In Reply to: Metacritic averages it at 72. A point below 'Sin City' and one point... posted by kanesays on June 29, 2005 at 10:44:29:
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).
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Cruise via Kubrick, etc - halfnote 20:44:48 07/05/05 (0)