Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 12.26pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by blackpalacefan
I need meaning to watch Edge of Tomorrow as it has rave reviews Its much better than I thought. He's ok in it, like he's pretty much ok in most films he's in, but I don't think he is capable of giving the kind of performances that make a movie better, or worse. A safe hands actor - not bad, not great. I don't think he actually has ruined any films either, they're probably s**t for much bigger reasons than having Tom Cruise in them. Same as his 'great films' are films which would have been just as good with someone else in them.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 12.44pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its much better than I thought. He's ok in it, like he's pretty much ok in most films he's in, but I don't think he is capable of giving the kind of performances that make a movie better, or worse. A safe hands actor - not bad, not great. I don't think he actually has ruined any films either, they're probably s**t for much bigger reasons than having Tom Cruise in them. Same as his 'great films' are films which would have been just as good with someone else in them. All actors have their limits in terms of what they can pull off. Cruise is box office and that causes a situation where he is cast in roles which could arguably be better played by other actors. In fairness to Cruise, he is a more flexible actor than many action hero types and obviously is very committed to his profession.He does many of his own stunts.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stuk Top half 18 Jul 16 1.20pm | |
---|---|
His best performance is in Tropic Thunder.
Optimistic as ever |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Jul 16 1.28pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
All actors have their limits in terms of what they can pull off. Cruise is box office and that causes a situation where he is cast in roles which could arguably be better played by other actors. In fairness to Cruise, he is a more flexible actor than many action hero types and obviously is very committed to his profession.He does many of his own stunts. A great actor gives a performance that suspends disbelief. I watched Jack Reacher, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, but none of that was really the fault of the lead actor. It was a very generic thriller, with a generic lead actor. That said, Jack Reacher is a hell of a lot better than the dire Taken series of movies, which maybe only saved from being utterly s**t by Liam Neeson (well the first one, the other two are so s**t its almost unbelievable anyone rates them). Matt Damon, doesn't strike me ever as being a death machine on legs, but he does pull it off in the Bourne series - Which is pretty much the same fair as Jack Reacher(round). I think actors often get a bad press for the quality of films. Truth I think is, that director, writers and producers ruin most films, rather than the lead actor. Tom Cruise is like medium cheddar, its ok, its not great, but its also not mild cheddar.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cannonball High in the Ozarks. 18 Jul 16 3.45pm | |
---|---|
IMO he's done one real good movie "Taps"
Touch my coffee and I will slap you so hard even Google won't be able to find you. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 3.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
A great actor gives a performance that suspends disbelief. I watched Jack Reacher, it wasn't bad, but it wasn't great, but none of that was really the fault of the lead actor. It was a very generic thriller, with a generic lead actor. That said, Jack Reacher is a hell of a lot better than the dire Taken series of movies, which maybe only saved from being utterly s**t by Liam Neeson (well the first one, the other two are so s**t its almost unbelievable anyone rates them). Matt Damon, doesn't strike me ever as being a death machine on legs, but he does pull it off in the Bourne series - Which is pretty much the same fair as Jack Reacher(round). I think actors often get a bad press for the quality of films. Truth I think is, that director, writers and producers ruin most films, rather than the lead actor. Tom Cruise is like medium cheddar, its ok, its not great, but its also not mild cheddar.
What you have is a film like Taken which was greatly elevated by the lead actor and then many films these days where what could have been a good film is ruined by terrible box office driven casting.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Canterbury Palace Whitstable 18 Jul 16 6.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Thing is, I can't think of any movies in which he's the lead, which wouldn't be just as good with another actor or in which his character commands the performance. Maybe Born on the 4th July, Interview with a Vampire and Far and Away (which isn't a great film). Rain Man, for example, he's in it, but its really Hoffman that you think 'wow what a performance'. Risky Business - great film - but you could just drop Mathew Broderick in there (ala Ferris Buellers day off) and know that it probably would be as good or better. Very much a comfort role actor. I think Top Gun for one suited him perfectly. That character required a charm, confidence and arrogance that I don't see anybody else from that era having been able to match. He plays that type of role very well for me although I would concede that he isn't especially versatile whereas someone like Brad Pitt who is a similar age and level of fame has shown himself more capable at playing different types of roles.
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold... |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 18 Jul 16 8.32pm | |
---|---|
I'm struggling to think of any film he's been in where he doesn't play an irritating, highly punchable little turd.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 8.40pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I'm struggling to think of any film he's been in where he doesn't play an irritating, highly punchable little turd. He does have that quality.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
.TUX. 18 Jul 16 10.05pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Cucking Funt
I'm struggling to think of any film he's been in where he doesn't play an irritating, highly punchable little turd. Top Gun.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Cucking Funt Clapham on the Back 18 Jul 16 11.10pm | |
---|---|
Funnily enough, that could well be him at his most punchable like ever.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 18 Jul 16 11.15pm | |
---|---|
I'd have said that that was a prime example of when he did. Edit. You beat me to it CF. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (18 Jul 2016 11.16pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.