He’s known to be someone who thanks everyone on a set, from the janitor up. People have said he’s a kind, giving charitable individual who treats everyone around him with the utmost respect.

This isn’t something that he has to do. It’s just something that makes him decent.

On the film front, just look at his filmography. He’s done some great roles in some great films. He’s done some timelessly iconic roles, too.

The hatred towards him has become utterly vicious, and I think it should stop immediately.

On Scientology:
By certain estimations, there are crazier religions out there than Scientology.

What’s that? Scientology asks for donations from its members?

Gee, now what kinda kooky religion does that…?

Every religion has its rules and code of conduct. To pick on Scientology because it was invented by an eccentric writer instead of a Jewish carpenter is bigoted discrimination of the highest order.

It is with that same premise that Cruise needs to do something bold against his comfortable ways, take a chance. Again no offense to your acting Cruise but I’m not heading out to pay 8 bucks for a movie/history lesson that I can’t catch on the History channel for free.

Top Gun 2: The Ghost of Goose

And most people knew that the Titanic was going to sink at the end.

I understand what you’re saying but historic inevitability doesn’t necessarily mean all too much in terms of the audiences enjoyment of a movie. Anyone who was even vaguely familiar with the Zodiac Killer knew that he was never caught, but that didn’t stop people from loving Zodiac. Though there are examples of this hurting a film, there are plenty of great films (or crappy, but commercially successful ones) that weren’t hindered by people having a vague sense of what’s going to happen at the end of the film due to outside historical knowledge.

And Hunter, regardless of what “expectations” were, M:I:III still made a bundle of money for everyone involved, so it’s pretty silly to continue to push the myth of it being a commercial failure. That’s saying nothing about its quality as a movie, just that it made plenty of money.

Top Gun 2 anyone?

Requisite unnecessary M:I 3 box office debate. If you re-read it, it says “domestically.” The film did not meet box office expectations in North America, simple as that.

That’s not a typo.

I think UA should just release Valkyrie now and get it over with. The sooner they release theatrically the sooner they can release on DVD and recoup some of their losses.

It is funny tjat he will get some praise for his role in a Ben Stiller movie but his own movie that will be released months later will have him centrepage and he is going to fail royally.

What next? Hardy Men and Men, the mighty Cruise is going to be directed by Shawn Levy. Heavens above. It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy!

anyways, i believe valkyrie should have been a 40 million dollar film. for some reason, i feel valkyrie might play out like usual suspect’s tone. im curious but not enough for me to watch in theaters.