MovieChat Forums > Collateral (2004) Discussion > Underrated performance by Tom Cruise

Underrated performance by Tom Cruise


I think this is some of his best work as an actor.

reply

I've always called it his best performance myself.

reply

It is undeniably one of his greatest performances, he's completely immerse as Vincent and arguably steals every single one of his scenes.

Idk if I would call it an underrated performance (even those who are not particularly fond of Cruise praise him for this film), but it does seem to be a lesser appreciated performance compared to his Oscar nominated roles. Speaking of Oscar nominated roles, he deserved one for this film.



You want something corny? You got it!

reply

I agree, his best performance and one of his, if not his, most intriguing and complex character...Mann is genius!!

reply

I think Cruise is an underrated actor. If you think about his whole body of work, Collateral, Magnolia, Interview with the Vampire, A Few Good Men, etc., he's really, really solid. He just seems to like doing generic action movie hero roles and almost never stretches himself.

reply

I think it's his BEST work. He should have received a Best Actor nod. Other than for perhaps a couple of other roles, this was one where you could definitely say Tom Cruise WAS Vincent!

reply

He probably would have easily earned a best supporting nod since Foxx was the lead. But Cruise gave himself top billing as the lead.

reply

I enjoyed him in Vanilla Sky as well.

In Magnolia he had some powerful moments from what I recall.

reply

THIS was definitely worthy of an Oscar for best Actor

reply

He shows some incredible acting chops in Born on the 4th of July as well.

reply

I don't get how anyone could favor Jamie Foxx in this over Tom Cruise. Shame on the academy. And Jamie Foxx was already getting nominated and won for Ray. Doh. Just looked. I'd rather Tom Cruise not won best supporting actor over Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar baby. Morgan's only Oscar.

reply

Yeah, that's the thing: a lot rides on who else is nominated. Just when you think it's impossible that Chinatown lost the Gold, you realise it was up against The Godfather Part II. The Conversation was also nominated that year, so you had three amazing movies that, in many other years, could easily have beaten the pants off of any other competition. But because it was that year, two of them had to lose to the other.

It's also hard to compare performances. For example, Johnny Depp was nominated for Jack Sparrow in the same year Bill Murray was nominated for Bob Harris (Lost in Translation, both losing to Sean Penn's performance in Mystic River. I haven't actually seen Mystic River, but I don't know how to stack Jack Sparrow up against Bob Harris. They are such different performances with different goals. Jack is also clearly the supporting character...

Which is what you're getting at by pointing out that Cruise should have been in the supporting category. But studios play loose with the categories to hedge bets and try to get wins. It's the same as voters tossing political wins as kind of surrogate "career achievement awards." Somebody lost three times in a row (usually due to the same kind of situation as Godfather II v. Chinatown) and so their "owed" the next won and beat out somebody who actually should have won that year.

reply

Oh well. At least Cruise won a Golden Globe in 1990 for his role in Born on the 4th of July.

reply