Rate the last film you watched...

[Carvalho Diablo]

I only rate Cruise in 2 films; Collateral and Tropic Thunder. He overacts and smarms his way through everything else he's been in.

 

Not a fan .

[M_B]

He was brilliant in Magnolia.

 

 

[Anubis]

A Few Good Men, Collateral and the first Mission Impossible. The rest are meh.

 

No way is Cruise in Tom Hanks’ league.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Anubis said:

A Few Good Men, Collateral and the first Mission Impossible. The rest are meh.

 

No way is Cruise in Tom Hanks’ league.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 hour ago, Section_31 said:

Yeah don't mind him, him and Hanks are probably still the two biggest films stars left from the days when stars were fucking stars.

Brad Pitt can be thrown in that mix. 

[Section_31]

7 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Brad Pitt can be thrown in that mix. 

Would put him a rung below myself. You don't get that level of star power now, it's an 80s thing, Hanks, Cruise, Madonna, Jacko. Not many left. 

[Tony Moanero]

On 16/05/2020 at 11:52, Mook said:

Watched this last night, what the fuck was it?

 

Possibly the most bizarre film I've ever seen, so much so that I had to keep watching it right to the end.

 

Utter mince.

Pacino, De Niro, Samuel L. Jackson, Freeman, Washington.

[Tony Moanero]

1 hour ago, Bjornebye said:

Cocktail

Top Gun

A Few Good Men

Jerry Maguire

Days of Thunder

Risky Business 

Born on the 4th of July

All The Right Moves 

Risky Business is boss. Rebecca De Mornay was lovely in those days. The Outsiders is a good film, too.

[sir roger]

Watched ' Contagion ' , a bit weird seeing R rates and Chinese birds producing viruses as entertainment.. A lot of it was true to the mark for an film eight years old

[Numero Veinticinco]

46 minutes ago, Section_31 said:

Would put him a rung below myself. You don't get that level of star power now, it's an 80s thing, Hanks, Cruise, Madonna, Jacko. Not many left. 

In terms of time frame, there’s little to choose from between Cruise and Pitt. A year difference, and only a handful of years before they started making a name for themselves 86 and 88 for Cruise with Top Gun and A Few Good Men, and then 91 and 94 for Pitt with Thelma and Louise and Interview with a Vampire. Both were fucking huge through the 90s though. Maybe Cruise is more of a Blockbuster Star? Narrowly, but probably. I think Pitt has been in a few more serious films that are highly rated. But then, Hanks is different from Cruise in that way too. Less pretty boy movie star and more big actor in big pictures. I would, in a non-gay way, sandwich Pitt in ‘tween Hanks and Cruise. 
 

As for star power... Pitt is fucking huge. Maybe bigger than both. Jacko was the true superstar though. Maybe the biggest star ever? 

[Section_31]

11 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

In terms of time frame, there’s little to choose from between Cruise and Pitt. A year difference, and only a handful of years before they started making a name for themselves 86 and 88 for Cruise with Top Gun and A Few Good Men, and then 91 and 94 for Pitt with Thelma and Louise and Interview with a Vampire. Both were fucking huge through the 90s though. Maybe Cruise is more of a Blockbuster Star? Narrowly, but probably. I think Pitt has been in a few more serious films that are highly rated. But then, Hanks is different from Cruise in that way too. Less pretty boy movie star and more big actor in big pictures. I would, in a non-gay way, sandwich Pitt in ‘tween Hanks and Cruise. 
 

As for star power... Pitt is fucking huge. Maybe bigger than both. Jacko was the true superstar though. Maybe the biggest star ever? 

 

Yeah maybe, I dunno. I don't imagine Pitt being able to sell a film on his name the way Cruise, Hanks and say Schwarzenegger would. If you'd put a story in the Echo back in the late 80s/early 90s saying Tom Cruise was coming to Liverpool it'd have been a roadblocks job. 

 

Yep, I reckon so about Jacko. I remember when he went to the White House and it looked like Reagan had come there to see him. Shades on and all that stuff, you just don't get that level of fame now, maybe because celebrity is more plentiful now due to reality TV. Imagine a celeb show if it had genuine celebs in? 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' starring Michael Jackson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pope John Paul II. 

[SasaS]

8 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

In terms of time frame, there’s little to choose from between Cruise and Pitt. A year difference, and only a handful of years before they started making a name for themselves 86 and 88 for Cruise with Top Gun and A Few Good Men, and then 91 and 94 for Pitt with Thelma and Louise and Interview with a Vampire. Both were fucking huge through the 90s though. Maybe Cruise is more of a Blockbuster Star? Narrowly, but probably. I think Pitt has been in a few more serious films that are highly rated. But then, Hanks is different from Cruise in that way too. Less pretty boy movie star and more big actor in big pictures. I would, in a non-gay way, sandwich Pitt in ‘tween Hanks and Cruise. 
 

As for star power... Pitt is fucking huge. Maybe bigger than both. Jacko was the true superstar though. Maybe the biggest star ever? 

A River Runs Through It was bigger for Pitt's career than Thelma and Louise, this is when he begins as a bona fide heartthrob. He was huge in the 90s, only Di Caprio  came close.

Tom Cruise was probably the most bankable star of the past 35 years, especially early on, you could lose money if you had him all the way to Magnolia when he wanted to reposition himself. Maybe only the Color of Money lost, ironically, money.

Tom Hanks for me has been more in the tradition of a Jimmy Stewart type of star.  

Who's Jacko?

[SasaS]

1 minute ago, Section_31 said:

 

Yeah maybe, I dunno. I don't imagine Pitt being able to sell a film on his name the way Cruise, Hanks and say Schwarzenegger would. If you'd put a story in the Echo back in the late 80s/early 90s saying Tom Cruise was coming to Liverpool it'd have been a roadblocks job. 

 

Yep, I reckon so about Jacko. I remember when he went to the White House and it looked like Reagan had come there to see him. Shades on and all that stuff, you just don't get that level of fame now, maybe because celebrity is more plentiful now due to reality TV. Imagine a celeb show if it had genuine celebs in? 'I'm a celebrity get me out of here' starring Michael Jackson, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pope John Paul II. 

Yes he was. At least from an independent distributor point of view. Until DiCaprio came along, he was the only one you didn't ask for a budget figure or genre or plot if he was in it, only how much.

[Numero Veinticinco]

46 minutes ago, SasaS said:

Who's Jacko?

That's our theory fucked, Secsh.

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, SasaS said:

A River Runs Through It was bigger for Pitt's career than Thelma and Louise, this is when he begins as a bona fide heartthrob. He was huge in the 90s, only Di Caprio  came close.

Tom Cruise was probably the most bankable star of the past 35 years, especially early on, you could lose money if you had him all the way to Magnolia when he wanted to reposition himself. Maybe only the Color of Money lost, ironically, money.

Tom Hanks for me has been more in the tradition of a Jimmy Stewart type of star.  

Who's Jacko?

[Red74]

5 hours ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Brad Pitt can be thrown in that mix. 

Was just about to reply to the op saying I always think of brad Pitt and those 2 just play themselves in every film they’re in 

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Red74 said:

Was just about to reply to the op saying I always think of brad Pitt and those 2 just play themselves in every film they’re in 

Really? Pitt is very different in Inglorious Bastards and Mr and Mrs Jones or Fight Club or Fury. I don’t see that one at all, mate. 

[Red74]

32 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

Really? Pitt is very different in Inglorious Bastards and Mr and Mrs Jones or Fight Club or Fury. I don’t see that one at all, mate. 

Yeah, just always played the coolest / handsomest man in the room to me. 

 

[Elite]

Just now, Red74 said:

Yeah, just always played the coolest / handsomest man in the room to me. 

 

Hard not to when he usually is.

[Red74]

3 minutes ago, Elite said:

Hard not to when he usually is.

Don’t get me wrong, If I looked like him I’d make sure I was in every scene. The cool, handsome bastard.

[Paul]

7 hours ago, sir roger said:

Watched ' Contagion ' , a bit weird seeing R rates and Chinese birds producing viruses as entertainment.. A lot of it was true to the mark for an film eight years old

Pretty sure I read somewhere that Fauci, the US corona-guru was a consultant on it. 

[Paul]

Parasite - 7/10. Yeah it’s decent, but I really do not see it being anywhere near as good as the critics and awards suggest. 
 

That house though...

[Numero Veinticinco]

3 minutes ago, Paul said:

Parasite - 7/10. Yeah it’s decent, but I really do not see it being anywhere near as good as the critics and awards suggest. 
 

That house though...

I really loved that film. Not sure if I was just in the right frame of mind or what, but it really went down well. 

[johnsusername]

9 hours ago, Bjornebye said:

Cocktail

Top Gun

A Few Good Men

Jerry Maguire

Days of Thunder

Risky Business 

Born on the 4th of July

All The Right Moves 

The Firm

Rain Man

Collateral

 

Seems I'm the only one who likes the Mission Impossible films, I thought from 3 on they've been as good as Bond.

 

 

[Paul]

2 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I really loved that film. Not sure if I was just in the right frame of mind or what, but it really went down well. 

I definitely enjoyed it, but I just didn’t think it was particularly special or unique to the level suggested by the reviews. It was a decent satire and engaging, but I can’t see me watching it again. Might be because I bought the Blu-ray on the strength of all the fuss, but not really; I just thought it was good.