because you don't like him or think he follows the tenets of your acting classes, doesn't make him a bad actor. How many stars has your acting class produced? Maybe they're a bad acting school. Who knows? It's subjective.
" If someone took painting classes are they better qualified to judge paintings? No."
Yeah, that was exactly my point. This was an answer to the other user who told me "to keep my day job". I know that my post made it seem like if I was objective, but I am actually more than aware that my opinion is subjective.
Just for the record, my acting teacher agreed on te fact that Cruise's acting is awerage at best, so I am not alone.
It's really unfortunate that when people think of Cruise, they don't think of those films. It's a little bit his fault though, with his recent action endeavours. I always wished they had made The Vampire Lestat movie with him, that would have been awesome - I don't think anyone could match him in that role.
And if it wasn't for DDL, I think he would have won the Oscar for Fourth of July that year. He should seriously go down as one of the greats and not the "action star guy". Very few actors have such a portfolio of so many great films - and The Last Samurai is a forgotten masterpiece, btw.
100% agreed.
When I see trailers for Cruise's films, I'm always a little bit sad because he's just chaining action movies. And that's fine, he can do what he wants and make big bucks, and have fun - more power to him. But I think of Magnolia and his capabilities and it feels a bit of a waste somehow.
Maybe he gunned for the Oscar a bunch and eventually gave up. Maybe he just really likes making action-packed films (he does his own stunts - adrenaline junkie?) I kinda blame Lions for Lambs - his last big drama movie. I think he might have taken a big stab at an Oscar, got panned and thought, "Well, I'm just gonna do fun movies now." The closest thing you get to a real "grown up" film after that is Valkyrie, the rest is action flicks (again: that's fine if that's what he wants).
You're just pissed you failed as an actor.
shareWhatever, I don't get insulted by these kind of stupid, easy and lame provocations. If I really were pissed, I would hate on actors who won Oscars. And look, who didn't win an Oscar? Tom Cruise. Just a few golden globes and some razzie awards. I think my point is made.
shareI don't think he is a great actor by any means. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor, though
He has his moments. I like when he goes outside of his usual action star roles. In Interview With a Vampire, Edge of Tomorrow, and Tropic Thunder I think he showed some actual skill
There was a time when he was definitely trying hard to be taken seriously. When he was working with Oliver Stone, Barry Levinson, Scorsese, Rob Reiner, Cameron Crowe, and PT Anderson I think he was genuinely trying to establish himself as a good actor
But he seems to have given up on that. So I actually think he ISN'T that good at picking roles, at least in terms of showing his chops. He's been coasting on generic action roles for about a decade now
But I do think that his try-hard period pretty much showed us his ceiling. He isn't on the level of Brando, Nicholson, De Niro, Pacino, Day-Lewis, Oldman, Sean Penn, Denzel, Crowe, Hoffman, Bale. He's not even on the level of less intense guys like Newman, DiCaprio, Hanks, Bridges, RDJ, etc.
In fact he's even below hit-or-miss guys like Depp, McConaughey, Nicolas Cage, Gosling, etc. (none of this is meant as any kind of definitive ranking of who I think are the best actors)
I put him in a class of guys like Brad Pitt and George Clooney. Guys with a kind of natural leading-man charisma and confidence along with a strong work ethic and discipline to choose good roles and work ethic to develop their skills. But to me these guys are overachievers in terms of acting performances. When you are a big name star you have the clout to attract the top writers and directors, so your job becomes easier. There's a reason why Clooney only won an Oscar when he took an a supporting role. Cruise might have won an Oscar if he had taken more character roles in his prime, but egomaniacs like him prefer to have top billing
Nicholas Cage "hit-or-miss"??? Are you fucking kidding me??? When was his last "hit"??? Leaving Las Vegas... over 20 years ago. Such "hit-or-miss". *eyes rolled*
shareAdaptation, Matchstick Men, Lord of War, Bad Lieutenant, Joe
All great performances, IMO. Even in some of the many awful movies he does he himself performs well. He has a cult fanbase. Some people appreciate his weird style, including myself. But I know many people think he is a terrible actor. I don't think there's any point in debating the point, you either like his schtick or you don't
I think you misplaced Brad Pitt's name in that ranking ladder my friend, he might not be on the first one (for me he is) but definitely in the second level.
Seven, 12 monkeys, Fight Club, Killing Them Softly, Moneyball, Spy Game, Babel, Interview with the Vampire, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Burn After Reading, Inglorious Basterds, Fury, 12 years slave ... he has a remarkable filmography, with great and very diverse characters.
BTW I agree on your hit and miss about Cage, he is a hit or miss, even though he's a miss lately. But yeah, Joe, Mandy among other recent one are quite good, still way over top in his acting, but I quite like it when it fits the movie and the tone of it is well delivered.
Yeah, no doubt he has a resume that is about as good as you can possibly get
He's worked with so many of the modern greats: Gilliam, the Coens, Tarantino, Fincher, Inarritu, Soderbergh, Malick, Zemeckis, Levinson, Ridley Scott, Pakula
And some others that are or were arguably close to that level: Martin Brest, Adam McKay, David Ayer, Steve McQueen, David Michod, Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, Bennett Miller, Andrew Dominik, Wolfgang Petersen, Doug Liman
It's almost absurd. I like Pitt more than Clooney or Cruise, he seems to be more devoted to the craft of acting than them. I only ranked him with them because, like them, he has a tendency to "play himself". But in The Big Short he showed that he can transform himself if he wants to, so maybe he does have more in him than I give him credit for
He's not the best actor, but he's certainly one of the most entertaining.
shareWho's a good/great actor then?
BTW I personally also consider him a bit one-dimensional but all right in general, definitely not shitty.
Thank you! Yeah, I exaggerated a bit saying he is "shitty". I'll keep that for hacks like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Steven Seagal. I really love your nuanced answer because it is how I seen Tom Cruise. What I really hate about him (it's the same thing for Sylvester Stallone and Johnny Depp) is the poor way he managed his career to make a fuckload of money.
shareQuick question, serious question. In real life, do people actually like you?
shareAnd yet... whom do you consider good/great/talented modern living actor? )
shareDaniel Day-Lewis, Edward Norton, Christian Bale, Jake Gyllhenal, Kevin Spacey, Michael Keaton (not sure I can qualify his "modern" though), Eddie Rayman, Colin Filth (him as well), Ralph Fiennes, etc.
I might even stretch it to least impressive and overrated actors like Leonardo DiCaprio, Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp. They are overhyped that's for sure, but they are definitely good actors and better than Tom Cruise.
Surprised no on mentioned Rock of Ages. It just shows his range in acting portfolio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPeY1zD9CE0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxHvaHuMcco
Other mentions:
The Firm
Edge of Tomorrow
Top Gun
Jack Reacher
I generally like him staring in Sci-fi shows.
Why I like Cruise:
-Does own off the chart stunts
-Can do drama, action, comedy, musical, sci-fi, mystery, thriller. Don't think there are a lot of actors like that. Hugh Jackman can do a lot of range as well.
"Can do drama, action, comedy, musical, sci-fi, mystery, thriller. Don't think there are a lot of actors like that. Hugh Jackman can do a lot of range as well."
Dude... just because you can star in movies of many genres doesn't automatically mean that you can act these genres. Tom Cruise is pretty much the same in a sci-fi movie as in an action flick. He might show some range in dramas, I give him that... but that's about it.