Is Tom Cruise the last true movie star?

File: tom-cruise-mummy-30may17-04.jpg (59KB, 1100x733px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 1100x733px

>>83477758
I say yes, he's the last TRUE movie star. the dude mostly stars in good movies consistently.
Leo is close desu tho

One of the last.

Tom Hanks
Harrison Ford

>>83478610
that's pretty racist and sexist, for all the best actors to be white guys.

>>83477758
You could throw Pitt and Clooney in there too. Cruise is really the last one in his age group that still does traditional summer blockbusters though.

>>83478610
I'd put Joaquin Phoenix up there as well.

>>83477758
No. Cruise has a lot of peers that are as good as him and he's hardly the last of a dying breed.

Pick an old star if you want to talk about the last true movie star, someone like Kirk Douglas.

>>83478762
He's a solid A list actor for sure but I don't know if I'd consider a movie star in the Brad Pitt/George Clooney mold.

>>83478692
Tom hanks is Canadian and Harrison Ford is not jewish. This is a step in the right direction for us white people

>>83478692
>movie stars
>best actors

File: 1417843760522.jpg (19KB, 651x719px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 651x719px

>>83478846
>Harrison Ford is not jewish.

>>83478762
You'd be a fucking idiot anon.

>>83478846
>Tom hanks is Canadian
nigger where do you get this fact from? your ass?

>>83477758
Tom Cruise
Brad Pitt
Dickbender
Bin-Al-Aflecki
Daniel "A film a decade" Day-Lewis
TANGERINE

>>83477758
Yes Cruise is still a benchmark for going to watch a decent blockbuster. He had his slips, but in this day and age, there is more shit produced than quality in a ratio one to twenty.

In comparison to Pitt and Clooney, Cruise is miles ahead of them in what he earns and needless to say Pitt is dead and Clooney is an advertisement for pseudo-political and sjw shit in itself.

>>83478972
>>83477758
Yes

People suggest The Rock, But he only ever does one role. Cruise was a full package of comedy, action, drama, etc. He's literally OurGuy

edge of tomorrow sucked, your argument is invalid.

>>83478814

You don't understand the concept at all. A movie star is a person who is able to sell a movie entirely on their own name. For example Oblivion wasn't a science fiction action film, it was a Tom Cruise movie, as is almost everything he has beeen in since the 80s.

There used to a lot of people who could do that back in the day. Harrison Ford, Paul Newman, Will Smith, Brad Pitt, Jack Nicholson, Al Pacino, Clint Eastwood, Robin Williams, Bruce Willis, Sean Penn, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Robert De Niro and so on

Now, Arnie stars in low budget shitfests, Bruce Willis is recognized as a walking cuntpunt, loads are just dead or fucking old like Eastwood and WIlliams. Some just don't give a shit anymore and just do easy scripts that allows them to earn a steady income while remaining in the public eye like Robert De Niro and Pacino.

Crusie however is an ageless demigod billionaire that performs heroic feats on camera for shits and giggles. He picks projects he thinks will actually entertain a large audience without pandering. Him signing on a film suddenly means that all kinds of talent start flocking to the project because they know that Cruise hands turn shit into gold and everyone wants in on that action.

I mean if anyone else was working on the Mission Impossible films, that series would have ended after the second one. instead they came back hard witht he third and the franchise is still something you can look forward to if you just want a nice inoffensive action film.

>>83478972
>Pitt is dead
he literally isn't, he still gets tons of roles

>>83479365
True but like Clooney, he mostly sticks to prestige movies that his company produces.

>>83479358
Pitt is still around. Clooney is also a name people recognise. Ford as well.
Arguably new talent nowadays is reaching household status.

last implies only one. Well to be the only one the others would have had to have died off. I think I get what you mean with big names but there are still plenty of big names around even if you dismiss the new talent. I mean, what about Leonardo DiCaprio?

>>83479605
My only real issue with DiCaprio is that he's only done Oscar bait movies for at least the last decade. Tom Cruise really diversifies his roles.

>>83479358
>>Crusie however is an ageless demigod billionaire that performs heroic feats on camera for shits and giggles.
from boredom

>>83479670
Well people used to complain Cruise just made big budget blockbusters. Still do in fact.

>>83479670
>Tom Cruise really diversifies his roles.
How about no. It doesnt change the fact that he keeps saving scifi

>>83479365
Face it, Brad is not in Tom's league any more now that Brad only does self-felating roles that rely heavily on emotionally weak characters to make him look stoic by comparison. With brad people like the actor more so than the films that he does, so he will be forgotten very shortly.

>>83479605

>Pitt is still around. Clooney is also a name people recognise. Ford as well.

yes, these people are "around".

Think of them like the guy that was cool as fuck in high school and that everyone genuinely enjoyed being around and made everything superchill with hardly any effort because they were just that fucking cool.

Now you see him every once in a while on town and he's working some boring office job and maybe you have a beer and talk about life for a few minutes before he realizes he's not as confident and as cool anymore and says it was nice to see you a again, gives you a brotherly hug and then vanishes like the fucking wind. Then when someone says "What ever happened to that guy" you say

>Oh he's still around.

File: 1284237243715.jpg (44KB, 410x623px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 410x623px

i'd say about 10 years or so ago, around i am legend, you could've included will smith in there. will openly talks about how when he was starting off he wanted to model his career after what cruise did

but lately will has been making shitty stuff and vanity projects that only he cares about

cruise is still the king. and yes, the fact that he still does a sci-fi movie every few years with the huge budget and production values behind him is great for the genre

mad respect

>>83479794
Pitt was in The Martian. Clooney will be in the next Ocean's film. They're roughly on the same level as The Mummy or the upcoming Mission Impossible.

MI was big but that franchise is suffering from audience fatigue I think so this upcoming one won't be so big.

>>83479794
George Clooney has been involved in a lot of good movies throughout the 2000s. It's just that he shied away from involvement in big budget summer movies ever since Batman. Tom Cruise has pretty much cornered the market there.

>>83479992
bruh that was matt damon

>>83480034
>bruh that was matt damon
retard

>>83479992

>Pitt was in The Martian

You're thinking of Matt Damon anon. yes, he might be somewhere near Cruise's power level.

>>83480080

He's right bruh

>>83479794
that was needlessly detailed and elaborate because "that guy" doesn't exist. try containing your autism

>>83479438
He isn't acting fulltime now, he produces half and acts half.

>>83479752
>someone who does actual characters vs someone who does generic action movies
Guess whcih one is the better actor?

Name the last time Tom did a proper movie, and not an action shitfest

>>83478846
>>83478879
harrison ford is jewish

>>83479358
>For example Oblivion wasn't a science fiction action film, it was a Tom Cruise movie, as is almost everything he has beeen in since the 80s.
This. To be a "Movie Star" means that you're your own genre. Babyfigs won't remember the 80's and 90's where you would go watch "The new Schwarzenegger movie" it didn't need a title, or even marketing, it was just the latest arnie movie, and people would watch it just because it had it's name attached.

I think studio's dont like "movie stars" because their salaries are too high, and they have too much clout because of that. Better for them to trot out some unknown boring asshole they can force in a shit ton of movies before everyone gets sick of them and they can discard them. like taylor kitch, the avatar guy in terminator salvation, the guy from terminator genesis that isn't the avatar guy from terminator salvation, etc.

>>83480034
>>83480092
lol so he was... I get them confused a lot.

>>83480096

Doesn't matter if that guy exists or not, the point is that when someone has faded into obscurity and you have to say "they are still around" it doesn't really speak highly of their current level of relevance relative to their previous level.

>>83480160
>I think studio's dont like "movie stars" because their salaries are too high, and they have too much clout

This. Similarly, the big studios have been hiring indie directors with only one or two features to their name to direct major summer tentpole movies.

File: stealing this movie.jpg (39KB, 600x435px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 600x435px

>>83477758
He has some standout roles.

>>83480160
>Babyfigs won't remember the 80's and 90's where you would go watch "The new Schwarzenegger movie" it didn't need a title, or even marketing, it was just the latest arnie movie, and people would watch it just because it had it's name attached.
This. Good comparison with Blacknigger

File: d41ef076838f64268d290be60355bc07.jpg (28KB, 373x520px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 373x520px

>>83479358
You're forgetting the biggest star of them all.

>dat feel when there was a period when Steven Seagal was hot shit in Hollywood and could demand pet projects for starring in your big movie

something something RAUNCHY R-RATED something PISS STAINED SEATS something GET #LITTY

>>83480209

I guess that's pitts star power now

>>83480433

>dat fucking eskimo movie where Dr Cox is a slimey as fuck oil lawyer
>dat fucking Navy Seal superchef movie
>dat running like a fucking sissy

>>83479358
I guess it's somewhat amusing people tend to overlook Eastwood's pretty good directorial career because he starred in more famous movies. He seems to be good in both areas.

>>83480106
Brad is always the same character who adjusts his pants when he stands to contemplate and stiffly "relaxes" against furniture after eating half a burger.

I'll take a few skippable action scenes over an entirely predictable romance plot designed to inflate the general reputation of women's ability and/or loyalty.

File: fc98aa35e7734bdd7dd5f7a72af20a3a.jpg (33KB, 403x622px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 403x622px

>>83477949
>mfw they said he'd never make it because of his nose when he first auditioned in Hollywood

File: 1495761242362.jpg (49KB, 720x847px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 720x847px

>>83480092
>He's right bruh
nope

>>83480516
hell no

>>83479358
>He picks projects he thinks will actually entertain a large audience without pandering.
based Cruise. I legit fucking love the guy

>>83480160
>>83480255
If you pay attention you'll see a lot of these big budget films are produced by the stars themselves. Cruise has many production credits himself.

>>83480500

Nobody is overlooking Eastwood's directorial roles when they say he's no longer a movie star. A movie star is a starring actor, by definition. Eastwood doesn't star anymore and thus isn't a movie star.

>>83480554
You do realise a simple search will reveal him to be correct, right?

From guy who made the mistake in the first place.

>>83480632
True I was thinking more of the Disney/Marvel brand. I'm sure they're somewhat looking forward to RDJ's eventual exit and not having to pay his insane salary anymore.

>>83477758
>Is Tom Cruise the last true movie star?


goslings pretty good tho

File: 2f7.jpg (94KB, 601x508px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 601x508px

>>83479794

>>83480713
I thought he directed that POS, my bad

>>83480779
>goslings
hes trying too much.

Just to clear this up, Brad Pitt had no involvement in The Martian. No idea why any of you think he did.

>>83478972
Cruise has, at this point, easily the strongest filmography of any A-list star. He has never, NEVER attached himself to an outright flop post-1990, and even his worst, most under-performing movies were still decent successes by blockbuster standards.

He's like Will Smith, if his career from 1995-2000 continued at that same level of quality for nearly three decades.

Pitt/Clooney have both had their share of stinkers and flops, and honestly don't come close in terms of the rock-solid quality of their respective works.

Tom Cruise, or his agent, otoh, deserve a lifetime achievement award from the academy for being so good at sniffing out solid scripts and being willing to say "no" to the shitty ones.

>>83479011
The rock also has atrocious taste when it comes to signing on to projects, and one look at his filmography will tell you he's more of a glorified B-lister than a bona fide A-lister.

He's like Vin Diesel without his early-00's A-list streak or the artistic chops he flexed in Saving Private Ryan and his voice work.

Though he's still the most successful WWF-to-Hollywood transition of all time and I bet Terry Bolea cries into his cereal and curses the gods for not being born 15 years later every time he sees a reference to Moana.

>>83480830
nah, that was good old Ridley Scott.

>>83481241
>Though he's still the most successful WWF-to-Hollywood transition of all time
To be honest Batista might be better in terms of quality. Getting on Guardians of the Galaxy, being a Bond villain and the next Blade Runner, The Rock is not getting roles like this.

File: chris-pratt-religion-hobbies-celebrity-beliefs.jpg (48KB, 992x558px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 992x558px

nah.

>>83481374
By that logic, then Jesse Ventura (Predator, The Running Man) and Rowdy Roddy Piper, and Andre The Giant all had more successful wrestling-to-film transitions because their limited filmographies were also nothing but iconic roles in classic blockbusters.

>>83481472
It pains me to say this, but this is a little true

>>83477949
Jack Reacher was not good.

>>83478692
Thats how it is, nothing racist about it.

>>83481551
The first one was a pretty fun action movie, second one was absolute garbage.

>>83481584
I was talking about the second one,so we agree that he does not consistently gets hits.

We have Christian Bale, my man. Tom cruise is a solid movie star though. None of his movies are atrocious and he's actually a good actor.

>>83481374
Batista isn't trying to star in any of those. The Rock is getting hammered for the same way Hulk Hogan was the times he tried it.

As someone mentioned, Cruise taking on a project sucks in people who want to get a finger in the pie, and they have their pick of the very best.

He's putting this to the major test with the theoretically shitty Mummy movie coming up. Yet as a true star, people will want to see it just on his namepower alone, and the quality will probably not leave them disappointed.

Remember this is in the nuworld where China and the ROW will outpay US take by two or three times over as long as it doesn't suck.

>>83481640
>Implying that the rebooted Mummy with Sofia fucking Boutella as the baddie won't be every bit as p u r e k i n o as the original.

How can Ankh-Sun-Amun even compete?

File: Cruise OK.jpg (23KB, 245x325px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 245x325px

>>83481551
First was legit good. >>83481584
Yeah, 2nd one is the worst Cruise movie I've ever seen.
>>83481623
In the grand scheme, he is pretty consistent. Before that he had Rogue Nation, Edge of Tomorrow, Oblivion, and Jack Reacher all in a row.

>>83482260
I would argue that Rogue Nation was mediocre but w/e.

>>83478879
>yes lets give this charmful character to a plain carpenter because of course
Goys carpenters dont get this kind of opportunities

File: Rogue_Nation_tom-cruise-motorcycle.png (609KB, 1600x800px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1600x800px

>>83482333
nigga what?

>>83482564
my trips dont lie

>>83481241
>Tom Cruise, or his agent, otoh, deserve a lifetime achievement award from the academy for being so good at sniffing out solid scripts and being willing to say "no" to the shitty ones.

heh. imagine, say, Ben Affleck's career if he had that.

>>83481472
Pratt is a nu-Movie Star. Does spectacularly well in franchise films but can flop when carrying a non-franchise film, even alongside a female co-star with the same or greater fame as him.

>>83477758

Yes. Here's how you can tell, if you're a hater. A TV series about Tom Cruise's life struggles, culminating in his kino rebirth after the couch incident with four fantastic Mission Impossibles would be the most engaging series on TV.

I'd pay double if Cruise starred as himself in his life story. I eliminated negative people, including family and coworkers,from my life after hearing Cruise discuss this, and reading Dianetics, which tbqh is a very insightful guide, 99% of haters of Scientology fall for the "Hubbard was a Sci-fi author lol" trap. Cruise is a testament that it works. Look at him. Would you rather be a hater or Cruise? He's just getting started, now as the leader of Universal's Dark Universe, a horror ensemble with stardom to surpass Avengers and DC Films.

>>83483228
>reading Dianetics, which tbqh is a very insightful guide, 99% of haters of Scientology fall for the "Hubbard was a Sci-fi author lol" trap

jfc

Cruise is good but this stealth Scientology posting needs to go

>>83483179
Cruise biggest successes were franchise films as well.
And lots of non-franchise films he was in were flops. Even Edge of Tomorrow while great was a flop.

Will Smith. But no, you can't have that because he's a black man and America in 2017 is still fucking racist, don't tell me other wise. Idris Elba too

RESPECT THE COCK

>>83481472

>Pratt
>bigger than Cruise

Nah. Cruise and JLaw in Passengers? Smash hit, romantic kino. Pratt is too guy-next-door, a very sock drawer type of lead. Cruise could have starred in Guardians as Star Lord, thing is superhero stuff goes against his religion, because he believes we're all capable of unlocking hidden power within us, with Scientology.

Cruise could have starred in Jurassic Park reboot, but was busy building his own franchise, which he vacuums cash from as the creator nc exec producer, in addition to sole lead, with Mission Impossible. The Jack Reacher films were a misstep, and here's a franchise Pratt would excel at, that requires a down-home personality, not the star wattage of Cruise. But Cruise, again, decided to challenge himself with Reacher, and even author Lee Childs said he's just as good as the books. Pratt couldn't be the center of a Universe. Enter Dark Universe, with Cruise headlining above Depp, Crowe, Jolie and The Rock (just announced as Wolf Man). Pratt will never be the RDJ of Marvel. Cruise could be. Not interested. Your comparison was an easy mistake but it doesn't hold water, sorry.

>>83483565
>thisisbait.jpg

Smith is past his prime and has made his share of flops, especially recently.

>>83477758
Clint Eastwood

Very consistent.

>>83481640
Cruise is honestly the main reason why I am at all interested in seeing the new mummy beyond hoping it is a car crash and laugh at it. If they got some no name, or some little shit they try to push on us like Tom Holland then I would have extremely low expectations. With Cruise it has a substantial increase in expectations and curiosity.

>>83483454
But Cruise was basically the reason for the franchises he was in. As has been talked about, people watch the mission impossible movies for Cruise, not because of the Mission Impossible property. People watched Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World because of the properties, not because of Chris Pratt. Plus Edge of Tomorrow is a weird example to use since it had that whole issue of constantly changing the name of the movie.

>>83484407
Mission Impossible was a well known franchise before the movies.
Much much more well known than fucking Guardians of the Galaxy.

>>83484469
It was a TV spy show from the '60s-'70s. Tom Cruise was the big draw to the first movie. Since then it's been a Cruise vehicle with some references to the original show.

GotG had the Marvel logo.

>>83477758
since philip seymour hoffman is dead yep

>>83481241
>atrocious taste when it comes to signing on to projects

This really just means "he's doing it for the paycheck" although he might not give a horrible performance for that reason. We all know how Nicolas Cage phones in his performances, but then there's that one where he gives it his all and the role just works, for example.

>>83484528
>It was a TV spy show from the '60s-'70s.
That everyone loved and had reruns air decades later.
Although personally I watched the less popular 88 version much more.

>>83477758
Maybe he was, but not anymore. There are no true movie stars in Hollywood.

Which I think is a good thing since it allows for more newcomers to get the spotlight for more nuanced performances. But that's just an opinion that I fully understand if people disagree with.

If you want proper movie stars you need to look outside America. I think Bollywood still has that type of actors and attitude to acting.

>>83484469
I'm aware of that. What I am trying to argue is something like, the established show is why it got a movie with Cruise, however the reason why there have been 5 Mission Impossible movies is because of Cruise and not because of the connection or love of the show. Plus there was at least 20 years between the end of the show and the movie. Thus the movie had to appeal to people not familiar with the show to be successful.

Guardians of the Galaxy, in connection to the Marvel films and the trend of comics being more prominent is very much at the forefront of, at least "geek" culture and consciousness. All they really had to do to drag in audiences who didn't know about Guardians of the Galaxy was to say it is connected to Marvel. People want more Guardians of the Galaxy movies because they want more Marvel movies and baby groot. For Jurassic World there had already been 3 Jurassic Park movies leading up to it. People want more Jurassic Park/world movies because of dinosaurs.

File: 1483766101884.webm (1MB, 1280x530px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1280x530px

>>83477758
We still have Gal Gadot

File: maxresdefault.jpg (123KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 1920x1080px

>>83481640
Pretty much. Batista is choosing roles he can actually pull off well if they're rather nondescript. Which, in its own way, is the mark of a good actor just like how Arnold was doing it back in the day.

>>83479605
Please dont put Clooney on the same breath then pitt and tom Cruise with his meme """"political movies""".

Leonardo DiCaprio is probably the only one from the next generation that could pick tom's mantle.

The rest is nothing but has beens and meme actors.

>>83484759
DiCaprio is the shittiest meme actor of them all.
His entire movie career is based on his pretty boy looks and being on Titanic.

>>83484868
And on people hyping him up.

>all that shit about how gruelling it was to shoot Revenant
>meanwhile based Tom Hardy says it wasn't that bad

>>83483179
Nah thats not the problem, the issue is pratt cant act for shit.

He is likable actor and can be funny but until he does his magnolia and/or born the fourth of July he is not on the big leagues.

>>83484954
would leo have done all that if he knew how weak the Oscar competition was?

>>83484954
Yeah, I never got why people wanted Leo to have an Oscar so bad without ever doing an Oscar-worthy performance.

>>83484868
Yea but i mean he is probably the only one who could become the Hollywood star when tom Cruise retires.

His movies still will always be inferior to tom Cruise's.

>>83477758
Ryan Gosling reaches "movie-star" status tbphwy

File: vince.png (886KB, 1285x534px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 1285x534px

>>83477758
>Vincent
>Les Grossman

Why is he only good if he plays complete assholes?

>>83485117
I remember his hair looking better than this

>>83481551
First one was good, the sequel was fucking awful though.

>>83482564
>hair piece intensifies

>>83478610
>Tom Hanks
How is this fag so popular. He looks borderline retarded, barely acts and has zero charisma. Why do (((Americans))) like this idiot so much?

Unironically Iron Man guy is the last action hero star. He sells tickets with nothing but his face, that what a star is

>>83485485
>He looks borderline retarded

that literally won him an Oscar though

>>83484868
Leo still a great actor

File: Cruisingposter.jpg (72KB, 304x450px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 304x450px

He should've been the lead in Cruising.

Eh? Eh?

Yes he is. I don't know why we're having a 100+ post discussion about it. There's no doubt that Cruise is the last of the movie stars. Depp, Pitt and Di Caprio (Clooney was never a draw for guys) used to share this mantle but for different reasons aren't in the picture any more.

The real discussion is about how this is such a bad thing. The "sure bet", that the financers loved, used to be based on star power. This meant that the story and direction was given a decent amount of freedom. This gave us a lot of good and some bad movies depending on the competence of the directors and screenwriters.

This "sure bet" has now shifted to making a well known IP, which hamstrings the writer(s), with an easily identifiable aesthetic, which hamstrings the director. So what we get is forgettable movies that are either bad or mediocre. Logan and Dark Knight are the only memorable good movies that have actually utilized the freedom a big budget gives you.

>>83485678
He can't act

>>83485721
kys pham

File: erik-roberts.jpg (56KB, 500x737px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 500x737px

>>83477758
*blocks your hypothesis*

>>83478762
Huge Jackman and Russel Crow.
Vin Diesel sort of.

>>83480433
That was a long time ago dude. Like pretending Van Damme still has good movies and that his movies weren't B quality in the first place lol.

>>83480544
what wrong with is nose?

>>83477758
If movie star means someone who solely elevates how much a movie makes just by being in it then no. If by movie star you mean someone who appears in a lot of movies, he's definitely not the last or truest movie star either. So, no

>>83485726

Cruise is launching another franchise: Top Gun

Using based director of Tron reboot and Oblivion, for that white metallic aesthetic we all know is great. If Top Gun 2: Maverick is as kino as I expect, making $300m domestic and $1b worldwide thanks to 3D/IMAX, Cruise just might beat the superhero trend for good.

>>83483228
>I eliminated negative people, including family and coworkers,from my life after hearing Cruise discuss this,

>I surround myself with yes-men and everyone I talk with agrees this was the best course of action

>>83486654
How is a movie based on a pre-existing IP going to beat teh superhero trend. You need a new idea that becomes a franchise for hollywood to start taking risks again.

>>83488496

How? Because Maverick is a hero, not a superhero. Big difference. If Top Gun 2 is a billion dollar success (Avenger money), then Hollywood will see that audiences want heroes, Cruise's forte, more than caped crusaders.

Tbqh, the writing is on the wall. I thought Wonder Woman was better than expected, but the audience seemed bored. You never see that at Cruise's films due to real stakes. For instance, Ethan Hunt is not a superhero, he's a spy and can get hurt. Will he die? No because Cruise is the entire franchise, by design, but he does take greater beatings in each new sequel.

Perhaps what Tom should have done, was make Top Gun 2 more like Mission Impossible, with Maverick for Hunt, then make MI take to the skies, a new setting for intrigue, and thus more like Top Gun. Actually the may be exactly what happens and I bet Tom has considered it.

Will Smith is superior. Suicide Squad was an an utter shitfest but his star power kept it afloat.

Cruise is a hack; Jack Reacher 2 was lazy and The Mummy looks like uninspired tripe using a mission impossible template for a quick buck.

>>83489280
Will Smith is a fucking hack. All he knows how to do it play himself in that situation. "Hmmmm how would Will Smith handle robots. Hmmm how would Will Smith handle being a wanted criminal who loves his daughter?" EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. ROLE.

File: image.jpg (19KB, 214x317px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 214x317px

> I turned down The Expendables 3 and I ruined my fucking career.

>>83479086
your mom sucked more, you sissy faggot

>>83485485
Tom Hanks gets a pass because of all his 90s-2003 movies. He is now in a Deniro phase where he'll just do whatever now. He's not going to be anybody but Tom Hanks.

I would say like Tom Cruise
George Clooney (does he even do anything anymore)
and like Leo but he's not quite Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise has lasted for so fucking long
George Clooney is grandma movie star

I agree. Whereas most actors are trying to sell their acting and emotion he's also a great seller of moves. His way of reacting to situations its like you know hes a guy that MAY solve everything. And a lot of that is about leadership. I think thats whats important for a movie star. Placing you in a setting of an action sci fi film where you won't have a clue of what to do but the star already knows the game far too well. And then you can trust to follow this character.

I think there are few with these qualities nowadays imo, i would also say anne hathaway has this