And maybe longer.

No one has had his run of both quality and box office results in that time frame, if not ever. If he's the lead in your film, your film is making 75 mil, bare minimum. The last time that wasn't true (adjusted for inflation)? 1986. Odds are that streak will extend to thirty years and maybe longer. He shows no sign of slowing.

And the *overwhelming* majority of those movies are, at absolute worst, good. Many of them are great. He has no *major* bombs, critically or commercially, during the last twenty years. The closest one I could point to is Vanilla Sky, which is still a tremendously interesting mess of a film that made over 100 million domestically. A super fucking weird drama made 100 million at the box office. 14 years ago. Because of Cruise.

Even Eyes fucking Wide Shut made over 150 million worldwide at the time. A super weird, super slow, 2 hour and 45 minute long, original erotic thriller made, adjusted for inflation, 90 million dollars at the domestic box office. Can you imagine a movie like that doing 90 million dollars at the domestic box office today? Of course not. There aren't really any movie stars around the age of 30 on Cruise's level. That's an unfairly high bar to set, but it is what it is.

His lasting star power should be attributed in large part to his physical work, always doing his own stunts, which is undeniably a thrill to watch. In the new Mission: Impossible movie, you sit and hold your head and wonder, "What drives a man to risk his well-being like this?" Well, his reputation does. And his reputation, cinematically speaking, is sterling. No American star on his level has come close to his stunt work since the days of Lloyd and Keaton.

None of the above is stannery. None of the above is even really impeachable. Maybe you think some of his movies have sucked. Fine. Maybe you like some other actor more. Fine. Maybe you think he doesn't have as many "classics" as some other actors. Fine.

But none of the other actors you can mention have his balance of quality and box office. The only competitors in terms of box office are Hanks, Murphy, and Smith, and they all have undisputed critical and commercial stinkers under their belts during a 25-year run. Denzel has incredible consistency, but not the same level of box office draw.

And he's done *all* of this despite the public knowing about his attachment to a super-weird cult. They know it, they read it in the tabloids, they judge him for it, and they buy their tickets to see his movies opening weekend.

Scientology isn't affecting the quality of his output over time, either. In fact, he's made three of his most acclaimed films to date-- Edge of Tomorrow and the last two Mission: Impossibles-- in the last five years. And the acclaim is justified. They're fucking terrific movies. He's 53 years old, hanging off of planes, and not even remotely slowing down. If anything, he's speeding up.

So, yeah, there's not much of a debate. This is a #justfacts post. Non-controversial. It might end up controversial, but only if someone who doesn't like Cruise personally starts trolling and building strawmen. Even any honest Cruise hater can't really dispute anything here.

Sit and think about his film output for the last twenty (!!) years. How incredible it is. How, even if it's not your choice for GOAT, it's unquestionably on the Mount Rushmore of twenty-year runs. And that time span doesn't even include films like Risky Business, The Color of Money, Born on the Fourth of July, Rain Man, and A Few Good Men! His career consistency is, objectively, staggering to behold. He's the Tim Duncan of movie stars.

He's the greatest movie star of the last quarter-century. And maybe longer.

Have a good weekend, everyone. Do yourself a favor and witness a legend in action on the big screen.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Yeah yeah, I know... "He's too short." I honestly believe he's the only larger than life actor who could pull of a Superman that people believe it.

But yeah, there's no one seeing his CV. He's money.

_
Yo! That’s My Jawn: The Podcast - Available Now!
http://linktr.ee/yothatsmyjawn

Although even then, his best special effect is his actual running, not CGI-assisted running. So I'm not even sure about that.

His action movie credentials have always been predicated on him being not the strongest, but the fastest, the most agile, the most persistent, and, most important, the actor actually doing what you see on screen.

I feel like Cruise knows better than to play a guy with super strength. (M:I-5 actually has a great scene in which he fights a guy with incredible strength, to hilarious and suspenseful effect.)

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

http://soundcloud.com/djshinobishaw
http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
https://twitter.com/RareFormNYC
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c)T510

********************************

Get Out The Room!
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
@fakewilliamkatt

"You probably wouldn't worry about what people think of you if you could know how seldom they do!" - Olin Miller

Will gives him a run internationally, sure, but not in terms of domestic draw consistency, and certainly not in terms of quality consistency (Cruise has never made a film as bad as MIB2. Or Seven Pounds. Or Wild Wild West. Or, fuck, Bagger Vance for that matter).

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

and even then you would have to ignore the fact that Cruise had been in it for like 15 years before Smith even dabbled

http://www.youtube.com/user/gumzization
twitter: @BrosefMalone

When Smith made the middling Hitch a box office phenom I was sure then that he was on that cruise level where his appearance alone can make any movie work.

But his latest run disavows me of that notion. When Will Smith turned down Django cause it wasn't enough of a lead role I realized that dude just isn't as savy in picking projects like Cruise.


**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson


"One of the most important things in life is what Judge Learned Hand described as 'that ever-gnawing inner doubt as to whether you're

Also, the OP said "of the last quarter century" not right today. If you wanna move that goalpost, I'll concede the Crooz is the biggest movie star of the past 25 years and right today.

Rock of Ages, he's in maybe four scenes total. Lions for Lambs, firmly supporting, third-billed, couldn't even get an "and" credit.

Oblivion made 286 mil on a 120 mil budget.
Edge of Tomorrow made 369 mil on a 178 mil budget.
Jack Reacher made 218 mil on a 60 mil budget.
Knight and Day made 261 mil on a 117 mil budget.
Valkyrie made 200 mil on a 75 mil budget.
Eyes Wide Shut made 162 mil (in 1999!) on a 65 mil budget.
Vanilla Sky made 203 mil on a 68 mil budget.

In THIS CENTURY, he hasn't been the star of a movie that's done under 200 million. This century!!

Where are the Tom Cruise-led flops? I can't find any.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

But Oblivion did $89M domestically and has a very mediocre 51% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.

Not a flop, but it hardly set the world on fire. This sort of came and went a la something like Elysium and nobody really thinks about it anymore expect die hard Cruise fans.

Again, this isn't a blemish on his resume, but it's funny to see you holding up such a thoroughly mediocre movie (both in terms of quality and performance) as one of your key exhibits.

Jack Reacher did $80M domestically and has a slightly better RT score of 62%.

Again, not really a flop, not even a blemish, but basically a b-movie with a built-in audience that did OK numbers in a safe genre and was forgotten within months of its release.

His only non-Mission Impossible outing in over a decade that did over $100M domestically was Edge of Tomorrow, and that just barely cracked the mark.

And I don't even care about box office numbers really, but let's not pretend that every single Cruise-starring movie of this century has been a grand slam, or even a home run.

----

They don't need to *all* be home runs. No one has that.

I actually liked Oblivion a good deal (way better than Elysium, and also a 54% on Rotten Tomatoes if I'm nitpicking ), but even if I didn't, I wouldn't call it a flop. I would call it a mild domestic disappointment, and, admittedly, not his most well-received film in critical circles... but not a flop.

International renown is a big part of Cruise's star power. I'd be remiss if I *didn't* mention it.

Besides, if you use only domestic numbers for pretty much every star, there are certainly a number of "domestic flops" (not a real thing, but we'll roll with it for this hypothetical) for every last one of them. And even Cruise's "domestic flops" still cross 75 mil.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Oblivion, Knight & Day and Last Samurai failed to make their budget back domestically.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

http://board.okayplayer.com/okp.php?az=show_mesg&forum=6&topic_id=701196&mesg_id=701217&page=

Where did I say he flopped? I said those are proof that he's not as much of a domestic draw, and as proof that he is not as consistent critically as Cruise is.

You replied as if I wrote different words than I did. Odd.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

You used the domestic box-office argument to back your claim that Crooze was the guy. Later, I mentioned Tom's domestic flops, and you countered with worldwide numbers. I pointed back at Will's worldwide numbers.

My argument back to your assertion:

"Will gives him a run internationally, sure, but not in terms of domestic draw consistency, and certainly not in terms of quality consistency (Cruise has never made a film as bad as MIB2. Or Seven Pounds. Or Wild Wild West. Or, fuck, Bagger Vance for that matter)."

Let's break down what that sentence means. It means, in short:
1. Will gives him a run internationally.
2. Will does not beat him in terms of domestic draw consistency.
3. Will does not beat him in quality consistency.

You said:

""You just gon' Cuban B Crooz's flops?""

Let's break down what that means:
1. We were somehow ignoring Tom Cruise flops.

My argument:

"In THIS CENTURY, he hasn't been the star of a movie that's done under 200 million. This century!!"

Let's break down what that means:
1. In this century, he hasn't been the star of a movie that's done under 200 million.

You then said:

"Domestic Box office is usually the yardstick for success. Oblivion, Knight & Day and Last Samurai failed to make their budget back domestically."

Let's break down what that means:
1. Domestic Box office is usually the yardstick for success.
2. Oblivion, Knight & Day and Last Samurai failed to make their budget back domestically.

I replied:

"lol, the yardstick for who? Not for studios. Or, you know, the world."

Let's break down what that means:
1. Studios do not use domestic BO as the yardstick for success.
2. The world does not use american BO as the yardstick for success.

You countered with a link to my original reply to you. Let's revisit that, shall we?

"Will gives him a run internationally, sure, but not in terms of domestic draw consistency, and certainly not in terms of quality consistency (Cruise has never made a film as bad as MIB2. Or Seven Pounds. Or Wild Wild West. Or, fuck, Bagger Vance for that matter)."

Let's break down what that sentence means. It means, in short:
1. Will gives him a run internationally.
2. Will does not beat him in terms of domestic draw consistency.
3. Will does not beat him in quality consistency.

Odd, I don't see anything there that mentions domestic box office as the yardstick for success. I call it a consideration regarding star value, but nothing else. I also mention the consistent quality of Tom's films.

I pointed out how odd this was.

You replied with:

"I suggested Will was the biggest movie star of the last 25 years. You used the domestic box-office argument to back your claim that Crooze was the guy. Later, I mentioned Tom's domestic flops, and you countered with worldwide numbers. I pointed back at Will's worldwide numbers."

I want to break this down sentence by sentence.

First sentence: yes, this part is true.
Second sentence: well, yes, it's a consideration. I didn't call it the yardstick for success, as you tried to indicate. I also made critical consistency a large part of my argument, something you conveniently chose to ignore in your argument. It's disingenuous to act like that was the cornerstone of my argument.
Third sentence: "Domestic flop" is not a thing. A flop loses money. None of those films lost money. Will also doesn't have flops. He has movies that made less money, both domestically and internationally, but he doesn't have true flops. I used the worldwide numbers, because money defines flop status, and it's not like Euros and the yuan and everything else suddenly stopped being considered currency.
Fourth sentence: that wasn't addressed to me, so you weren't pointing back, really, but dula astutely pointed out that the same Tom Cruise movies you called "flops" also made over a billion dollars combined, which was the stake you were claiming regarding Smith, so... there wasn't a clear point being made there.

My point, in case it's still unclear after that breakdown, which hopefully revealed how precise and clear all of my points have been:

In terms of both monetary consistency and critical consistency, Cruise wins. Will has a strong international audience, but his star has faded here farther than Cruise's has. That isn't to say Will isn't a star or that he has "flops." But his lows dip lower than Cruise's low, and no Will movie has internationally outgrossed Tom's highest, Mission: Impossible 4, in the last two decades. And, again, critical consistency is important here, as it has been throughout the entire post, despite the fact that you keep "Cuban B'ing" it.

Hope that clears things up.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

It takes a TRUE movie star to do numbers with subpar films. How many actors could have sold "Seven Pounds" or "Wild Wild West"?

I see you're hellbent on ignoring all of my points, since at no point did I say Will *isn't* a star. I give very clearly what my definition of a star is, and why Tom matches that definition in a way surpassing all others in the last twenty-five years, and why everyone in this post is agreeing with those points, and yet you can't even acknowledge the points being made. "And for that reason, I'm out" (c) Shark Tank

If you wanna hang your hat on the fact that Will can lead a horrible movie like Seven Pounds to do 160 millionish worldwide dollars as the reason why he's a better star than Tom Cruise, then feel free. That argument ignores things like Eyes Wide Shut and Vanilla Sky, both of which aren't great in quality and are not big draw star vehicles, but both of which (a) were *still* better received than Seven Pounds, and (b) *still* made more money than Seven Pounds, but, hey, the trend of ignoring valid points has already been set.

Enjoy the rest of your week.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

While neither was great, both were ambitious, high-profile films with people like Kubrick and Crowe (fresh off winning best screenplay) behind them. Of course they're going to be better received than Seven Pounds.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

superstars are superstars precisely because of international drawing power. like, that's the definition. if you can't sell tickets overseas you're not a real a-lister.

___

it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes

After Earth did 243 mil
MiB3 went over 624 mil
Seven Pounds made 168

That's over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in his flop streak,

We can do that. Last five movies each, not even including Rogue Nation. (Since Valkyrie is Tom's lowest grossing of the five, and Rogue Nation will almost certainly be top two, expect Tom's number to have increased, say, a month from this post.)

Tom: 1.83 billion. Will: 1.81 billion.

Will did two movies over 600 million, two under 200 million.
Tom did one movie over 600 million (highest grossing of the ten), none under 200 million.

Tom's consistency is better. Which I stated multiple times, both in the original post and in replies.

And, as I said above, Will gives Tom a run for his money internationally. Those exact words. No one is *really* contesting that. No one is even contesting that Will's had more mega-hits than Tom. But Tom is easily more consistent, both in terms of box office draw and in terms of critical reception. That's the point.

No one said flops, except YOU. About Cruise. And you were wrong. And then you tried to backtrack as if I ever said Will flopped. And you were wrong about that too.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>After Earth did 243 mil
>MiB3 went over 624 mil
>Seven Pounds made 168
>
>That's over a BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS in his flop streak,


oblivion (286m), knight & day (262m) and the last samurai (457m)
-- the 3 films you just called "Crooz's flops" -- also combined
to make over a billion internationally.

i'm really confused as to what you're arguing here.

___

it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes

Maybe DiCaprio is the closest?

He doesn't really have 25 years of being at that level yet, but he will.

The same way you mentioned Eyes Wide Shut making money because of Cruise, you can easily say something like Wolf of Wall Street may not have even gotten made (or at least wouldn't have had a $100M budget) without Leo attached. And it obviously wouldn't have cleared almost $400M without him. (Speaking of which, Scorsese never made money at the box office until Leo started starring in his shit.)

I also just looked over Cruise's filmography and I'm not overly thrilled with the last 15 years or so. I'd say Minority Report is really the only borderline-classic that he's starred in over that time, even if you grant that he's been personally good in almost everything during that time.

I would like to see him step out of his comfort zone a little more though (like he did in the late 90s/early 00s), Rock of Ages notwithstanding.

----

how many more years does he have doing the things that he's trying to do in these movies at a high level? I can't fathom him running on top of cars at age 63.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

J. Edgar made no money (and was awful). Body of Lies made no money (and was... okay). I'd be really surprised if something like The Revenant made 75+ mil.

It's because he chases the Oscar. Which is fine. He does a lot better chasing Oscar than pretty much anyone else. But he's not a guaranteed 75 mil domestic BO. And internationally, if I had to guess, he's also not on Cruise's level.

If I had to guess even further, I'd say he's much less interested in being a movie star than Cruise. Cruise WANTS you to be entertained, he's always going out in public and taking photos with countless people when his movies are coming. Leo isn't as interested in that. Which, again, is totally fine. But he's not on Cruise's level as a result.

I also don't need to see Cruise stretch himself. He's acutely aware of his strengths and shortcomings by this point. His only stretches will likely be into comedy, which is okay by me. He's done Valkyrie, Tropic Thunder, and Rock of Ages in the last decade. He'll maybe do one or two more quick indie roles in hopes of some more critical acclaim before he's through... but really, he's tossed Oscar out the door. He could give a shit. He'd rather aim for being the biggest star in the world.

And, as Nodima said, he can't play action in a decade. Keep cranking out the dopest shit now.

I'd call Minority Report a classic, Jerry Maguire a classic, War of the Worlds a classic with a soft ending, and the last three Mission Impossibles and Edge of Tomorrow among the top action movies made in the last twenty years. His comedy work in Tropic Thunder is probably the funniest performance by a non-comedy-associated movie star in the last... fuck, long-ass time. He was unquestionably robbed for an Oscar for Magnolia, and imo also robbed for an Oscar for Jerry Maguire. And that stuff is all exclusively the last twenty-five years-- you could easily call Risky Business and A Few Good Men classics as well, and some would obviously throw Rain Man on that list too (though that's not really his movie).

So, yeah.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Fair enough. I wasn't suggesting that Leo *surpassed* Cruise in this regard, just that he was arguably the closest in terms of a balancing box office success and quality.

According to box office mojo:

Cruise's lifetime average adjusted for inflation: $155,885,600

Leo's lifetime average adjusted for inflation: $129,080,000

So, not THAT far away. But while Leo's average is lower, I'd probably argue that his role choices are usually more challenging and interesting, and the resulting movies are usually better...

...but that really has nothing to do with your central point about Cruise being the greatest *movie star* of the past 25 year.

Just to be clear, you don't necessarily think he's the greatest *actor* of the past two and half decades, or do you?

----

>Just to be clear, you don't necessarily think he's the
>greatest *actor* of the past two and half decades, or do you?

I do think his acting is underrated, though.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

...but I think he has a better track record.

right before your FB post on the subject. I gotta catch the new one.

If you define a series as more than a trilogy.

I've got people on Twitter telling me the Fast and Furious series is better. I love the F&F movies. But 1, 2, and 4 are... run-of-the-mill, to put it kindly.

I went through every film series I could find, and none of them have the consistency of the M:I movies. Outside of a sluggish start to M:I-2 (which ends fucking amazingly), all of those movies are fucking tight, smart, action-packed, and generally terrific.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

For one, the Indiana Jones series is better. Yes, even with "Crystal Skull" included. Even that doesn't drag down the average with the absolute greatness of the other three. And as much as I like the M:I films, none of them are as good as any of the first three Indie movies.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

and the second one was way too Woo-y for me, and the plot was ass.
______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

DePalma was operating at an extremely high level, at least stylistically. That shit is magnificently directed. I mean, the "dangling from the ceiling" scene isn't the BIGGEST set piece in the series, but it might be the best/most suspenseful...

----

No question. Unbelievable in most every regard.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

Off the top of my head, I'm definitely putting 1, 4, and 5 above Temple of Doom, and I'd put all five above Crystal Skull. I might put a couple over Last Crusade too.

That's at least a good one to throw out there.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Off the top of my head, I'm definitely putting 1, 4, and 5
>above Temple of Doom

I very much disagree with this. Temple gets unfairly shit on. And the set-pieces in it out-do the vast majority of the M:I set pieces. Only one that really compares in the high-wire scene in #1.

>and I'd put all five above Crystal Skull.

Haven't seen 5, but I'll probably agree with this. The first three installments of the Indy flicks are pretty unfuckwitable.

>I might put a couple over Last Crusade too.

Yeah... no. Last Crusade is among the best 5 to 10 action flicks ever. Maybe higher.

>That's at least a good one to throw out there.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

In the first one alone, there are multiple incredible sequences. In the sequels, off the top of my head, the side of the building scene in M:I-4 is a classic. Not to mention the knife-nearing-the-eye bit from M:I-2. Not to mention the bridge scene in M:I-3. Not to mention the multiple sequences in 5 that blew my mind. Those are merely the ones I'd call "all-time great action," not even the ones I'd simply call "great action."

Last Crusade is great, and it's been a while since I've seen it. I know people that think Temple is an unheralded classic, maybe the best in the series. I'm not one of those people. For me, it's distinctly third, and I'd definitely put 1, 4, and 5 of M:I over it.

I'd go, gun to head: Indy 1 > MI 1, 4, 5 > Indy 3 > Indy 2 > MI 2 >>> Indy 4, with the caveat that I haven't seen Last Crusade since, like, college.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

It's masters of their respective fields (Speilberg, Ford, & Connery) operating at just about their highest levels.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

And IJ4 is still so much worse than any of the MI movies...

... I'm just saying. That's a good qualifier for the crown, but there's a debate.

The Mount Rushmore is composed of MI, Indy, Mad Max, and... I don't know, something else.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>The Mount Rushmore is composed of MI, Indy, Mad Max, and... I
>don't know, something else.

Bond only has M:I beat in terms of villains. And number of terrible films. And number of shitty jokes.

And I really like the Bond movies. The M:Is are just better. 1, 4 and 5 are all better than any post-Connery Bond flick... and probably the majority of the Connery flicks too.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I would say both Casino Royale & Skyfall have the edge over any M:I (I haven't seen 5 yet) but not by much though & I totally get why someone would prefer M:I.

Maybe it's because I'm Scottish & we're all brought up to love Bond, especially Connery lol.

>Maybe it's because I'm Scottish & we're all brought up to love
>Bond, especially Connery lol.

Can't blame you in the slightest there.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

And as far as villains, well, nothing is beating the Nazis. Throw in Mola Ram too? It's a wrap.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

I don't know, Indy is a great trilogy, maybe the best along with Star Wars but if we are saying series 4 or more, the last Indy was just not good at all..

I actually would have Alien up close with Indy, the first two kick ass and 3 is really good, 4 is pretty bad tho but still better than Indy 4 imo.

We will see what Bourne does now cuz consistency is there with the trilogy altho they all run together more than MI movies do.

The Reacher joint was a snoozer, so was Oblivion and Lions for Lambs and they all got tepid response and box office receipts. I really wouldn't call any of those movies good even though I know the Reacher joint is gonna have a sequel.

And Rock of Ages? C'mon, b.If you wanna go back 20-25 years, I'd throw Far and Away in the not really good at all pile too.

He's got a great score card, but he's got blemishes too.
______________________________________________________________________________

cscpov.blogspot.com

"There's a fine line between persistence and foolishness..."
-unknown

"To Each His Reach"

Vanilla Sky made over 200 worldwide on a 68 mil budget. It wasn't Oscar-worthy, but it certainly wasn't a bomb.

Oblivion made 286 worldwide on a 120 mil budget. Jack Reacher made 218 on a 60 mil budget (and it has a greenlit sequel). These are bombs in the slightest. Neither is exactly critically derided either-- both above 50 on Rotten Tomatoes. (I personally think Oblivion is gorgeous if not spectacular, and I think Jack Reacher fucking owns.)

I specified clearly in the original post, "If he's the lead in your film, your film is making 75 mil, bare minimum." Lions for Lambs and Rock of Ages, he is not the lead. In Rock of Ages, he appears in like 20 minutes of the film.

If you want to reach back to Far And Away, that was 22 years ago! I make that point in the post as well. "He has no *major* bombs, critically or commercially, during the last twenty years." I phrased it like that specifically for Far & Away-- which also isn't a box office bomb, but it does suck.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

____________________________________________________


Steph: I was just fooling about

Kyrie: I wasn't.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8OWNspU_yE

You are giving him a crown based on your own criteria, and that criteria is defined by his own career and your expectations of him.

You have set it up so no matter what someone says, you are right.

The Leo point above...basically that Leo takes risks. "Well, I don't want Cruise to take risks..."..."well I don't want Cruise to chase Oscars" or whatever...

??

So Cruise is YOUR current favorite star doing it? And he is currently doing exactly what you, as fan, want him to do? Cool.


I'd say he is a once extremely talented actor who learned to pick "safe" movies over time as his real-life persona started wierding everyone out.

He also has great connections and friends in the industry.

Oh, and I guess its cool he does his own stunts, but that is such a minor thing for many I find it an odd thing to even bring up.

>You are giving him a crown based on your own criteria, and
>that criteria is defined by his own career and your
>expectations of him.

As I said above, I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with him, but his entire premise is basically "Tom Cruise is the best Tom Cruise of the last 25 years," which, yeah, you can't really argue with that.

And sure, his movies generally make bank, but at this stage in his career that's probably more a function of the fact that he's picking very commercially viable movies. In other words, if he chose to star in Revolutionary Road or J. Edgar (neither of which are particularly good, but both of which required acting chops), I don't think they'd do better numbers with Cruise than Leo.

I also stand behind saying I don't care much for his filmography since around 2000. Maybe it's just my taste, but my favorite Cruise movies over that time are Minority Report, Collateral, and Valkyrie, which are probably the three least "Cruise-like" movies on the list (at least the last two), and most likely not the kind of stuff Frank had in mind when he cooked this up.

----

pretty much basing cruises success above on arguably across the board questionable movies
on box office alone


meh
i like cruise but
meh
~~~~
When you are born, you cry, and the world rejoices. Live so that when you die, you rejoice, and the world cries.
~~~~
You cannot hate people for their own good.

Tom Cruise is a movie star in the classical sense of the word. I'm not the biggest fans of his, but of the movies I've seen, I've enjoyed the vast majority of them and his performance. Dude goes all in when making movies and promoting them. He will appear on every talk show. Do every interview. Talk to every red carpet/Access Hollywood reporter at events. He sells his movies. And his goal is to make sure fans are entertained. Dude puts in work.

The fact he thought it would be awesome to REALLY hang on the wing of an airplane as it takes off is reason enough to get my $15. He does not cheat his audience.

____________________________________
Podcast Now on iTunes and Google:
http://tinyurl.com/JTTOU-iTunesSubscribe
Twitter: @nipsey @JTTOUPodcast

Last 3 things I watched:

The Changeling Season 1 (Apple+): C
OMITB Season 3 (Hulu): B-
Ahsoka Season 1 (Disney

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-four-types-of-tom-cruise-movies/?ex_cid=538twitter

____________________________________
Podcast Now on iTunes and Google:
http://tinyurl.com/JTTOU-iTunesSubscribe
Twitter: @nipsey @JTTOUPodcast

Last 3 things I watched:

The Changeling Season 1 (Apple+): C
OMITB Season 3 (Hulu): B-
Ahsoka Season 1 (Disney

the new MI trailer was on tv.
wifey turns to me n says: "i hate Tom Cruise".
im like: "why?".
"i just do".
"oh hey, there's no doubt he may be a weirdo IRL, but come on..."
"hmm".
"he's a great actor, and majority of his movies rock".
"yeeahhhh...i still hate him".

that scientology association really damaged his 'brand' so to speak, spesh with ppl who were probly already on the fence, but i've always enjoyed Teh Crooze, and the box office returns suggest a lot other ppl still do.

usually anyone wanting to claim he can't ACT, i point them to Magnolia.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

which I'm seeing tomorrow.

just constant back and forth of "he's weird in real life" "but he's awesome in his movies" "but he's weird in real life" "but he is AWESOME in his movies".

it's the same loop I'll end up in with people about Kanye.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

<--- Big Baller World Order

but yeah you're right...it's deeper than that. he's really been killing the mainstream game in general.

http://www.youtube.com/user/gumzization
twitter: @BrosefMalone

and MI being the greatest series might be true. It seems crazy cuz Im not a huge MI fan but they are consistently fun. Bourne might be able to wrestle it away if Damon and Greenburg do a couple more with same consistency as Bourne trilogy but that's about it.

which, will smith was possibly on pace to eclipse him with sci-fi action

but then the sci fi got too out there. but they had basically the same formula for a while


tho id say will could do edge of tomorrow easily
where crooz couldn't pull off i am legend or pursuit of happiness and make em work.

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

>tho id say will could do edge of tomorrow easily
>where crooz couldn't pull off i am legend or pursuit of
>happiness and make em work.

Pursuit of Happyness is probably Smith's pinnacle in terms of acting, and it's a role that Cruise would admittedly struggle to pull off (though Smith, on the same token, would struggle to pull off Born on the Fourth of July or Magnolia-- there are certain roles that are just harder to see other actors playing), but I Am Legend would absolutely be in Cruise's wheelhouse.

I don't think there's anything "safe" about Cruise's work, btw. Look at his last six non-Mission: Impossible major performances. Jack Reacher felt safe, because it's an established popular book series... but Oblivion and Edge of Tomorrow are, for all intents and purposes, original sci-fi. Knight and Day was original action. Valkyrie was historical thriller. And I needn't say much about Tropic Thunder and his hilarious out-there performance.

In the last decade or so of cinema, there's nothing safe about doing "original" movies. Sequels, reboots, adaptations of wildly popular books/comics/TV shows-- those are the name of the game. Will and Tom's movies feel "safe," but if it's not something established, it's not safe.

The difference is... Tom's original films and sequels have stayed, for the most part, good. I don't think you'll find one of late that he starred in that's under 50% on Rotten Tomatoes. Meanwhile, movies like Seven Pounds, After Earth, MIBII... they take their toll on an audience's excitement to go see "the new X movie." (I actually liked After Earth, fwiw.)

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I'd also add that TC's action and sci-fi movies are generally higher quality films than Will's movies and Im not shitting on Will's entirely, he made some good ones and they all made money at the box office.

I enjoy War of the Worlds more than I am Legend, both had awful endings. Independence Day I think everyone agrees is pretty bad now. I Robot is enjoyable but not much to it other than big budget CGI. I don't think Will has anything close to Minority Report or the MI series. Bad Boys and MIB ain't seeing them...

not to mention its 20 yrs old


but fwiw oblivion was pretty comparable to after earth. almost as big a loss domestic. and recovered about the same worldwide


i think the jaden hate/smith family blowback & early promo set it up for "bomb" status right out the box


but oblivion was just ignored

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

.

************************************************************

those end credits of him dancing.
is legendary.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayer™

I'd have never guessed that character was almost entirely Cruise's own creation.

But I would have totally guessed he was otherwise a really nice but fairly awkward presence.

It was also an interesting revelation that the original conception of that movie had Cruise in Stiller's role and Stiller playing the agent, long before the agent was known studio president Les Grossman.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

like say, the last 5 pic run denzel has been on.


ie way safer choices/smaller range than say pitt, leo, streep, clooney
over the past 15 yrs

if that is what the OP is focusing on by 'star', then ok sure



i think will said he eventually got handcuffed by the action/sci-fi formula til he was scared to take chances on anything else. til one of the scifi's eventually bombed

)))--####---###--(((

bunda
<-.-> ^_^ \^0^/
get busy living, or get busy dying.

<--- Big Baller World Order

>

Jon Stewart 52, Tom Cruise, 53:
http://i62.tinypic.com/23k5g8i.jpg

meanwhile crooz stays young by drinking the tears of sea org members

-------------------------------
If life is stupendous one cannot also demand that it should be easy. - Robert Musil

Mostly because it's true and I can't argue against it lol


Always felt bleh about Cruise. But I respect the hustle. Hollywood has always had a lane for that type of actor

Because right now he is the only actor being groomed to have the action movie resume that would be on Cruise's level. He's been the King of the box office two years in a row with greenlit sequels for both films.

I think Tom Cruise's staying power has everything to do with the fact that he is always likable in his roles and he is totally committed in every single film. Look at the man's eyes in MI:5. Cruise is a like a force of nature ready to put any villain in their place. He sells that absolute level of determination in all his action films.

i think he can do it but he need to fly w/o that Marvel and Jurassic parachute once to show it.

<--- Big Baller World Order

And I'm talking about no-fucks-given Bay...Bad Boys 2 Bay not I'm actually trying to make a serious movie Pearl Harbor Bay.

Matter fact.....throw Nic Cage in there as the villain.

---------------------------------------


---------------------------------------

https://grantland.com/tags/tom-cruise-week/

___

it is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. - sherlock holmes

http://twitter.com/phenompyrus

Get Out the Room
http://getouttheroom.podomatic.com
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/get-out-the-room/id525657893