Joss Whedon, we really hardly knew ye

There is something about celebrity break-ups that makes people choose up sides, despite the fact that virtually everything we know about the dirt is being spoon fed by press agents.  I don’t know who is right in the Woody Allen/Mia Farrow brouhaha; all I know is he used to make great movies and she wanted to adopt about 150 kids, so which was more emotionally stable?  People say Allen seduced his step daughter, but he and Farrow were never married, and in fact didn’t even live together, so there was no taboo relationship between him and Soon-yi Previn.  I’ll grant the ick factor, but that’s about it.

The past two days have been filled with the revelation that sometimes-genius writer and well-known feminist Joss Whedon has been accused of serial infidelity by his ex-wife, Kai Cole.  They were divorced in 2012 but this week Cole posted a blog addressing Whedon's infidelities.  This led one commentator to declare that given his actions, Whedon should forfeit his title as "feminist."

I noticed something after the huge success of The Avengers, a stupendous triumph for Whedon after helming a low rated TV series (Buffy), a short-lived series (Firefly), and a low-budget internet sensation (Dr. Horrible’s Sing a Long Blog); fans of Whedon took his accomplishment personally.  Whedon has a unique relationship with his (dare I call us) followers, one that makes us think of him maybe not as a friend, but someone who knows us and writes material directed to us personally.  That makes these revelations difficult to hear, but truth will out.

As disappointed as I am to hear of Whedon’s alleged philandering, even taking it at face value I don’t think that it makes Whedon a hypocrite for claiming to be a feminist.  The commentary by Laura Browning at AV Club, linked to above, mocks Whedon’s claim that he was surrounded by “beautiful, needy, aggressive young women” by saying those are the words of a predator.  But is it “feminist” to apply the term “victim” to the women Whedon strayed with, if any?  Were these women not adults, capable of making their own choices?  Isn’t claiming they were powerless against Whedon taking away their, um power?  We’re not talking about what Whedon is, we’re talking about who these women were, and calling them victims just because they are female seems demeaning.

Once again, we don’t know any specifics.  There was another well-known TV science fiction producer who had a well-documented libido, Gene Roddenberry of Star Trek.  For years he accused NBC of demanding that Majel Barret’s character be eliminated after the pilot episode because of their sexism; I’ve read that the real reason was that NBC executives knew that Roddenberry was cheating on his wife with Barret and they didn’t want him putting his mistress on the NBC payroll.  I’ve also read he had a casting couch and that virtually all of the actresses on the show were on it (I’ve always assumed this referred to the extras and not guest stars like Joan Collins and Diana Muldaur). 

If Whedon had a similar casting couch, that’s an indefensible abuse of his power.  If, as Whedon seems to be saying, young women threw themselves at him and he failed to get out of the way, that’s another matter.  Roddenberry often linked his views on male-female equality with a rather carefree approach to sexual activity; he once said he wanted the crew of the Enterprise to be 50-50 male female but NBC balked as it would look like something was going on, and they compromised on a 2/3 male, 1/3 female combination.  Roddenberry said he assumed that if the 1/3 of crew were relative healthy young women, they could handle the 2/3 who were men.

Or maybe Whedon is claiming the Krusty the Clown defense; when Bart Simpson asked Krusty why he endorsed inferior products, Krusty sobbed and said, “They drove a dump truck of money up to my house; I’m not made of stone!”  Again, not great, but not necessarily anti-feminist as it goes to Whedon’s weaknesses, not the strength of the fairer sex (kidding).

I can’t even start to comment on Browning’s claim that women of color object to his portrayal of the First Slayer as a Black woman whose status as a vampire-slayer was forced upon her by white men.  In the context of the show, the portrayal was seen as akin to rape and evidence of the weakness of men who can’t fight evil themselves but have to conscript a young woman to do their dirty work.  I’m not a big fan of season 7 of Buffy, but even I got how that plotline reinforced the concept of The Slayer was one of female empowerment.

Whedon famously said that with Buffy he intended to create an icon.  That’s amazing.  Most people in the entertainment industry just want to make a paycheck, not create an enduring symbol.  Maybe the split with Cole explains his drop in production; since The Age of Ultron (in my opinion easily the worst thing he’s ever written/directed) two years ago he’s hasn’t had anything in the pipeline.  At the risk of sounding selfish, I hope he gets back to work soon and comes out with that Dr. Horrible sequel he’s been promising for years.  There are lots of artists whose personal life I may disapprove of, but I still admire their art.

Whither the baseball trade deadline

Whither the trade deadline

In case you missed it, the baseball trade deadline just passed. You couldn’t have missed it if you paid any attention to the sports pages, as the number of transactions dizzied the mind.  If nothing else, the trade deadline always reminds me of the folly of betting on a World Series winner in April; even if you pick the team with the best pre-August record, trades made at the end of July can fundamentally revamp the power distribution in baseball.

The biggest transaction was all-star pitcher Yu Darvish going from the Rangers to the Dodgers, who had the best record in baseball before they acquired to best pitcher on the trading block.  The move represents so wisdom on behalf of the Rangers, who despite having a record below .500 are not that far out of the second wild card spot.  That second wild card spot tempts a lot of teams with poor records into think that if they can just put together a good month, they can make the post-season and then it is anybody’s ball game.  But the fact is that if you have a losing record on August 1^st, your team just isn’t that good.  

The trade signals that the Dodgers are in win-now mode.  The Dodgers haven’t been to a World Series since 1988, which isn’t exactly Cub-like in its futility but it is getting there.  Great starting pitching is essential for post-season success, and in prior years the Dodger formula was Clayton Kershaw and pray for three days of rain.  Picking up another ace, especially with Kershaw’s back issues, means the Dodgers mean business.

A team that doesn’t mean business is the Oakland A’s, who traded ace Sonny Gray to a little team I like to call the Yankees.  A few years ago, the A’s traded Josh Donaldson to the Blue Jays and the next season he won the MVP award and led the Jays to the post-season.  Let’s face it, with the A’s 23 games out of first place and having one of the worst records in MLB, the only way an A’s player will reach the post-season is through a trade to a contender.  They traded Grey for prospects, and once those prospects show any signs of talent they’ll be traded off for more prospects, and so on and so on ad infinitem.

The trade deadline is like the inverse of the draft, where the rich get richer and the poor get prospects.  I don’t know the history, but I would guess that it was never intended to be such a big deal.  It was probably decided that it would be really unfair for a team headed for the World Series (before all these layers of playoffs) to pick up a bunch of superstars the week before the series started, like Mr. Burns hiring nine ringers for his softball team in the classic Simpsons episode Homer at the Bat.  But you couldn’t ban making trades, so any late season trades just wouldn’t be able to play in the post season, and the line was drawn at about the 2/3 point in the season.

This wasn’t a big deal before free agency, because you didn’t just acquire a player for the season but forever.  But once the players achieved free agency, the trade deadline became a key date when teams with aspirations could load up on stars with expiring contracts peddled by non-contenders who didn’t want to “lose the player and get nothing in return.”  I’ve said before, I despise that phrase because it presumes that teams are entitled to own players forever, and they aren’t.  You get the star for as long as you have him signed for, no more.  If the player plays out his contract then goes, you didn’t “get nothing in return” as you got his services until the end of the contract.

And besides, you never get equal value.  If Yu Darvish’s contract expires in two months and you trade him, you don’t get Yu Darvish in return but a couple of guys who may be close to as good in a few years, maybe.  Which would get your fans to come to the ballpark, watching Yu Darvish in his last five starts before he leaves or calling up some guy from AAA take a shot against major league hitters?  Of course, if the team is too anxious to make the deal, maybe you can get more value than you should.

The bottom line is, no team ever won the World Series in April.  Or on July 31^st.

Roger is the GOAT; case closed

Sports media live on debate.  Did the Warriors win or did the Cavs choke (answer: Warriors won)?  Who’s better, Mike Trout or Miguel Cabrera (answer: Trout, by a wide margin)?  Who would win if the 1927 Yankees played the 1998 Yankees (according to the TV show Sports Night, the 1927 Yankees would probably be distracted by all the jets flying overhead). 

Who is the greatest men’s tennis player of all time?  The answer is obviously John McEnroe.  What, that answer isn’t obvious?  What about Sampras, Borg, Federer and Nadal?  All great players, but Mac is a top ten singles player who is arguably the greatest doubles player of all time.  Mac has 77 singles titles and 78 doubles titles, a total of 155, which is a lot more titles than those other guys who eschewed doubles like Roger Federer who only has 101 singles and doubles titles.

So, let us turn to the question of who is the greatest men’s singles player of all time.  I attempted to answer this for women's tennis, but the results were difficult to interpret; Serena seems dominant, but Steffi Graf won more majors faster against better opponents, and Martina Navratilova was winning major doubles titles when she was 50.   It’s a little clearer for the men, as the game has evolved linearly and we can focus on recent champions.  Yes, maybe the answer is Rod Laver but since he played with wooden rackets he might as well have been hitting the ball with the femur of a brontosaurus.

The answer boils down to Roger Federer versus Rafael Nadal.  Roger has more major titles, 19 and counting.  But Nadal enjoys a 23-14 edge in head to head match-ups, plus he had more success at a younger age.  Then he broke down and Federer, instead of gently going into that good night, resurrected himself and is now back on top at age 35.

I think the answer is Fed.  I don’t care if Nadal wins the next 5 French Opens and passes Federer with 20 majors, and I don’t care about their head-to-head.  The head-to-head is easily explained by two factors; first, Nadal is four years younger than Roger, so naturally he should have an edge as they both approach their prime and then move beyond it.  Would it have proven anything if Pete Sampras had beaten a 60 year old Rod Laver in 1998? 

Secondly, Nadal is a clay court specialist who is also kind of good on other surfaces.  His edge over Federer on clay is 13-2, so if you disregard clay his record against Federer is 10-12.

This is one time when I want to just disregard the numbers and say Roger Federer is the best because he just is.  Nadal has a crashing, bruising style of play that is effective, but destructive to his body. Federer developed a way of playing that is not only very, very effective, but keeps him from being injured.  He seems to hover a quarter inch above the court.  It is hard to play tennis well, even harder to play tennis well and avoid injuries.

Also, Federer has been able to evolve his game more than any player ever.  He came up and was number one when Nadal arrived and challenged him.  Faced with a younger rival and needed to shorten points, Federer developed a big serve, so big that he is now third all-time in career aces and got his 10,000^th ace at Wimbledon this year.

A few years went by and he realized he needed another weapon to stay on top, so he invented SABR, the Sneak Attack By Roger, where he would suddenly run up and take an opponent’s second serve as a half volley.  Since the invention of the backhand, who else has invented a new tennis technique?

But time went on and Roger’s body started to fail him.  So, he took 6 months off, and instead of rust he came back refreshed and won the Aussie Open. Then he skipped the clay court season and came to Wimbledon rested, with the result that he became the oldest winner of the event by four years, AND didn’t drop a set.

Numbers don’t begin to encompass all the reasons why Roger Federer is the greatest men’s singles player of all time.  Nadal might catch his career majors total by continuing to dominate at the French Open, but again, Nadal is the only the greatest clay court singles tennis player of all time.  When looking at the big picture (and leaving out doubles) Nadal can never really catch up with Roger for the title of Greatest Of All Time (in men’s singles).

The 2017 Emmy Nominations--Who cares?

I could do a long, thoughtful analysis f the recently announced nominees for the Primetime Emmy awards, but frankly who cares?  The number of series available for nomination now that we have broadcast networks, basic cable networks, premium cable networks, streaming services and digital platforms (for god sakes, Facebook and Snapchat got a nomination!) that the whole thing is ridiculous.  Instead of throwing everyone into a big hopper, maybe we should go back to when only the broadcast networks competed for Emmies.  Cable shows competed for Cable Ace Awards. We could invent new awards for Netflix and Hulu to fight over.  It would make more sense that considering there are now over 1,400 series on TV (and that number is 18 months old).

Before I start griping, a couple of shout outs.  I am pleased that Stranger Things got a Best Drama Nomination, and that Millie Bobbie Brown snagged a Supporting Actress nod.  In a time when the category of Best Drama has gotten increasingly pompous, with only “serious dramas” being considered, it is nice that a fun little science fiction-ish show made the final cut.  Shows like the old 60’s series Mission Impossible used to win Best Drama, but lately it’s been all The Sopranos, Mad Men and Breaking Bad type heavy dramas.  Good for Stranger things, although why it is a series and not a limited run series I don’t understand; yes, a second season is planned, but there were three seasons of Fargo and it’s a limited series.  Oh, and the actress who played Barb got a nomination; how wild is that?

I am also thrilled that Ellie Kemper FINALLY got a nomination for Best Actress for Unbreakable Kimie Schmidt.  How they nominated the show for Best Comedy and failed to nominate her makes no sense.  Her performance is so central to the success of that show, you can’t appreciate the show without appreciating her.

I was also pleased, but not surprised, that Ewen McGregor was nominated for his astonishing work on Fargo.  This season’s version seemed like a let down from the first two, but McGregor and fellow co-stars Carrie Coon and David Thewlis all were recognized.  Playing twin brothers is difficult, but playing non-identical brothers must be even harder.

Now for the griping.  For the love of all that is good and holy, can someone explain to me why the show with the most primetime Emmy nominations is Saturday Night Live, a show that isn’t even in prime time.  In fact, the actors are called the “not ready for prime-time platers.”  There are six nominees in the best supporting actress in a comedy category, and half of them are from SNL.  These are performers who do not create a character week-in and week-out, do not do consistent character work, and just do skits in a free form variety show; they should not be confused with REAL actors who attempt to create REAL characters that are supposedly based on some semblance of reality. The show also takes up 5 nominees in the guest actor/actress categories.  With so few nominations and so many shows, a show that is not in prime time (and hasn’t been consistently funny in 35 years) shouldn’t be hogging so many slots.

Possibly the single greatest acting performance I saw last season was Ted Danson’s brilliant turn around in the final episode of The Good Place, when the seemingly feckless Michael was revealed to be (spoilers!) the architect of the scheme to put Kristen Bell’s character through perpetual torment.  Maybe the academy has gotten so used to Danson being so good for so long that him being brilliant isn’t enough.  Or maybe too few people saw the show, or got the context of his performance within the show.  Whatever, he should have won the Emmy for Supporting Actor in a Comedy.

And any season in which Andre Braugher isn’t nominated for Brooklyn Nine-Nine is a travesty. 

Ok, Mr. Robot’s second season wasn’t as good as its first (how could it have been?) but no love for last year’s winner, Rami Malik?  Is it because his performance is so one note, because he had several episodes where the usual Elliott persona was dropped and he showed real range. 

And The Simpsons was nominated for Best Animated Series.  Remember when the show was good, twenty years ago?  And people complain that Modern Family gets nominated based on reputation.

That’s it, I’m out of bile.  It’s just impossible.  It’s like the debate between the critics at Hollywood Reporter who argue whether the answer is putting ten nominees in every category, or just getting the Academy to not nominate shows that have passed their sell-by date (House of Cards, Modern family, The Simpsons).  There is no answer.  There are too many shows, and the categories are too blurry.  Series or Limited Series?  Drama, Comedy or Dramedy? 

As the great sage (and Nobel Lauriat) Bob Dylan once said in an Oscar winning song, I used to care but things have changed.  I think I will stop worrying about the Emmy Awards.  Maybe I’ll start taking the ESPYs seriously.

There is No Big Four in Men's Tennis!

This is going to be a rant about tennis, and unfortunately Andy Murray is on the receiving end of two separate rants.

First of all, I am sick and tired of ESPN sticking to their nomenclature that there is a “Big Four” in men’s tennis, those being Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Andy Murray.  The problem is that there is no “Big Four,” there is a Big Three and everyone else.

The definitive piece on this was written by the FiveThirtyEight website four years ago.  Of course things have changed since then, Andy Murray has now won three majors, not two.  So, does that make him one of the four?

Well, the Big Three all have double digit wins in majors, and Murray . . . doesn’t.  He has three, which last time I checked (and I do have a graduate degree in mathematics) is not anywhere close to ten.  So when Murray has won 7 more majors, let me know and we can talk about a Big Four. 

The other problem is that Murray isn’t alone in 4^th place among active men’s tennis major winners.  Stan “The Man” Warwinka also has three major titles, having won the 2014 Aussie Open, the 2015 French Open, and the 2016 US Open.  Since Murray has won Wimbledon twice and one US Open, that also makes Stan closer to a career Grand Slam than Murray.  So why is Warwinka left out of the Big Five?

This is a classic example of making a prediction and then molding the facts to fit the prediction.  Murray was supposed to be the next challenger to the Big Three, and he is currently ranked number one, but he never developed into a consistent thorn in the side of the Big Three as far as Winning majors.  But the sports cognoscente insist on shoehorning Murray into a mythical Big Four that doesn’t actually exist. 

My second complaint is the attempt to rechristen the section of Wimbledon known as Henman Hill into Mount Murray or Murray Mound.  No, no, no!  I realize that Andy Murray is the first Brit to win Wimbledon in ages (assuming you consider a Scot to be a member of the British empire, which is how the vote went but there was some dissent).  But don’t do a disservice to Tim Henman by taking his name off of a key part of Wimbledon.

Why?  Because Henman was never good enough to win Wimbledon.  He was the top British men’s player at the time, but he wasn’t in the same league as Pete Sampras, who was dominating at the time.  Despite that, every year Tim Henman put his nation on his back and he usually went one round further than he had any right to at Wimbledon.  He made it to the Wimbledon semi-finals four times, and the quarter finals another four times.  Not bad for a guy whose year-end ranking during that time was between 8 to 11.  Overall, he had five wins against top ten players at Wimbledon.

So, let’s not forget Tim Henman’s noble efforts at Wimbledon by taking away Henman Hill.  Sure, he was awarded an Order of the British Empire in 2004, but remaining at fixture at his country’s biggest tennis event is a more fitting tribute.

Fargo Season 3 (spoilers)

Let’s face it, the motivation of most of the people who create “entertainment” is just to pick up a paycheck.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it is the main reason why I show up for work every day.  Of course, there are some people whose motivation is to actually entertain people.  It is an unusual artist like Noah Hawley whose desire is to both entertain and raise philosophical posers, such as is it true that the future is determined but the past is uncertain?

Fargo just wrapped up its third and possibly final season.  Noah Hawley has other things on his plate, like the entertaining but maddeningly obtuse Legion, and frankly if he wants to call it a day after three suburb seasons of television more power to him.  In an industry where everyone wants their show to go on forever, it is nice to see someone decide not to churn out another season of pap just because someone will pay them handsomely to do it.

When I heard there was going to be a TV series based on Fargo, but without the Coen Brothers’ active involvement, I thought it was the silliest idea I’d ever heard.  How could anyone, especially someone not named Coen, recreate the special intersection of greed, fate, and, well, general pinheadery that made Fargo one of the most special films of the past few decades?  But season one demonstrated that Noah Hawley couple not only capture the Coens’ unique world view, but also create memorable, quixotic characters and get rich performances out of a cast of actors both familiar and brand new.  Season 2 was almost as good, and with season 3 there was another small diminution in the result.  It is still one of the best shows on TV, but as I said about Twin Peaks, you can only be non-linear for so long until non-linear becomes linear.

I guess my main criticism of season 3 is that the main bad guy, VM Varga (David Thewlis) is a far cry from the spectacular Lorne Malvo (Billy Bob Thorton) in season one or Mike Milligan (Bokeem Woodbine) in season 2.  Varga is despicable, but the character is overwritten and frankly not credible.  It’s a fine line, and Thewlis is a good enough actor to sell it, but in the end, no one who speaks as floridly as Varga would last five minutes in the evil business.

Season 3 did see the acting you expect to find in Fargo, most notably Ewen McGregor’s brilliant turn as non-identical brothers Ray and Emmit Stussey.  Playing identical brothers is difficult, but playing brothers so physically distinct must have been even harder.  Then there is the problem of playing opposite yourself in many scenes, where you have to play one side of the conversation and then take off your make-up, put on the other character’s make-up, and do it over from the other side. 

McGergor was ably assisted by Carrie Coon in the wise Minnesota female police officer role, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a morally dubious woman who did have a code, and Michael Stuhlbarg as Emmit Stussey’s partner.  All did fabulous work, week in and week out.

I did not care for the police chief Moe Dimmick, played by Shea Whigham.  Hawley has had bad bosses before, but they had some redeeming quality.  Bob Odekirk’s character in season 2 seemed like a sexist jerk, but then he sponsored an African student studying in America.  Dimmick is just a dimwit; as Roger Ebert said about a similar character in the movie Die Hard, he exists only to be wrong.  But he’s a minor character and it’s a minor quibble.

Let’s get back to the philosophical point being made by Hawley.  Season 3 began with a surreal exchange in soviet Russia, where an innocent man is being interrogated by a soviet official.  It is obviously a case of mistaken identity, but the official points out that the state can’t make a mistake, so the man must be guilty.  This scene is bookended with the final scene, where Varga tells police office (now Homeland Security agent) Gloria Burgle that what happened in Minnesota in 2010-11 is up for interpretation, but his future is certain, and it does not include him eating mashed potatoes at Riker’s Island.  Someone other than him was convicted of the murders that occurred; therefore, he must be innocent.  Official imprimatur becomes reality.  We know he’s wrong, but the events of the show make a good case.

It’s all great, but there is a sense that we are reaching diminishing returns here.  As much as I’ve enjoyed three seasons of Fargo the Series, I’d rather Hawley stop a year too early than a year too late.  Fargo is too great of a motion picture to have its reputation sullied by something as mundane as mediocre television.

What happened to Tom Cruise's career?

What an age we live in!  I remember when a movie gross of $100 million for a film’s entire run was something very few producers could even dream of, and now a film can gross $32 on its opening weekend and be called a flop.

Such is the fate of The Mummy, Universal’s inauspicious beginning to what it is calling its “Dark Universe” series if films.  The movie was envisioned as a blockbuster tentpole feature, but it scored a pathetic 17% at Rotten Tomatoes and its commercials made it look like a generic action film, and an uninspired one at that.

The Mummy continues the late career woes of Tom Cruise, whose career prior to 2007 was a master class in managing a movie career.  It is incredibly difficult for actors to make good choices in picking film roles, as evidenced by those stories of George Raft turning down the lead in The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca and ending up playing a parody of himself in Some Like it Hot.  Cruise has bobbed and weaved, mostly paying action heroes but unafraid to play bad guys (Collateral), unsympathetic characters (Magnolia, for which he got an Oscar nomination and should have won), small roles (his hilarious extended cameo in Tropic Thunder) and even a Nazi (Valkyrie). 

But Cruise seems to have lost his mojo, as Austin Powers would say.  Since 2007, not counting the increasingly tired entries in the Mission Impossible series, he has had a string of . . . not flops, but not successes.  Other than MI:4 and MI:5 the only film he starred in with a Rotten Tomatoes rating of over 65% was Edge of Tomorrow (original title Live Die Repeat), a commercial flop that has an inexplicable Rotten Tomato rating of 91%.  The critical response to his other films has ranged from tepid (Valkyrie at 62%, Oblivion at 53%) to disastrous (37% for Jack Reacher 2, 41% for Rock of Ages).  His only film to cross the $100 million threshold according to RT (again, excepting the Mission Impossible films) is Tropic Thunder, in which he had an extended cameo under a ton of latex make-up, and starred Ben Stiller and got an Oscar nomination for Robert Downey Jr. 

Other lowlights include the first Jack Reacher film, which I was shocked to see had a 62% rating (I thought it sucked), and 52% for Knight and Day, which I thought was wildly underappreciated.  For anyone else this would be a good run, but for a star of Cruise’s magnitude it is underwhelming.

Let me circle back a second to talk about Jack Reacher, a project that demonstrates Cruise’s hubris.  The title character is described in the course material as a mountain of muscle, befitting the casting of Vin Diesel or Dwayne Johnson.  Tom Cruise is in impressive shape for a guy in his late 50’s, but his diminutive stature made it an epic miscast that Cruise thought he could overcome by sheer star power.  There is a line where the police ask a motel clerk if there is anyone staying at the motel who could kill a woman with one punch, and the clerk names Jack Reacher, adding “Just look at him.”  Again, Cruise is impressively buff, but he doesn’t look like he has a killer right hook.  If you cast an actor like Cruise in the role, you have to change that line, unless Cruise’s ego made it stay.

Cruise’s last big non-series hit film was 2005’s War of the Worlds, the Stephen Spielberg directed film that managed to be inferior to the 1953 version made with vastly inferior technology.  Early in his career (1983-89) he had a string of films in the 90% range, like Risky Business (96%), Rain Man (90%), and Born on the Fourth of July (90%). Okay, during that period he also made Legend (48%), Top Gun (56%, but a huge commercial hit), and Cocktail (an astonishing score of 5%), but as long as he hit the occasional home run you could dismiss the misses as an actor taking chances.

I still maintain this—Tom Cruise will win an Oscar one day.  He co-starred when Dustin Hoffman won for Rain Man, and he helped Paul Newman win for The Color of Money.  He has made a lot of people in Hollywood a lot of money, and he is a superb actor.  At some point he will make a critically acclaimed film and, unless he gets trumped by someone doing a celebrity impersonation (as happened to Michael Keaton getting edged out by Eddie Redmayne) he will take home an Academy Award.

What his choices over the past ten years tell me is that he is still willing to take risks, but he is no longer able to hit the occasional home run.  His films do okay at the domestic box office, but they still do great business overseas so he’ll keep getting work.  My suggestion would be to maybe stay away from the sci-fi scripts, as the audience for those films are too young to remember that Tom Cruise is a film icon.

Cruise, despite his movie star good looks, is an extremely talented actor; his work in Magnolia is one of the best performances I’ve ever seen.  He has the same capacity as Cary Grant, who made light comedy appear so effortless you never appreciated how much work he put into it.  The question isn’t about his talent as an actor; it is about his ability to choose suitable film roles.