Why doesn't cruise play more villainous roles?

Maybe because it would reflect badly on his church..?

I guess he just has his comfort zone.

Cruise acts as his own producer. He determines the projects he takes part in and the roles he plays.

He seems to choose roles that'll be "fun" for him, typically because they'll be challenging.

That places heavy emphasis on film like "Top Gun" and the Mission: Impossible series because of the frankly insane stunts he gets to do.

But he also learned to shoot pool well enough to do most of his own shots in "Color of Money," and insisted he have "fat hands" and be able to dance in "Tropic Thunder."

So maybe it's not the villain or hero aspect so much as whether a specific part will pose an epic challenge calling for enormous effort.

Call him what you want, "risk averse" he is not.

I agree. This is one of his best roles.

Cruise is really good at playing a villain! If I had talked about him a year ago, I would've just said that he always plays good guys. I was surprised when I found out he does have some bad guy roles. Not only does he have them, but he's actually good at it.

I actually wish he played the bad guy more often. Maybe because he doesn't do it very often. Although I haven't seen "Collateral," I watched "Interview With The Vampire" recently and was blown away. He disappeared into that role even though I kept reminding myself it was Tom Cruise because I could scarcely believe it.

Not only that why doesn't he do more serious dramas or thrillers? Amazing stuntman yet his modern films are too typical Hollywood heroic.

he probably did not enjoy making this film. and film did not make as much moneys as anticipate. that might explain why he never play bad man again.

his agent probably tell him "audience want to see nice tom. they dont like bad tom as much" and tom and his bank manager listen to him.