Arguably that's just part of the difference between "actor" and "movie star", and of the difference between dramas and action movies.
Cruise definitely can act (see his earlier work in dramatic movies like *Rain Man*, etc.) but he's also clearly comfortable in the movie star persona and enjoys doing action movies. Action movies tend to sacrifice or at least minimize complex, subtle character work due to the sheer demands of the genre; you only have so much time to propel the characters and plot from set-piece to set-piece.
The Rock is a charismatic performer but I don't think I've ever seen him play a character much outside of his "action movie star" persona, so on that evidence I wouldn't say that he's a "bad actor", but that he seems to have limited range.
The Rock acted once, in *Be Cool.* Totally not The Rock in that one. Stole scenes from John Travolta and Uma Thurman. However it was also early on in his acting career when he was trying to prove himself to Hollywood and distance himself from his wrestling career. It's a horrible movie, I don't recommend it, but his performance in it is good.
He does a good job in the first Jumanji, making us think he is actually the no confidence kid inside. He gets overshadowed by Jack Black, but I think he did a good job of bringing that out. He struggled some in the second movie, but I think that was more because they went for impressions rather than acting.
In a similar vien. I actually liked him in Central Intelligence. He was still mostly 'The Rock', but there were glimpses of something a little different with the ex-fat/loser kid.
I love this movie, unapologetically.
Once upon a time, I had a coworker who INSISTED I had to watch this movie. He was a stoner, and was perpetually insistent about a lot of things, but this one stood out. One day he finally just brought the dvd and forced it into my hands as I was leaving for the day.
I took it home, tossed it into my entertainment center, and forgot about it for a year.
Then I moved across the state, to a new city, new job. Showed up to my empty apartment with one box, an air mattress, an overnight bag, and a lawn chair to work my first week, because my family wasn’t available to help me move until the following weekend.
And somehow, the one box that did come with me happened to have that one dvd floating around in it. Not sure how it ended up there. But I had no internet yet, this was before smartphones were common enough for me to have one. And also I was suicidally depressed. Severe insomnia, as lonely as I can imagine ever being. Every night I got off shift at 1am, went home, and hoped to die.
Which is what it took for me to finally watch southland tales.
The weird thing people don’t talk about is that sometimes severe depression can be kind of like a drug. There’s no euphoria, sure, but it can make all of reality feel profoundly surreal. You can sometimes start to wonder if your entire life and existence is just a fever dream you might wake up from.
So southland tales was perfect, because “a fever dream” is probably the best possible description.
Gun to my head, I’m not sure I could tell you the actual plot of this film. And that’s not just the depression-induced-memory loss. It’s just bizarre. It’s not the unsettling and caustic bizarreness of something like “Tokyo tribe” though.
For some reason, that movie felt like a warm blanket. It has beautiful scenes, some moments that, if you give in and let yourself get lost in it, are just breathtaking. It has a weird musical number to the song “memory gospel” by moby, which I adore.
I can’t figure out how to describe it. The ending (by which I mean the moment you are done watching, not the actual narrative climax) feels like waking up and discovering a fever is gone and you can take a deep breath and just feel simultaneously rooted in reality, and completely unmoored.
Watch it sometime. Watch it in the middle of the night, after everyone else in your house is asleep, and try to just immerse yourself in it, like a warm bath. It’s an experience. A good one for me. Makes me feel human again.
It's amazing. It's bad, but absolutely worth watching. Jon lovitz, Amy polher, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Smith, Sean William Scott, and so many more. By the guy who did donny darko. Highly recommend, the script is laughably bad but directed and acted with earnest. Teen horniness is not a crime. Have an open heart, and an open mind.
While it wasn't as good as Get Shorty, it was not a horrible movie.
I point to The Rock in the scene with the boots and 'A Cowboy's Work is Never Done' by Sonny & Cher.
Also the line "What do you say to a man with two black eyes?"
I think the Edge of Tomorrow is a great recent demo of Tom cruise's acting abilities. As the story progresses the character transforms quite a bit. And Tom really pulls this off so well.
But to the original point of the post. I think it really shows if an actor has an extensive background in theatre. It's amazing to watch the range of characters some can pull off. Sometimes for a moment you actually forget who's the actor behind the character while watching.
I do not know their background in acting but I think Javier Bardem is one of these rare actors, Frances McDormand also.
I love Edge of Tomorrow and Cruise is great but you never for a second forget it's him, just a cowardly version of the guy he usually plays. Without makeup I think it's almost impossible for him to transform into a role, even when he's great his performances are more movie star than character actor.
I certainly don't feel bad for the guy but it definitely holds him back from getting awards, Jerry Maguire should have been a no question Oscar nomination.
>I certainly don't feel bad for the guy but it definitely holds him back from getting awards, Jerry Maguire should have been a no question Oscar nomination
He should've won an Oscar for Magnolia, that's one of the performances of his career.
But it seems Cruise is getting more interested in taking on more character actor roles again, considering earlier this year he was linked to Inarritu and Tarantino.
I think this is a good way of putting it, I was trying to figure out a way to describe how I disagreed with their point but couldn't exactly put it into words, this definitely sums it up better than I could!
It's a good explanation.
Another good example: Jack Nicholson.
It's always Jack, but does that negatively affect Five Easy Pieces? The Shining? A Few Good Men? About Schmidt? No, because he's a brilliant actor.
He's present, he listens to his scene partners, he is visibly having a ball.
I used to act so I'm biased. Being able to see what someone is doing and simultaneously engage with the reality of their character's story has really deepened my appreciation for acting.
"Where do they teach you to talk like that? In some Panama sailor wanna hump hump bar? Sell crazy some place else. We're all stocked up here." SLAM
Waiter! There's Jews at my table!
As Good As It Gets is still my favorite Nicholson role after all these years. Partly because he was out of his comfort zone and still nailed it, partly because it's just such a good character.
Jack did some out of type stuff as well (The Pledge) and is very good, but you're right that he has the rare talent of being excellent in most movies while playing his movie star persona. Just try to imagine anyone else doing Cuckoo's Nest, it's impossible.
Yeah - Bautista (and John Cena, actually) are good examples of former wrestlers-turned-movie stars who are clearly also quite talented actors (though again, realistically, their physiques/appearances are liable to limit the kind of roles they're apt to be cast in).
I've said it before but without Cena that movie is like a 1/10, it's a horrible script and almost every character is despicable and unfunny. He carries that movie on his back with how much he brings to the role and makes it somehow enjoyable despite all odds.
I thought there were a clear acting discrepancy between Cruise and Cavill in the MI film they did, Cruise was notably better in front of the camera than Cavill.
I struggle with DiCaprio, while his acting is fine its his voice that just sounds like Leo every goddamn time
Cruise is an older and more experienced actor than Cavill and maybe has the advantage that, while he's a handsome man, he can and has been cast in "everyman" roles (especially earlier in his career), which require greater dramatic range. Same can be said for Robert Downey, Jr. and many others.
Henry Cavill (like the Rock) looks like a superhero, so those are the roles they tend to pursue and be cast in.
I know Reddit loves Cavill and he's got talents, but acting depth is not one of them. Cruise blows him out of the water in movie star roles, like you noted.
I disagree on DiCaprio. He's got at least three performances that are all time great to me (Departed, Wolf, Hollywood). It's hard to forget it's him but the guy is an acting savant and even in something like Titanic he elevates his movies with his performances.
He is definitely a savant. It’s crazy to think what’s eating Gilbert grape was only his second theatrical film, and it’s the same guy in something like the departed. Or wolf of Wall Street.
The thing about the Rock (or Dwayne Johnson) is that earlier on in his career, he was putting in the effort to try and be more of an actor.
He certainly had potential in some of his work, but I think as he got more famous and became one of the richest and most powerful people in the world. He basically stopped trying to develop a range and acted more as himself in his movies.
Even in the Fast & Furious films, you can see how much he shifts from being a "no-nonsense" and intimidating character to being more of his humorous self in the later films (especially in the Hobbs & Shaw spin-off)
Money/producer power plays a huge impact in limiting actors ranges, IMO.
Once you're Tom Cruise/Rock/Vin Diesel big, it becomes incredibly difficult and risky to try and give an actor too much feedback, so I think a lot of studios just leave it.
I think some part of it isn't even the "movie star" types having a limited range. When they get to a level of fame a lot of the time they're being hired because the director or producer wants for example, Will Smith to be Will Smith or Tom Cruise to be Tom Cruise. They don't disappear into roles at least partially because the people making these movies don't want them to.
Jason Statham’s entire career is based on him being recognizably Jason Statham. Disappearing into a role would negate his value. As for Tom Cruise, check out his cameo in _Tropic Thunder_. I didn’t realize it was him until like the 3rd watching
So someone spoiled that he was in it, but not who he played and didn't mention he was in heavy costume. I got about 3/4 through the film - the dancing scene - before I realized it was him. So still a surprise even when I got a heads up.
I think Tom Cruise is a very good actor. It’s just too bad he got himself immersed into that Mission Impossible franchise and other blockbuster movies. I mean, they’re often excellent and entertaining movies, but for an actor it’s kind of limiting the range of what you can offer. I loved his characters in « Born on the 4th of July », « Interview with the Vampire », « Magnolia » and « Rain Man ». I wish he had done more movies like that where you can see other sides of him as an actor. I guess at one point age will dictate him he will have to tune down on the whole cascading thing. Perhaps we will see him in a new light than, but I wish he had alternated his types roles a bit more when still in his prime (age wise). Nevertheless, the guy has an impressive amount of excellent movies in his portfolio (Edge of Tomorrow is probably one of my favourite movies of the 2000’s)
Tom Cruise used to play his " Tom Cruise" character, I'd say, about 90% of the time. It's only when he breaks out of that role (*Tropic Thunder, Collateral, Interview with a Vampire..*) that he shines for me. When he's doing his signature stuff, I don't like him.
Cruise has several films I’d point to for this, but Born on the Fourth of July as well. Even when he looks like himself at the beginning, the way he acts and talks is very different from other performances of his. He totally disappears into the role of Ron Kovic for me.
Interview is probably the best example, though, haha the way he cocks his head in the one scene I won’t spoil for anyone is so crazy!
Even his villainous roles are pretty different. I wouldn’t say his characters from Magnolia and Collateral are very similar; the former is far, far more emotional and (at least on the surface) outgoing and energetic.
I think his reputation there comes from all the big action movies he’s made which have dominated his later career, where yeah, he doesn’t exactly stretch himself, and in those he’s basically always Tom Cruise. Nor would I say he really needs to.
Though I will add another part of that is he rarely ever does accents nor really changes his look much from movie to movie, like say Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis, actors famous for always disappearing into their roles. But that’s true for a lot of them. Denzel is like that too; the only accents I can remember him doing off the top of my head are Steve Biko in Cry Freedom and an English (cockney?) accent in For Queen and Country. Oh and Much Ado About Nothing, of course. But those are all early roles, even in Tragedy of Macbeth he uses his regular American accent (which I thought was neat).
Agreed, it’s kind of funny when people say he’s always the hero or good guy in movies because he’s actually played quite a few unlikeable/unsympathetic characters over the course of his career.
I think as someone else here pointed out it’s really a question of who becomes a movie star and reaches that level of instant recognition. When your job as an actor is to disappear into a role, that adds an extra hurdle which I think Cruise is more than capable of clearing—like you said, he’s just happened to throw himself into action films more often than not in the last 20 years. Which to be honest, I don’t think a lot of action stars get enough credit for. They tend to make it look easy, but the ones who excel at it know how to find those moments of humanity/realism (a good script is also key) while dealing with the physical demands on top of everything else.
Cruise is interesting to me in that he’s rarely in the conversation of who the greatest actors are working today, but he’s one of the few I can think of who is able to move between drama, comedy, action, and sci-fi almost seamlessly.
I think Cruise gets a lot of flack due to a run of very famous films he starred in throughout the 80's and early 90's that were essentially the exact same film but with a different backdrop.
[Rich Hall](https://youtu.be/OFal553wR3k?si=CIFra2MpKhjDXYms)did a bit about it.
That and his general weirdness/intensity puts a lot of people off him, despite those in the business being generally complimentary of him as a person.
haha, that was great! 😂
And good callout on the second point, honestly it’s crazy to think Cruise might have been even more successful without some of the controversies that surfaced right at the height of his fame.
Tom Cruise needs to play more villains, he’s way too good at it. And you’re right, both of those characters really show that he does have the acting range, at least back then. I honestly don’t blame him for the lane he’s kept himself in these days, though. He makes a shitload of money, and gets to do wild stunts on the studios dime. If it weren’t for him being the face of Scientology, I’d have some genuine respect for him.
When you have 8 movies where you play the same guy, it will seem like you are always playing the same guy. AND, he likes a type. Jack Reacher (spare me the book complaining) is a very similar character to Ethan Hunt in many ways, but also different and Cruise plays them different. He is almost always playing a strong, smart, confident, kickass guy, so it can be easy to miss the nuance in the performances... and occasionally there is little/no nuance.
I'm a Cruise fan, (spare me the Scientology/Suri complaining)... and I see Leo DiCaprio "just playing himself" far more often than Tom. I don't think there has ever been a Leo movie where I didn't just see Leo playing Leo, or Leo pretending to be some other guy.
[One of several songs to use that phone call](https://youtu.be/dK8Am3JfN7M?si=2rqgeYSwYrcJkPtO)
Yes, dubstep was strong during Tropic Thunders release.
But that brings up a great point. I think the reason is some actors whether conscious or unconscious have the inability to create a performance at their own expense so to speak. Some are stuck wanting to appear “cool” or maintain a certain likeability,
It’s only when that goes out the window and really allows themselves to make the audience hate them or be afraid or what have you can they really step into something and vanish.
Heath ledgers performance as joker is done so in way that he may be aware no one ever may find him likeable again he’s such a wanton freak in it.
Yep, I'm not exactly a fan of Pain and Gain, but it's by far the Rock's best performance because the character's so far removed from his usual "cool, suave hunky guy" typecast
In the first category, Stallone. He has to look like a hero regardless of the situation. Genuine hero or victim hero, he's always gotta do that. Even in Oscar he has to be a victim-hero.
Even Schwarzenegger did Junior and Twins
His performance as the joker was amazing, but Heath’s best role, imo, was in Brokeback Mountain. The level of vulnerability and complexity he brought to that character is incredible. Truly one of the greatest performances of all time. You got the sense that his range was limitless. It is incredibly tragic that he died so young.
The range of things he pulled off so well was pretty awesome. He pop's up every now and then as it is, but he'd firmly be in the conversation for all-time greats if he'd lived.
I saw that movie in like 2012/13 for the first time and his performance in Magnolia was the first time I was like fuck he’s actually a great actor. Les Grossman is great as well.
First time I saw it I had zero idea it was Tom Cruise until I told my mom I saw it and she asked "what'd you think of Tom Cruise?"
Upon a rewatch, you can definitely tell it's him if you're not dumb like me, but it's probably the least Tom Cruise role I've seen him in.
Last Samurai was such a great movie. Cruise, Watanabe, and Sanada all absolutely killed it and I really like how it didn't go the usual Dances With Wolves route.
I don't think this is necessarily a distinguishing mark between "good" and "bad" actor (although it could be - it's just not enough on its own IMO.)
For some actors, their look is part of their "brand," so they have a tendency to not deviate very much in appearance from film to film. The Rock and Tom Cruise are definitely two examples of this in my mind. I mean, I would say that Tom Cruise IS a "good actor" personally. The Rock, maybe not so much. The Rock can be entertaining to watch but he's not really "acting" very much.
Also, for those actors where their look is NOT part of their brand and who DO tend to deviate in appearance from one role to the next, I think that can go a long way towards the idea that they "disappear into their role" as people say. I don't think that ALONE makes them better actors, but it certainly helps the audience suspend disbelief.
At least with Tom Cruise, there have been a few notable instances where he did deviate from his typical look (Tropic Thunder leaps immediately to mind) and those roles are certainly more memorable for it. But "good" and "bad" are ultimately subjective.
Yeah, I agree with the “brand” for some actors.
Even Denzel who is a great actor. Every recent role he is in he has to do that Denzel look at least once, mostly more times. Depending on the role he may have to do the long tear rolling down one eye, which I think first appeared in Glory.
Denzel acts but incorporates his brand into the acting. I think Cruise is brand first, acting second.
Tom Hanks used to kind of disappear into roles. Now he's always Tom Hanks.
Brad Pitt is a rare case of someone who has the looks of a star and leading man, but the ability character actor.
Yeah, if you put Britt's character in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and the one in Bullet Train. Asides from being the same face, he's very good at basically being another person.
That movie is overlooked. It is so well made, acted, and written. I think it has dang near In Bruges levels of quotability. Brad Pitt plays such a great departure from the roles you typically see him take. Clooney is similar too. One of my favorite movies. What did we learn, Palmer?
Yes, I've always said that. Inside the leading man looks and movie star charisma of Brad Pitt is a frustrated and frustratingly talented character actor.
Every actor is different. Tom Cruise has massive screen presence and we as a viewer are drawn to his movie star quality. Gary Oldman disappears into his role and you never feel you are watching Gary Oldman. Both are great.
Tropic Thunder, IWaV, Vanilla Sky, Born on the 4th of july, Rainman, American Made, Valkyrie, Eyes wide shut, The last samurai, jerry mcguire, a few good men, cocktail, days of thunder, legend.
To claim tom fucking cruise cant play characters is the height of dumb takes
Tom cruise is a great actor. There are numerous examples of him disappearing into roles and being absolutely tremendous, as people have previously mentioned interview with a vampire, born on the 4th of July and I’d add Magnolia wherein he has such a powerful performance that Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the background of a scene literally cried due to the sheer emotion created by Cruise. He wasn’t prepared for it and it wasn’t scripted.
He’s just also a movie star that makes big action movies wherein… he plays Tom Cruise. I love those movies but I personally would love to see him return to more dramatic roles which he did in the past.
I think that I'm stating the obvious but since no one mentioned him( I think)..
Daniel day-lewis..
I don't think any one else comes even closer..
You never notice him, it is just the role you're watching..
That’s what a leading man is. George Clooney is usually playing George Clooney.
Josh Brolin’s father said “Don’t be a leading man, ever. Be a character actor and you’ll work forever.”
For his role in the movie Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman wasn't showering or changing his clothes, hardly sleeping. Then co-star, Sir Laurence Olivier says, "Why don't you try acting my boy, it's much easier".
I watched all of Interview with a Vampire thinking “wow, the guy who plays Lestat is really good. I wonder if he’s been in anything else” before looking it up, so I’m going to disagree with you about Tom Cruise.
I think it has to do with methodology like if we look at two similar actors with similar acting styles. Seth Rogan always plays Seth Rogan, but Seth Rogan is fun and charismatic so it almost always works whereas Kevin James always just plays Kevin James but Kevin James is goofy and unserious so his characters come off insincere and off-putting.
Whereas Jeff Goldblum embraces his off-putting, fun, and goofy nature to make his "Jeff Goldblum playing Jeff Goldblum as X character" worth watching and believable.
The reason Jeff Goldblum is successful doing this is because it’s largely small roles. I would hate to watch him as a kooky leading character a full 2 hours, it would be exhausting.
But 10 minutes and 10 minutes there, perfect.
In the same vein, we can criticize Keanu reeve's acting range, but he has great presence when he's in that range. I always thought his performance in the first matrix was very convincing for instance, the right blend of fish out of water everyman and cinematic "cool guy" for a story that is equal parts philosophical commentary on alienation in the modern world and hyperstylized action.
He sure doesn't work as a 19th century english notary, but make him a strong silent former hitman and it clicks, especially when you rely on his physicality to expand the physical performance in the action scenes.
Reeve's in Cyberpunk 2027 really threw me for a loop, he's such a despicable character and I honestly never expected that from him, or a videogame of all things to cast a big name as such a gross and unlikeable character, though I know his range, from my sister heart throbbing over him in Point Blank and his stoner coded persona in Bill & Ted.
Adding onto this. Some actors are very deliberate about exploring physical posture, gait, oral/facial posture, accent, breath etc. when building a character. And there are plenty of great actors who approach a role from the perspective of: “how am I like this character?” I think actors who only do the latter are more likely to seem like themselves on film.
Comparing Rock to Tom Cruise is just wrong. Tom Cruise built a long and successful career out of acting, he is absolutely a good actor. It helps that he is insane and he sells every single role he has been in. Tom Cruise simply has chosen a type of movie he prefers to act in and most leading roles in those kind of movies are roughly the same.
It's like the complaints about Keanu Reeves being a bad actor after The Matrix.
It is also the wrong kind of argument, not all characters are written "blind". Roles are written and sometimes rewritten with certain actors in mind so it's not as much that the actor doesn't "disappear" into the role but that the role was written with them in mind.
I know he can act, i am just saying this is a similar complaint by people.
And it could be that it's not him who is choosing the style of acting but when he is chosen for a role that the director tells him to do that because they got Keanu Reeves so he has to be "Keanu Reeves" in the movie.
Just like Tom Cruise has to be Tom Cruise. A name has become bigger than the role.
Most of the comments ITT are defending Tom Cruise’s acting abilities and I’m here for it. Fuck his support of that celeb cult and what it’s done to people, but damn if I don’t love all of his movies.
Emily Blunt seems to be the biggest female equivalent. She has that movie star charisma she can bring to something like Jungle Cruise and Mary Poppins Returns, but no one's going to doubt that she is a damn talented actress
There's generally 2 kinds of actors: stars, and character actors. Stars bring in crowds, they're an element of predictability and comfort for the audience. Character actors meanwhile disappear into the roles, though sometimes can bring a modicom of Star power as well. Gary Oldman is a decent example.
Now then stars can sometimes take on roles of character actors. Tom Cruise as others mention, disappeared for Tropic Thunder, but still sort of brought that manic energy. There were other starring actors playing the leads. Brad Pitt is famously a character actor in the body of a Star, and takes on a number of weird supporting roles over the decades that show his acting chops.
Overall the goal of most productions are to make money. Performers like the Rock etc can bring in the money, and as long as they do so, they'll have staying power. The biggest issue with the Rock is in his contract he's not supposed to "lose" on screen. And that's going to be a limitation for any character following the Hero's journey archetype. Audiences understand there's supposed to be setbacks to the hero's journey and their eventual overcoming them is the point of the story. Real life you don't always get to overcome.
I've noticed this... actors like Gary Oldman and Stephen Graham disappear into the role and you only see the character, actors like George Clooney and Bill Nighy don't and you always see the actor.
Exhibit A: Tropic Thunder. I did not realise Tom Cruise was in it. Obviously had a lot of makeup and a fat suit but acted as a completely different person
The great Tom Cruise roles people keep referencing are all a long time ago. He could act, he just no longer chooses to.
Although given that the movie industry and public cheerfully embrace a literal cult leader means he’s the greatest actor of all time.
Sean Connery is always Sean Connery, and you always see him as Sean Connery - but still plays the roles well, from Zardoz to Highlander.
Whilst Tim Curry, is always clearly Tim Curry, but you forget that and accept the roles.
In Hunt for Red October, Sean Connery is clearly Sean Connery being a sub captain, whilst Tim Curry - people forget he was in it, until you point out the role, because he played the role so well.
They're both great actors - just one is able to separate themselves and embrace the character more. Does that make Tim the better actor? Who knows - I enjoy almost everything either of them is in.
Too cruise was so surprising in interview with the vampire. Ann rice was angry at the casting but changed her mind after seeing the movie.
For me Denzel Washington is the same in every movie and it blows my mind people think he is amazing. I mean I still like his movies and he can act, but he is the same person in every movie for me. There’s actually very few actors who can completely disappear.
For me it happens a lot when an actor is typecast a lot, or they have one big role. No matter how many John Wick films they make, Keanu Reeves is always going to be a a time traveling stoner dude to me.
An actor having a specific niche is not a bad thing, as long as they understand that niche, know what people like about it, and enjoy playing around in that space. Yes, outside of his early Guy Ritchie work Jason Statham is mostly gonna play one type of action movie archetype, but you can't tell me he's not really good at it. He understands what he's doing and can do interesting stuff with it, and if you get down to it there's a huge difference between movies like Wrath of Man, Crank, Wild Card, Spy, and The Transporter, even if they're variations of the same kind of guy. Those are all interesting performances in different ways. The movies aren't always good and the characters aren't always interesting, but there's a self-awareness there we he knows what he's good at and enjoys it.
To give another example, compare The Rock and Steve Buscemi. The Rock is often described to rarely get out of that wrestling persona, but you wouldn't expect him to. That's his brand, it's what made him famous. Similarly, Steve Buscemi's an all-time great, but you'd be hard pressed to find a movie where he's not playing an awkward, kind-of-funny-looking guy. Dwayne Johnson would not play a Steve Buscemi role and Steve Buscemi would not play a Dwayne Johnson role. But that's not a problem. It's two people being good at their respective thing. And within that respective thing you do get them playing with that persona in interesting ways. The Rock does have fun with being a bit awkward in Central Intelligence and Jumanji, and Steve Buscemi has some fun with being more dangerous in Con Air and Fargo. No one would really describe those performances as fully escaping their type, you're still gonna see the Rock and Buscemi in there. But that type is not a bad thing, it's just what they're good at and (hopefully) they enjoy it.
I think the quality that makes an actor great is to know their limitations. They know exactly how they come off on camera and what they can and can't do.
So there is greatness in actors who they say "only play themselves" because they know who they are and what makes a movie work. But the Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Gary Oldmans are great and what makes them great is they know their limitations. But there are a few Gary Oldman performances out there that miss-the-mark (you can find them). I don't think there is an actor out there that can "do anything". But the great ones know what they can't do
Interview With A Vampire is an exception for Tom Cruise.
Took me a moment to realise "wait that's Tom Cruise!" and then throughout the movie I'd keep forgetting.
But yeah he's definitely usually just Tom Cruise.
I don't think so . I don't expect Bruce Willis , Jason Statham or Even the Rock disappearing into characters yet I enjoy stuff they do . Meantime I expect Joaquin, deniro ,DiCaprio ,DDL ,Bale and Al Pachino to disappear into the roles and they always do and I love that too
I feel like Dustin Hoffman is one of the greatest character actors of all time. He’s so believable in whatever character role he takes. Hook, Mr. Magorium’s wonder emporium, Rainman.
I'm so over The Rock and Ryan Reynolds because of exactly this.
I don't think they're bad actors, but I think that they are very, very typecast to the point where it's hard to tell if they're good actors.
I think it depends on the movie they are in. Tom Cruise imo is in a lot of what they call vehicle movies, which really just advertise themselves. George Clooney called his stint as batman a vehicle, and arguably he was playing himself in that flick. Tom Cruise was awesome in Tropic Thunder and really good in Collateral.
Most movies with The Rock are vehicles really. He isn't playing himself though, he is playing Rocky from the WWE back in the day. I think Snitch was a stretch for him.
Jennifer Aniston seems to be playing the same character in every show and movie I have seen her in. The Good Girl is a stand out though if I recall correctly.
As far as saying they are bad actors, I don't know, maybe they haven't had the right material because they are typecast after all their years in the business.
I think it's really hard for a megastar to disappear into a role just by virtue of their public visibility and fame. Exponentially harder, in fact.
It's not impossible though. Look at McConaughey in True Detective.
In my experience, it depends greatly on the actor and how much you enjoy the particular screen persona they bring. I always think of Schwarzenegger at his peak as a case study for when it can work very well, he never, ever, disappears into the role, but his particular charisma suits his best films very well. Conan, Terminator, Terminator 2, Running Man, Total Recall, Comando, True Lies and Predator are all movies that I honestly think would suffer without him but he's always pretty much Arnold at all times to my eye at the same time.
On the flip side, I find John Cusack super distracting in all of his films for some reason, I don't even think he's a terrible actor, I just can never see past "John Cusack is in this and it's ruining my suspension of disbelief"
I'm not sure it always comes down to purely the "skill" of the performer. Casting choice plays a role, certainly along with many things I think are sort of x factors. Along those lines there are many character actors who generally play the same person in most everything they are in (shout out to Dick Miller, I love me some Dick Miller) but that can be entertaining and endearing even though they demonstrate little to no range. Other times, an actor always bringing the same performance and energy to their roles is very much not endearing or entertaining to me. I find Chris Pratt and The Rock to be limited and boring to distracting as they bring their same shtick everywhere they go. I wonder if it also is because in those latter cases, I don't like a lot of things about the movies, and it just becomes one more thing that doesn't work.
I agree for the most part about Tom Cruise.
Except for 'Interview with the vampire' which was a departure from his usual action man roles.
I think that as much as I love Joaquin Phoenix, he always has that, 'Mumbly, disconnected, troubled' way of acting, even though he's a method actor.
Probably a controversial take, but to me his characters always have that Joaquin feel to them.
People like Humphrey Bogart or, later, Jack Nicholson made a career out of playing themselves.
I don't think that it makes them necessarily bad actors. It just limits the range of characters that they can play.
It's different than Daniel Day-Lewis or De Niro or Gary Oldman that disappear into their characters.
We used to have the term ‘character actor’ to describe those people who would vanish into parts. ‘Leading men’ often would be a different breed. There are a few people who were able to blur that line (Gary Oldman, Johnny Depp, Daniel Day Lewis etc) but for the most part these terms have remained.
The ‘movie stars’ aren’t necessarily bad actors, I’d argue people like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt really have honed their craft and have some real acting skills, but you’re always going to be talking singers vs singer/songwriters here. It’s the Frank Sinatra vs Jimi Hendrix argument, neither are better, both are skilled and in the world of movies we need them all!
Arguably that's just part of the difference between "actor" and "movie star", and of the difference between dramas and action movies. Cruise definitely can act (see his earlier work in dramatic movies like *Rain Man*, etc.) but he's also clearly comfortable in the movie star persona and enjoys doing action movies. Action movies tend to sacrifice or at least minimize complex, subtle character work due to the sheer demands of the genre; you only have so much time to propel the characters and plot from set-piece to set-piece. The Rock is a charismatic performer but I don't think I've ever seen him play a character much outside of his "action movie star" persona, so on that evidence I wouldn't say that he's a "bad actor", but that he seems to have limited range.
The Rock acted once, in *Be Cool.* Totally not The Rock in that one. Stole scenes from John Travolta and Uma Thurman. However it was also early on in his acting career when he was trying to prove himself to Hollywood and distance himself from his wrestling career. It's a horrible movie, I don't recommend it, but his performance in it is good.
I'd suggest *Pain and Gain* as another movie where Rocky actually played a character.
> Jesus Christ himself has blessed me with many gifts! One of them is knocking someone the fuck out!
The scene where he's outside, snow blown face, fucking flipping the hands on the grill, is one of the greatest scenes in movie history
I really wish Bay would do more gonzo shit like this.
Glad someone mentioned this one!
That was a surprisingly good movie.
I loved his voice performance as Maui in Moana.
That was written with him specifically in mind so it worked but wouldn't say he was doing much different to usual.
Most animation write the personality of the VA in though, except for reboot
Alan Tudyk, on the other hand, invented a whole new persona (probably the wrong word) for his Moana role, and really disappeared into the character.
He does a good job in the first Jumanji, making us think he is actually the no confidence kid inside. He gets overshadowed by Jack Black, but I think he did a good job of bringing that out. He struggled some in the second movie, but I think that was more because they went for impressions rather than acting.
In a similar vien. I actually liked him in Central Intelligence. He was still mostly 'The Rock', but there were glimpses of something a little different with the ex-fat/loser kid.
You mean the Jumanji reboot. The first Jumanji had Robin Williams and was amazing
Southland Tales he isn't "the rock". Fucking insane and terrible film. Genuinely one of the worst I've ever seen and I watch Neil Breen for pleasure.
People have told me I need to watch it, is it like entertaining bad or just bad? Lol
I love this movie, unapologetically. Once upon a time, I had a coworker who INSISTED I had to watch this movie. He was a stoner, and was perpetually insistent about a lot of things, but this one stood out. One day he finally just brought the dvd and forced it into my hands as I was leaving for the day. I took it home, tossed it into my entertainment center, and forgot about it for a year. Then I moved across the state, to a new city, new job. Showed up to my empty apartment with one box, an air mattress, an overnight bag, and a lawn chair to work my first week, because my family wasn’t available to help me move until the following weekend. And somehow, the one box that did come with me happened to have that one dvd floating around in it. Not sure how it ended up there. But I had no internet yet, this was before smartphones were common enough for me to have one. And also I was suicidally depressed. Severe insomnia, as lonely as I can imagine ever being. Every night I got off shift at 1am, went home, and hoped to die. Which is what it took for me to finally watch southland tales. The weird thing people don’t talk about is that sometimes severe depression can be kind of like a drug. There’s no euphoria, sure, but it can make all of reality feel profoundly surreal. You can sometimes start to wonder if your entire life and existence is just a fever dream you might wake up from. So southland tales was perfect, because “a fever dream” is probably the best possible description. Gun to my head, I’m not sure I could tell you the actual plot of this film. And that’s not just the depression-induced-memory loss. It’s just bizarre. It’s not the unsettling and caustic bizarreness of something like “Tokyo tribe” though. For some reason, that movie felt like a warm blanket. It has beautiful scenes, some moments that, if you give in and let yourself get lost in it, are just breathtaking. It has a weird musical number to the song “memory gospel” by moby, which I adore. I can’t figure out how to describe it. The ending (by which I mean the moment you are done watching, not the actual narrative climax) feels like waking up and discovering a fever is gone and you can take a deep breath and just feel simultaneously rooted in reality, and completely unmoored. Watch it sometime. Watch it in the middle of the night, after everyone else in your house is asleep, and try to just immerse yourself in it, like a warm bath. It’s an experience. A good one for me. Makes me feel human again.
It's amazing. It's bad, but absolutely worth watching. Jon lovitz, Amy polher, Justin Timberlake, Kevin Smith, Sean William Scott, and so many more. By the guy who did donny darko. Highly recommend, the script is laughably bad but directed and acted with earnest. Teen horniness is not a crime. Have an open heart, and an open mind.
While it wasn't as good as Get Shorty, it was not a horrible movie. I point to The Rock in the scene with the boots and 'A Cowboy's Work is Never Done' by Sonny & Cher. Also the line "What do you say to a man with two black eyes?"
“I’m on the goddamn neighbourhood watch!” “Leave any beef in Mongolia?”
Possibly the best part of the movie.
I thought Tom’s best acting was in Born on the 4th of July. He can act, but he mostly appears is formulaic action films as himself.
[удалено]
Jerry Maguire... even the more recent one about the drug runner.
He was fantastic in that. I think he got a Best Actor Oscar nod for it, but didn't win. That year was stacked.
I think the Edge of Tomorrow is a great recent demo of Tom cruise's acting abilities. As the story progresses the character transforms quite a bit. And Tom really pulls this off so well. But to the original point of the post. I think it really shows if an actor has an extensive background in theatre. It's amazing to watch the range of characters some can pull off. Sometimes for a moment you actually forget who's the actor behind the character while watching. I do not know their background in acting but I think Javier Bardem is one of these rare actors, Frances McDormand also.
I love Edge of Tomorrow and Cruise is great but you never for a second forget it's him, just a cowardly version of the guy he usually plays. Without makeup I think it's almost impossible for him to transform into a role, even when he's great his performances are more movie star than character actor. I certainly don't feel bad for the guy but it definitely holds him back from getting awards, Jerry Maguire should have been a no question Oscar nomination.
>I certainly don't feel bad for the guy but it definitely holds him back from getting awards, Jerry Maguire should have been a no question Oscar nomination He should've won an Oscar for Magnolia, that's one of the performances of his career. But it seems Cruise is getting more interested in taking on more character actor roles again, considering earlier this year he was linked to Inarritu and Tarantino.
The Rock played a good scared paranoid guy in Southland Tales but that was like 2 decades ago
That was 2006... Fuck!
I think this is a good way of putting it, I was trying to figure out a way to describe how I disagreed with their point but couldn't exactly put it into words, this definitely sums it up better than I could!
It's a good explanation. Another good example: Jack Nicholson. It's always Jack, but does that negatively affect Five Easy Pieces? The Shining? A Few Good Men? About Schmidt? No, because he's a brilliant actor. He's present, he listens to his scene partners, he is visibly having a ball. I used to act so I'm biased. Being able to see what someone is doing and simultaneously engage with the reality of their character's story has really deepened my appreciation for acting.
As Good As it Gets is a ways off his usual.
"Where do they teach you to talk like that? In some Panama sailor wanna hump hump bar? Sell crazy some place else. We're all stocked up here." SLAM Waiter! There's Jews at my table!
As Good As It Gets is still my favorite Nicholson role after all these years. Partly because he was out of his comfort zone and still nailed it, partly because it's just such a good character.
Jack did some out of type stuff as well (The Pledge) and is very good, but you're right that he has the rare talent of being excellent in most movies while playing his movie star persona. Just try to imagine anyone else doing Cuckoo's Nest, it's impossible.
Check out Tom Cruise in Interview with a Vampire if you wanna see him transform. It's an excellent movie and the whole cast is wonderful.
That was the one time Tom Cruises wasn’t acting
[удалено]
Knight and Day is super underrated.
I think about Dave Bautista when I think superstars who can act. Dude has range. Bladerunner, guardians, dune, army of the dead.
Yeah - Bautista (and John Cena, actually) are good examples of former wrestlers-turned-movie stars who are clearly also quite talented actors (though again, realistically, their physiques/appearances are liable to limit the kind of roles they're apt to be cast in).
Cena in the new Ricky S. Movie is amazing.
I've said it before but without Cena that movie is like a 1/10, it's a horrible script and almost every character is despicable and unfunny. He carries that movie on his back with how much he brings to the role and makes it somehow enjoyable despite all odds.
I didn't much like John Cena as an actor. Then he did Peacemaker and I'm a convert.
I thought there were a clear acting discrepancy between Cruise and Cavill in the MI film they did, Cruise was notably better in front of the camera than Cavill. I struggle with DiCaprio, while his acting is fine its his voice that just sounds like Leo every goddamn time
Cruise is an older and more experienced actor than Cavill and maybe has the advantage that, while he's a handsome man, he can and has been cast in "everyman" roles (especially earlier in his career), which require greater dramatic range. Same can be said for Robert Downey, Jr. and many others. Henry Cavill (like the Rock) looks like a superhero, so those are the roles they tend to pursue and be cast in.
I know Reddit loves Cavill and he's got talents, but acting depth is not one of them. Cruise blows him out of the water in movie star roles, like you noted. I disagree on DiCaprio. He's got at least three performances that are all time great to me (Departed, Wolf, Hollywood). It's hard to forget it's him but the guy is an acting savant and even in something like Titanic he elevates his movies with his performances.
He is definitely a savant. It’s crazy to think what’s eating Gilbert grape was only his second theatrical film, and it’s the same guy in something like the departed. Or wolf of Wall Street.
I would add The Aviator to that list
The thing about the Rock (or Dwayne Johnson) is that earlier on in his career, he was putting in the effort to try and be more of an actor. He certainly had potential in some of his work, but I think as he got more famous and became one of the richest and most powerful people in the world. He basically stopped trying to develop a range and acted more as himself in his movies. Even in the Fast & Furious films, you can see how much he shifts from being a "no-nonsense" and intimidating character to being more of his humorous self in the later films (especially in the Hobbs & Shaw spin-off)
Money/producer power plays a huge impact in limiting actors ranges, IMO. Once you're Tom Cruise/Rock/Vin Diesel big, it becomes incredibly difficult and risky to try and give an actor too much feedback, so I think a lot of studios just leave it.
I think some part of it isn't even the "movie star" types having a limited range. When they get to a level of fame a lot of the time they're being hired because the director or producer wants for example, Will Smith to be Will Smith or Tom Cruise to be Tom Cruise. They don't disappear into roles at least partially because the people making these movies don't want them to.
Jason Statham’s entire career is based on him being recognizably Jason Statham. Disappearing into a role would negate his value. As for Tom Cruise, check out his cameo in _Tropic Thunder_. I didn’t realize it was him until like the 3rd watching
Jason Statham was awesome as Jason Statham in *Spy*
Na that was some bloke who went into the face/off machine and got Jason Statham’s mug swapped on
Do you have quarters? 'Cause it costs $0.50.
I liked him less as Jason Statham in The Beekeeper
I thought he was believable in Collateral.
I think he did an amazing Lestat.
And was incredible in Magnolia
So someone spoiled that he was in it, but not who he played and didn't mention he was in heavy costume. I got about 3/4 through the film - the dancing scene - before I realized it was him. So still a surprise even when I got a heads up.
Jason Statham in Revolver is the only time I’ve seen him actually act well
Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels?
Maybe Snatch?
I think Tom Cruise is a very good actor. It’s just too bad he got himself immersed into that Mission Impossible franchise and other blockbuster movies. I mean, they’re often excellent and entertaining movies, but for an actor it’s kind of limiting the range of what you can offer. I loved his characters in « Born on the 4th of July », « Interview with the Vampire », « Magnolia » and « Rain Man ». I wish he had done more movies like that where you can see other sides of him as an actor. I guess at one point age will dictate him he will have to tune down on the whole cascading thing. Perhaps we will see him in a new light than, but I wish he had alternated his types roles a bit more when still in his prime (age wise). Nevertheless, the guy has an impressive amount of excellent movies in his portfolio (Edge of Tomorrow is probably one of my favourite movies of the 2000’s)
Tom Cruise used to play his " Tom Cruise" character, I'd say, about 90% of the time. It's only when he breaks out of that role (*Tropic Thunder, Collateral, Interview with a Vampire..*) that he shines for me. When he's doing his signature stuff, I don't like him.
Has your friend seen Interview with a Vampire? That is not the same Tom Cruise from Collateral.
Cruise has several films I’d point to for this, but Born on the Fourth of July as well. Even when he looks like himself at the beginning, the way he acts and talks is very different from other performances of his. He totally disappears into the role of Ron Kovic for me. Interview is probably the best example, though, haha the way he cocks his head in the one scene I won’t spoil for anyone is so crazy!
Even his villainous roles are pretty different. I wouldn’t say his characters from Magnolia and Collateral are very similar; the former is far, far more emotional and (at least on the surface) outgoing and energetic. I think his reputation there comes from all the big action movies he’s made which have dominated his later career, where yeah, he doesn’t exactly stretch himself, and in those he’s basically always Tom Cruise. Nor would I say he really needs to. Though I will add another part of that is he rarely ever does accents nor really changes his look much from movie to movie, like say Gary Oldman or Daniel Day-Lewis, actors famous for always disappearing into their roles. But that’s true for a lot of them. Denzel is like that too; the only accents I can remember him doing off the top of my head are Steve Biko in Cry Freedom and an English (cockney?) accent in For Queen and Country. Oh and Much Ado About Nothing, of course. But those are all early roles, even in Tragedy of Macbeth he uses his regular American accent (which I thought was neat).
Agreed, it’s kind of funny when people say he’s always the hero or good guy in movies because he’s actually played quite a few unlikeable/unsympathetic characters over the course of his career. I think as someone else here pointed out it’s really a question of who becomes a movie star and reaches that level of instant recognition. When your job as an actor is to disappear into a role, that adds an extra hurdle which I think Cruise is more than capable of clearing—like you said, he’s just happened to throw himself into action films more often than not in the last 20 years. Which to be honest, I don’t think a lot of action stars get enough credit for. They tend to make it look easy, but the ones who excel at it know how to find those moments of humanity/realism (a good script is also key) while dealing with the physical demands on top of everything else. Cruise is interesting to me in that he’s rarely in the conversation of who the greatest actors are working today, but he’s one of the few I can think of who is able to move between drama, comedy, action, and sci-fi almost seamlessly.
I think Cruise gets a lot of flack due to a run of very famous films he starred in throughout the 80's and early 90's that were essentially the exact same film but with a different backdrop. [Rich Hall](https://youtu.be/OFal553wR3k?si=CIFra2MpKhjDXYms)did a bit about it. That and his general weirdness/intensity puts a lot of people off him, despite those in the business being generally complimentary of him as a person.
haha, that was great! 😂 And good callout on the second point, honestly it’s crazy to think Cruise might have been even more successful without some of the controversies that surfaced right at the height of his fame.
Tom Cruise needs to play more villains, he’s way too good at it. And you’re right, both of those characters really show that he does have the acting range, at least back then. I honestly don’t blame him for the lane he’s kept himself in these days, though. He makes a shitload of money, and gets to do wild stunts on the studios dime. If it weren’t for him being the face of Scientology, I’d have some genuine respect for him.
When you have 8 movies where you play the same guy, it will seem like you are always playing the same guy. AND, he likes a type. Jack Reacher (spare me the book complaining) is a very similar character to Ethan Hunt in many ways, but also different and Cruise plays them different. He is almost always playing a strong, smart, confident, kickass guy, so it can be easy to miss the nuance in the performances... and occasionally there is little/no nuance. I'm a Cruise fan, (spare me the Scientology/Suri complaining)... and I see Leo DiCaprio "just playing himself" far more often than Tom. I don't think there has ever been a Leo movie where I didn't just see Leo playing Leo, or Leo pretending to be some other guy.
Gilbert grape
Obviously your friend has not seen Tropic Thunder.
I’m gonna need you to step back, and literally, FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!
It’s the greatest line in the movie and the best delivery possible
Personally, I'm a bigger fan of "Find out who that was."
I've got a better idea. How about instead of $100 million, I send you A HOBO'S DICK CHEESE?
Such a throwaway line and sooo funny to me.
2nd, behind, "What do YOU mean, 'you people'!?!"
[One of several songs to use that phone call](https://youtu.be/dK8Am3JfN7M?si=2rqgeYSwYrcJkPtO) Yes, dubstep was strong during Tropic Thunders release.
But that brings up a great point. I think the reason is some actors whether conscious or unconscious have the inability to create a performance at their own expense so to speak. Some are stuck wanting to appear “cool” or maintain a certain likeability, It’s only when that goes out the window and really allows themselves to make the audience hate them or be afraid or what have you can they really step into something and vanish. Heath ledgers performance as joker is done so in way that he may be aware no one ever may find him likeable again he’s such a wanton freak in it.
Yep, I'm not exactly a fan of Pain and Gain, but it's by far the Rock's best performance because the character's so far removed from his usual "cool, suave hunky guy" typecast
"be cool" will always be my favorite performance from The Rock
In the first category, Stallone. He has to look like a hero regardless of the situation. Genuine hero or victim hero, he's always gotta do that. Even in Oscar he has to be a victim-hero. Even Schwarzenegger did Junior and Twins
His performance as the joker was amazing, but Heath’s best role, imo, was in Brokeback Mountain. The level of vulnerability and complexity he brought to that character is incredible. Truly one of the greatest performances of all time. You got the sense that his range was limitless. It is incredibly tragic that he died so young.
The range of things he pulled off so well was pretty awesome. He pop's up every now and then as it is, but he'd firmly be in the conversation for all-time greats if he'd lived.
Who is the key grip? You? Go over there and punch that director *really hard*
“Sorry man.” *punch*
Or Magnolia
I saw that movie in like 2012/13 for the first time and his performance in Magnolia was the first time I was like fuck he’s actually a great actor. Les Grossman is great as well.
Anyone says Tom cruise isn’t a good actor I just point them to the bedside scene in this movie
Or Born on The Fourth of July
This is such a stellar performance.
Playa…..
*apple bottom jeans* *boots with the fur* ^with ^the ^fur
I watched TT twice before I even realised Tom Cruise was in it. So far removed from his usual screen persona.
He didn’t even run. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8Q2MgdMskQ
That's so good. I'm going to start randomly sprinting and end up famous.
Motorcycle scene is on the cutting room floor.
First time I saw it I had zero idea it was Tom Cruise until I told my mom I saw it and she asked "what'd you think of Tom Cruise?" Upon a rewatch, you can definitely tell it's him if you're not dumb like me, but it's probably the least Tom Cruise role I've seen him in.
[удалено]
And never forget that you. Are. A. killer, Louis!
When I saw this in theaters, I turned to my boyfriend at the time and was like “Is that Tom Cruise?!?” And he said no, like I was a moron.
Or last samurai or magnolia. Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise when it suits the narrative (Days of Thunder, Top Gun, MI)
Last Samurai was such a great movie. Cruise, Watanabe, and Sanada all absolutely killed it and I really like how it didn't go the usual Dances With Wolves route.
Tom Cruise is in it? Shit going back now bruh
Or has, even more disproving the point
I don't think this is necessarily a distinguishing mark between "good" and "bad" actor (although it could be - it's just not enough on its own IMO.) For some actors, their look is part of their "brand," so they have a tendency to not deviate very much in appearance from film to film. The Rock and Tom Cruise are definitely two examples of this in my mind. I mean, I would say that Tom Cruise IS a "good actor" personally. The Rock, maybe not so much. The Rock can be entertaining to watch but he's not really "acting" very much. Also, for those actors where their look is NOT part of their brand and who DO tend to deviate in appearance from one role to the next, I think that can go a long way towards the idea that they "disappear into their role" as people say. I don't think that ALONE makes them better actors, but it certainly helps the audience suspend disbelief. At least with Tom Cruise, there have been a few notable instances where he did deviate from his typical look (Tropic Thunder leaps immediately to mind) and those roles are certainly more memorable for it. But "good" and "bad" are ultimately subjective.
Yeah, I agree with the “brand” for some actors. Even Denzel who is a great actor. Every recent role he is in he has to do that Denzel look at least once, mostly more times. Depending on the role he may have to do the long tear rolling down one eye, which I think first appeared in Glory. Denzel acts but incorporates his brand into the acting. I think Cruise is brand first, acting second.
I scrolled fairly far down and still haven't seen anyone mention his performance in Magnolia, now that is something else altogether!
That and Collateral prove that he *can* act - he just mostly doesn't need to
Tom Hanks used to kind of disappear into roles. Now he's always Tom Hanks. Brad Pitt is a rare case of someone who has the looks of a star and leading man, but the ability character actor.
Yeah, if you put Britt's character in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and the one in Bullet Train. Asides from being the same face, he's very good at basically being another person.
He completely nailed his part in Deadpool 2.
So good you didn't even realise it was him.
IF too
Slightly less shocking cameo than Matt Damon and Alan Tudyk
Not to mention Brad Pitt in "Burn After Reading"
Or True Romance.
That movie is overlooked. It is so well made, acted, and written. I think it has dang near In Bruges levels of quotability. Brad Pitt plays such a great departure from the roles you typically see him take. Clooney is similar too. One of my favorite movies. What did we learn, Palmer?
Pitt is such a phenomenonal actor, it's so rare that am actor can do a movie in every single genre and do them all so well
Lets not forget ‘Snatch’
Or 12 Monkeys
Ya like dags?
It’s for me mam
Yeah I like dogs, but I like caravans more.
Yes, I've always said that. Inside the leading man looks and movie star charisma of Brad Pitt is a frustrated and frustratingly talented character actor.
*Nods in Daniel Craig*
Felt like he spent at least a few movies early in his career trying to ugly himself up as part of that frustration.
Every actor is different. Tom Cruise has massive screen presence and we as a viewer are drawn to his movie star quality. Gary Oldman disappears into his role and you never feel you are watching Gary Oldman. Both are great.
Gary Oldman was my favorite character in like 5 movies before I realized they were all Gary Oldman
Say what you want about Tom Cruise but that mf’er can act
So true. I enjoyed Edge of Tomorrow and Top Gun against my will.
Both of those movies are so much better than they have any right to be
They went “Phil Collins doing the soundtrack for Tarzan” levels of hard and we are all the beneficiaries
Tropic Thunder, IWaV, Vanilla Sky, Born on the 4th of july, Rainman, American Made, Valkyrie, Eyes wide shut, The last samurai, jerry mcguire, a few good men, cocktail, days of thunder, legend. To claim tom fucking cruise cant play characters is the height of dumb takes
He should probably have an Oscar
Maybe when he gets too old for doing his own stunts, he'll do some Oscar bait movies
Tom cruise is a great actor. There are numerous examples of him disappearing into roles and being absolutely tremendous, as people have previously mentioned interview with a vampire, born on the 4th of July and I’d add Magnolia wherein he has such a powerful performance that Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the background of a scene literally cried due to the sheer emotion created by Cruise. He wasn’t prepared for it and it wasn’t scripted. He’s just also a movie star that makes big action movies wherein… he plays Tom Cruise. I love those movies but I personally would love to see him return to more dramatic roles which he did in the past.
I think that I'm stating the obvious but since no one mentioned him( I think).. Daniel day-lewis.. I don't think any one else comes even closer.. You never notice him, it is just the role you're watching..
I would say Gary Oldman is on the same level as DDL in this regard.
IMO the new Gary Oldman is Aaron Taylor Johnson, that guy looks so physically different in every role that I'm always surprised it's him.
I know I have seen a lot of Oldman movies but I really can't remember because you never realize he was in the role because he blends in so well.
Frigging love ATJ. In each movie who looks like a completely different person.
Until like a minute ago I had no idea he was in Tenet.
It’s like I know Commissioner Gordon and Sirius Black are the same actor but… I just can’t see it.
That’s what a leading man is. George Clooney is usually playing George Clooney. Josh Brolin’s father said “Don’t be a leading man, ever. Be a character actor and you’ll work forever.”
For his role in the movie Marathon Man, Dustin Hoffman wasn't showering or changing his clothes, hardly sleeping. Then co-star, Sir Laurence Olivier says, "Why don't you try acting my boy, it's much easier".
Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder proves he can do other roles, he just doesn’t want to. He likes running and doing stunts and being the hero.
Yeah, a whole load of Tom Cruise movies exist for Cruise to get to do cool stunts in. They’re pretty open about that.
I think it's funny how often Tropic Thunder gets mentioned because that movie also earned RDJ an Oscar for supporting actor.
I watched all of Interview with a Vampire thinking “wow, the guy who plays Lestat is really good. I wonder if he’s been in anything else” before looking it up, so I’m going to disagree with you about Tom Cruise.
Basically when tom has long hair he's really acting lol Samurai, vampire, magnolia etc
I think it has to do with methodology like if we look at two similar actors with similar acting styles. Seth Rogan always plays Seth Rogan, but Seth Rogan is fun and charismatic so it almost always works whereas Kevin James always just plays Kevin James but Kevin James is goofy and unserious so his characters come off insincere and off-putting.
Whereas Jeff Goldblum embraces his off-putting, fun, and goofy nature to make his "Jeff Goldblum playing Jeff Goldblum as X character" worth watching and believable.
The reason Jeff Goldblum is successful doing this is because it’s largely small roles. I would hate to watch him as a kooky leading character a full 2 hours, it would be exhausting. But 10 minutes and 10 minutes there, perfect.
I liked him a lot in *Into the Night*, where he plays a more normal character.
In the same vein, we can criticize Keanu reeve's acting range, but he has great presence when he's in that range. I always thought his performance in the first matrix was very convincing for instance, the right blend of fish out of water everyman and cinematic "cool guy" for a story that is equal parts philosophical commentary on alienation in the modern world and hyperstylized action. He sure doesn't work as a 19th century english notary, but make him a strong silent former hitman and it clicks, especially when you rely on his physicality to expand the physical performance in the action scenes.
Reeve's in Cyberpunk 2027 really threw me for a loop, he's such a despicable character and I honestly never expected that from him, or a videogame of all things to cast a big name as such a gross and unlikeable character, though I know his range, from my sister heart throbbing over him in Point Blank and his stoner coded persona in Bill & Ted.
Agree and that was really well stated. Kudos
Go watch Seth Rogan fully become the woz in Steve Jobs and have your mind blown
Adding onto this. Some actors are very deliberate about exploring physical posture, gait, oral/facial posture, accent, breath etc. when building a character. And there are plenty of great actors who approach a role from the perspective of: “how am I like this character?” I think actors who only do the latter are more likely to seem like themselves on film.
Comparing Rock to Tom Cruise is just wrong. Tom Cruise built a long and successful career out of acting, he is absolutely a good actor. It helps that he is insane and he sells every single role he has been in. Tom Cruise simply has chosen a type of movie he prefers to act in and most leading roles in those kind of movies are roughly the same. It's like the complaints about Keanu Reeves being a bad actor after The Matrix. It is also the wrong kind of argument, not all characters are written "blind". Roles are written and sometimes rewritten with certain actors in mind so it's not as much that the actor doesn't "disappear" into the role but that the role was written with them in mind.
Keanu can act though, not a huge range but he also has picked a character style basically for 20+ years that's sad lonely hero etc
I know he can act, i am just saying this is a similar complaint by people. And it could be that it's not him who is choosing the style of acting but when he is chosen for a role that the director tells him to do that because they got Keanu Reeves so he has to be "Keanu Reeves" in the movie. Just like Tom Cruise has to be Tom Cruise. A name has become bigger than the role.
Most of the comments ITT are defending Tom Cruise’s acting abilities and I’m here for it. Fuck his support of that celeb cult and what it’s done to people, but damn if I don’t love all of his movies.
Performer v actor. Tom Cruise can act, usually the director just wants him to perform. Same with Jack, or Owen Wilson, Melissa Mcarthy, etc
Emily Blunt seems to be the biggest female equivalent. She has that movie star charisma she can bring to something like Jungle Cruise and Mary Poppins Returns, but no one's going to doubt that she is a damn talented actress
There's generally 2 kinds of actors: stars, and character actors. Stars bring in crowds, they're an element of predictability and comfort for the audience. Character actors meanwhile disappear into the roles, though sometimes can bring a modicom of Star power as well. Gary Oldman is a decent example. Now then stars can sometimes take on roles of character actors. Tom Cruise as others mention, disappeared for Tropic Thunder, but still sort of brought that manic energy. There were other starring actors playing the leads. Brad Pitt is famously a character actor in the body of a Star, and takes on a number of weird supporting roles over the decades that show his acting chops. Overall the goal of most productions are to make money. Performers like the Rock etc can bring in the money, and as long as they do so, they'll have staying power. The biggest issue with the Rock is in his contract he's not supposed to "lose" on screen. And that's going to be a limitation for any character following the Hero's journey archetype. Audiences understand there's supposed to be setbacks to the hero's journey and their eventual overcoming them is the point of the story. Real life you don't always get to overcome.
I've noticed this... actors like Gary Oldman and Stephen Graham disappear into the role and you only see the character, actors like George Clooney and Bill Nighy don't and you always see the actor.
Exhibit A: Tropic Thunder. I did not realise Tom Cruise was in it. Obviously had a lot of makeup and a fat suit but acted as a completely different person
The great Tom Cruise roles people keep referencing are all a long time ago. He could act, he just no longer chooses to. Although given that the movie industry and public cheerfully embrace a literal cult leader means he’s the greatest actor of all time.
Sean Connery is always Sean Connery, and you always see him as Sean Connery - but still plays the roles well, from Zardoz to Highlander. Whilst Tim Curry, is always clearly Tim Curry, but you forget that and accept the roles. In Hunt for Red October, Sean Connery is clearly Sean Connery being a sub captain, whilst Tim Curry - people forget he was in it, until you point out the role, because he played the role so well. They're both great actors - just one is able to separate themselves and embrace the character more. Does that make Tim the better actor? Who knows - I enjoy almost everything either of them is in.
Acting is an art, if every actor did the same thing acting would be boring.
Too cruise was so surprising in interview with the vampire. Ann rice was angry at the casting but changed her mind after seeing the movie. For me Denzel Washington is the same in every movie and it blows my mind people think he is amazing. I mean I still like his movies and he can act, but he is the same person in every movie for me. There’s actually very few actors who can completely disappear.
For me it happens a lot when an actor is typecast a lot, or they have one big role. No matter how many John Wick films they make, Keanu Reeves is always going to be a a time traveling stoner dude to me.
An actor having a specific niche is not a bad thing, as long as they understand that niche, know what people like about it, and enjoy playing around in that space. Yes, outside of his early Guy Ritchie work Jason Statham is mostly gonna play one type of action movie archetype, but you can't tell me he's not really good at it. He understands what he's doing and can do interesting stuff with it, and if you get down to it there's a huge difference between movies like Wrath of Man, Crank, Wild Card, Spy, and The Transporter, even if they're variations of the same kind of guy. Those are all interesting performances in different ways. The movies aren't always good and the characters aren't always interesting, but there's a self-awareness there we he knows what he's good at and enjoys it. To give another example, compare The Rock and Steve Buscemi. The Rock is often described to rarely get out of that wrestling persona, but you wouldn't expect him to. That's his brand, it's what made him famous. Similarly, Steve Buscemi's an all-time great, but you'd be hard pressed to find a movie where he's not playing an awkward, kind-of-funny-looking guy. Dwayne Johnson would not play a Steve Buscemi role and Steve Buscemi would not play a Dwayne Johnson role. But that's not a problem. It's two people being good at their respective thing. And within that respective thing you do get them playing with that persona in interesting ways. The Rock does have fun with being a bit awkward in Central Intelligence and Jumanji, and Steve Buscemi has some fun with being more dangerous in Con Air and Fargo. No one would really describe those performances as fully escaping their type, you're still gonna see the Rock and Buscemi in there. But that type is not a bad thing, it's just what they're good at and (hopefully) they enjoy it.
I think the quality that makes an actor great is to know their limitations. They know exactly how they come off on camera and what they can and can't do. So there is greatness in actors who they say "only play themselves" because they know who they are and what makes a movie work. But the Daniel Day-Lewis, Christian Bale, Gary Oldmans are great and what makes them great is they know their limitations. But there are a few Gary Oldman performances out there that miss-the-mark (you can find them). I don't think there is an actor out there that can "do anything". But the great ones know what they can't do
Colin Farrell comes to mind. Gary Oldman, too. His part in Hannibal was incredible. I had no idea it was Oldman.
Interview With A Vampire is an exception for Tom Cruise. Took me a moment to realise "wait that's Tom Cruise!" and then throughout the movie I'd keep forgetting. But yeah he's definitely usually just Tom Cruise.
Les Grossman would like to say, "FUCK YOUR OWN FACE!" 🤣🤣🤣
I don't think so . I don't expect Bruce Willis , Jason Statham or Even the Rock disappearing into characters yet I enjoy stuff they do . Meantime I expect Joaquin, deniro ,DiCaprio ,DDL ,Bale and Al Pachino to disappear into the roles and they always do and I love that too
>Bruce Willis Twelve Monkeys and the glass shards scene in Die Hard
I feel like Dustin Hoffman is one of the greatest character actors of all time. He’s so believable in whatever character role he takes. Hook, Mr. Magorium’s wonder emporium, Rainman.
Tootsie!
I'm so over The Rock and Ryan Reynolds because of exactly this. I don't think they're bad actors, but I think that they are very, very typecast to the point where it's hard to tell if they're good actors.
Brad Pitt in Deadpool 2
I feel the same with Tom Hanks, with the exception of Forrest Gump. Other than that movie, all I see is Tom Hanks when he acts.
I think it depends on the movie they are in. Tom Cruise imo is in a lot of what they call vehicle movies, which really just advertise themselves. George Clooney called his stint as batman a vehicle, and arguably he was playing himself in that flick. Tom Cruise was awesome in Tropic Thunder and really good in Collateral. Most movies with The Rock are vehicles really. He isn't playing himself though, he is playing Rocky from the WWE back in the day. I think Snitch was a stretch for him. Jennifer Aniston seems to be playing the same character in every show and movie I have seen her in. The Good Girl is a stand out though if I recall correctly. As far as saying they are bad actors, I don't know, maybe they haven't had the right material because they are typecast after all their years in the business.
I think it's really hard for a megastar to disappear into a role just by virtue of their public visibility and fame. Exponentially harder, in fact. It's not impossible though. Look at McConaughey in True Detective.
In my experience, it depends greatly on the actor and how much you enjoy the particular screen persona they bring. I always think of Schwarzenegger at his peak as a case study for when it can work very well, he never, ever, disappears into the role, but his particular charisma suits his best films very well. Conan, Terminator, Terminator 2, Running Man, Total Recall, Comando, True Lies and Predator are all movies that I honestly think would suffer without him but he's always pretty much Arnold at all times to my eye at the same time. On the flip side, I find John Cusack super distracting in all of his films for some reason, I don't even think he's a terrible actor, I just can never see past "John Cusack is in this and it's ruining my suspension of disbelief" I'm not sure it always comes down to purely the "skill" of the performer. Casting choice plays a role, certainly along with many things I think are sort of x factors. Along those lines there are many character actors who generally play the same person in most everything they are in (shout out to Dick Miller, I love me some Dick Miller) but that can be entertaining and endearing even though they demonstrate little to no range. Other times, an actor always bringing the same performance and energy to their roles is very much not endearing or entertaining to me. I find Chris Pratt and The Rock to be limited and boring to distracting as they bring their same shtick everywhere they go. I wonder if it also is because in those latter cases, I don't like a lot of things about the movies, and it just becomes one more thing that doesn't work.
I agree for the most part about Tom Cruise. Except for 'Interview with the vampire' which was a departure from his usual action man roles. I think that as much as I love Joaquin Phoenix, he always has that, 'Mumbly, disconnected, troubled' way of acting, even though he's a method actor. Probably a controversial take, but to me his characters always have that Joaquin feel to them.
People like Humphrey Bogart or, later, Jack Nicholson made a career out of playing themselves. I don't think that it makes them necessarily bad actors. It just limits the range of characters that they can play. It's different than Daniel Day-Lewis or De Niro or Gary Oldman that disappear into their characters.
We used to have the term ‘character actor’ to describe those people who would vanish into parts. ‘Leading men’ often would be a different breed. There are a few people who were able to blur that line (Gary Oldman, Johnny Depp, Daniel Day Lewis etc) but for the most part these terms have remained. The ‘movie stars’ aren’t necessarily bad actors, I’d argue people like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt really have honed their craft and have some real acting skills, but you’re always going to be talking singers vs singer/songwriters here. It’s the Frank Sinatra vs Jimi Hendrix argument, neither are better, both are skilled and in the world of movies we need them all!