|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jan 31, 2006 7:59:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 31, 2006 16:14:08 GMT
Please forgive me for a moment while I pause - reflect............then laugh my t*ts off!
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Feb 1, 2006 19:44:54 GMT
I really can't understand why. His performance in this movie was very solid. I have to admit that when I heard Tom Cruise was going to star in WotW I was a tad unsure, but when I finally saw him on screen, I was amazed. The Razzies shouldn't be taken all too serious though.
Tripod
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Feb 2, 2006 0:32:52 GMT
Tom Cruise was.. well, Tom Cruise. You can't expect anything else. He is always the same guy, just in different situations. Anyone expecting anything else shouldn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 2, 2006 4:37:09 GMT
Tom Cruise, like many leading actors, does have a "persona" he projects. John Wayne certainly did the same. Did that make John Wayne a bad actor? I know some would say "yes" but he was one of the most popular of all time.
But anyone who thinks Cruise always plays the same character probably hasn't seen "Collateral" or "Vanilla Sky" or-- especially-- "Born on the Fourth of July".
I thought Cruise did some really subtle, excellent acting in the "peanut butter sandwich" scene of Spielberg's WotW, and I'm quite surprised no one else has commented on that. Perhaps they weren't watching closely. Most of the movie didn't give him the chance to do anything subtle, but *that* scene certainly did!
The Razzies are amusing, but often (as in this case) they're an indication of what people watched that year-- not of what the worst thing released was. Did "Attack of the Clones" really deserve its nomination for Worst Picture of that year? Hardly!
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 2, 2006 8:02:25 GMT
Cruise was the wrong actor for the film.
I'd say Tom Hanks, hell even Tim Robbins would be better.
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Feb 2, 2006 9:26:32 GMT
I agree with Lensman on this one - the peanut butter sarnie scene was acted VERY well. I also liked the way he acted being excited by the storm then excited/scared then just all out scared - it was a great transition between emotions.
Rusti, why was he the wrong actor? What specifically did he do wrong (in terms of his acting, not the script or direction which he had little or no control over)?
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Feb 2, 2006 12:09:23 GMT
A friend last night pointed out this very salient fact- apart from a very small minority of films, most of Cruise's films do follow the same formula-
He is the best at what he does He loses faith A woman puts him back on the right path He is the best again at what he does.
Its not far from the truth you know!
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Feb 2, 2006 14:06:37 GMT
Yes, that has been noted before. It was a trend going as far back as Risky Business, but there has been a few exceptions like Collateral, Eyes Wide Shut and Vanilla Sky.
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 2, 2006 15:56:23 GMT
I Rusti, why was he the wrong actor? What specifically did he do wrong (in terms of his acting, not the script or direction which he had little or no control over)? he was crap enough said.
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Feb 2, 2006 17:27:46 GMT
Well I disagree, but it's differing opinions that makes the world an interesting place
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 2, 2006 18:32:27 GMT
If you look what else he is nominated for in which is 2 nomination in the , "most tiresome tabloid target." catergory then you can see why he is nominated for worst actor.
Well he has been nominated for worse actor i think totally out of spite. When the film was released i read many reviews praising Toms performance in War of the Worlds, and i for one thought it was a very good, convincing performance. Tom Cruise in my opinion is a great actor, and in this past year his representation to the public has eclipsed his previous work.
He is up againsts JLO, and Hilary Duff. His acting abilities are in a totally different league to those amateurs.
The only reason he has been nominated for worst actor is because of all that crap about scientology, and Katie Holmes.
His acting in War of the Worlds IMO was top notch. When the film was released there was even small talk of his performance being of an oscar calibur.
The people who run the razzies are ugly, queer "Jerks ;D" anyway. I'm actually quite angry.
Anthony
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Feb 2, 2006 18:40:18 GMT
I thought Cruise did some really subtle, excellent acting in the "peanut butter sandwich" scene of Spielberg's WotW, and I'm quite surprised no one else has commented on that. Perhaps they weren't watching closely. Most of the movie didn't give him the chance to do anything subtle, but *that* scene certainly did! Also the basement scene in the film, his acting seemed genuine however good or bad the scenes were. Anthony
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Feb 2, 2006 18:44:29 GMT
Its a terrible film, a terribly big poopy ploped on the grave of Wells along with all the other poopy productions whos only interests were to blemish a classic for a few fast bucks.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 2, 2006 20:35:45 GMT
Hell, for once I hope Cruise wins something!
My heart sank when I first read he was involved with WOTW back in 2001. I couldn't think of anyone worse to be involved with something based on a story by Wells [ apart from maybe Jean Claude Van Dammage or Chuck Norris ] and after seeing the film I know why I was so bloody apprehensive.
He's all style and no substance and just about everything he's involved with turns into a self publicising Hollywoodised tackfest. Not too mention the fact that he's Mr Mediocrity when it comes to acting!
Even if he doesn't win he's still made the razzie shortlist - so let's all give a BIG HUGE cheer and pray that the funster wins!
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Feb 2, 2006 20:36:41 GMT
Its a terrible film, a terribly big poopy ploped on the grave of Wells along with all the other poopy productions whos only interests were to blemish a classic for a few fast bucks. Yep!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Feb 2, 2006 22:46:41 GMT
The only reason he has been nominated for worst actor is because of all that crap about scientology, and Katie Holmes. Oh! I had (mercifully) forgotten that. Yes, I'm sure you're right. I try not to let stars' off-screen shennanigans influence my opinion of their acting ability, but I realize I'm in the minority. Reminds me of an exchange between Roger Ebert & Gene Siskel (back in the day). They were talking about a Hugh Grant film, I don't remember which but it doesn't matter. Siskel (the pinhead!) said "Weren't you distracted by thinking about how Hugh Grant was recently arrested for soliciting a prostitute?" Ebert (my hero!) said "Well for a few minutes, yes, but then I got over it!Yeah. RichardBurton: Rusti hates Cruise with a passion, it's useless to try to reason with him on the subject. Anthony: I agree, the scene in the basement had some fine acting by Cruise. His performance as he tries to get thru to Tim Robbins' character that (paraphrasing here) "If you don't quit making noise you are going to *force* me to *kill* you!" was riveting and horrifically convincing.
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Feb 3, 2006 11:09:15 GMT
Rusti man, get over the jealousy. Green ain't ya colour only jokin
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Feb 4, 2006 23:57:36 GMT
If you hate Cruise, here's a goldmine of mean-spirited snarky comments: buffalobeast.com/73/feature6.htmbuffalobeast.com/73/index.htmPlease note, as a warning, the material is pretty raunchy. Cruise threatened to sue the Beast last year after they put him on their annual (and notorious) '50 most loathesome Americans'. The Beast refused to back down and Cruise dropped the threats. Not surprisingly, Cruise then made their 'top 50' (again) this year, alongside George Lucas, Michelle Malkin, and Rush Limbaugh. PS: Rusti, I think this site is tailor-made for your opinions on Cruise.
|
|
|
Post by D.A.V.E on Feb 5, 2006 14:15:45 GMT
The people who run the razzies are ugly, queer "Jerks ;D" anyway. You're angry?! I'm f**kin livid mate.
|
|