 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.111.6.190
In Reply to: War of the Worlds------- posted by patrickU on June 29, 2005 at 07:37:38:
above 'Land of the Dead'. All three are movies which I will never see. I do hope WOTW underperforms as Tom Cruise plays himself in every film with limited range as an actor, but with an A game public relations team. Now that that PR team has started to slip, he has shown what kind of person he is behind that ridiculously guarded persona that he fronts.I personally believe that he is the reason that 'Eyes Wide Shut' is not the film Kubrick meant it to be. Cruise's performance sinks that film. I am fascinated by every scene that doesn't include his presence. Kidman's performance is far superior.
Follow Ups:
I don't agree that Cruise is an inferior actor. I think his performance in EWS is actually quite good; but I agree as well that Kidman stole the show. I think the role of the emotionally hidebound doctor trying to break out and walk on the wild side is one that was particularly hard to shine in, and that Cruise was an odd casting choice for the role. However, I thought he played it with great subtlety. I think it was important to Kubrick to have an actual husband and wife in the role, and the actual course of the Cruise/Kidman relationship provides an interesting commentary to their relationship in the film.I also thought Sidney Pollack was woefully miscast as the sexually obsessed tycoon (Harvey Kietel, who was supposed to play the role and who was PERFECT for it, I believe, walked out on Kubrick).
But Cruise's performance in War of the Worlds, I thought, was one of the film's strong points. I thought he was utterly convincing as a working class, emotionally inept but well-intentioned father. It's always hard to forget that Cruise is Cruise, the way it's hard to forget that Nicholson is Nicholson: but in WOTW, Cruise almost disappears under in the guise of this character. I would also point to Conversation with a Vampire as an excellent Cruise outing. All in all, I think he's underrated as an actor.
I think he gets flack because he wears his preeminent celebrity so akwardly, i.e., he often comes off as a jerk when you see him in "real life." But who knows, maybe there IS something to this scientology business (just kidding).
I saw Sin City recently.
I liked it, it was pretty surprising, image-wise.
I thought Mickey Rourkes performance as Marv (through his make-up) was great.
Cruise always strikes me as emotionally shallow on the screen - that's why I think he's best cast as callow, eager beaver, superficial types (e.g. The Firm.) He always appears to be trying too hard, to no great effect. No depth, no surprises, no subtext.People who disagree with us about Cruise's acting chops always point to Born On The Fourth of July - but I just say that film proves the point. I find Cruise's performance in BOT4OJ excruciatingly obvious...and...well, shallow. He's vaguely interesting in Collateral for awhile, but not really...compelling IMO. I kept thinking of actors I'd have cast instead.
My favorite critic's quote about Tom Cruise goes something like "Tom Cruise confuses the art of acting with the act of staring at something really intently."
Since I dislike the crackpot scam known as $cientology and its methods, I'm hardly sad TC is taking some lickings.
Yes and me too on this one. He is staring like a snake, but behind you feel trained emptiness.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
