Cannes Film Festival 2013

Why 'Rock of Ages' reveals Tom Cruise as one of the last real movie stars

The actor wickedly plays himself by way of Frank T.J. Mackey

<p>Tom Cruise in "Rock of Ages."</p>

Tom Cruise in "Rock of Ages."

Credit: New Line Cinema

Are you a fan of In Contention?

Sign up to get the latest updates instantly.

This isn't going to be a review of "Rock of Ages." That's partly because I already wrote one in short form for Time Out and the film doesn't much benefit from extended analysis, and partly because I'd only end up repeating much of Andrew O'Hehir's bang-on piece for Salon, which rightly celebrates Adam Shankman's gleefully (with emphasis on the 'glee') silly hair-metal musical for the very ersatz quality for which many other critics are punishing it. As if hair metal was ever about authenticity in the first place. Suffice to say the film aims no higher than it can hit, and as two hours of quippy, gaudily decorated Hollywood karaoke, it hits pretty squarely. I more or less loved it.

More interesting than the film, however, and more worthy of considered conversation, is Tom Cruise's fascinating central performance in it -- a turn that earns the "central" tag despite its essentially supporting status, and not just because it reduces kewpie-doll leads Julianne Hough and Diego Boneta to sparkly wallpaper whenever he deigns to show up. (You can practically feel the film cowering as he makes his dimly lit entrance. We're trembling ourselves.) 

No, "Rock of Ages" is built entirely around the mystique of Cruise's character, fictional Axl Rose-alike rock god Stacee Jaxx, any semblance of structure and tension in the film dependent on his appearances and absences alike. And if one were to neaten that sentence by suggesting that "Rock of Ages" is built around the mystique of Tom Cruise himself, well, you wouldn't be wrong. 

It seem astonishing, but Tom Cruise has been a movie star for nearly 30 years. And while his features remain stubbornly ageless -- which is not to say youthful, not exactly at least -- he's beginning to let it show in other, more obliquely weary ways. His star hasn't faded, but it's perhaps ascended to a point where he needn't maintain it that keenly: whether in very good films ("Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol") or very bad ones ("Knight and Day"), his most recent run of headlining roles has found him on mutedly professional form. If not quite phoning it in -- even on his A-game, he's too tightly wound a performer for that -- he nonetheless appears to have been conserving his energies, picking impassive or physically-oriented leads that don't require the full force of his movie-star charisma.

Given his steady-if-not-strenuous, work rate, and the refusal of the media, forever intrigued/aghast at his shrouded private life, to give him any room to recede, he was clearly saving that star wattage for something -- and however unlikely a conduit for it Adam Shankman may seem, "Rock of Ages" is the vehicle he's chosen to remind us of the power he wields.

Want More...

Academy Awards?
  • Oscar-statues-outside-the-82nd-academy-awards-at-the-kodak-theater-in-hollywood-ca
    Check out everything there is including photos, reviews, videos.

What's interesting, however, is that he's done so without much reference to the Tom Cruise of old. The electric Dentyne smile that lured hordes to "Top Gun" and "Cocktail" a quarter-century ago is scarcely in evidence here; nor is the boyishly flustered Joe American appeal that defined his work in such films as "Rain Man," "The Firm" and "Jerry Maguire." Instead, Cruise's Stacee Jaxx reaffirms his performance presence with a weapon he's rarely removed from his arsenal: simple, snaky, slightly grubby sex.

For all the romantic leads he's played and magazine covers he's graced, the perennially tidy-looking Cruise has always been an oddly sexless star: not in a particularly virtuous or immature way, mind, but in a guarded, reserved one. We've seen his immaculately sculpted torso any number of times, but his characters routinely seem politely cut off at the waist, burdened with too many other responsibilities to fuck. It's a quality Stanley Kubrick ingeniously exploited by casting him in "Eyes Wide Shut," the most sexual film he'll likely ever appear in, and one of the most tortuously impotent characters he'll ever play.

In "Rock of Ages," however, Cruise is tasked with playing a character whose very definition has disappeared beneath his libido: a man with tattooed six-shooters pointing straight at his crotch and a veritably factory-line of dirtied Barbie-doll groupies at his disposal, Stacee Jaxx is a man for whom sex has long since passed pleasure and become sustenance. He's as much an addict as Michael Fassbender's randy corporate shark in "Shame," with the difference that his Neverland lifestyle doesn't merely accommodate such excess, but positively depends on it. He is, in other words, an awkward fit for an actor who, it seems to the public, had to calculatedly jump on Oprah's sofa to drive the point home that he is indeed a lover.

It's that very improbability that makes the resulting performance -- a lithe, funny, wickedly self-reflexive one -- Cruise's first in years to acknowledge and reflect his stardom. Casting icons as other icons, fictitious or otherwise, tends to be a double-or-nothing strategy: the two outsize personae either crowd each other out of the screen or nest in each other, locating a kind of tinderbox truth in both, and the latter outcome is happily the one Cruise arrives at here.

Not only does he gamely cop to the irony of playing someone whose celebrity has exiled them from functional society -- Jaxx may not (yet) be a Scientologist, but he amusingly expresses his own mystic minority values -- but he wears the character's sexuality as a kind of leering invitation to the tabloid society that has questioned and inconclusively scrutinized his own artfully concealed sex life for the better part of three decades.

In a stunt far more daring and sly than his amusing against-type cameo as a vulgar studio chief in "Tropic Thunder," Cruise flirts with playing himself expressly by not playing himself. The ostensible miscasting shows through in spots -- with his waxen chest, sleek man-bob mane and proficient but evidently autotuned singing voice, he inevitably doesn't quite look or sound like a metal frontman, however much the makeup team and Rita Ryack's terrific costumes aid the illusion. But even that distance feels like a virtue: Cruise is playing a role here, but so is Stacee Jaxx, and if both men's real selves remain under wraps in Shankman's proudly surface-obsessed fireworks show, the performance knowingly suggests just how much off-screen acting goes into being a star.

Cruise has pulled off this trick once before, and in a far more valuable film to boot. Halfway through "Rock of Ages," it hit me that the actor was baldly playing Stacee Jaxx neither as himself nor as a David Lee Roth type, but as Frank T.J. Mackey, the "woman-taming" self-help guru he played in Paul Thomas Anderson's "Magnolia." The characters share an aggressive, offputting sexual stridency and even an approximate hairdo -- Jaxx could very well have a strutting hit song called "Respect the Cock" in his back catalogue --but what links them principally is a kind of brittle self-protectiveness that cracks too easily under investigation. (Both characters reveal themselves largely in tense interview scenes.)

In 1999, before the focus on his private life had shifted more to curiosities of religion than sexuality, Cruise's performance as the effortfully self-constructed Mackey -- still, by many a yard, the best work of his career -- seemed designed to tease audiences with the security of his secrets. 13 years later, his performance as Stacee Jaxx is an equally ballsy, if oddly unflattering, assertion of his own legend, and an equally brazen refusal to admit what makes him tick. In an age where stars are compelled to make themselves as available to their audiences as possible via Twitter feeds, reality shows and planted TMZ scoops, Tom Cruise, like Garbo before him, knows that lasting stardom is built on inscrutability. In playing the wafer-thin Stacee Jaxx, Cruise offers an entertaining approximation of a sex-fuelled rock god, but what he's really playing is one of the last real movie stars.

 

For more views on movies, awards season and other pursuits, follow @GuyLodge on Twitter.

Sign up for Instant Alerts from In Contention! 

 

Guy-lodge-sm
Guy Lodge
Critic
Guy Lodge is a South African-born critic and sometime screenwriter. In addition to his work at In Contention, he is a freelance contributor to Variety, Time Out, Empire and The Guardian. He lives well beyond his means in London.

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    Casey Fiore

    I love Tom Cruise and I'm glad to read such praise for him. I think he's always been a great movie star and a more than capable actor with the right material- you couldn't be more right about his Magnolia performance, Guy. Really brilliant stuff.

    That said this really doesn't look anything like a movie I wanna drop eleven dollars on. Cruise is really the only draw for me. Perhaps the movie plays it differently than the trailer would lead me to believe but it appears to be embracing the homo-eroticism of the whole scene. My favorite thing about 80s hair metal is how hilariously oblivious Motley Crue and Poison seemed to the fact of their own homo-eroticism, so embracing it seems to kill the joke to me.

    June 14, 2012 at 6:30PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Emma Darvill I always follow whatever movie he works on and I guess that is also why he is a movie star. Some of his fans are as dedicated as they get.

      I'm not really into musicals and nothing besides his performance intrigues me but still planning to check it out.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt If you don't want to pay $11.00 (are you from NY or LA? That's an extraordinarily pricy ticket) then go to an early show. It baffles me when people complain about the prices when you can get into a first showing for around $5.00.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt Bullshit the 5 dollar matinee is a thing of the past.

      June 15, 2012 at 5:19AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Liz No, it's not. The matinees at my local theaters are $5.25. And I live just outside a major city.

      June 15, 2012 at 8:57AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Casey Fiore Boston. Matinees here are 7.50, which is still too much. It wasn't actually meant to be a complaint about ticket prices, so much as a figure of speech. I don't want to see the movie very much at all.

      June 15, 2012 at 9:06AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Bob Ha 11 dollars is nothing. They just bumped up to $14 at the big multiplexes.

      June 15, 2012 at 11:01AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt They won't be getting my movie except for Django, Batman, and if there isn't a DI pristine copy of The Master uploaded from a streaming site, that makes three for me. Fuck you Hollywood.

      June 15, 2012 at 11:52AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt *my money

      June 15, 2012 at 11:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt Digital Intermediate DI

      June 15, 2012 at 12:29PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge *if there isn't a DI pristine copy of The Master uploaded from a streaming site*

      Not that I'm unsympathetic to the financial strain of ticket prices, but you do realise this attitude is part of the problem, right?

      June 15, 2012 at 12:34PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt I've said too much, but I agree piracy adds onto their justification for premium pricing.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:26PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt Bullshit? Thing of the past? Then how come I managed to see "Prometheus" two days ago for exactly $5.00? I live just outside of Chicago, by the way.

      June 16, 2012 at 12:29AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      /3rt I live in LA.

      June 16, 2012 at 5:07AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Matthew Starr

    The movie star really is a dying breed. I mean you have that class of Cruise, Pitt, Leo, Damon, Hanks, Denzel, Will Smith etc..but has there been a true A-list star to come along in the last 15 or so years?

    June 14, 2012 at 7:17PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Casey Fiore I think in terms of the movie star qualities Guy is talking about only a couple of those guys really qualify actually. Cruise, Pitt, Hanks, and Smith I think have clearly defined personae which they have used in their work in various ways to accomplish various things. I'm not sure Matt Damon really has. Movie stars in the classic Bogart/Duke sense are far fewer. I don't think anyone can sell a movie on name alone anymore, including Smith. It's not as if he's made any films lately that were financial risks without him.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:00PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr I agree no one can sell films on name alone anymore but I think it's safe to say everyone I named is a movie star/A-lister. I guess it really depends on how you define movie star. Their name might not equate with box office success but it usually is enough to at least get a project green-lit. If someone can do that, I think I would call them a movie star but that's me.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:06PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge Well, I can't think of many other actors who can lure audiences to a film as insane (and awful) as Seven Pounds.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:07PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr I can think of at least one who has a movie coming out this weekend.....

      June 14, 2012 at 8:35PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Randy I agree Matthew. Seven Pounds has a higher imdb rating than Valkyrie and Valkyrie made more money in US and foreign. Tom Cruise could've taken Seven Pounds to 200 million.

      June 14, 2012 at 10:29PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      John G. Matthew was referring to Sandler, no? If not, he definitely deserves mentioning. A video of his colonoscopy could make $100 million.

      June 14, 2012 at 10:41PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr Yes I was referring to Sandler.

      June 14, 2012 at 10:53PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge Interesting that no women have been mentioned in this discussion.

      June 15, 2012 at 12:36PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge *A video of his colonoscopy could make $100 million.*

      And yet, funnily enough, 'Reign Over Me' could only manage $19 million.

      June 15, 2012 at 12:42PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr I would say Angelina and Meryl are movie stars and perhaps Sandra Bullock pending what she does post Blind Side.

      June 15, 2012 at 12:46PM EST
  • A_talkback_profile

    Rashad

    I dig Knight and Day. Who's with me?

    June 14, 2012 at 8:57PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      m1 Cameron Diaz's performance in that movie consisted of shrieking uncontrollably while everyone else just stood around. Cruise is the best thing about that awful movie.

      June 14, 2012 at 9:37PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    /3rt

    Excellent write-up Guy. My favorite Tom Cruise performance is Born On The Fourth Of July—he would have won if I had say. David O Russell is the perfect auteur to bring him back in an exciting way.

    June 14, 2012 at 9:06PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr Collateral is tops for me.

      June 14, 2012 at 10:32PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      d2 But what about Tropic Thunder? He truly deserved his Golden Globe nomination, and he deserved to be nominated at the Oscars over RD Jr.

      June 14, 2012 at 11:43PM EST
  • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

    DylanS

    Guy, really fantastic piece (fuck, it almost makes me wanna see "Rock of Ages", which I never thought I'd say;) but I feel you're forgetting his best performance to date (and likely the best he'll ever give) in this deconstruction of his movie star persona, and that would be his work in "Magnolia". I loathe that movie (in a frustrating mixed-bag sort of way), but his performance in it is as brilliant piece of against-type casting as you'll ever see. You're spot on in recognizing that Cruise rarely diggs into overtly sexual roles, but to mention the perversion of that quality in his acting and for "Magnolia" not to come up. I'm sure it slipped your mind, but I'm sure you'd agree that it's a very overtly sexual performance.

    June 14, 2012 at 10:30PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      JLPatt ???? Did you read the article?

      June 15, 2012 at 1:21AM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge Thanks for the kind words, Dylan, but you clearly didn't finish the piece! (Or read my subhead.)

      June 15, 2012 at 6:54AM EST
    • Hal_9000_talkback_profile

      DylanS Ugh, my badddd. I did actually read the piece from beginning to end, but I got distracted midway through and returned to reading it and I obviously must've skipped over that particular paragraph (that certainly would've helped clear things up) ;) That I didn't catch it in either the subhead or briefly at the beginning of the last paragraph is also my bad. I even skimmed back over the article (it seemed too obvious an oversight), but I still missed it. My sincerest apologies, but I'm glad to know we agree about his career-best work in "Magnolia".

      June 15, 2012 at 7:56AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    asfffa

    Fuck you, Guy Lodge. Fuck you for saying "Knight and Day" is a "very bad film". Because it's not. It's pretty good and likely better than "Rock of Ages".

    What are you doing writing about "Eyes Wide Shut" in the first place. You don't get it any more than you don't get Cruise's character. You foundamentally don't get it.

    You are calling the movie "sexual" and Cruise's character "impotent". You got it backwards. None of the scenes in the film are truly sexual. It's the film that's keeping everyone at arms' length - not Cruise's character. The movie was never meant to arouse anyone anyway.

    Even the closing line is all about going through the motions.

    June 15, 2012 at 1:19AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      r You know what the best part of film is? The subjective nature of it and the way different people can analyze it in different ways.

      June 15, 2012 at 2:46AM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge I'd happily enter a conversation about this, "Asfffa", but not the way you initiated it.

      Seriously, what's wrong with some of you people that you have to disagree in the most "foundamentally" aggressive way possible?

      June 15, 2012 at 6:59AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Liz In my experience, when someone resorts to insulting someone else's intelligence to make their point, their insult will contain a misspelled word or a grammatical error roughly 99 percent of the time.

      It's one of the laws of the Internet.

      June 15, 2012 at 9:01AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      JJ1 lol

      June 15, 2012 at 10:44AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Houstonrufus If this site doesn't have a practice of banning offensive commenters, it should start now. There really is no point in allowing someone so hateful to even participate in conversation here.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:55AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      sosgemini No way---why ban when Guy's awesome response cut off the assery. I love this site...So glad I found it after having enough of "the awards pundit who won't be named" went off his/her rockers during the Kings Speech/Social Network meltdown of 2011.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:02PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      HoustonRufus Fair enough, sosgemini. Guy's typically on point response cut off the assery this time. I'm sure a no ban policy is a much more egalitarian one than I would enforce. It was just my anger talking I guess. I don't have much use for the tone of the post, particularly on such an informative, intelligent site.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:17PM EST
    • Guypic_talkback_profile

      Guy Lodge We try to ban as rarely as possible -- comments that amount to hate speech, or are dangerously psychotic, will not stand. (One delightful reader once expressed his desire to "rape and murder" an imminent Oscar-winner of whom he did not approve, and it was with zero hesitation that I banned his crazy ass. Happily, those are extreme exceptions.)

      Petty personal knocks against me or Kris we can take, however pathetically they reflect on the reader.

      June 16, 2012 at 8:17AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Harrison

    Evidently autotuned? Was it really? I bought the songs off itunes that Cruise sings and it sounds good to me. I thought maybe he had pulled it off with 5 hour lessons a day.

    June 15, 2012 at 4:00AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Satish Naidu

    Guy, Knight and Day is a sublimely intelligent blockbuster, and probably an important film for our times, not for what it is, but what it represents. Within its inherent contradictions, where a male filmmaker is trying to somehow hit upon the notes of a feminine fantasy, it challenges the predominantly masculine tastes, notions, verdicts, aesthetics that so staunchly drive our movie-going sensibilities. It might be pitifully ridiculous in its worshipping of the male body, the objectification of a male as a thing of beauty, but then, how many times do we even see it happen? Woman in the Dunes is a great film I have never seen, but intend to for that very reason. Why then, a film as cheerful, as sprightly, as happy-go-lucky, and as frivolous as Knight and Day be imposed such harsh reviews just because it harbors ambitions of a film made with a completely feminine aesthetic, and one which although might be charmingly mediocre, intends to pamper a certain kind of feminine fantasy? It also is a wonderfully ambitious film, because not only is it satisfied with being part of the fantasy, like Bella Swan, but it intends to be an object of fantasy too.
    Think of the thrilling romantic capers the Bill Paxton character sells to desperate housewives in True Lies. And, for a moment, think of the demographic that watches Daniel Craig walk out of the sea, and would fantasize about a tryst with the superspy. Mr. Cruise, has enjoyed the luxury of a female fan following that most actors, including Mr. Pattinson, would be much envious of. And much like Collateral, which opens to the image of the instrument of fate than the fateful subject himself, Knight and Day sees Roy Miller walk through an airport looking for potential female passengers for, well, something. He picks up a Burger King toy, a little knight, and “accidentally” bumps into June Havens. And from then on, Ms. Havens has little to no idea what ride she has signed up for.
    This makes for a fantastic setup for an action-thriller, but, despite the wham-bham, this is fairly and squarely the story of a woman, and the fantasy-adventure she is on. That is because the wham-bham is almost never the point. We’re thrust into all those action scenes from the perspective of June Havens, and as far as I can recollect, almost none of them seem to have a suitable ending to them. June walks into them, and when she runs away, or faints, we are disconnected too. Even with the wonderfully pleasurable climactic bike-car-bull chase, the thrill of the action is almost never the point; it is all about the fantastic adventure and the pleasure of its romance. The action scenes are just a backdrop. You see, there is a significant difference between, say a film like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, where the woman is nothing but a manifestation of a male fantasy, and this one here, where the female is very much a simple average Mrs. Joe. Mind you, she isn’t a verifiable damsel in distress either, another male fantasy manifestation. June is just, well, a woman, caught in the ride with a gorgeous man, who is more importantly a charming guy. As my wife would address it, the combination is just, well, irresistible.
    And here is some evidence, and how the idea that first strikes me 15 minutes into the film, gradually consolidates into a theory, and then into an analysis. The opening action scene is set within an airplane, and strictly speaking, is from neither’s perspective, where Roy shoots bad guys as June changes and redecorates herself in the restroom. Pilots die, and Miller is forced to take upon the reins. And just as the plane crash-lands in some remote farm, Havens lets out a groan. Or a moan. The sound mixing is most deliberate. And then the preceding imagery with the plane feels like a phallic symbol, and just as it thrusts the boundaries of the frame, the groan makes itself heard.
    Knight and Day, as it goes along, starts to sacrifice action sequences, just to confirm to Haven’s perspective. It runs away from one. It faints in another. A glorious montage has her drugged and change from one of transport to another, as a beeping sound in the background brings a most romantic feel. And the climax, where a June, drugged with truth serum, quite outrightly wonders if sex between her and Miller would be extraordinarily fantastic. This is where the film drinks the truth serum too, and brings out the feelings hitherto hidden under the layer, right into the daylight. It is quite marvelous.
    You see, Knight and Day feels like Charade, feels like It Happened One Night, feels like Notorious, but from the perspective of the female. And that is what I believe is the cause of the film’s conception, where one might come to the conclusion that it is an inversion of Mr. Cruise’s very own MI2(a remake of Notorious itself). Is the film secretly paying homage by this inversion, I don’t know, but the cinematography very much feels like it. June wakes up with an upside down view of the world, much like Ingrid Bergman.

    And James Mangold is one our more brilliant filmmakers. I don't know, I almost always relish watching Knight and Day when it's on television. It's a charmer.

    June 15, 2012 at 7:58AM EST Reply to Comment
    • N25501058_36871357_8293821_talkback_profile

      Mykill I hope you got an A on that thesis paper... :^P

      June 15, 2012 at 9:32AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Matthew Starr Let us never mention Knight and Day again here at In Contention.

      June 15, 2012 at 9:46AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      HoustonRufus I am speechless.

      June 15, 2012 at 10:57AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Joe W I would say Knight and Day is a below average action movie. However Cruise elevates it to being mindless fun - he's the best thing about it. I haven't made up my mind on Mangold as a director - thought Walk the Line was pretty good, but I loved 3:10 to Yuma. But I didn't find the action all that great in Knight & Day (too much greenscreen - especially the bike chase at the end). Cruise owns the movie though, just like everything else he's in.

      June 15, 2012 at 6:25PM EST
    • A_talkback_profile

      Rashad *sheds single tear*

      June 15, 2012 at 11:46PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    caleb roth

    Without the fuck you stuff, I have to concur that Knight and Day is a pretty great movie

    June 15, 2012 at 10:21AM EST Reply to Comment
  • 48977_1841045759_1720_n_talkback_profile

    PageMackinley

    Beautifully written.

    June 16, 2012 at 8:36AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      William2 I second the motion. Thank you for your work Guy.

      June 25, 2012 at 3:35AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    GlennAU

    "Sexless" is a good way to describe him, and for this character - so muted, but hypnotic - to work, it really needed somebody who could pull off that sexual charisma. Granted, being charismatic across from Malin Akerman is a hard ask for any actor, but I just didn't think he had it at all. I wanted him to put a shirt on and stop trying to prove he's still "got" it. He's no better than David Hasselhoff right now, constantly trying to wink at audiences with a sense of humour to prove he's not a weirdo, but just looking desperate in the process.

    June 16, 2012 at 11:10PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    art

    Love this movie!!! http://musicthatstartsyourday.com/any-way-you-want-it-mary-j-blige/

    June 25, 2012 at 9:21AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    art

    Love this movie!!! Great post!
    http://musicthatstartsyourday.com/any-way-you-want-it-mary-j-blige/

    June 25, 2012 at 9:21AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    PNK

    I saw RoA at the theatre, cracked up most of the film, esp in Mr. Cruise's scenes. I'm now rewatching it on HBO, many times, enjoying it - and Mr. Cruise is THE reason to see it! Plus, Mary J. Blige kills it.
    'Magnolia' should have brought Tom an Oscar - Michael Caine won instead, for Cider House Rules, remember that? I didn't think so.
    Anyway, I am a large fan of Mr. Cruise, and I think he does take some risks, esp with Tropic Thunder and RoA. He's pretty awesome in my book. And yes, 'ageless' is a good way to phrase his look.

    April 7, 2013 at 3:04PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on In Contention

2012-2013 OSCAR PREDICTIONS

oscarside.jpg

Best Picture

Best Director

Best Actor

Best Actress

Best Supporting Actor

Best Supporting Actress

Best Adapted Screenplay

Best Original Screenplay

Best Cinematography

Best Costume Design

Best Film Editing

Best Makeup And Hairstyling

Best Original Score

Best Original Song

Best Production Design

Best Sound Editing

Best Sound Mixing

Best Visual Effects

Best Animated Feature Film

Best Documentary Feature

Best Foreign Language Film

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook