STRONG SUCKER FOR 2008

Forgive your English?  Your English is better than most Americans' English, and your expressive logic is better than fine.

I don't know if I'm complimenting your English as much as I am stating the fact about our American English over here.  At times, it seems we're less concerned with speaking the language as we are about just throwing words out there.  And somehow we still understand each other. . . .

As for logic, we do have a saying over here: common sense is not so common. . . .

It's exactly what he's saying.  Perhaps the only reason you can't see it is that you are convinced Tom Cruise is a good actor.  You think that is fact.  And so, by extension, anyone who doesn't agree with that has a mental problem.  They cannot see what you deem a fact.

However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie.  And even considering those who do play the same role over and over, we value those who are actually creating the role more than those who are just being their highly watchable and entertaining selves.

There are exceptions, of course, but by and large, that's what we tend to value.

I don't know Tom Cruise.  Never met the man in my life.  I'd doubt he'd be interested in meeting me, especially with a movie studio to run (and now fund, with one bomb out on the market and another on its way).  But it appears he plays himself or, at the very least, very slight deviations of the same character.

You might think this started when he jumped the shark, er, couch for Katie Holmes, or when he constantly pushed Scientology.  Well, this complaint was present even before all that.   I noticed it going back to Legend.  Cocktail won the Worst Picture Razzie.  People complained about Days of Thunder.  He won the Worst Screen Couple Razzie with Brad Pitt for Interview with a Vampire.  All of that was well before all the recent tabloid fodder.  It has to do with his acting, or, more to the point, the perceived lack of acting.

Go back to what I said earlier.  "However, it really concerns values.  Most people value an actor who becomes totally different, convincing and relatable (or repulsive, but in a way where you want to keep on watching) characters over an actor who essentially plays the same role in every movie."

That is true.  So, if Tom Cruise plays the same role over and over and, even worse, he's not really acting but is just being himself, and if "most people value an actor who becomes. . . different. . . characters" over what Tom Cruise does, then most people don't value Tom Cruise that highly, at best.  I used the words "if", not because this is hypothetical, because it's not.  I'm just laying it out for you.

It doesn't seem that Tom Cruise acts.  He's very watchable, he's very entertaining, people still pay to see Cruise, but it seems what you see on the screen is him.  Sure, those aren't his words, and he would probably never be in those situations, but it seems what you see in the film is who he is.  If you're just being yourself, people don't consider that to be acting.  So, to claim you're an actor, when you're not even acting, makes you a bad actor.

It's nice being paid well for just being yourself, but that's not acting.

Do you see our point of view?  I mean, you can still like Tom Cruise.  I think he did well in Collateral.  But even when I like him, he's still Tom Cruise.