No, I just know how to write well.Zigurd said:
In both films I listed earlier he expresses a full gamut of emotion without raising his voice. Both films do feature him going beyond that and shouting, though this is indicative of his characters; already fairly exaggerated beings that are being pushed to the limits by outside stimulus. These incidents are more indicative of the directors' intentions - his character exists within the confines of their realities and his energy expands as that of their worlds do. It's appropriate. Also, Dustin Hoffman "stole the show" in Rain Man because he came up with a memorable way to portray an under scripted disorder. Tom actually had to emote to counterbalance Hoffman's lack of it. Ask 80% of film buffs (not critics) and they'll agree Cruise was better there. His performance called for a touch of reality. He had to be somewhat identifiable in terms of standard emotional arc. Hoffman, not so much. Does Cruise yell though? Of course, and his self-awareness of this was carried over to his recent performance in Tropic Thunder where that's all his character did. He still is capable of giving an emotionally realized performance without yelling though and he's done it before.
Pretty much. I don't like the guy's decisions outside of picking movies but I hardly let it bother me.
Strange that you'd be questioned for good language use as opposed to having a shot at those who have poor usage.
I think his acting can be described as highly adequate.
But I've never really enjoyed a film because of him or his performance. More like the film as a whole was worthwhile. Now this could be the sign of a great actor who doesn't overdo things and sells the movie rather than themselves. But Cruise has become a gigantic star (ironically) which seems odd. I know there are others that fit this category (Will Smith springs to mind) of not giving great performances but selling the movie, but Cruise is celebrated and marketed as though we should admire his work. I prefer to admire excellent work, enjoy good work (his level) and ignore average or mediocre work (anything starring Martin Lawrence or Steven Segal). This dichotomy raises my ire and results in my finding of Tom Cruise to be annoying.His chair jumping is such a minor part of my "Tom Cruise Annoyance". His Scientology beliefs grate on me more than that. But like you I try to ignore the entire celebrity rumour mill gossip when it comes to enjoying a film.
Strange that you'd be questioned for good language use as opposed to having a shot at those who have poor usage.
I think his acting can be described as highly adequate.
That said I still watch his films. Although have to say I didn't enjoy Collateral that much (it was ok, Michael Mann films always seem to use that sparse European style that lacks drive), Magnolia didn't do much for me and Eyes Wide Shut was just plain crap.
His chair jumping is such a minor part of my "Tom Cruise Annoyance". His Scientology beliefs grate on me more than that. But like you I try to ignore the entire celebrity rumour mill gossip when it comes to enjoying a film.
Strange indeed.
I half agree with the above in its regard to Cruise. Becoming a star of his caliber really has little to do with ability but competence. Will Smith is hardly what I'd consider a strong actor despite giving a few passable performances but I never look forward to either him or his films. Cruise is the opposite. While his expressionism has become familiar territory by now due to his longevity, his delivery and how me channels the weight of a scene is exemplary. He doesn't always give great performances but this is largely due to the directors he's working with. I think it's in ignoring this distinction that one would begin seeing faults in his performances. His three best roles, for my money came in Collateral, Eyes Wide Shut, and Magnolia where he worked with Michael Mann, Stanley Kubrick, and PT Anderson, respectively. Here he's given the chance to let the character consume him and his performances are all astounding and, more importantly, they're all completely different. Another finalist would be his portrayal of Ron Kovic in Born on the Fourth of July, which does call for shouting but in a different way. There it was more of pain and loss. The desperation of Kovic was incredibly managed by Cruise.tim290280 said:I think his acting can be described as highly adequate.
I have no idea what you mean by this.tim290280 said:
I disagree completely on Eyes Wide Shut, a film that has grown on me tremendously since my first viewing of it. It doesn't compare in terms of measuring social disconnect with the work of Antonioni but it remains a well crafted, thoughtful expose on alienation, specifically in something as culturally layered as New York City.tim290280 said:
Alec Baldwin = LMFAO
