I think his professed love of $cientology confirmed that a long time ago.
I don’t think Scientology has monks per se, but I’m sure he can sign the billion year contract and join the Sea Org. I can just see him now: Rum, sodomy, & the lash? Where do I sign? 
ZING!
I think Cruise is probably a perfectly nice person, and from what I’ve seen of behind-the-scenes stuff (which, admittedly, is possibly edited to only show what they want) a hard worker at his craft. (I was impressed with the work he put into Collateral. I think he’s a rather Type A person.)
I also think he’s been a celebrity for too long, and it’s really changed him as a person. I suspect most people would have a hard time being normal with the life he’s had, and he’s been famous for most of his adult life.
That’s rather telling, considering he was already rich and famous by then, which is what many people consider a sign of success. He sounds like a sad, lonely person, and insecure despite his career successes. Just shows that happiness is found inside you.
I still like his movies. Of the 29 movies listed in IMDB, I’ve seen 14 of them and will probably see the two not yet out. He picks movies I enjoy watching.
Eh, they all are. It’s probably part of his contract.
Hasn’t it been a few years since that’s happened? I was thinking his church backed off of those announcements when it became obvious people were doubting their authenticity.
Ooh! I want to play too! Looking at his filmography, I have seen 17 of his films (18 if you count his BRIEF cameo in Young Guns). There are only two I disliked (Magnolia and MI:2).
But there are seven I really enjoy: Taps, Risky Business, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, Minority Report, and the Last Samuri. I know that is only six, but I can’t admit the seventh. It’s WAY too embarrassing.
The rest get my B-rating. Not bad. Not great. But not a waste of time.
Overall, he seems to make decent films.
[sub]Ok. It was Cocktail…[/sub]
I knew it was Cocktail. I hated that movie, but it could be because I went with a couple of (platonic) girlfriends who are otherwise mature professionals and they were both squealing, along with about half the audience, throughout the film.
So, I’ll play. I’ve seen 17 Cruise films. I’d rate 7 as enjoyable (good is a bit too strong for some of them), 7 as okay, and 2 as bad. The two I rate as bad are Cocktail and Mission Impossible II. I liked A Few Good Men (probably more for Nicholson and Bacon), Born on the Fourth of July and Rain Man the best.
I’m fairly sure I would have hated some of the stuff he’s done, but I’ve been lucky enough to avoid watching those ones.
Thank you, DeadlyAccurate for injecting some reason into this thread.
I have lunched with Tom and his editor. For an hour or so we had a great time. He did not talk about himself or his career. He was quite charming, nice AND he picked up the check!
Yes, he has contractual obligations to ‘whore’ his films, as do most other actors. And it’s to his benifit - it’s his job. He also has a big financial stake in a lot of his projects. Who here would not promote their business.
It’s easy to hate him for his looks, and this sniping of his sexual preference is not something I would expect on these boards. Besides, who cares?
Tom seem to me to be a good person, dedicated to his craft and if working with a good director on a good project can give a decent perfomance. Not the biggest range in show biz but certainly more than a Daisey air rifle. He sticks to what he knows and his fan base expects. I haven’t seen Merle Haggard doing any Zepplin tunes lately.
Given all the Star Wars threads here you would think film is some kind of religion.
Come on folks…he makes movies, sheesh.
:o
What sort of job do you have that you’re lunching with Tom Cruise, Hombre?
Wow, I’ve only seen 8 of his movies and only liked 2 (Risky Business and Jerry Maguire).
Guess theres a reason I never cared about his personal life.
I don’t see anyone saying he comes off as a jerk. He seems like a decent guy. Weird, maybe. But I don’t think he is a bad human being.
And I’m with you that one’s private life should beprivate, no matter how famous that person is, IF THEY SO CHOOSE.
What you are ignoring here, is That Tom is doing a full on blitz, in the public media, about how much he loves (INSERT NEW GIRL HERE).
If you put it out there, you shouldn’t be surprised to get commentary.
It is none of my business what Tom Cruise does with his private time. But he brings this type of attention on himself with his lovey dovey schtick. It seems fabricated.
I don’t care if the guy is gay, asexual, or has a Troy McClure fetish. But, if you don’t want the criticism, keep it to yourself.
And don’t take out full paper newspaper ads assuring people of your heterosexuality while suing gossip rags for saying that you being gay. In addition to sending the statement “gay is so wrong that to accuse me of it is malicious libel” it also draws attention to stories that would otherwise die unnoticed (and he certainly doesn’t sue the ones that give erroneous reports about his romances with starlets).
Compare the romantic behavior of Kevin Spacey or Jodie Foster to Mr. Cruise. Compare the romantic public lives of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck.
Some movie stars seem to make their romantic lives the public’s business. Some keep their romantic lives private. Some don’t have a choice about the speculation (Cruise, Foster and Spacey) but they do have a choice about how much they themselves expose. Movie stars who publically pledge undying love during the first few months of courtship don’t (in my opinion) show a lot of maturity. Relationships are hard enough in a public sphere without getting engaged three months after you start dating.
I suspect its very difficult. As Tom Cruise you can’t ever have a normal early relationship with someone (all gooshy and touchy) in anything approaching public without someone taking photographs. But he does seem intent on making it harder than it needs to be.
My cousin who is entertainment out in L.A tells me the reason Tom Cruise gets picked on so much about his sexuality isn’t because he is in the closet but because he goes to ridiculous lengths to “prove” his heterosexuality. People like Foster and Spacey just leave their private lives out of the media altogether. Any speculation is just that, specualtion and it’s pretty idle at that.
I personally don’t care about any celebrity’s personal world and respect those celebs more if they shut up about who they are with. But it is irritating to see him push his phony life into the public’s view.
Really? Or am I being whooshed here?
I wondered about that, too. I don’t recall seeing that.
Well, not to say anyone’s wrong or anything, but the reference I’ve heard mentioned about Nicole Kidman’s Letterman appearance was that she said it was nice that she could wear high heels now.
I’m another one who thinks Cruise is probably a nice guy, but man, he was creepin’ me out on Oprah’s show. He was so over-the-top hyper and silly it was truly laughable. It was funny watching Oprah’s face, you could see the wheels turning as she kept trying to get a handle on how to deal with him.
And did anyone else think it was odd that Katie Holmes was “freaking out, she’s freaking out”, when Tom and Oprah wanted her to come on stage, given that they have been making a spectacle of themselves in front of large crowds and photographers for some time now…not to mention that there just happened to be a mobile cam ready to follow Cruise as he pursued her backstage. (I thought it was cute, too, how she kept stopping to wait for Tom and the camera to find her before fleeing further and further backstage.)
I saw the show and do remember her making a joke about him being short. I certainly don’t remember any comment about his being gay.
On preview, yeah, Starving Artist got it right – it was an indirect jab at him because now she could wear heels.
I’ve been watching Tom with some interest since he broke with his longtime publicist Pat Kingsley last year and hired his sister (also a Scientologist) to take her place. Normally he’s about as interesting as roadkill, but now its like a real life Bowfinger going on right before our eyes.
Tom is apparently enthusiastic about sharing the good news about Scientology, but was (they say) kept from it by Kingsley. A wise move on her part, since hes bound to come under fire for spouting bad theories based on Scientology beliefs. Hes basically unfettered now in his decisions on handling the press and its going to be interesting to see what happens.
Here’s a Defamer article about some questions about Scientology asked of him by a German interviewer in April. (Scientology is very, very unpopular in Germany. They are understandably wary of cultlike organizations.) As the article says, in Kingsley’s day, the session would have been shut down immediately.
I think that interview was warning shot across the bow, but it doesn’t look like he understands the problem, because now he’s criticizing Brooke Shields for taking psychiatric medicines for her post-partum depression instead of vitamins. I’m wondering what the backlash on that statement will be.
And this Katie Holmes thing is just the icing on the big fat crazycake. I think he’s my new favorite celebrity trainwreck.
Out of the Cruise movies, I’ve seen 13. I liked 6. He’s watchable, but seems to play Tom Cruise in every movie he makes. There are a few things about his films that I didn’t like that made them worth watching. For example:
- Penelope Cruz topless in Vanilla Sky.
- Lea Thompson topless in All the Right Moves.
I count Young Guns in the list of films I did like, even though he’s only in it long enough to fart.
I believe he was raised Catholic, wasn’t he?
That wasn’t Cruise-that was Richard Gere and Cindy Crawford. And considering the gerbil rumor, I can’t say I blame the guy.
Not that I’m sticking up for Tom Cruise-I can’t stand him. He’s so freaking BORING, and he’s a clam.