First of all, how about that title. Oh yeah.
Now, on a long car ride with The Honest Bro, a debate was sparked about who has had the greater career, Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks. This was a great way to pass the time after discussing the 2009 Maxim Hot 100 (THB has always cut me down for fawning over Olivia Wilde-- I guess I won that one) and how many times Denzel can basically play the same cop. I instantly jumped to the Tom Cruise side because, well, I actually celebrate Tom Cruise Day every October 16th. He is glorious, even though he has been taken by the biggest scam the Earth has ever seen, namely Scientology.
I will strive to present an unbiased discussion on the the topic. However, that seems impossible since all of this will be my opinion, which means it will be a biased account. But I will ignore my Cruise love affair. Which brings me to the ground rules for this debate:
1. The actor is only judged by their body of work, not their off-the-set issues. It might be tough, but you have to judge them as if they only existed in movie world.
2. Animated movies don't count. This is tough because Toy Story 1 and 2 are some of the best movies ever made. But anyone can do voicework-- Wall-E was awesome and a computer voiced the voice.
3. They are only judged on the movies I have seen. I feel I have seen their most important movies so anyways so deal with it.
4. The number of awards won doesn't play a role, otherwise Hanks (4 Oscar nominations for best actor and 2 wins) would beat Cruise (2 Oscar nominations for best actor, 1 for best supporting actor, 0 wins). This is gonna be decided on the streets, no rules. Except for the rules I'm outlining right now.
5. 10 points awarded for the movie/performance, and 5 points each for versatility and the MVP factor (could someone else have stepped into the role and done close to the same job). 20 points total for each movie.
6. I will judge their top 5 movies, in chronological order. In any profession, a man is only judged by their best work. This is true and everyone knows it. I'm not going to even discuss this.
One more note: both of their careers have coincided with exactly the same eras in movies. They both came on to the scene in the early 80s and became stars around the same time. Therefore they have been working within essentially the same cultural zeitgeist. This makes for an even more even-handed comparison. Also, Phillip Seymour Hoffman might be considered the greatest actor ever by the time his career his over. Even his bit parts in Scent of a Woman and Twister are awesome.
Preface: Outside of their top 5, here is their best work. We've got Hanks: A League Of Their Own, Sleepless In Seattle, Apollo 13, You've Got Mail, The Green Mile, Catch Me If You Can, The Terminal, Charlie Wilson's War.
And Cruise: The Color of Money, Cocktail, Rain Man, Days of Thunder, Born on the Fourth of July, A Few Good Men, The Firm, Mission Impossible, Vanilla Sky, Minority Report, The Last Samurai.
A few notes on this. No one else could have done Catch Me If You Can. He has that special quality that allows him to play a fatherly figure in any sort of fashion; it couldn't have worked out better for this movie. Only Hanks could have pulled off the expression he made when he looked at Frank Abagnale as he walked back into the FBI offices in the last scene. Also, Road To Perdition sucked, and so did The Terminal. The last movie out of my top 5 is Apollo 13, in which you could have inserted another actor in that role and it would have been the same.
It was incredibly tough to leave Rain Man, A Few Good Men, and Minority Report out of the top 5. This just speaks to the strength of his resume. And these movies are all over the place. He he has demonstrated his ability to be a big-time action hero with the Mission Impossible series (2 sucked, 3 was better, but all were very entertaining). He even somehow pulled off a Japanese samurai without making an ass of himself. In fact, he was fantastic.
Actually, I'm gonna give Cruise 5 points for these movies, these are too great to let slide.
TOM HANKS
Big
Movie: It's awesome. Really, how much can I say about all these movies, they're all awesome. 9.0/10
Versatility: Hanks was still in his boyish phase, and this allowed him to pull the stuff he did in this movie. Considering all of his later roles were much heavier, this one truly stands out. Great practice for SNL as well. 4.5/5
MVP Factor: With anyone else, this could have been a really stupid comedy, one of those great idea-poor execution films. There is no way the lead actor in a movie like this gets nominated for an academy award today. No freaking way. 4.2/5
Philadelphia
Movie: Gay guy with AIDS, yeah sure, give him an oscar. Great movie, but it doesn't age well. Obviously in 1993, this movie struck a chord. 8.8/10
Versatility: This really has it all. Dying, crying, homosexuality, AIDS. What makes this performance, and therefore the movie great, was the happy attitude he portrayed in stark contrast to the rest of the characters and the movie's themes. 4.8/5
MVP Factor: I think anyone else trying to pull off the happy-even-though-I'm-dying-and-I-still-think-you're-all-good-people look would come off as cheesy. Wait, I can see Tim Robbins doing this. 4.6/5
Forrest Gump
Movie: Pretty much a masterpiece. I'm taking off 0.2 because I get bored when I watch it on TV, it's a little long. 9.8/10
Versatility: I mean, are you serious. 5.0/5
MVP Factor: Maybe Simple Jack could do it. No, no he couldn't. 5.0/5
Saving Private Ryan
Movie: I haven't seen Shakespeare In Love, but I'm gonna say that this movie beating Saving Private Ryan to win the oscar is even more tragic than Armeen Poor winning an NAACP award. 9.9/10
Versatility: The cool and collected father figure. Really his sweet spot for roles, but he does this often. 2.5/5
MVP Factor: Even though he does it often, no one does it better. His back story as a schoolteacher is perfect too. Although, many leading male actors could have taken this: Russell Crowe come to mind as good for this role. 4.2/5
Cast Away
Movie: This was really the ultimate litmus test of an actor's strength. Does he have the ability to hold the viewer's attention by watching him do basically nothing by himself for over an hour? Yes, yes he does. I thought this was just okay at first, but it gets better every time you watch it. 9.2/10
Versatility: He pretty much mashed together all of his Hankisms into this guy, although it was great when he went barbaric. 4.5/5
MVP Factor: Tough to judge, because this movie could have went a variety of ways with this guy. I could see Bruce Willis slowly going insane and fighting invisible henchman with twigs. By the way, this has to be one of the cleverest commercials ever made.
4.4/5
TOM CRUISE
Risky Business
Movie: The hooker is so hot. She is 49 years old and still a 1. 9.5/10
Versatility: I can't believe he played a high schooler. That was 5 years ago for me, that is ridiculous. 4.3/5
MVP Factor: This is basically a young man losing his innocence, so not too hard of a role to play. But the Cruise charm, c'mon. 4.3/5
Top Gun
Movie: This scene pretty much sums it up. How does he move in those jeans?
9.0/10
Versatility: This is like Joel Goodsen all grown up. 2.9/5
MVP Factor: Can anyone else pull of the Tom Cruise cockiness? No, but others could have still played a cocky fighter pilot. But Tom Cruise is Top Gun like Norm McDonald is Dirty Work. 4.6/5
Jerry Maguire
Movie: It's eerie how many similarities there are between Anquan Boldin and Rod Tidwell. Right down to the concussion and demanding a trade. 9.5/10
Versatility: Tom Cruise at his best. If you want to see Tom Cruise happy, sad, angry, desperate, horny, whatever, this is it. 4.6/5
MVP Factor: It pains me to say this, but a lot of actors might have been able to play Jerry Maguire. It's just that Cruise really went overboard with every scene, something a lot of actors wouldn't do. I feel that Cruise's MVP actor is a little different. While Hanks takes roles that many others might not, Cruise takes somewhat ordinary roles and pushes them to another level. 4.3/5
Magnolia
Movie: Not enough people have seen this. It's somewhat long, but it pays off huge in the end. Great cast and maybe the best director around right now, Paul Thomas Anderson, who has done Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood. John C. Reilly was also amazing in this. 9.1/10
Versatility: He plays a dickhead playboy who teaches other men how to pick up chicks. With all his past seemingly wholesome roles, this was a big risk. He won the Golden Globe for best supporting actor for this. 4.6/5
MVP Factor: Once again an ordinary role (anyone could play a sexual deviant), but he brings the Tom Cruise intensity. Although, with such a large cast, he was a vital part of the film. 3.0/5
Collateral
Movie: Bad ass. 9.1/10
Versatility: Tom Cruise as the bad guy, something Hanks has never done. He was ice cold. I always waited for him to bust into a huge grin and give a big Tom Cruise bear hug and laugh. Luckily, if he broke character, Michael Mann chose not too include it. 4.9/5
MVP Factor: Carries the film. But once again, the role is technically "Bad Guy Hitman with no conscience." But this was one role where you actually forgot Tom Cruise was playing the bad guy. 4.2/5
I swear I haven't added up these numbers yet so...
Final Score:
Hanks 90.4
Cruise 87.9
However, with the 5 points awarded for work outside the top 5, Cruise ends up with 92.9. This seems just about right. Hanks is stronger at the top, but Cruise is stronger over his entire body of work.
