Gentlemen: Today you announced that there’s going to be a movie focusing on Les Grossman, the abusive, abrasive producer brilliantly played by Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder” (not to mention on the MTV Movie Awards.)
Four words: I am so there.
So here’s the open request: Find a way to work in a confrontation between Les Grossman and Ari Gold from “Entourage.” Jeremy Piven’s superagent squaring off against Cruise’s demented producer would be the show business showdown of a lifetime.
PAD
• 
I am so excited for this movie to happen. Les Grossman was absolutely the best part of “Tropic Thunder,” and I loved the movie. Cruise almost made me forget how batshit crazy he is with that performance. Or, at least, he made me not care.
After Collateral, where he also really disappeared into his character, this is probably my favourite of his roles. It seems like the less amount of time on screen he’s able to flash his Tom Cruise smile, the better his acting is.
I’d also love to see a showdown between Grossman and Gold. Of course if you’re going to have those two square off, you might as well up the ante further and throw in Jay Mohr’s executive producer character Peter Dragon from the underappreciated comedy series “Action!”
Have they got a writer yet? Maybe someone we know here could bang out a good script.
when is this movie due out
Count me out. Cruise is a vile, fanatical moron who personally insulted me, members of my family, and millions of other Americans on national TV. I had enough of a crisis of conscience seeing Tropic Thunder after I found out he was in it; I only recanted after being assured he wasn’t getting a portion of the profits. No way I’m handing that bášŧárd any of my money.
.
He can go jump in a lake. One filled with liquid hydrogen.
So the whole thing about separating the artist from the art doesn’t work for you, huh.
.
PAD
In this particular case, no. But that’s just me; other people are free to do as they wish.
I somewhat agree with Michael on this although for me it’s not a “separating the artist from the art;” it’s more of a “separating the art from the politics.”
If I go see the movie in theaters, then my money is going to an organization that I am morally against. I enjoyed Tropic Thunder, but that was because Cruise was a small part of it. If I support a Les Grossman movie, then I am helping to support Tom Cruise, which will make Scientology more powerful.
It’s kind of like eating at fast food restaurants; I know I would enjoy the taste of the food, but if I buy the food I’m supporting something I morally oppose.
I wasn’t that impressed with his scenes in Tropic Thunder, so the movie wouldn’t interest me. But I’d watch a movie with Ari Gold in it.
My gut feeling is this will turn out like one of those bad SNL based movies.
The characters are funny in small doses, but when stretched into a full movie, they usually fall flat.
BTW. PAD, why are you so interested in seeing a movie about a overweight, balding, Jewish man in the entertainment business? (I kid because I love bubby)
Because if it does well, then it clears the way for my biopic.
.
PAD
It’s a very hard thing to seperate the art from the artist since most art I think is an extension of the artist to some extent. Tom Cruise hasn’t been that big a draw for me ever and and with him drinking the Scientology cool-aid I find it that much easier to decide not to see his movies and fund his lifestyle.
There’s some truth to that. The best art does give you a look into the mind of the artist, but of course with films there’s lots of artists involved. And where there is a clear cut vision, it’s usually the director, especially if s/he is also the screenwriter.
.
But even art from people I don’t like can be interesting, and ometimes show you a different facet of an artist you don’t like. The Pianist is a good example of this. Roman Polanski absolutely should be in jail in my mind, but the film is brilliant and has nothing to do with the stuff he was convicted over. Now one might argue that people like him shouldn’t be paid, but there’s ways to see films without the people disliked being paid (public libraries, pawn shops, previously viewed sections of video stores etc); my copy of the Pianist is secondhand so my conscience is clean. Yeah, Scientology is … an area where you have a chance at getting Christians and athiests to agree on something, but I find I can turn off that part of my brain when I watch a Cruise or Travolta movie.
.
In terms of Cruise as an actor, I would have agreed with you years earlier. But I started noticing an improvement in his acting circa Eyes Wide Shut, and I would ask anyone who’s written him off as an actor to watch him as Vincent in Collateral. If you watch that film and still hate his acting, then yeah, nothing else he does is likely to win you over.
But, Andy…should I *really* have to eat a Bloomin’ Onion from Outback Steakhouse in order to say, “I don’t care for onions?”
.
–Daryl
That is, if I’ve prevously tried and disliked onions?
.
–Daryl
I saw Collateral and didn’t care for it. I looked over imdb.com to come up with a movie I liked him in and I couldn’t find a single one. I may have liked the movie (for example Magnolia) but I didn’t like him.
PAD had four words in response to the movie. Coincidentally enough, I avoided Tropic Thunder because of four words:
Jack Black. Tom Cruise.
So, in this case, I have no frame of reference to be enticed by the character from the earlier movie, and I’d say that I’ve really only enjoyed one, maybe two Tom Cruise movie(s)/performance(s) to date. Sounds like I’ll be taking a pass on this one.
I like PAD’s idea, maybe like the climax of the film is Grossman/Gold throwdown across the boardroom over a particular client, but I think it’d be great if they just did a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it they’re walking down the street and both yelling into their respective cell phones or whatever and bump into each other.
Tropic Thunder totally rules. Everyone should see it now. It’s just a genius piece of multi-character writing with everyone having their own little character arc and all the performers are gold. I even love Matthew McConaughey in it, and I usually hate McConaughey! Everything in that flick just clicked. And Cruise’s rants are just genius. “Find out who that was.”
I can appreciate Tom Cruise for some of his work (I agree that he was great in Collateral), but I don’t think he has a lot of range. All his characters essentially look and sound the same. In my view, his appeal is predicated on much the same thing that Schwarzenegger’s was: Good writers, directors, co-stars, and in general, the material. Cruise doesn’t look to be doing much different in the way of his mannerisms from what I’ve seen in the commercials for Knight and Day, but I intend to see that film, based on the apparent concept.
.
I wasn’t that impressed with Tropic Thunder. He pretty much looked, sounded and acted like every other Tom Cruise character. The makeup wasn’t convincing, and I really think it would’ve benefited if they actually tried to conceal his familiar features with the makeup, and if he tried to alter his speech patterns.
.
That’s just me.
Darryl: I appreciate the food analogy and I can see what you’re getting at. Here’s another one: imagine someone has only bought store bought cookies and didn’t like them; there would still be a chance they’d like home baked cookies. I wouldn’t try to talk them into a different brand of store cookies, but home baked cookies taste sufficiently different from other store cookies that I might try to talk them into that. Cruise’s performance in Collateral was so different than anything else I’ve seen him in that it felt to me like a performance from a different actor.
Not to sound like I’m justbeing contrary for it’s own sake, but I don’t see those examples being parallels. In your cookie example, you’re suggesting that someone who likes cookies of a particular style to try a different style. Essentially, “Since you liked Actor A in his typical genre and roles, you might enjoy him when he steps outside that proverbial box, too.”
.
In mine, I’m suggesting that someone who’s tried and disliked onions many times before is unlikely to enjoy them simply because they’re prepared differently. Essentially, “Regardless of the genre or role, I’ve found Actor A’s performances to be lacking, and I see no reason to believe that stepping outise that proverbial box will be any different.”
.
I appreciate what you’re trying to say, but I tend to believe that one’s established reactions to something – food, acting performances, etc. – tend to color one’s future reactions. The larger the pool of reaction to something, the more likely one’s future reactions are to fall in line with those previous reactions. In other words, by this point, I’m predisposed to find Cruise’s performances to be one-note, wooden retreads of all of his previous performances that I’ve seen.
**************
Luigi,
.
Agreed about the relative success of some of his performances being due to the strength of cast and crew surrounding him, and I’d add Leonardo DiCaprio to that list. With a strong director and solid supporting cast to prop him up, I can enjoy his work. The weaker that support structure, however, and…well…it’s so precious when he tries to act.
I think you misunderstood my cookie example. In the cookie example I was saying that if the person ***didn’t*** like store bought cookies they might like home baked cookies. There was no “if like like A you might also like B” in my analogy because in my analogy the person thought that all cookies were “bleh”/”yuck”/”pttui” having only tried the store bought type.
Let me put in a different way and this will most likely be my final word on the subject. I used to dislike his acting as much as you still do. I thought he was great in Collateral while still agreeing with your assessment of his body of work as a whole, particularly his 1980s-1990s work.