I think everyone’s assumptions are wrong, here. You all seem to be of the belief that he has some requirement to continue being quirky or interesting or something. He’s a professional actor; his requirement is maximizing his personal income from acting and its affiliated endeavors, nothing more.
Cage is appearing in 1-5 movies per YEAR at this point and he’s been on the scene since the early 1980s. That’s getting towards 30 years. Not only that but he’s moving from Actor to Producer and making even more dough. I can’t blame the man for attempting a career arc that has potential to make him one of the more powerful men in his industry.
I don’t see it on IMDB, but I’m sure his earnings per picture are out there somewhere. I’d be astonished if, in the last five years, he hasn’t pulled down at least $100,000,000 for the twelve movies he’s be on screen with from 2003 - 2008.
You can say ‘What happened to Nicolas Cage?’ and it’s legitimate. But any answer other than ‘He’s conquered his own world and working on conquering new ones.’ seems to miss the point.
Sam Jackson is in a different category. I put him in with Gene Hackman and Michael Caine. Actors who are more interested in working than making art but make everything they are in better. Even the crap.
Fuck that. The original Wicker Man is one of the best cult horror films of all time. The new one was an absolute abomination, and Cage should be kicked in the nuts for participating in it, but to say that the original was a “crappy horror movie that nobody even liked in the first place” is complete bullshit. It’s a very GOOD movie, and it has a very BIG cult following. And Christopher Lee, and Edward Woodward! “Crappy horror movie?” The guy who made that list loses all credibility there.
Also, Nic Cage’s hair is longer than four inches in Wild at Heart, another great movie.
Someone today just reminded me of World Trade Center, another recent Cage movie I liked. But his performance in it was so good, and the approach austere enough (for a movie about the WTC at least) that I forgot it while watching it that it was a Nicolas Cage movie.
Al Pacino jumped to mind. Pacino used to be a fantastic actor, but he became bad a pretty long time ago, and yet he remained a revered star and a big box office draw. He actually won his Oscar for a set-chomper.
But looking at his IMDB, he doesn’t match the Nickster. For one thing, he’s not nearly as prolific, and for another, he fucks up his chances by occasionally putting on a decent performance.
Hey, I found the other guy who liked The Weather Man!
I saw Lord of War this weekend and wasn’t too impressed. It kind of just meandered fairly predictably along to a ham-handed “message” ending. I guess Cage was all right in it but there wasn’t much to work with.
Didn’t Willis go through a period (maybe he still is) where he wanted to do higher quality films for union minimum? I think he was uncredited in Nobody’s Fool (which I enjoyed very much), and I thought there may have been others.
Do you remember anything about that?
ETA: Uncredited isn’t the word I’m looking for. He wasn’t listed at the beginning of the movie, if memory serves.
Different strokes for different folks, clearly. I hated that film. Rented it on DVD, and, about 30 minutes in, started wondering, “is there a point to this?” After another 20 minutes, I decided that the answer was, “no”, and I shut it off.
As a long-time fan of Nicholas Cage, I disagree with the OP… yes, some of his earlier roles were excellent (ref: Birdy, Raising Arizona) and yes, he has made a few handfuls of action movies that required little by way of dramatic acting skills (Con Air, The Rock, Gone in Sixty Seconds, National Treasure), but Adaptation and The Family Man were both “throwback” roles IMO.
It appears he remains a successful actor and able-bodied leading man, as Knowing is tops at the box office.
I disagree with the OP, insofar as Nicholas Cage has long since entered “Nicholas Cage” territory.
His problem right now is overexposure, and in too many similar movies. It’s a common problem in Hollywood-- see Michael Caine, Gene Hackman, Sam Jackson, Anthony Hopkins Jude Law, Al Pacino, Robert DeNiro, etc. What happens is an actor gets “hot” in a certain role, then his/her agent gets sent plenty of similar roles. Many actors turn down the similar, typecast roles, but a few don’t, and instead ride their success.
All of the names I mentioned-- and I’d include Nicholas Cage-- are Oscar-caliber actors. None of them did their Oscar stuff early then faded into obscurity-- they did good movies followed by bad movies followed by good movies. But the one thing they all have in common is that they work– they work a lot, work hard, and make money.
Will Nicholas Cage ever deliver another Oscar-caliber film? Sure, maybe, why not? It all depends on what work he goes after. The man can be a good actor, we’ve all seen that-- he’s just in the “making money” phase right now. Everybody’s got to pay the bills.
But it’s not all or nothing. Bruce Willis, for instance, would get his action hero paycheck, then go out and do something like 12 Monkeys. He would appear in good films that gave him some acting to do, and do the BRUCE WILLIS films to make the bucks.
Cage is doing too many mindless action films and not mixing in enough quality films.
No it’s not. There are actors who make the decision to do more artistically satisfying films for less money. And even more who do blockbuster type movies while mixing in the more challenging stuff. Now, I don’t think Cage owes anyone an apology for going for the big bucks (mostly), but he’s certainly not required to run his career this way. It surely doesn’t make him immune from criticism.
That said, I, like many here, do like a lot of his early stuff and he still makes the occasional good movie (Adaptation).
