MovieChat Forums > Psycho (1960) Discussion > OT: I View Tom Cruise's Two 2017 Films

OT: I View Tom Cruise's Two 2017 Films

posted 7 years ago by ecarle (14979)
14 replies | jump to latest

I've thus far missed IT and the new Blade Runner this fall, but somehow I was persuaded to go see Tom Cruise in "American Made" at the multiplex; paid reasonably good money to do so.

And a few days after that, on the same companion's urging, I rented Cruise's summer flop "The Mummy."

Not much to say, but this:

Tom Cruise. Where is his stardom headed?

He's 55, but he looks 35. Put another way, he's the age Cary Grant was when he made North by Northwest with silvery hair and a far older look than he had in Notorious. But we live in ageless times. Work out, eat right...maybe have some work done and some hair colored. And you too can look like Tom Cruise. In "The Mummy," he does an extended shirtless scene (just as Grant did at 55 in the hospital room scene in NXNW) and one thinks: "Hey, you can keep plenty of muscle tone at 55."

Remember when Tom Cruise's career was "over"? Because he jumped on Oprah's couch and yelled at Matt Lauer? That was 12 years ago...and here he is , still over the marquee(the ONLY name over the marquee, he requires that -- Russell Crowe didn't join him there for The Mummy), still making money. Still a star.

Or is he?

Word is that The Mummy flopped big(very expensive movie.) And American Made pretty much came and went (not too expensive movie.)

But Cruise has HIS franchise annuity in the bank: he's doing another Mission: Impossible even as we speak.

So like Johnny with his Pirates, RDJ with Iron Man( a role Cruise turned down); J-Law with her Hunger Games(but that's over, right?)...Tom Cruise will always have a least one star payday every three years or so with M:I. Which is ironic, because in the beginning at least, Tom Cruise pretty much betrayed the whole CONCEPT of Mission: Impossible: a TEAM. He had teams, but he barely used them and did a lot of the derring do on his own.

In the meantime: The Mummy and American Made. More below.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

In both American Made and The Mummy, this:

Tom Cruise is a star. Very much a star. A familiar face who has been with us for decades now and who, finally, looks more like a man than a teenager. He's got an identifiable voice (no one can really do an impression), that great smile, a good head of hair and...charisma. In spades, charisma.

The Mummy first:

I was pleased with The Mummy to see that Cruise seems to have picked up some pointers from Cary Grant in his maturity: he's funny a lot of the time, doing quiet double takes and raising his eyebrow and sort of quietly telling us "Hey, I used to be in better movies than The Mummy, but look at how GOOD I am here, how relaxed, how much of a cad, a rogue." He wants us in on the joke. And in his few scenes with Russell Crowe -- a Best Actor Oscar winner in rather a reduced state these days-- Cruise is a great acting partner. Its good to see two stars together, having a little fun together. Oh, Crowe is playing Dr. Henry Jekyll so you know where THAT's going to go...

...indeed, The Mummy is evidently intended by Universal to launch a "universe" of Universal movie monsters to match the Marvel and DC universes . The flop of The Mummy may prevent that, but I guess launching your series with Tom Cruise is rather the equivalent of how Superman launched with Brando and Batman launched with Nicholson. Will Cruise come back in this series? Will it be ANOTHER Mission: Impossible for him? And how about Crowe as Jekyll/Hyde? Is he contracturally obligated to return? Will we get other star names as Dracula, Frankenstein, the Wolf Man? Time will tell.

I found this "Mummy" to be a whole lot like that 1999 Mummy with Brendan Fraser(remember him? whatever happened to him?) with the mummified creature slowly rebuilding into flesh and blood. Except this time....its a woman. A sexy, deadly woman (she was the lady with the bladed legs in Kingsman 1 who chopped men in half with them.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I spotted another "borrow" in The Mummy: Cruise has a comic sidekick who gets killed early on, but keeps coming back as a ghostly corpse to banter with him. See also: "American Werewolf in London" (1981.)

And the Mummy Lady raises up a whole army of Zombies to chase and fight Cruise. Oh, well -- his turn.

There's a great CGI plane crash sequence in "The Mummy," and it haunts the rest of the film: is Cruise alive after that crash, or not? Is he still human, or not? He's Tom Cruise, so there's some doubt going in, anyway.

The movie gets good for star power when Crowe shows up(after his initial appearance to start the movie) and banters with Cruise as well. And Crowe's Mr. Hyde is an interesting merge of man and CGI.

But...but...in the final analysis, this is just another CGI-overload fest of monster scenes, attack scenes, chase scenes...one just gets tired of it all fast. Hitchcock had it easy back in the day: two or three juicy set-pieces per movie, and the rest was good drama, comedy, romance. Nowadays, its Silicon Valley at the movies. (OK: I liked the plane crash and I liked Cruise being chased UNDERWATER by zombies.)

At least I didn't pay to see this at the multiplex.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I DID pay to see American Made.

It was OK, but I found myself again contemplating Cruise. The once great Cruise. The irony: now that he really feels like a full-fledged movie star, he's not getting important movies anymore.

The conceit of American Made is that Good Tom goes Bad...and doesn't realize its happening til its too late. He's an airline pilot who trades that in to run CIA spy flights. And then Columbian cartel drug flights(to Miami; hey there Scarface...no, wait, he wont' fly there...he goes to Louisiana.) And then CIA flights AND Columbian cartel flights to deliver: weapons. For the Contras against...who again? I forgot their names. Iran-Contra and Oliver North turn up as issues. Its all Very 80's(after a 70's set-up); Tom's hair is long and shaggy and his smile is beaming and bright.

I should be liking this: the template here is "Wolf of Wall Street": Tom Cruise gets richer and richer and richer, cash money is overflowing all over his house, his sheds, buried in his yard. His beautiful wife and kids are living rich. But Cruise isn't Leo: there's no cheating and little of Cruise sampling his own product. No, he's a good guy in over his head, as everybody wants him to do THEIR work, and every federal agency starts chasing him (CIA, FBI, DEA), and the local cops and...

Well, I liked it. But I've seen this movie before. I think it was called "Blow" with Johnny Depp ; and The Wolf of Wall Street rise and fall thing is in evidence(as is a heavy Scorsese influence in the fast cut camerawork and rock music.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Ultimately, American Made goes to a very different place(and ending) for a Tom Cruise movie, too. I felt him being a little daring there.

But honestly..in both The Mummy and American Made..Tom Cruise seems oddly and sadly irrelevant as a movie star. He's not a failure in either movie, he is truly a STAR in both movies.

But I'm reminded of what John Huston once advised Jack Nicholson: "Whatever you do, don't make movies that don't matter."

I'm afraid that's what Tom Cruise is doing here. Both times. But he's at a disadvantage: he's working in an era where "movies that matter" are hard to get financed and made.

So he'll just keep on being Tom Cruise.

He hasn't gone straight to video yet.

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

I came back from watching American Made a few hours ago. I actually appreciate the fact Cruise isn't made out to be unlikeable, as that ensures the film doesn't get too serious or dramatic. Instead, the movie maintains a sense of fun, being mostly about the "what happened" and not the "why". In this era in which plenty of commercial films aim for some amount of heavy drama, I find that refreshing. Instead of drama, what the movie gives us is a bit of light satire, with all the characters in the movie --Barry Seal, his wife, her brother, the CIA agent, the Colombian drug dealers, the etc.-- being presented as clueless or opportunistic, but not in such a way that you really hate them; they're just a bunch of people out to make money or further their careers, who get involved in these convoluted, almost comical entanglements with multiple government departments. The only part where, by necessity, the movie gets a bit heavier is at the end, but not too much either (I rather like the [spoiler]image of the VHS tape freezing and fading into white when Seal is murdered, and right as he was praising America and the American Dream. A brief and satisfying bit of commentary on what these people did; all the movie really needs.[/spoiler]) Apart from that, American Made is just a fun time at the movies (I feel compelled to call it "old-fashioned" as well-- not in a bad way), a good film, and Cruise is pretty damn good in it, with his movie star charisma keeping things afloat.

I agree that American Made doesn't feel too important as a film. In part that's because of its light, uncomplicated tone, but that doesn't make it a bad film at all. The other factors that make it feel a bit inconsequential have to do with the current state of the film industry and Cruise's star value. At any rate, a year ago, when I read he was making this, it was exciting to know he was going to do something outside the action genre. I'm happy he did it, as he needs to keep one foot outside the action arena, (CONTINUES...)

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

I came back from watching American Made a few hours ago. I actually appreciate the fact Cruise isn't made out to be unlikeable, as that ensures the film doesn't get too serious or dramatic.

---

He's really loose and funny in this. One of my issues with the "early Tom Cruise" is that he overplayed his intensity, evidently to make up for his youth. But now he's more relaxed and he gets the "automatic nostalgic warmth" that movie stars of a long time running get. He's our friend now. (And y'know, I forget about the Scientology thing any time I see his movies; I forget about ANY actor or directors foibles when I'm at their movies.)

----
Instead, the movie maintains a sense of fun, being mostly about the "what happened" and not the "why". In this era in which plenty of commercial films aim for some amount of heavy drama, I find that refreshing. Instead of drama, what the movie gives us is a bit of light satire, with all the characters in the movie --Barry Seal, his wife, her brother, the CIA agent, the Colombian drug dealers, the etc.-- being presented as clueless or opportunistic, but not in such a way that you really hate them; they're just a bunch of people out to make money or further their careers, who get involved in these convoluted, almost comical entanglements with multiple government departments.

----

Its played in the main, as a comedy, and the slippery slope begins with the movie's tagline "Its not a felony if you're doing it for the good guys." This is all "government work" for Cruise -- even the stuff with the cartel guys -- and so it takes him a long time to realize that a fair amount of it IS illegal. But even then -- he finds he has "mysterious protection." Until he doesn't.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

The movie is also good -- perhaps at Cruise's request -- to make his relationship with his pretty wife a faithful, loving and sexy one(they join the "mile high club" alone on his plane with him at the controls.) Cruise keeps trying to hold his family together in the face of ever-growing wealth and ever-growing legal danger, and that's a nice "true line" for the movie. Why, he even tries to help his pretty wife's weird drugged-out brother....

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Apart from that, American Made is just a fun time at the movies (I feel compelled to call it "old-fashioned" as well-- not in a bad way), a good film, and Cruise is pretty damn good in it, with his movie star charisma keeping things afloat.

---

All agreed. Cruise is one of those stars upon whom I depend to deliver at least "competent" narrative product. Decent script, good story, some style.

----
I agree that American Made doesn't feel too important as a film. In part that's because of its light, uncomplicated tone, but that doesn't make it a bad film at all.

---

I expect its light tone actually saves it , a bit. We've "been here before" -- the shadowy CIA operatives, the hair-trigger lethal danger of the cartel bosses -- and "American Made" elects to play fast and loose and funny with them, even as the dark forces close in.

---

The other factors that make it feel a bit inconsequential have to do with the current state of the film industry and Cruise's star value. At any rate, a year ago, when I read he was making this, it was exciting to know he was going to do something outside the action genre. I'm happy he did it, as he needs to keep one foot outside the action arena,

---

Here's something interesting: Tom Cruise went for quite a long time in his career before DOING action, or even thrillers.

Risky Business was a comedy. The Color of Money and Rain Man and A Few Good Men were dramas. Legend was a fantasy. He did a race car movie. Perhaps only "Top Gun" could be called an action movie, but it was really a military picture with a love story up front.

I think "The Firm" of 1993 was his first thriller, and even that was more "prestige movie" THAN thriller. Finally in 1996 he signed on to front Mission: Impossible and has done action stuff (off and on) ever since.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

As always, I have to note his two great villain roles: the guy in Magnolia(non-lethal) and the guy in Collateral(VERY lethal, and possibly Cruise's greatest performance, he LOOKS great with his white-silver hair matched to his silver suit, and his psycho is as cold and scary as they come.)

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

(CONT'D) for his career longevity, considering he's getting older (even though he looks youthful). But as you hinted at, what he needs the most is to make a really important film. He has to work with Scorsese, Nolan, PTA, whoever, and make something that gets some great critical attention. He used to make films like that, but I think by his own words, it has been harder to do so in recent years, which is why he has stuck to action.

You don't really think he's going straight to video, do you? If things don't change for him, in a few years, I can see him making one of those TV series with big stars that are in vogue these days, to shake things up, and eventually, I can see him going down the Robert Redford route, carving a corner for himself and making smaller, but classy films that don't hurt his reputation. That's not bad at all. Things CAN change for him if he gets to make a film with a BIG director once again. I don't think that's too likely, but it's not completely unlikely either. At any rate, Cruise has grown into a really enjoyable onscreen presence, and I hope he sticks around.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

CONT'D) for his career longevity, considering he's getting older (even though he looks youthful). But as you hinted at, what he needs the most is to make a really important film. He has to work with Scorsese, Nolan, PTA, whoever, and make something that gets some great critical attention. He used to make films like that, but I think by his own words, it has been harder to do so in recent years, which is why he has stuck to action.

---

Yes. Its also conceiveable that some of the "off stage gossip" about his beliefs has steered name directors away from working with him.

----

You don't really think he's going straight to video, do you?

---

Oh, no. I think my point is that he is NOT going straight to video. He's still "viable" 12 years after he was written off. He took immediate career action back then to "throttle back a bit" (took less money) but kept the M:I franchise for box office.

A lot of stars now have HBO and Netflix and Showtime to fall back on with prestige. You still have to pay to see Al Pacino and Kevin Spacey and Dustin Hoffman on those channels.

But a few actors seem to have spiraled right on out to "straight to video" stuff in recent years: Burt Reynolds, Nick Cage, Mel Gibson...even Bruce Willis. Its tough for them in certain ways. Too public a humiliation. But comebacks are available...

---

If things don't change for him, in a few years, I can see him making one of those TV series with big stars that are in vogue these days, to shake things up, and eventually, I can see him going down the Robert Redford route, carving a corner for himself and making smaller, but classy films that don't hurt his reputation.

---

I see all of that happening. Back when Cruise was superhuge in the 80's/90's, given his youth, I pegged him as a star who could last for decades, Eastwood-style. I still think that's possible, but it will be more Redford-style, come to think of it.

[–] ecarle (14979) 7 years ago

Things CAN change for him if he gets to make a film with a BIG director once again. I don't think that's too likely, but it's not completely unlikely either.

---

It can happen. There's certainly a list of prestige directors out there. Someone might want to take a chance with Cruise. Maybe his Magnolia director again.

---

At any rate, Cruise has grown into a really enjoyable onscreen presence, and I hope he sticks around.

---

We have so few movie stars of any "comfortable longevity" now. Guys like Connery are retired, and hoped-for long-distance runners like Arnold and Sly and Mel and Bruce aren't really stars anymore. But Tom Cruise has kept his prestige, stayed viable. I found myself feeling good in both of these movies when Cruise took the screen. Why, I've known him since he was a teenager.

Here's a little anecdote from this week. I did a car trip high into the mountains and deep into a rural valley up there. A few teeny-tiny towns along the way on the curving rural roads.

In one of those towns, on the main street, was a tiny old one-screen movie theater, probably built in the forties, about the size (it seemed) of a gas station rather than a palace theater. "Hundreds of miles from civilization."

It was playing one movie: American Made. With a poster of smiling Tom Cruise, the only "human" in view for miles around.

[–] mattjoes (53) 7 years ago

One last thing: I suspect American Made is a film that Cruise --like other huge movie stars-- could've in fact done at his peak; it's just it would've been one of those comparatively smaller pictures these big stars sometimes do to relax and take a break between bigger, heavier projects. Even someone like Clint Eastwood had them. What I mean is, in and of itself, the film is not representative of a downward turn in Cruise's career. To visualize that, you have to look at the whole picture, at the trend his career has followed in recent years.

(Having said that, Cruise's career today is, of course, fairly remarkable still, especially with him having been around for so long.)

[–] swanstep (2715) 7 years ago

Well, I liked it. But I've seen this movie before. I think it was called "Blow" with Johnny Depp ; and The Wolf of Wall Street rise and fall thing is in evidence(as is a heavy Scorsese influence in the fast cut camerawork and rock music.)

The trailers for American Made reminded me a lot of things like American Hustle and Argo and Charlie Wilson's War too... AM sounds like it fails Huston's test - AM doesn't have enough new content to matter - but you can see why they made it. The little sub-genre AM is in has produced a lot good-to-very-good films that are very watchable later on small screens and that often pick up bunches of acting Oscar noms when first released.