Michael Phillips: In a world of easily manipulated images, can movies retain their magic?
I love getting faked out by the movies.
I love believing the impossible, if only for a moment. Moviewise, I live for a lot of things; one of them, by which I was floored at the age 5, was Buster Keaton's 'Cops' (1922) and his startling genius as a physical and comic presence. Half the time, at that age, I wasn't sure if what I was watching was actually happening. That's how it is with beautiful illusions, created from real risks that become the audience's reward.
When the right people collaborate on the right movie, it sometimes happens: a fresh combination of legitimately dangerous stunt work and crafty but not frantic editing, along with the inevitable layer of digital effects elements. What do you get? Honest fakery. The best kind. The kind that elicits a single, astonished, delighted response in the mind of the beholder:
Can I believe what I just saw?
Across eight 'Mission: Impossible' movies, including the one now in theaters, Tom Cruise has been doing the damnedest stunts for nearly 30 years to provoke that response. Action movies can make anybody do anything on screen. Cruise doesn't do it alone; the digital effects teams stay pretty busy on the 'M:I' franchise. Cruise is now 62, and denying it with every maniacal sprint down some faraway city's waterfront boulevard. He knows that dangling, at high speed and altitude, from various parts of an antagonist's biplane in 'Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning' is a good, old-fashioned selling point, in an era crowded with deceptions.
In 'Final Reckoning' we don't see the harnesses and cables ensuring that stunt's relative safety. Those implements have been digitally erased, a visual filmmaking practice now as common as the common cold. But there he is, the secret agent ascending and descending, with someone trying to kill him. Tom Cruise, doing something most of us wouldn't.
Lately, though, the movie industry's most sought-after audience response — can you believe what we just saw? — lands differently than it did a few years ago. We mutter that question more darkly now, with troubling regularity. And it's not when we're at the movies.
The real world lies to us visually all the time. An onslaught of photographs and videos are presented as verified visual evidence without the verification part. It happens everywhere around the world, every day. And I wonder if it's altering, and corroding, the bargain we make with the movies we see.
Can honest fakery in the name of film escapism compete with the other kinds of fakery permeating our visual lives?
'It's an interesting question,' says University of California-Berkeley computer science professor Hany Farid, a specialist in digital forensics and manipulated media detection. 'It was easier to separate the movies from real life in the analog days, before digital. Now we live in a world where everything we see and hear can be manipulated.'
The real-world stakes are high, Farid warns, because so much evidence in courts of law rests on the truthfulness of visual evidence presented. He says he's been asked to verify a dizzying number of photos for a variety of purposes. The questions never end: 'Is this image really from Gaza? Is this footage from Ukraine real? Is the image Donald Trump holds up on TV real, or manipulated for political purposes?'
Farid's referring there to the alleged and quickly debunked veracity of the photo the president held up on camera during his March 2025 ABC News interview with Terry Moran. In the photo, Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported to an El Salvadoran prison, is shown as having 'MS-13' gang-signifying tattoos on his hand. The image, widely cited as having been altered, doesn't qualify as a deepfake, Farid says. 'It's not even a shallow-fake.'
Manipulated images and audio have been with us as long as technology has made those images and sounds possible. Not long ago, manipulated falsehood and verifiable visual truth were a little easier to parse.
'When we went to the movies,' Farid says, 'we knew it wasn't real. The world was bifurcated: There were movies, which were entertainment, and there was reality, and they were different. What's happened is that they've started to bleed into each other. Our ground, our sense of reality, is not stable anymore.'
Part of that is artificial intelligence, 'no question,' says Farid. 'Generative AI is not just people creating images that didn't exist or aren't what they're pretending to be. They accumulate to the point where we're living in a world in which everything is suspect. Trust is shaken, if not gone.'
And here's the blurred line concerning the movies and real life, Farid says. Earlier, 'when we viewed images and video, or listened to audio, we thought they were real and generally we were right. And when we went to the movies, we knew the opposite: that they weren't real. Reality and entertainment — two different worlds. Now, though, they're bleeding into each other. The ground is not stable anymore.'
That, in Farid's view, has a lot to do with contemporary American politics and a climate of strategic mistrust created by those in power. 'The outright lying,' he says, is 'dangerous for democracy and for society. And it makes the idea of believing in movies sort of weird.'
Our entertainment can't get enough of AI as a villain right now. On HBO, we have 'Mountainhead' with its Muskian creator of next-generation deepfake software too good to pass up, or slow down. Meantime, the plot of the new 'Mission: Impossible' hinges on AI so fearsome and ambitious, the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Though, for some of us, seeing Ethan Hunt dangle from a biplane, however rickety the narrative excuses for that to happen, is more fun.
So we turn, still, to the movies for honest fakery we can trust. But these are strange days. As Farid puts it: 'You sit in the theater, you immerse yourself in the fantasy. But so much of our real world feels like that now — a fantasy.'
Maybe it's time to retire the phrase 'seeing is believing.'
———
(Michael Phillips is the Chicago Tribune film critic.)
———
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
3 hours ago
Tom Cruise lands in Guinness Book of World Records for movie stunt
Actor Tom Cruise has set a record for burning parachute jumps for his new movie, "Mission: Impossible The Final Reckoning."
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Ballerina' Director Len Wiseman Talks Scrapped ‘John Wick 3' Connections and the Truth About Additional Photography
On the 2006 set of Live Free or Die Hard, Len Wiseman directed the demise of an uncredited FBI agent played by then-stuntman Chad Stahelski. 13 years later, Wiseman met Stahelski for dinner so he could pitch the stunty turned John Wick co-creator his take on the franchise's first sidequel known as Ballerina. After sharing a meal together, Stahelski, who's now helmed four chapters involving Keanu Reeves' taciturn assassin, quickly endorsed Wiseman's hiring to Lionsgate and producing partner, Thunder Road. The John Wick brain trust ultimately made the right call, as Wiseman's actioner starring Ana de Armas now boasts his strongest reviews since Die Hard 4, including a rave from The Hollywood Reporter. He also received a kind word from one Tom Cruise after the star gushed about the film on a Mission: Impossible — The Final Reckoning red carpet. More from The Hollywood Reporter 'John Wick' Boss Chad Stahelski Gets Candid About Franchise: "My Process Is F***ed" 'From the World of John Wick: Ballerina' Review: Ana de Armas Slays in a Hard-Charging Spinoff That Makes for a Mindless Summer Treat Keanu Reeves Applauds Ana de Armas' "Joy for the Action" as She Joins 'John Wick' Universe 'It was wonderful. He reached out to me as well, and he's very kind. I love his energy of supporting other people's work. I think we need more of that, quite honestly,' Wiseman tells THR in support of Ballerina's June 6 theatrical release. In October 2024, THR spoke to Stahelski for the 10th anniversary of John Wick (2014) before he eventually addressed the online chatter surrounding Ballerina's rumored creative overhaul. The franchise shepherd was well aware and visibly annoyed by the Internet's claims that he conducted several months of 'reshoots,' ultimately rejecting such notions by detailing the two weeks' worth of additional photography he oversaw with Wiseman. He noted that Wiseman's film did not have anywhere near the time or money of the recent John Wick films, and that he ran out of runway (and proper weather) to capture the entirety of Shay Hatten's script. (Hatten wrote the original Ballerina script on spec before it was purchased by Lionsgate and retrofitted for the Wick world.) Wiseman is now raising the same points about resources, something the studio was willing to furnish upon seeing an early version of Ballerina and knowing that they were on the right track. Understandably, the online narrative bothered the director as well. '[Chad and I] were both frustrated about it. It's a really frustrating thing [to hear such claims], and it happens more today than it did back in the day. There was additional shooting because the studio loved the movie,' Wiseman clarifies. 'We had to take out some scenes from the script originally because we just didn't have the resources or the schedule. So it was an exciting opportunity to go back and add more to the film. But when the press hears about that and the reports become whatever they are, it always has a negative connotation.' One particular sequence that was scripted but never filmed during principal photography due to budget limitations is the extended opening in which young Eve Macarro (Victoria Comte) has to bear witness to her father's death at the hands of the Chancellor (Gabriel Byrne) and his cult that serves as the collective villain of the story. Essentially, Eve needed her visible source of vengeance à la John Wick's murder of John's cherished puppy, Daisy, which was a posthumous gift from his late wife. 'It was in the script, but we just didn't have the time and the schedule and everything needed to do that,' Wiseman says. 'So that was one of the scenes that we went back to do, and I was absolutely thrilled that the studio was so supportive of us going back to get what we wanted.' The newly orphaned Eve is then mysteriously recruited by franchise mainstay Winston Scott (Ian McShane), the owner of New York City's assassin hotel, The Continental. He introduces Eve to Anjelica Huston's the Director, who reprises her role from John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum. Fueled by pain, Eve decides to join the Director's crime syndicate, Ruska Roma, that doubles as a New York City ballet company. John Wick himself was also raised by the Director, and after a 12-year time jump, grown-up Eve encounters the man they call the 'Baba Yaga' during his desperate return home in Chapter 3. Wiseman went to great lengths to not only extend existing Chapter 3 moments, but also create new scenes from Eve's point of view during that timeline. With the movie taking place in between the third and fourth chapters of the series, Eve's revenge tale once considered even more potential story beats that would run parallel to Chapter 3. 'As a fan, there were potential moments that I was really excited to work into the movie. In the scene where Eve first arrives at the Continental, you'd see a bunch of motorcycles speeding in the background of the city on the bridge,' Wiseman recalls. 'That would've been cool for anyone who's really paying attention to detail. 'There's the samurai and John on motorcycles [from Chapter 3].'' Ballerina also once ended with Eve checking into the Continental, and Wiseman's one-time wish was to then conclude the film on another angle from Chapter 3. 'Right after Eve checks into the Continental, she'd go up to her room, and we'd see a view of the hotel to where we think the movie is ending,' Wiseman shares. 'Then we'd hear a screech, and the camera pans down just in time to catch two motorcycles [John and Mark Dacascos' Zero] crashing at the base of the Continental.' Below, during a recent conversation with THR, Wiseman also discusses the other franchise characters that were briefly considered for returns, before explaining why his design of the grenade snowball fight is especially meaningful to him. *** Tom Cruise paid quite a compliment. That must've been a welcome message to receive during your press tour. It was wonderful, yeah. He reached out to me as well, and he's very kind. I love his energy of supporting other people's work. 'Let's go back to the movies!' I think we need more of that, quite honestly. My positive, and equally impactful, reaction to the film came out amid this commotion over the embargo language, and so I went back and checked what I was originally sent. And the messaging that I received didn't have the wording that raised eyebrows. It was standard 'spoiler-free social reaction' language. Anyway, were you pretty frustrated by that miscommunication? Yeah, of course. I've been so busy with the premieres that I don't really even know much about it. I know [the miscommunication] was on [publicity's] part. The other thing I knew is that they're really not wanting to give away spoilers of any kind. There's quite a few mysteries and such, but I can't even really speak to it because I don't actually know. The road to began with . co-creator Chad Stahelski worked for you on that set? Yeah, Chad got killed [as an uncredited FBI agent and credited stuntman]. He pops up in there with a friend of mine [Brad Martin] that I grew up with; Brad was also working with that team as stunt coordinator. We shot that Baltimore sequence, and it was supposed to be the first action scene when Timothy Olyphant's character does an onslaught on McLane [Bruce Willis] and Farrell [Justin Long]. Chad and Brad are the two FBI guys that have a firefight with the helicopter gunman. So Chad's got a glorious death scene, and we've known each other for quite a long time just by coming up in the business together. You've made action films in the 2000s, 2010s and the 2020s, so you've seen trends come and go. Now that you've worked inside it, do you fully understand why the Wickian brand of action has set the bar the last 11 years? When you really can see that it's your actor doing the action, there's truly a different kind of feeling. A lot of people talk about the longer takes, and then there are longer takes that add stitches to make them even longer. Personally, that feels more like the director showing off his long take, as opposed to the longer takes in Wick that I'm a fan of. You don't give the audience a second to take a breath, and it becomes more of an investment, especially if it's actor-driven action. [Writer's Note: In two of our previous chats, Stahelski has also railed against stitched oners.] So there's many reasons why I think John Wick set the bar in terms of choreography, but its very specific tone of action is really important too. You never want to laugh in the face of the character action that's happening because then the stakes are gone. It could be a really fun sequence and tone, but if the action doesn't have stakes and danger to it — and the characters are cracking jokes within the danger — as an audience member, you go, 'If you're not going to be afraid, then I'm not going to be afraid for you.' So there's many levels, but if I had to really boil it down, it's actor-based action that's really had an impact. That's what Keanu and Chad together brought to it. There's something about staying in the shot with the actor. There's a difference between watching a cool action scene and watching a cool action scene and going, 'Holy shit, that's him,' or, 'That's her.' It gives you a different kind of reaction. Did essentially serve as Ana de Armas' audition for Eve Macarro? No, not at all, but that sequence was absolutely fantastic. I would love to see that character show up again; it was just too brief. We had already gotten involved with Ana. I had Ana in mind for quite a while before that. I went and saw a private screening of No Time to Die, and that confirmed her casting even more. So I was excited when I saw that cool moment, but she was already involved in the whole process. takes place between the third and fourth films. You revisit the events of, using a Rashomon-type approach to show Eve's point of view on John's return to Ruska Roma. How challenging was it to expand and maintain continuity? It was definitely a challenge and an excitement. I love a challenge. It gives me fuel to be creative. So I had a really fun time taking a different perspective on certain elements of Chapter 3, and I was really into it. Early on, the moment that I thought would resonate and people would remember is when John comes to meet the Director [Anjelica Huston]. We're now looking at it from Eve's point of view before he mentions, 'It wasn't just a puppy.' It took a lot of time to recreate the sets exactly. I wanted to really recreate those moments from a different perspective so that we weren't just using footage from the existing film. I watched the scene again for the timing and spacing, and there's a little detail when John and the Director walk down the stairs. John looked [to his left] in that moment where they stop on the stairs, and so there was space to add a piece where he looks up slightly and sees Eve. And so we got to see that moment from her side. I love that stuff. I've done sequels and remakes, and Ballerina just doesn't feel that way. In fact, I actually think the word spinoff is misleading for this. John meets Eve before she goes on to complete her first contract, and then you jump ahead two months. Does that mean John returns to the movie Winston (Ian McShane) shot him off the roof at the end of ? Yes. So it's after he's recovered a little bit? I just want to get the timeline right. Yes. Did Keanu's days on set have the same electricity that his mythical boogeyman character has in the story? He really does have that effect. It's such a contradiction too because he's one of the nicest, most generous — forget actors — humans that we have. So there is a reverence when he walks on set in the suit. He is John Wick, even when he's just walking around on set. It's similar to when Harrison Ford puts on the hat and carries the whip. It's pretty awesome, and it gives you chills. Did Keanu have you trim his dialogue at all? He tends to have a 'less is more' mindset with Wick. He did! He's very collaborative. I had a really great experience getting into his head about the character. We got together at the hotel before shooting, and we essentially did that. He absolutely is the guy who is like, 'I don't need to say that. What if I don't say this, and I just do it with a look?' So, yeah, there was a culling of dialogue. Daniel Bernhardt plays a 'Scarred Eye Assassin,' and I bring this up because he played a notable character who John Wick killed in the first movie. Is the scar meant to imply that his original character survived? Or is the scar supposed to signal that he's an entirely new character? [Note: Bernhardt also did stunt work on the second and third films. Fans spotted someone in that resembles him, but it's still uncredited and unconfirmed.] We had a lot of talks about how much we should cover Bernhardt's face. It's an ambiguous, fun gag as to what people make of him. But in the scope of my story, I'm treating him as a different character. At the same time, I wanted people to recognize him. Rooney (Unity Phelan) was the first ballerina we met at Ruska Roma in . Was there ever a discussion about bringing her back? Or would that have been too confusing in the middle of Eve's own introduction? [Note: Rooney is the name of the main character in Shay Hatten's original script, before it was retrofitted for the Wick franchise.] There absolutely was very early on, but you're exactly right. I thought it would cause confusion. She's the one highlighted ballerina character that we see in Chapter 3, and it just would have caused a hiccup of clarity. It was bittersweet to see Lance Reddick's Charon one final time. Knowing that this was the last of Lance's footage, did you repurpose or recontextualize anything just so you could use it all? Honestly, no. Everything that we did is very important to the film. Everything that we shot is in there, and it's in there for the story and the movie. I'm so happy that I got the chance to actually work with him and have him in this film. Lance would say this, but there aren't really any good guys in the Wick universe. It's a universe of all bad guys in a sense, but I do believe that Lance's character, Charon, is the heart and soul of the series. I love that you perpetuated the running gag involving the Continental. Every movie introduces a new room or wing that we didn't know was there previously, and the dimensions never align with the exterior of the building. (Laughs.) I remember talking to Chad about it. He showed me the production designer's side view of all the Continental's levels and what could be underground. But they decided to just keep it as a running gag, like you said. If you look at that building, it's the tallest, skinniest structure. This is a weird reference, but it's like The Man with Two Brains. Steve Martin walks into that small condo door only to see a castle interior, and he's like, 'From the outside, it does not look this roomy.' (Laughs.) So it's almost like you enter a door, and you cross over into this slightly heightened world with all these rooms. So I think it'll continue to grow now that it's been destroyed. You'll find more of the underground sections of it. I spoke to Chad for the 10th anniversary of , and we eventually discussed 's additional photography. He quickly expressed a bit of frustration that the 'couple of weeks' of extra shooting that you guys did was so blown out of proportion. Ultimately, are you just glad that the studio backed the movie to such a degree that you could add more firepower to it? A hundred percent. We were both frustrated about it. It's a really frustrating thing [to hear such claims], and it happens more today than it did back in the day. There was additional shooting because the studio loved the movie. We had to take out some scenes from the script originally because we just didn't have the resources or the schedule. [Lionsgate] then really believed in the [early cut of the] movie after we put it together, so it was an exciting opportunity to go back and add more to the film. But when the press hears about that and the reports become whatever they are, it always has a negative connotation. But I'm just so glad that we were able to go back. For instance, it was really important to me that we showed Ana's character as a little girl, and we didn't have that opening before [additional photography]. It was in the script, but we just didn't have the time and the schedule and everything needed to do that. So that was one of the scenes that we went back to do, and I was absolutely thrilled that the studio was so supportive of us going back to get what we wanted. [Note: Wiseman has noted elsewhere that Reeves was not involved in additional photography.] To name a few, the grenade fight, the car crash in the alleyway and the flamethrower sequences are so impressive. Thank you. What are your individual highlights from each? I love all their different stories. The grenade sequence means a lot because it was the first action sequence that I wrote up a while ago. (Laughs.) When we were developing the script from stage one, I asked, 'What if there was a snowball fight with grenades? What would that be like?' The process of shooting it was a fun one to design. There were a lot of trap doors for our stunt players to go through before the pyrotechnics went off, and that allowed us to stay in the one shot with Ana. So it was just something that I had not seen before. There's only so many weapons available to create an action sequence, and having an actual gunfight with flamethrowers has never been seen on-screen. If you're pitching an action sequence to a studio and you want to put together a rip reel or an example for them to watch, it's a good thing when you can't find examples or references. That's when you know you're onto something unique. I know there's some VFX involved, but I just don't understand how you can execute the flamethrower fight without burning the set down and inflicting third-degree burns on the entire cast and crew. We worked with the best stunt team around in 87eleven, so it was a really safe set. And there were very limited visual effects. It's essentially a practical sequence despite some enhancements. So it was controlled, but it absolutely was dangerous, especially being inside with both of those flamethrowers going off at the same time. I've done action sequences with helicopters, and helicopters at close range are terrifying on set. They sound terrifying. If you get on a helicopter, it feels dangerous, especially when it's doing stunts that are coming in low to your cameras and everything. The flamethrowers have that same effect, and I've never utilized a weapon that had that much of a dangerous vibe about it. But it's unlike anything that I've seen, and that's the goal of every sequence. [Note: The following section contains very mild spoilers, primarily who did not appear and what did not happen in .] The movie ends with the audience wanting to know what's next for Eve. Do you know what's next for her? In fantasy-type thinking, yes, but I really just concentrated on this film. I wanted this film to be the best that it could possibly be, but it's hard not to wonder. Often, when I am asked that, I'll say, 'No, I want to wait and see what happens.' And that's true to a point, but when you're developing something and you get so immersed in a character, you have to build out what their story is before and after the movie you're making. That's how you really understand the character, so that's always on my mind. The movie ends a bit ambiguously on purpose. Who's putting the contract out on her? I'd like to hear theories about where it goes. I definitely have my theory. I would love it if it were to continue, and I think it would surprise people where we would go with it. So we're just waiting for what the reaction is to this one, but yes, I totally have fantasy plans about where Eve would go. So no one ever said, 'Hey, tee this ending up for to pick up where you left off'? No, not at all. There's a cool scene at a table where Eve has to assemble and fire a weapon before someone else does. Was there ever a draft that had her on the other side of that table? Oh, interesting. No. That's where I thought the movie was heading. She'd be forced to come back to Ruska Roma and sit on the other side. When the other character says to Eve, 'I'm you in ten fucking years,' let's see what happens in ten fucking years. (Laughs.) Eve is still going on her path, and it's a brutal world. We see a darker side to the Director's character in this one, and the rules are in place for a good reason. They abide by their code and their rules, and even if you're a surrogate mother role like the Director, you have to protect your tribe. I remember talking to Anjelica about putting a darker slant on her character, and her eyes lit up. Did you consider any other franchise cameos? Laurence Fishburne's Bowery King was discussed early on as we were fine tuning the timeline, and then there was a discussion about Caine [Donnie Yen] at one point. It's really finding what fits the story best. Ruska Roma was our base, so it allowed us different windows of crossing over into the parallel timeline. But there weren't just characters considered. As a fan, there were potential moments that I was really excited to work into the movie. In the scene where Eve first arrives at the Continental, you'd see a bunch of motorcycles speeding in the background of the city on the bridge. You always have to make the timeline work, but that would've been cool for anyone who's really paying attention to detail. 'There's the samurai and John on motorcycles [from Chapter 3].' That would've been cool. Yeah, at one point, before the timeline became exactly what it is, there was another idea that I liked at the end. Right after Eve talks to Winston and checks into the Continental, she'd go up to her room, and we'd see a view of the hotel to where we think the movie is ending. Then we'd hear a screech, and the camera pans down just in time to catch two motorcycles [John and Mark Dacascos' Zero] crashing at the base of the Continental. Fucking cool, right? You should add those details to your special edition of in ten years. I know! I love stuff like that. Some people might go, 'What's going on?' But for the people who are in on it, they'd be like, 'That's just cool.'***Ballerina is now playing in movie theaters nationwide. Best of The Hollywood Reporter 13 of Tom Cruise's Most Jaw-Dropping Stunts Hollywood Stars Who Are One Award Away From an EGOT 'The Goonies' Cast, Then and Now
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Tom Cruise Sets Guinness World Record For Death-Defying 'Mission: Impossible' Stunt
Tom Cruise's quest to become America's most death-defying stuntman continues to pay off. The Oscar-nominated actor has spent the last couple of decades primarily focused on his action-packed 'Mission: Impossible' films — and just set a Guinness World Record for one of the most daring stunts in the series. The British institution announced Thursday that Cruise now holds the title for 'most burning parachute jumps by an individual' for leaping out of a helicopter 16 times before lighting his chute on fire in the latest franchise installment, 'The Final Reckoning.' 'Tom doesn't just play action heroes — he is an action hero!' wrote Craig Glenday, editor-in-chief at Guinness World Records. 'A large part of his success can be chalked up to his absolute focus on authenticity and pushing the boundaries of what a leading man can do.' Cruise and Paramount Pictures both posted behind-the-scenes footage of the stunt on social media. Cruise and director Christopher McQuarrie can be seen plotting out logistics with the stunt coordinators and acknowledging the danger before Cruise attempts his jump. The stunt was filmed in the Drakensberg, South Africa. 'What I'm going to do is, I'm going to be deploying,' says Cruise in the footage, shot during a production meeting on location. 'If this is twisted while it's burning, I'm going to be spinning and burning. I have to kick out of the twist and then ignite within 10 seconds.' The result onscreen shows Cruise's character, Ethan Hunt, forced to cut the burning nylon tatters free to deploy a reserve chute at the last second. The stunt was shot with a chute that was soaked in fuel to light on fire. Over the course of his films, Cruise has run along the exterior of the 163-floor Burj Khalifa in Dubai ('Ghost Protocol'), harnessed himself to an airplane during takeoff ('Rogue Nation') and base-jumped into a canyon after riding off of a cliff ('Dead Reckoning'). 'Tom is no stranger to record breaking,' Glenday wrote Thursday. Cruise does indeed hold another Guinness title for 'most consecutive $100-million-grossing movies' for an actor, for the 11 films between 'Jack Reacher' (2012) and 'Final Reckoning.' The latter hit theaters in late May and has grossed nearly $400 million worldwide. Amy Poehler Credits Tom Cruise For Helping Her Discover 1 Of Her Biggest Turnoffs This 1 Moment Saves The New 'Mission: Impossible' From Being A Total Letdown Angelina Jolie And Brad Pitt's Daughter Shiloh Reintroduces Herself Under A New Name
