Just seeing the preview for the movie Snow Dogs with Cuba Gooding Jr I started to wonder. Why do actors agree to make cheesy movies? Is it the only role they can get? Is it the money? Is it because they want to make a movie for their kids or do they really believe it will be a success? Tom Cruise seems to have a good role in a good movie in every film he makes.
??? Eyes Wide Shut Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles Far and Away Days of Thunder Cocktail Legend All the Right Moves Losin' It Not exactly top of the heap there.
OK not all of his movies, but for the most part he seems to make better movies or at least accept better roles than a lot of actors. Also I wouldn't say that some of those movies are exactly cheesy.
Jeff, His role in Eyes Wide Shut was a good role. You can't really fault him for wanting to work with Kubrick. Yes, the movie was an enormous lemon. Can't fault him for taking the lead in Kubrick film, though. The same can be said for Far and Away. Again, big lemon, but you can't fault him for wanting to work with Kidman on a Ron Howard flick. Howard had some good ideas for that...they just didn't really materialize. I also think Lestat is a fantastic role. I don't think the project was well done, but the role is fantastic. He was pretty good. Not great, but then he never is. As far as Days of Thunder goes, at least he had the good sense to refuse to make a sequel to Top Gun . "Days" was the producers alternative to that. Cruise liked to race cars, and that was the only way he would do their project. He refused to make a true sequel. Kudos to him for that. That was a money move. All the other films on your list are rightly named as being bad roles, but for most of those he was trying to get into the business and make a name for himself. You can't really afford to be too picky when you're just getting started. I have a great deal of respect for those actors that use their clout to make sure they work on quality projects with quality people. George Clooney is one of those actors. I mean, his first film was Attack of the Killer Tomatoes for crying out loud! But once he started finding success, once he became known as a bankable actor, he started picking and choosing his projects. It took that abyssmal Batman and Robin fiasco to cause him to be more selective. Now everyone wants to work with him. Hell, he got that cast together for Ocean's Eleven. As far as Cuba doing that joke of a movie, it's all about the Benjamins. Disney pays. They pay well . Cuba will be getting kickbacks on kickbacks for that piece of $hit. That's usually the reason behind some of these stinkers. I'm no Cuba fan, but if you wonder why some of your favorite actors go out and do crap films, that 's why. Money. That's the main reason to do film. I dare say most actors, if the pay were the same, would much prefer to work on the stage. The pay, however, is not the same. Far from it. So, in conclusion, yes, it is all about the Benjamins. I'll accept the first offer for a piece of $hit directed by Ron Howard about an Irish stockcar racer who bartends on the side, gets bitten by a vampire and is forced to fight the Devil in a really big house with lots of naked people screwing. But I'm just your average out of work actor.
Cruise is a BAD example. He is not a great actor and the roles he chooses are predominated by action movies and blockbuster hits as opposed to meaty acting roles. Cruise doesn't get offered roles because of his brilliant acting. He gets offered them because he is attractive which makes him a big box office draw, which is fine. But, it doesn't make him a good example in this context. Most actors, at some point, are in bad films. Oliver, Hackman, Hanks, Washington, Pacino, DeNiro...they've all had regrettable movie roles. Sometimes it's money. Sometimes it seems like a good idea that goes bad. Sometimes it is in a down period of their career and they are struggling to stay in the business. Some actors may not have tremendous talent, so they need any role they can get. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons.
I would have gone with Tom Hanks instead of Cruise as an example... Hanks hasn't really made a bad movie since Joe Versus the Volcano...
Personaly, I don't think he's in it for the money, as some of you say. Cuba is a class act, and he truly loves what he does. He feels very fortunate to be doing what he loves to do, and I am sure he is making a ton of money in the process. Talking to him was an awesome experience, one that I will never forget. For thoughs of you who want pic's can kiss my. I will tell you, it was at Duke's in Malibu.
"Losin' It" and "All the Right Moves" came early enough on (and while the man was young enough) that they cannot be considered representative of Cruise's career. Besides, naked Lea Thompson is always a good thing . Similarly, for Hanks everyone forgets about those eight years between "Splash/Bachelor Party" and "A League of Their Own." That minefield is littered with things like "Turner and Hooch," "The Money Pit," "Bonfire of the Vanities," "Dragnet (the Movie)," and the aforementioned "Joe Versus the Volcano." The only film that would come close to his later work in that whole period was "Big."
I liked The Money Pit (and actually, Bonfire of the Vanities was taking somewhat of a chance for him. It was a step away from his wacky persona that he had been best known for. Personally, I think it was another step down the road toward his roles in movies like Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, etc.)
