Tom Cruise Movies

Atavachron wrote: to me he was best early in his career; The Color of Money, Rainman, Taps, A Few Good Men

Jim Garten wrote: Makes one wonder why he gets quite so much flak

TheProgtologist wrote: Atavachron wrote: to me he was best early in his career; The Color of Money, Rainman, Taps, A Few Good Men Taps...hadn't thought about that movie in quite awhile.Never really considered it a Cruise movie because it's such a small part.Good movie though. Cruise at the end to Hutton while firing the machine gun.... "It's beautiful man....it's f**king beautiful!!!"

oh yeah his big scene-- he nailed the troubled youth perfectly.  I think Color of Money is his best.

Snow Dog wrote: The T wrote: Atavachron wrote: Flyingsod wrote: For this reason I voted for WoTW. but it was such a crappy movie So inferior to the 50s one... That's just silly talk. It's a great film, so much better than the original.

Snowie - you can't say that!!!

Everyone knows that if a film is in black & white, made at least 40/50 years ago & poorly acted, no modern re-telling can ever be as good! For Shame!

The 1958 film(which was in Technicolor) is legendary and was a milestone for special effects,for which it won an Academy Award.You can watch the film today and still be amazed at what they were able to achieve at that time.

Jim Garten wrote: Snow Dog wrote: The T wrote: Atavachron wrote: Flyingsod wrote: For this reason I voted for WoTW. but it was such a crappy movie So inferior to the 50s one... That's just silly talk. It's a great film, so much better than the original. Snowie - you can't say that!!! Everyone knows that if a film is in black & white, made at least 40/50 years ago & poorly acted, no modern re-telling can ever be as good! For Shame!

TheProgtologist wrote: The 1958 film(which was in Technicolor) is legendary and was a milestone for special effects,for which it won an Academy Award.You can watch the film today and still be amazed at what they were able to achieve at that time

I've no doubt the film was good for its time; all I'm saying is I much prefer the remake, nothing to do with the CGI (good as they were), but the sustained air of menace throughout & Cruise's everyman-father-character.

There's a lot implied, rather than seen, as well: another director may have shown the passenger aircraft crash, but in this, we only see the wreckage; the same director may have shown a huge CGI generated battle, but here we only see the military disappear over the hill & are left to imagine the carnage. Considering the possibilities for large set-pieces in the remake, I think it was directed with remarkable restraint, concentrating more on the story than the effects (are you listening, whoever directed '2012'? ).

The Outsiders was a really good movie from his early days that he played a smaller role in.  The cast of that movie was quite the who's who of who was going to become big movie stars before they were.  What is funny is that C. Thomas Howell was the lead actor in that movie and he really didn't go on to do much else afterwards.  Other actors included Patrick Swayze, Emilio Estevez, Matt Dillon, Rob Lowe, Ralph Macchio (The Karate Kid), Leif Garrett, Diane Lane, and some guy named Tom Waits. 

Edited by rushfan4 - July 18 2012 at 09:14

Snow Dog wrote: Jim Garten wrote: TheProgtologist wrote: The 1958 film(which was in Technicolor) is legendary and was a milestone for special effects,for which it won an Academy Award.You can watch the film today and still be amazed at what they were able to achieve at that time I've no doubt the film was good for its time; all I'm saying is I much prefer the remake, nothing to do with the CGI (good as they were), but the sustained air of menace throughout & Cruise's everyman-father-character. There's a lot implied, rather than seen, as well: another director may have shown the passenger aircraft crash, but in this, we only see the wreckage; the same director may have shown a huge CGI generated battle, but here we only see the military disappear over the hill & are left to imagine the carnage. Considering the possibilities for large set-pieces in the remake, I think it was directed with remarkable restraint, concentrating more on the story than the effects (are you listening, whoever directed '2012'? ). How about the chilling part where the train rattles past on fire?

There's also the argument that the same criticism could have been made of the first movie at the time, being compared to Orson Welles's original radio play... things change & people have their own preferences, I guess

Jim Garten wrote: Snow Dog wrote: The T wrote: Atavachron wrote: Flyingsod wrote: For this reason I voted for WoTW. but it was such a crappy movie So inferior to the 50s one... That's just silly talk. It's a great film, so much better than the original. Snowie - you can't say that!!! Everyone knows that if a film is in black & white, made at least 40/50 years ago & poorly acted, no modern re-telling can ever be as good! For Shame!

Jody said it all before me so I will just say: for its time, the old movie was close to a mini sci-fi masterpiece; for its time, the new one was a cgi brainless fest with little to owe to Wells' novel but turned instead into the worst kind of Tom Cruise movie you can find, one where he, not even his character, becomes the point. I actually like him a lot but that particular movie is not his best.

Many remakes are better than the originals (Fail Safe, yes, maybe even 12 Angry Men) but some are not. This is a case of that.

You can't handle the truth.