Go Like Hell

[GentleBen]

It has been announced that Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt are to star in a movie about the 1966 LeMans race. Cruise is expected to portray Carroll Shelby whose Shelby-American Ford GT40s trounced Enzo Ferrari's 330 P3s.

Hopefully this movie will have the same visceral charge as the movie "Rush" that was released this year and, unlike Rush, will be filmed in IMAX.

[Hoog]

Is he going to stand on a box the whole movie?

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by Hoog

Is he going to stand on a box the whole movie?

Serious.

Carroll Shelby was not a short man.

[ApexOversteer]

As I predicted two years ago...

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/o...hollywood.html

... the success of Rush is about to usher in a mini-trend of 60's/70's motor racing films.

[Defib1961]

Can they take artistic license and run over Tom Cruise.......for real?

[Datawiz]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

As I predicted two years ago...

https://www.thevettebarn.com/forums/o...hollywood.html

... the success of Rush is about to usher in a mini-trend of 60's/70's motor racing films.

Wow!

[Milton Fox]

As long as they are taking artistic license - maybe Carl doesnt survive that 1st illness in the movie...

RIP Mr Shelby

[Truck Guy]

Originally Posted by Defib1961

Can they take artistic license and run over Tom Cruise.......for real?

+1

[Shrike6]

YHGTBFK!
Tom Cruise as Carrol Shelby.
'Ol Shel must be rotating in his grave at high speed.
What a travesty of casting. I could see Michael Madson...

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by Hoog

Is he going to stand on a box the whole movie?

As Michael J. Fox said in a recent interview, when you are a short actor, you stand on a box. When you are a star, everyone else stands in a ditch.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by GentleBen

It has been announced that

Tom Cruise

why ???

[lspencer534]

Seems like Cruise doesn't mind making flops. I see no future for this movie.

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Seems like Cruise doesn't mind making flops. I see no future for this movie.

Flops? I'd like to see you quantify that.

[GentleBen]

Carroll Shelby went through life so fast that karma could not catch him when alive.

With Tom Cruise playing him in Go Like Hell, karma is getting even with Old Shel for those magical 43 1960s era Cobra 427s that were built in 1991 and 1992.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

Flops? I'd like to see you quantify that.

Sure.

1. Lions For Lambs. It made a box office of a measly $15m.

2. Cocktail.

3. Rock Of Ages.

4. Losin' It. It earned $1m.

5. Mission Impossible 2. From start to finish, it's a boggling mish-mash of overblown spectacle and ridiculous storytelling. Consequently, the film is widely regarded as one of Cruise's biggest flops.

6. Vanilla Sky.

7. Far and Away.

8. Jack Reacher.

9. Valkyrie.

10. Knight and Day.

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Sure.

1. Lions For Lambs. It made a box office of a measly $15m. Actually, it made $63,000,000, on a $35,000,000 production cost.

2. Cocktail. Made $171,000,000 in 1988.

3. Rock Of Ages. Ok, thats one, though I rather think this film had far more problems than Tom Cruise.

4. Losin' It. It earned $1m. Ok, two.

5. Mission Impossible 2. From start to finish, it's a boggling mish-mash of overblown spectacle and ridiculous storytelling. Consequently, the film is widely regarded as one of Cruise's biggest flops. And it still made $546,000,000, on a $125,000,000 cost. Can a movie he a huge hit and a flop?

6. Vanilla Sky. $286,000,000 on a $68,000,000 cost.

7. Far and Away. $138,000,000 on a $60,000,000 cost.

8. Jack Reacher. $218,000,000 on a $60,000,000 cost.

9. Valkyrie. $200,000,000 on a $75,000,000 cost.


10. Knight and Day. $261,000,000 on a $117,000,000 cost.

All but two of the films you list were profitable. Flawed maybe, but they made money, and if they are critically panned, there are three more Tom Cruise films that reviewed well.

I just don't feel you've made the case that Tom Cruise "doesn't mind making flops."

[Ol Timer]

Originally Posted by Entropy

Serious.

Carroll Shelby was not a short man.

Neither was the fictional Jack Reacher, but surprisingly, I liked the movie.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

All but two of the films you list were profitable. Flawed maybe, but they made money, and if they are critically panned, there are three more Tom Cruise films that reviewed well.

I just don't feel you've made the case that Tom Cruise "doesn't mind making flops."

I'll agree with you, of course, on strictly economic terms. Adam Sandler films make a profit more often than not, but the films stink. My point is that I don't judge a movie based upon other people's choice to waste of money at the box office. Like most critics, I judge a movie on how good it is. Can you defend the merits of any of those movies I listed? Are you saying they were great or even good movies?

[ApexOversteer]

Originally Posted by lspencer534

Can you defend the merits of any of those movies I listed? Are you saying they were great or even good movies?

IMO, Knight And Day is a good movie. I enjoyed the chemistry between Cruise and Diaz, the deconstruction of the spy genre, and the stunts were top shelf.

Valkyrie was so close to good it hurts. The choice to not do the film in German accents was bad judgement, but it looks great, the writing was sharp, if a bit cliche in a couple spots, and the acting was very good.

Jack Reacher is a doberman of a movie; Lean, quick, keeping the audience on it's toes. IMO, it has the potential to be Cruise's biggest franchise. Full Disclosure: I did not read the books.

Far And Away is a perfect example of why one shouldn't make films with a spouse. Especially if that spouse is a dead-eyed mannequin with the acting ability of a diseased shrub.

Mission Impossible II is the weakest of its franchise. That said, so was Return Of The Jedi, and I make that comparison genuinely.

Rock Of Ages is indefensible. But I still cannot blame Cruise for any of it.

Cocktail is better now than it was then, simply for the nostalgia factor. It might be the most 80's-est movie there is, and that has to be good for something.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by ApexOversteer

IMO, Knight And Day is a good movie. I enjoyed the chemistry between Cruise and Diaz, the deconstruction of the spy genre, and the stunts were top shelf.

Valkyrie was so close to good it hurts. The choice to not do the film in German accents was bad judgement, but it looks great, the writing was sharp, if a bit cliche in a couple spots, and the acting was very good.

Jack Reacher is a doberman of a movie; Lean, quick, keeping the audience on it's toes. IMO, it has the potential to be Cruise's biggest franchise. Full Disclosure: I did not read the books.

Far And Away is a perfect example of why one shouldn't make films with a spouse. Especially if that spouse is a dead-eyed mannequin with the acting ability of a diseased shrub.

Mission Impossible II is the weakest of its franchise. That said, so was Return Of The Jedi, and I make that comparison genuinely.

Rock Of Ages is indefensible. But I still cannot blame Cruise for any of it.

Cocktail is better now than it was then, simply for the nostalgia factor. It might be the most 80's-est movie there is, and that has to be good for something.

I'll not quibble with you; you make some valid points. Who am I to criticize? I've seen Blazing Saddles over 100 times!