When you consider the filmography of Tom Cruise versus Mickey Rourke, there’s no denying that the former has experienced way more blockbuster success than the latter, especially over the last decade or more. However, Rourke doesn’t believe that makes Tom Cruise a better actor than him. In fact, Rourke believes Cruise is “irrelevant.”
While appearing on Piers Morgan’s TalkTV show (via Metro), Mickey Rourke was asked about Tom Cruise. Unbeknownst to Morgan or anyone watching the interview, Rourke was ready to unload with some hot takes about the “Top Gun: Maverick” star.
According to Rourke, he doesn’t believe Cruise has really stretched his acting muscles in decades, claiming the actor has stuck to playing the “same effing part.”
“The guy’s been doing the same effing part for 35 years. I got no respect for that,” said Rourke about Cruise making a ‘Top Gun’ sequel. “I don’t care about money and power. I care about, when I watch Al Pacino working, Chris Walken and De Niro’s early work and Richard Harris’s work and Ray Winstone’s work.”
He continued, “That’s the kind of actor I want to be like… Brando back in the day. The kind of guys who tried to stretch as actors.”
When Rourke was asked by Morgan if he thought Cruise was a “good actor,” he replied, “I think he’s irrelevant in my world.”
It would be too easy to take Rourke’s words and slam him. Sure, Tom Cruise is a much more “relevant” actor in 2022 than Rourke is. There’s no denying that Cruise is coming off his first billion-dollar film in his career and Rourke hasn’t really starred in anything of note in years. That said, Rourke isn’t wholly wrong in his assessment of Cruise, especially in the last decade or so.
Cruise may be best known for his action films, especially recently with the aforementioned “Top Gun: Maverick” and the long-running “Mission: Impossible” franchise. That said, there was a time when you might find Tom Cruise in more auteur-istic projects.
Remember, this is the guy who was nominated three times for Oscars between 1990 and 2000 (“Born on the Fourth of July,” “Jerry Maguire,” and “Magnolia”). It’s just been a long while since he’s done anything outside of his action comfort zone. You really have to go back to 2012’s “Rock of Ages” to see a Tom Cruise movie where he’s not flying a plane, running from explosions, or saving the world. Then, before that, it’s 2008’s “Tropic Thunder” and 2007’s “Lions for Lambs.” Hell, you have to go back nearly 20 years to get to projects such as “Elizabethtown,” “Collateral,” and “Shattered Glass.” Needless to say, it’s been a long time since we’ve seen Cruise try something “new.”
It’s hard to nail down exactly why Cruise hasn’t really tried to branch out in recent years. It’s too easy to say it’s just a money-driven decision. You have to assume he has more money than he knows what to do with already. He doesn’t need to do a new ‘Top Gun’ or ‘Mission: Impossible’ film. Perhaps it’s more that he likes to have a ton of control over the direction of his films nowadays and he can’t get that working with the likes of Paul Thomas Andreson or Cameron Crowe?
So, while Rourke isn’t the best person to deliver the hot take, he’s not entirely wrong in his assessment.
