REVIEW: Robotic Tom Cruise Weighs Down Knight and Day
Tom Cruise is no longer cool, a truth he just can't face -- if he could, he'd be cooler. In the opening moments of Knight and Day, Cruise strides through an airport in a uniform of coolness that may as well have been assembled from a checklist: Distinctive Persol sunglasses, an obviously cashmere V-neck sweater layered over a surely-not-Hanes T-shirt, a Baracuta jacket -- I'm only checking off the brand names the same way he and his costume department must have. The ringtone on his character's phone is "Louie, Louie." And he actually does some of his own stunts, just to show he can. Cruise really may be the hardest-working man in show business right now, but on him (in direct contrast to James Brown), all that sweat just isn't cool. Once coolness leaves you, how do you get it back?
As big a box-office draw as Cruise may have been in days of yore, he was never truly cool; he has always tried too hard. The more frightening reality, as posed by the ambitious but unsatisfying spy caper Knight and Day, is that he will never, ever go away. Cruise plays a guy named Roy Miller, blandly named for a reason: He is -- ssssshhh! -- a top superspy, trained by the government to slink around airports in dark glasses and the same brand of jacket Steve McQueen and James Dean wore. At one of those airports he -- wink, wink! -- bumps into a gangly-sexy vintage-auto mechanic with a carry-on suitcase full of precious car parts. Her name is June, and she's hauling some hard-to-find scrap from Kansas home to Boston, to refurbish her late father's '66 GTO as a wedding present for her ingrate younger sister (Maggie Grace).
At first June is mysteriously barred from the flight she's ticketed for; then, at the last minute, the attendant lets her on. The mysterious Roy, it turns out, is on the same flight, and they flirt shamelessly, until some very weird stuff happens. June finally makes it back to Boston, only to realize that everywhere she turns, there is Roy: Ingratiating himself with her ex-boyfriend, fireman Rodney (Marc Blucas, using his corn-fed wholesomeness brilliantly) or showing up out of nowhere on a motorcycle to save her from a pickle she has no idea how she got into. Eventually, they're making moo-eyes at each other in Austria and outrunning bulls in Spain, all in connection with secret superspy Roy's supersecret mission, which has something to do with a catfishy-looking guy played by Paul Dano.
In between, Cruise's Roy engages in many feats of derring-do, leaping from rooftop to rooftop and executing crazy bike jumps. But the results are curiously unthrilling, and it's hard not to wonder what the picture would be like with another male star. Knight and Day, which was directed by James Mangold (3:10 to Yuma, Walk the Line), has a few things going for it that shouldn't be underestimated: It's not a sequel, it's not based on a comic book or a runaway best-seller, and the script, credited to Patrick O'Neill, suggests that somewhere along the way, someone harbored a feeble hope for a picture with some wit and style. Knight and Day is at least an attempt at a languishing genre -- the spy caper with a sense of humor -- and unlike so many mainstream pictures these days, it actually tries to have a tone. Cruise's Roy keeps popping up in June's life in the damnedest places and in the damnedest ways: Mangold shows this via a cleverly edited soft-focus montage in which a drugged (for her own safety) June now and then opens her heavy eyelids to see Roy swinging upside down in a torture chamber, or flying some tiny, unsafe aircraft, or navigating a speedboat through choppy waters, all the while reassuring her that everything's cool.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
On a movie poster for this Tom Cruise's name is first with Cameron Diaz under that, last names much larger than first. Then the title Night and Day under the names. Pretty standard. With the letters stacked upon each other leading the eye down the poster it looked like it said Tom Crazy. Maybe it was just me.
Tom CRuise
Cameron DiAZ
Night and DaY
Add 5 feet to that 6 1/2 rating and you've got Tom's height. In lifts.
Tom Cruise is like Roger Ebert: For awhile (much shorter, of course, with Ebert -- but it did happen with him) we play at making them seem out of date, now sort of ridiculous, but we ultimately decide to keep around, find a set and respected place for, because they still seem more moved by something inside them, self-directed, than just another uber-savy embodiment of our stuck and cranky l'esprit du temps. Cruise is never with it: when the savy begin to suspect they're personality-thin and possibly soulless, lack trust in themselves and fear / suspect their "friends," this speaks more of lost innocence we need to recover or enshrine than ridiculousness too long kept in view. Cruise could force us to jettison him, but we won't make it easy for him.
Im shocked; a reviewer didnt like this movie? Im sure he was totally objective right? This movie never had a prayer cause people are gonna villify him no matter what he does or how good the movie is.
That was a ridiculous review. Are you attacking him or reviewing the movie? It seems like you have a personal vendetta against him. Perhaps you should focus your energy on bettering your writing skills....you're no Phoebe Eaton!
Kris
Charlotte, NC
Kris and Anakin miss the point here--it is impossible to review, or even to watch, this movie without analyzing the effect that the larger-than-life specter of Tom Cruise has on the movie.
In this case, "Knight and Day" fails to overcome its awful title, its watered-down attempt at a humorous genre piece, and is ultimately handicapped by the mere presence of its star--which is the exact opposite of the intended result when adding a star to the mix.
I suggest you return to reading USA Today and People magazine, where you are sure to never read a negative review when one of your fave celebs is involved...
Finally, someone calling it as it is. Cruise is staggeringly narcissistic. He's a nightmare. Everything is calculated, every wince, every gesture, every ridiculous laugh was rehearsed in the mirror.
Top it off with his mindless scientology affiliation, and that makes Cruise a dangerous product, nothing more.
One in need of a defective recall.
Tom Cruise is a still a big star. I think he's the worst actor ever to become a big star. I feel sorry for him. On screen Cruise does not seem to have an authentic bone in his body....although i rather liked him in MAGNOLIA.....Paul Thomas Anderson is a fine director. Cruise was funny in a recent Ben Stiller movie. I think Cruise is a victim though. A victim of his own sad making. Guess why?
I've not seen the movie yet, so I can't judge the review on that basis. But I know that a review that starts out saying "Tom Cruise is no longer cool" and then a paragraph later says "he was never truly cool" can't be taken seriously.
Is the world dead? Can't there be something out there besides romcoms, "thrillers", remakes and animation?
I'm hopelessly bored.
Seriously, I can't stop laughing with you poster "Tom CRAZY" theory! LOVED IT! hahahahahahaha
And who knows? Maybe the guy that designed it had a sense of humor and thought no one would notice anytime soon. 😀
Well, there's vampires. And 3-D. Hmmmm. Maybe we should stick with TV, where at least there are hoarders. Oh, but they're not in 3-D....
Um, how about tonight we watch people answer trivia questions while their loved ones are being dangled off the sides of buildings? No?
Sigh. I'm bored, too.
I like most of the Tome Cruise movies I've seen, but i've never seen him succesfully pull off "light". He's never relaxed, and when he's supposed to be relaxed, like in the beginning of MI3, he just comes off as really creepy. Too tense.
I loved him in Jerry Maguire and Minority Report, though. Didn't have to smile too much.
Yeah, he's on show at the beginning of MI3 (the party). But how about at the end, when he's strolling with his girlfriend? That seemed at ease. Liked that.
I will be back for the next installment although ome of these comments are killing me.
Thanks for the wonderful writing. I will be returning.
Seriously?!? I'm not the biggest Tom cruise fan, but as soon as a 'reviewer' is comparing Diaz to ALICE and saying she did a 'good job' can't be taken seriously. Tom Cruise might have taken Stephanie Zacherek's lunch money, but who cares.
Go have fun watching the Diaz movies you obviously love so much. What a loser.
I saw it, and Tom wasn't as bad as I'd feared. But even so, the movie was just ok. I agree that Cameron Diaz held it together, but Cruise's character has no depth. There's nothing to him other than "i'm a spy!"
I loved this review. In my humble opinion, the entire plot was boilerplate. Whether or not you like Cruise, the storyline has been done to death, and the chemistry between Cruise and Diaz seemed forced. I would recommend saving your $9. If you must, rent.
KUDOS writes:
"Seriously?!? I'm not the biggest Tom cruise fan, but as soon as a 'reviewer' is comparing Diaz to ALICE and saying she did a 'good job' can't be taken seriously. Tom Cruise might have taken Stephanie Zacherek's lunch money, but who cares. Go have fun watching the Diaz movies you obviously love so much. What a loser."
KUDOS, you're missing the point. Everyone misses the point vis-a-vis Zacharek. The reason Zacharek hates Cruise (who, don't get me wrong, is and has always been a stiff, limited actor) is not that he stole her "lunch money," but that Pauline Kael always hated him, so Zacharek, being a firebrand fanatic acolyte of Kael's, has always parroted Kael's complaints, deriding every last one of Cruise's performances as fake and mechanical.
Again, don't get me wrong: Cruise is generally a very cold, fake, narcissistic performer, and I don't doubt he utilizes his usual patented collection of mannerisms yet again. But Zacharek and Kael are examples of textbook hysterics, projecting industry-wide sins onto a handful of easy scapegoats. Kael always incisively pointed out the brittleness and artificiality of Cruise's acting, but failed to notice these same unattractive qualities in many of the performers and performances she'd lauded over the decades. Cruise is merely one of the more extreme cases of Hollywood star narcissism and solipsism. He's far from unique in this regard.
In singling out Cruise for especial scorn, Zacharek merely demonstrates yet again her fundamental dishonesty and textbook hysteria, scapegoating Cruise for defects and limitations that are actually very widespread among Hollywood star performers.
As for Morwen Kelm's comment, "Finally, someone calling it as it is. Cruise is staggeringly narcissistic. He's a nightmare," journalists and reviewers have been "calling it as it is" ever since Cruise jumped on Oprah's couch. It's been fashionable to trounce Cruise for years now. The unfashionable thing to do would be for a reviewer to actually compliment him.
I know you're familiar with her work, but there is no way that Stephanie loathes Cruise simply because Kael apparently did. Her own frothing -- if you'll excuse that, Stephanie -- loathing of the man, is the result of HER OWN experience of him. It's honest. Myself, it is hard to go after Cruise for his coach-jumping at a time when everyone seems increasingly expert at schooling down any of their abnormalities. Steph has spoken up for idiosyncrasies, for the different and unusual, before -- and it was very much appreciated -- but has participated strongly in making coach-jumping about the first thing you'd think of when you hear of someone famous doing anything out of the ordinary -- "What, 'Oprah' wasn't enough to banish him out of our site for good?!?!!!" I think that's cruel and inappropriate, and really regret that. Mind you, though there was something off about his Oprah enthusiasm -- it wasn't just his imitation-worthy willingness to forget himself while in the moment -- I think he's fundamentally a good man, and appreciate his constant, earnest trying. About the film, it was nice to see Cruise again. I thought he was funny, and actually a bit more relaxed and reassuring than I've seen him. Good for you, Tom. Part I didn't like, and is probably telling: wouldn't play at making the concerned black lady a villain. Could easily have been the case, but, out of fear, caution, they wouldn't consider doing that to her. Also, he couldn't account for the possibility that she might receive a call? Not especially likely.
"I know you're familiar with her work, but there is no way that Stephanie loathes Cruise simply because Kael apparently did. Her own frothing -- if you'll excuse that, Stephanie -- loathing of the man, is the result of HER OWN experience of him. It's honest."
No it's not honest. Or rather: honesty isn't precisely the issue here. A cult of personality Zacharek has built up around Kael is the issue. Marxists who think everything Marx said about anything at all is true aren't being wilfully dishonest. They're simply dogmatic zealots. Freudians who take Freud's side in every conceivable debate aren't consciously lying.
The proof of what I'm claiming is that if you compare her opinions of various actors, they almost always turn out to be identical to Kael's, with few exceptions. Or if not identical, she has to preface her comments with an apology for why she's saying what she's saying. Thus, when she criticized Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in There Will Be Blood (one of her few strong pieces of analysis), Zacharek first went on and on about how Day-Lewis is one of our supreme actors and how she admires him unreservedly. She had to let everyone know she was a Day-Lewis worshipper before she launched her attack. Day-Lewis, of course, was Kael's favorite of his generation. But when other gifted actors who weren't favorites of Kael happen to receive a pan from Zacharek, she never prostrates herself before the reader in this manner first. She doesn't preface her pans with an apology except when the individual in question is someone Kael idolized. Day-Lewis was one such person: if Kael hadn't loved him so much, neither would Zacharek. It's not a question of "honesty" or "dishonesty" in response, but of brainwashing and rigid adherence to a set of Kael-established dogmas. OTHER actors who are just as talented as Day-Lewis NEVER receive Zacharek's softening of the blow before she condemns particular performances of theirs.
Another example: Zacharek just LOVES Angelina Jolie, who was someone Kael went bananas for shortly before she died. Jolie's worst performances are given a free pass by Zacharek. No explanation for or concrete analysis of Angie's greatness is ever delivered: it's simply taken as a given. And that's because Kael took it as a given. If Kael had said the opposite, if Kael had said Jolie was a mediocre actress, Zacharek would not be bigging up Jolie every chance she could. Why are Jolie's relative strengths and weaknesses as an actress never honestly weighed and assessed, or even apprehended, by Zacharek? Because she's incapable of even PERCEIVING weaknesses in anybody Kael never saw a weakness in.
Keeping in mind that everything wrong with Zacharek's writing is also wrong with her husband Charles Taylor's, I remember reading a review of an early Tobey Maguire performance - I believe The Ice Storm - where Taylor claimed a couple of the young actors were superb, and a couple others were decent but unspectacular. He put Maguire in the latter category. Not long after that, I read an interview with Kael where she went ga-ga for The Cider House Rules (starring Tobey Maguire) and thought it was so wonderful. Sure enough, enthuastic mentions of Cider House started popping up in Taylor's writing, and when he reviewed The Talented Mr Ripley, Taylor claimed Damon was miscast but Tobey Maguire would've hit this part out of the ballpark!
Which is a laughably stupid assertion: nothing Maguire has ever done suggests an inordinately strong talent for that sort of dark, twisted, complex character. So what changed? How did Maguire go from being a dcent but minor talent in Taylor's estimation to being this dazzling wunderkind who far outflanks Damon? Well, it's simple really: in the interim, Kael gave Maguire some major props. Taylor, being a fanatical Kael disciple, took what Kael said as gospel truth (as he virtually always does, about any matters related to film at all).
"Day-Lewis, of course, was Kael's favorite of his generation. But when other gifted actors who weren't favorites of Kael happen to receive a pan from Zacharek, she never prostrates herself before the reader in this manner first."
But everyone and their mother loves Daniel Day-Lewis. That would make them ALL Kael-bots. Critics tend to like Academy-Award-winning actors. It's purely coincidence.
And what did Kael think of Liam Neeson's reinvention of himself as an action hero?
"Jolie's worst performances are given a free pass by Zacharek."
And what performances would these be? In Wanted (the worst one I could think of) Angelina barely gets mentioned and not even praised. And she had no problem dismissing Jolie's performance in Changeling.
And if she likes the movie as a whole anyways, why would she assess Jolie's weaknesses if it weren't necessary to do so?
"Well, it's simple really: in the interim, Kael gave Maguire some major props. Taylor, being a fanatical Kael disciple, took what Kael said as gospel truth (as he virtually always does, about any matters related to film at all). "
Or, god forbid, he reassessed what he wrote about the movie and changed his mind. I used to LOVE Johnny Depp in those Tim Burton movies and in Public Enemies, but then I rewatched those movies years later and said "Hey, this is horrible!". Same with Ewan McGregor in those horrible Star Wars Prequels. On the flipside, I used to HATE those Harry Potter movies, but then years later, I now see that the 3rd and 4th movies were really good. It's called changing opinions, and Charles Taylor is certainly entitled to change his, whether Kael has anything to say about it or not.
You're essentially saying she's soul-controlled; bound, not free. I'm going to not think of Stephanie here when I say this, because I really have no sense of her relationship to Kael (whom I'm really barely familiar with), and was being honest when I argued that what I sense in her work, mostly, is an admirable and strong-willed intention to identify and be honest to her experience of the film, where ever that takes her (though I'll admit that at times I do sense she's operating a bit as if under orders, and maybe also some of that relief and freedom you talk about when she's exploring fresh space -- in the Jonah Hex review, perhaps, which was particularly astute and good), but I often experience everyone younger than a boomer as young consciouses who are striving to be free, but have had to grow up in an environment where the need to turn against your own freedom-desiring self, to tame it-- and when you recognize it in art, kill it -- has been unavoidable, and feel some empathy for those huge numbers amongst the elder-bowing lot. Boomers (+) have us because they don't really want anyone else to move beyond where they managed (time now for consolidation, and hating those who'd attempt the same guilt-inspiring hubris responsible for their own success and happiness) -- which was considerable -- and because our own environment has been significantly less secure than theirs was (which ultimately was one which facilitated youth culture over elder culture, risky new explorations over conservatism), so it's hard to resist clinging to this more assured, steadier generation.
Thank you very for engaging with me so thoroughly; the examples were very much appreciated.
I don't have any great liking for Tom Cruise, but I saw the movie last night and really really enjoyed it. It was not a cinematic masterpiece, but I was laughing and engaged throughout. I did not have any problems with his character or with his acting in the context of this movie.
Next »