The new Tom Cruise movie “Knight and Day” could be the summer’s latest box office bust.
And it has nothing to do with the film itself, opening June 23, which insiders say is a perfectly acceptable adventure romp.
But the film is tracking badly, and the blame is being pinned on Mr. Couch Jumper himself.
Cruise’s favorability rating is in the cellar, and the poster for the new movie doesn’t even showcase his world-famous face.
Is this any way to treat an Oscar nominee?
Cruise is a movie star for good reason – he’s handsome, has a knack for picking quality projects and, when push comes to shove, can flat out act.
“Born on the Fourthof July.” “Magnolia.” “Rain Man.”
He routinely sidles up to talented directors for his film projects, giving him the best chance to deliver the goods for movie fans.
His latest film finds “Walk the Line’s” James Mangold behind the camera. For “Valkyrie,” Cruise worked with Bryan Singer. “Mission: Impossible III” gave wunderkind J.J. Abrams his first big-screen assignment.
None of the above is an accident.
Yes, Cruise’s couch jumping antics on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” were embarrassing. And he certainly comes off as mechanical in interviews, especially when the subject of Scientology comes up.
But is his off-screen behavior any worse than, say, Robert Downey, Jr.,? The “Iron Man’s” recent past includes a jail stint for repeated drug use and passing out in a stranger’s house.
Or how about Sean Penn, an actor who routinely disparages a good swath of the country with his ideologically poisonous rants?
Actors often behave badly off-screen in a number of ways. We didn’t know the name Divine Brown until Hugh Grant gave her 15 minutes of infamy.
So why all the hostility toward Cruise?
The age of the movie star is fading fast. Let’s enjoy one of the last of his kind while he’s still in his prime.
(Photo: Cameron Diaz and Tom Cruise star in ‘Knight and Day,” opening June 23 in theaters nationwide. 20th Century Fox)
Related posts:
on 
on 
on 
on 
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
“Knight and Day” is one of the few summer offerings left that I’m looking forward to, just because of the tantalizing Cruise/Mangold pairing you mentioned.
Stars can often rebound, it takes time. It may be running out for Cruise, who is approaching 50. But if you put his antics on par with anyone else, acting kooky on a talk show or having a strange religion isn’t nearly as offensive as some of the actions celebrities have subjected the greater public to in recent years. At least he isn’t preaching politics, or flying private while preaching cap and trade.
Question his mental health all you want, the trailers from “Knight and Day” show he still has it in droves. Given the rather poor choices we have for movie stars these days, I’ll be more and happy to revisit Cruise.
The public loves someone who is able to reform and redeem themself, which is why Downey is once again a success,(besides his talent that is).
Grant also repented, made light of his own screw up and it also didn’t appear to be a pattern of behavior.
I would argue Penn’s films haven’t been big money makers and he tends to do ideological films now, plus he’s reached the point where his name on the marquee will drive away movie goers. But his films get tons of press touting how great they are and they do ok with their targeted audience but with the general public not as well.
Cruise has made himself an object of ridicule and that’s his crime. People can love,hate or laugh at you, but if you lose their respect then you’ve really lost something.
In regards to Cruise though, he can still open a film which most actors can’t in this day and age. They still make tons of money world wide if not always in America. His popularity is still such that just going out in public will cause a small riot and from all I’ve ever heard, barring the whole member of cult thing, he appears to be a very nice guy. I’m not feeling to sorry for Cruise.
Weird behavior aside, I contracted a bad case of Cruise-fatigue sometime after Mission Impossible II. I’ve also had to battle various strains of Kidman-,Law-, Stiller-, Farrell-, and Sarandon-fatigue. Between stars booking as many jobs as they can (while they’re hot), way too much information about their personal lives, as well as political activism, it gets to be too much exposure. I can no longer see them as a particular character – just variations of themselves. This is one reason I’ve been enjoying a lot of foreign films lately (like District 9) – unfamiliar faces with no “baggage” from off-screen antics.
Cruise was smart to take time off from films. I wasn’t interested in Lions for Lambs or Valkyrie, but I’ll give Knight & Day a try.
the trailers from “Knight and Day” show he still has it in droves.
The only thing I saw in droves from the trailer was a star with a massive ego playing the handsome, dashing and “crazy” MISTER QUIRKY GUY in yet another chick flick, augmented with lots of car crashes and shooting to bring in the boyfriends as well as the chicks. Blech.
Considering his one-note acting limitations, how this egomaniacal midget ever became a “star” is beyond comprehension.
SouthSideShorty … since Cruise is roughly my height I’ll have to defend him
(although I think official listings of his height may be … generous)
I do think he rises and falls to the occasion, acting wise. Cast him in a light role and he won’t bring a ton to the table (the Mission:Impossible flicks. But I’ve been impressed by his chops in other features.
I’m not sure exactly what it is about Tom Cruise that causes so many people to get their backs up. You cited some great examples of other actors who’ve done far worse things than simply act weird a la Cruise, yet they still draw not only an audience, but accolades.
And while not necessarily “movie stars” these days, I would add Charlie Sheen and Alec Baldwin to that list. They both consistently demonstrate that they’re pretty rotten people at the core, yet viewers continue to tune in to their respective shows in HUGE numbers (especially true of Two and a Half Men).
I mean, if Charlie Sheen can choke his wife and engage in 30+ years of drug abuse and addiction (amongst other things) and get a way with it, there is clearly something else behind the disdain for Tom Cruise than some simple couch jumping and religious absurdity.
But I don’t know what it is.
That the Media Industrial Complex for ya: they have their “villians”/whipping boys (Cruise, Tiger, most Republicans/conservatives, etc.), yet the boorish acts of Alec Baldwin, Charlie Sheen (though EW did finally call him out on his despicable behavior recently), and Bill Maher are too often glossed over or even excused; wonder why that could be…
I’m not sure you’re on the right track there KXB. The MIC is indeed an incredibly powerful thing, and there are certainly people who benefit disproportionately from that clout, and those who don’t, but the examples that you’ve used are way too inconsistent to draw any kind of conclusion.
Tom Cruise is absolutely their whipping boy right now, and has been for some time. But Tiger Woods? No. The media is almost exclusively handling him with kid gloves and dancing around the enormous elephant in the room – particularly the press that covers the PGA, because they know that if you cross him, you lose him, and without Tiger Woods, the PGA is pretty much nothing as far as the majority of America is concerned. Tiger is the source of almost all interest (and money) when it comes to mainstream Golf, so he is not now – nor will he ever be – a whipping boy.
You insinuate that liberalism has something to do with all this, which I think is patently untrue, because in the most general sense, the viewing audience for Two and a Half Men is conservative, or at the very least center-right. Charlie Sheen himself might not be, but those who watch his show most certainly are. That makes his case all the more fascinating actually.
30 Rock’s audience is far more liberal to be sure, but we’re talking about 6 of one and a half-dozen of the other here.
And when it comes to Bill Maher, there’s no rhyme or reason at all. He’s loved and hated to equal extents by conservatives and liberals alike.
Re: Bill Maher … I highly doubt he’s hated equally by the Left and the Right. He’s a liberal who pretends to be Libertarian at times.
Is Elder Brother to WWTW the actual OP here?
- Maher actually *does* track negatively within Liberal circles, partly b/c of what you noted, WWTW; however, like Imus, he tracks positively with a few desirable and influential demographics around here, and so it goes.
- Cruise is shorter than you, WWTW
- I long have suspected that Cruise’s diminishing b.o. appeal – and despite the quality films you listed, WWTW, the most recent was 11 years ago. “The Last Samurai,” seven years ago, was the most recent film that was not a franchise extension where he was the marquee star (arguably he shared with Foxx in “Collateral” and inarguably he shared with Spielberg in “War of the Worlds”) – is part the aforementioned being longer-in-the-tooth than typical action figures these days, and definitely part of the media-fueled antagonism against his perceived arrogance and his Scientology affiliation (which does not do the same for Travolta, take note) as you observe, but also, I believe, is his no longer being embraced by his female fans. His male fans may or may not flock to his non-adventure films, but historically a female fanbase can bolster b.o. returns due to the “film date” factor. However, much like the similarly-positioned Harrison Ford, his personal life skews against the positive perception he once had among female viewers (harder to love the man who dumps his wife for a younger model), and they now turn away.
Time will tell if he somehow can manage this trend – also as noted among these comments, he is one of the last genuine “stars” in Hollywood, and this still means something.
D.
The critical phrase here is “movie star.” That he is (or was). But “actor?” Not really.
Now the same could be said for many screen performers during the period of the Hollywood system. But a large part of what made that system work was its ability to control the message. When a performer screwed up (and they did) a professional clean up crew was assigned to the mess.
No longer. Today’s “stars” remind me of the Lina Lamont character in Singing in the Rain. The cause of her downfall in the final sequence of the film was simply that: The clean up crew was held back and poor Lina was encouraged to expose herself with her own voice.
Poor Tom. He did it on his own. No encouragement was needed.
Actors know they need lines. But film stars think they need nothing.
I normally do not care who the leads are in a film. I usually watch for the entertainment. I do not waste time discussing the continuity, the actors, nor their personal lives. Why would you? and on that note,
I think Tiger woods is a despicable Human being. like many of those who rise to the top of what ever they believe they can do no wrong, and we always forgive them, or pretend not to notice. I always say, the emperor is not wearing any clothes. but hey that’s just my opinion, and I would not even think of boring you with it.
On my list of things that trouble me…
two TV magazines that air right after the nightly news, about celebrities and their Public ( and some times private), lives.
These shows remain popular since forever, which proves the the viewers have no real lives, and must live precariously from those in the stories ( gossip and hearsay).
Ok, my nightly medication is here so I have to go now….