New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Daron Aldridge: I agree with Joel that Pitt has a longer shelf life than Cruise, simply because I think he is more talented and is getting more reliable at the box office. In terms of grosses, let's not overstate Pitt's post-Interview career. After Interview in 1994 and Se7en in 1995, Pitt didn't star in another $100 million earner until Ocean's 11 in 2001. Those six years were littered with unspectacular box office. During that time, 1997's Devil's Own with Harrison Ford ($80 million budget and $42 million gross , 1997's Seven Years in Tibet ($70 million budget and $38 million gross), 1998's Meet Joe Black ($90 million budget and $45 million gross), 1999's Fight Club ($63 million budget and $37 million gross), and 2001's Spy Game with Robert Redford ($92 million budget and $62 million gross). All of these came up at least $25 million short. Granted, he has been more reliable since Ocean's 11. Between Interview and Valkyrie, Cruise has done 13 movies in either a starring or legitimate supporting role (excluding Goldmember) and only three failed to cross $100 million. Those were Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia and Lions for Lambs. Therefore, in terms of box office, Cruise is still stronger but I would argue that they are heading the opposite direction. Pitt's box office numbers are rising and Cruise are diminishing.

Pete Kilmer: I think Pitt will have the longer career in terms of quality compared to Cruise. While I am fan of a lot of Cruise's movies in the past, he got in a rut with his blockbusters. And I give him points for trying to do different things like Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia and Tropic Thunder with varying degrees of success. Tom really has a tough road ahead if he wants to branch out into different roles. I do think he could do something with the Mission: Impossible franchise to broaden his acting appeal, because he was excellent in MI:3.

Jamie Ruccio: I respect Brad Pitt's career choices far more than I do Tom Cruise's. He's managed to remain a reliable box office draw while taking wide range of roles and maintains a pleasant public persona. His choices for roles is where he clearly outclasses Cruise - from Se7en to 12 Monkeys to Meet Joe Black to one of my personal favorites Snatch, all show distinctly different characters. I think he's far more talented than people give him credit for.

I think when all is said and done Cruise will perhaps limp along while Pitt quietly puts together a fairly impressive resume.

Ben Farrow: When do we get a Butch and Sundance redux?

Kim Hollis: I'm going to diverge from everyone else's opinion here (I feel like the lone voice of reason this week, people!) and say that Tom Cruise will continue to evolve and re-invent himself in ways that will surprise us. I really think that much as I actually like him, Pitt is very limited as an actor. Sure, the movies he has been in have been diverse, but I don't think he has been particularly distinguished in them.

Cruise, on the other hand, has *something* that draws people to him. Even if he's jumping on couches and spouting off about Scientology, he continues to be a magnetic and powerful force in Hollywood. I would go so far as to say that his only true "stumble" to date has been Lions for Lambs. Sure, you might want to lump Eyes Wide Shut in there, but if you consider what that movie actually is, $56 million is a ridiculous amount of money and it can pretty much be attributed to his presence (with slight credit to being Kubrick's last). As he did with Tropic Thunder this year, I'd expect to see Cruise continue to do the sorts of things that will re-ingratiate him with audiences. He's a smart, smart businessperson on top of everything else. Pitt just doesn't seem that...savvy, though I'm sure he has great people giving him advice.

Continued:       1       2       3       4