Tom Cruise’s Only Decade With No Bad Movies

Tom Cruise has a knack for delivering great movies. His breakthrough in the 1980s put him at the center of huge hits like Top Gun and Rain Man, while the 1990s gave him classics with Mission: Impossible, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, and Magnolia. He’s continued to make excellent films in more recent years through the Top Gun and Mission: Impossible franchises primarily.

There is certainly more good than bad in the actor’s filmography. Yet, even a star of Cruise’s caliber is prone to misses. 2017 was the most recent reminder of this with The Mummy‘s poor reception. As the 2020s continue, he’ll look to avoid any major disappointments. But there is already one decade where Cruise avoided making any truly bad films.

The 2000s Is Tom Cruise’s Only Decade With Zero Bad Movies

Cruise had a tremendous run during the 2000s, one that brought him some of his biggest and most beloved hits. This is the era where he teamed up with Steven Spielberg twice to make Minority Report and War of the Worlds. He also made a rare villain turn for Michael Mann in the masterful thriller Collateral. Cruise shocked everyone again with his hilarious Tropic Thunder supporting role.

Those four movies are universally well-liked. The 2000s also brought him some films that are less beloved, like the action war film The Last Samurai and the WWII thriller Valkyrie. Cruise also returned for Mission: Impossible II and Mission: Impossible III during this decade and headlined Cameron Crowe’s Vanilla Sky. His only other major role came with Robert Redford’s drama Lions for Lambs.

It’s with these six movies that Cruise’s 2000s run is most prone to disagreements about the decade having no bad movies for him. The general response to all six was mixed at best, and more negative-leaning for some. However, I’d defend all of them as being solid, enjoyable films.

Vanilla Sky has a much worse reputation than it deserves. Crowe and Cruise’s reunion after Jerry Maguire delivers another emotionally charged story with a much grander sci-fi scope. The results are truly spellbinding. The star’s lead performance and the ambitious third act make Vanilla Sky stand out as one of Cruise’s best movies of the decade (and of his career) rather than a bad one.

John Woo’s style radically changed Mission: Impossible II, but the slow-motion action and playfulness make it all the more entertaining. And when J.J. Abrams revived the series years later with Mission: Impossible III, the way he increased the spectacle, improved the supporting cast, and created the franchise’s best villain more than makes up for any misgivings (like the mystery box element of the Rabbit’s Foot).

The Last Samurai, Valkyrie, and Lions for Lambs certainly aren’t perfect, but they are not disasters, either. The first has dazzling action set pieces, an excellent Ken Watanabe performance, and an overall epic quality to it. The second and third work at the bare minimum thanks to the sum of their parts, even if they had the potential to be much greater. The issues with each are easier to forgive than some of the actor’s other misses.

That’s why I stand by proclaiming the 2000s as Tom Cruise‘s only decade without any bad movies. The 1980s were responsible for Cocktail, Legend, and others as he got his start. The 1990s included disappointments with Far and Away and Days of Thunder. And the 2010s were uneven with The Mummy, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, and Rock of Ages.

If Vanilla Sky, a Mission: Impossible sequel, or genre-varying war movies are as bad as it got for him in the 2000s, that’s pretty impressive.