I started my rundown in The Hot Button today. Not only isn’t this group feeling like Wayne, Stewart, Grant, Hepburn and Tracey… it doesn’t feel nearly as weighty as the group of, say, five years ago… even if some of the same names are on top.
What say you?
The Top Ten
1. Will Smith
2. Tom Cruise
3. Adam Sandler
4. Jim Carrey
5. Tom Hanks
6. Eddie Murphy
7. Ben Stiller and…
8. Will Farrell
9. Denzel Washington
10. Steve Martin
amit on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
Christian on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
YancySkancy on: Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Hcat on: Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
movieman on: BYOB Fall Back, Film Forward
movieman on: I Should Be Doing Box Office
Review: Little Women (no spoilers)
Why You Should Be Afraid Of The End Of The Paramount Decree
Review: Frozen 2 (spoiler-free)
Review: Marriage Story (spoilers only in the broadest sense)
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I think the two Wills have the best ability to be in a variety of movies that will make money. And where is Johnny Depp?–he should be in the number 1 or 2 spot.
I don’t know if there can even be a list of top ten, there are so many people in that list who have been in extraordinary bombs in the last couple of years you wonder if they will be lucky enough to ever recap their mid-90s success or slip into a TV show or character actor spot in two years if they’re not already on the gray list.
Most of those ‘Leading Men’ don’t feel like leading men and won’t get the mileage that Harrison Ford did.
If Christian Bale hits it big or Benicio continues to pick interesting stuff they may be hot enough to put butts on the seats. They certainly look nice and I’d pay for the celebrity eye candy even if it is a shit movie. That goes for Ashton too for manby females–he still is a big personality who has potential to be big for a long time I think.
and as much as he Annoys the F out of me, Russell Crowe should be in the top ten and Keanu can do what he wants, his sign is still going up.
If those are the choices for biggest ‘stars’, then give me an ‘actor’ any day. The only folks on that list (which are all men, what’s up with that, David?) that I would pay to see in anything are Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. Will Smith is charming, I have a soft soft for Jim Carrey, Tom Cruise is a huge star but his movies are hit and miss, and Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Ben Stiller all bug the s*** out of me.
Russell Crowe is one of the finest actors of his generation and I know David agrees with me, but I guess he’s absent from that list because he simply hasn’t made enough movies in the past 5 years.
Sorry, obviously my above post is supposed to read soft ‘spot’ for Jim Carrey.
Sandler, Carrey and Martin can open a comedy, but not a drama. And were you literally meaning actors, because there are no women on the list…
Carrey should be at the bottom of the list. Lemony Snicket did good, but not great. A studio doesn’t pay you $25M to do good. Plus, “The Majestic” unequivocally bombed. Bruce Almighty was his smash to brag about.
It’s hard to argue about Smith, though.
Hanks and Denzel are easily the classy, old school guys you’d want to see at the top of the list. But their movies haven’t been as big a hits lately.
It seems the movie going audience has such a short attention span that there doesn’t seem to be any long term stars now. You’re only as good as you last film seems to be the case these days, although there are exceptions to the rule but even those exceptions people will only put up with maybe to missfires before they loose interest in seeing their films. I have noticed lately that Orlando Bloom is being pushed as one of the next big things, and he’s been in several big movies. However I can’t think of one of those big preformers where he was given the credit. Bloom just seems to be lucky enough to be in films that stand up on their own or are sucessful because of another actor or both. So does that make him a star? I guess so. But I don’t think he could hold up a film on his own.
Is it the audience? Or is it the “machine” burning out these potential new stars/commodoties at too fast a rate. Any time there’s a fresh talent, they oversaturate and mismanage the talent to obscurity until the next flavor arrives. Personally, I feel it’s a combination of both where one enables the other.
I was going to e-mail Dave and tease him about including “The Huanted Mansion” as a hit for Eddie Murphy. But before I did, I thought it would be a good idea to check the b.o. figures, and DAMN! I had no freakin’ idea that piddling movie made so much jack in foreign markets.
Er, that’s “HAUNTED Mansion,” not… oh, never mind. Speaking of Murphy, though: “48 HRS.” was released in 1982. That means a hefy percentage of today’s moviegoers (maybe a majority) literally cannot remember a time when Murphy wasn’t a movie a star (or at least staging a comeback). Yikes.
First off; where the women at? Poland, are you
alluding that there are no female movie stars? If
so, then that would be a column unto itself. So
in my mind here are the top ten movie stars..
1) Brad Pitt: Euros love our White People!
2) Will Smith
3) Nicole Kidman: If you have to have one. Who else
you going to have?
4) Keanu Reeves
5) Russell Crowe
6) Tom Hanks
7) Denzel Washington
8) Johnny Depp
9) Tom Cruise
10)Bill Murray
Carrey, Farrell, Sandler, Martin, and Stiller should
be in their own group. They are more comedic acting
SUPER STARS than MOVIE STARS. At least I see them
that way.
In the words of Mr. Tony; “That’s my list. That’s a
real man’s list!”
Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are the most notable omissions.
Also, I bet Chris Tucker would be in the top five if he made more movies. Jackie Chan had nothing to do with the success of the “Rush Hour” flicks. Any comedy he starred in today would be guaranteed $100 million, like it or not.
And there is NO woman that would qualify as one of our top 10 stars. Julia is on the downward slope, Reese hasn’t quite made it to the peak, and who else is there? Halle, Kirsten, Sandra … Keira? See what I mean.
L&DB, you said, “Nicole Kidman: If you have to have one. Who else you going to have?”
Does the name Julia Roberts ring any bells? IMHO she’s still a bigger star than Kidman. Prior to “The Interpreter,” Kidman hadn’t really had a solid hit since “The Hours” in 2002, and even that wasn’t exactly a blockbuster. And although Roberts has been laying pretty low for the last few years and I give props to Kidman for some of the projects she chooses, I think Roberts’s films still arouse more public interest than Kidman’s. For example, compare how much discussion there was around “Closer” compared to that for “Birth.”
How many people actually talked about Julia in regards to “Closer” though? Most of what I heard was about either Natalie or Clive – we’d all seen Julia spice up her language in “Erin Brockovich”. I do think she was better in “Closer”, but not many people cared compared to her two costars.
I really don’t think there are any female stars who can crack a top ten list of top draws at the BO. Kidman comes closest, but I don’t think “Bewitched” is going to be doing her any favors.
And Johnny Depp should be on the list. Maybe Pitt too…I didn’t realize Steve Martin was that big of a draw, but then I remembered his “Cheaper by the Dozen”. I’d like to see a sequel to “Bowfinger” – I’m probably the only one though.
“Jackie Chan had nothing to do with the success of the “Rush Hour” flicks.”
Has anyone in the history of the Hot Blog ever posted a sillier comment?
Agreed, Joe, except even more ridiculous was the simultaneously stated notion that any film made by Chris “wore out his welcome” Tucker at this point is guaranteed $100 million.
Dan, you’re right that Julia didn’t receive many (if any) accollades for “Closer.” But that movie wouldn’t have gotten more than a passing glance in arthouse theatres – and probably never would have gotten greenlit at all – if not for her name attached to it (Mike Nichols or not).
I think that nowadays there are less and less movie stars and more and more publicity stars. It just seems that now more than ever, people are simply obsessed with celebrity gossip, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they will see that person’s movie. I’m kind of torn on whether or not Johnny Depp should be on the list because of this. He is one of my favorite actors, but his only real smash was Pirates, and he’s only been in about 4 movies in the last 4 years. He is definitely a star, but since Dave seems to be judging just on box-office, I don’t think we can say yet whether or not Depp should be on the list. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory will help clear this up, but even then, it’s a Tim Burton movie and his movies, Depp or not, generally do really well anyway.
I can’t prove the Tucker comment, it’s just an educated hunch. However, I do know that his return would be huge in both the white and black communities. He has done anything but wear out his welcome; that cliche is reserved for people that are around too much. Surely you’re not accusing Tucker of that?
Anyway, as to what I can back up with facts, not hunch. Let’s run the numbers, re: Jackie Chan
(domestic gross since 1997)
Mr. Nice Guy – 12.7
Rush Hour – 141.2
Twin Dragons – 8.3
Shanghai Noon – 56.9
The Legend of Drunken Master – 11.6
Rush Hour 2 – 226.2
The Tuxedo – 50.4
Shanghai Knights – 60.4
The Medallion – 22.2
Around the World in 80 Days – 24.0
Notice any aberrations?
Since 1998, Chan movies average a meek $15.8 million when he is above the title by himself. Even considering the “Shanghai” movies and “The Tuxedo” (where he had high-profile co-stars), it would be very difficult to credit Chan with the meteoric success of the “Rush Hour” movies. So who else are you going to credit that to, Brett Ratner?
A couple I would suggest:
Leonardo DiCaprio – A glaring omission. Somehow got the Aviator to $100M, and hasn’t had a box office stinker in his career other than the Beach. Plus there was that movie with the big boat.
Russell Crowe – Here it’s important to imagine what the box office figures with anyone else in the role would look like. A Beautiful Mind or Master and Commander, anyone? Those come in at a third of their actual gross with anyone else in the lead.
Mel Gibson – Hasn’t been in a movie since 2002, but was on quite a winning streak before then: Signs, What Women Want, Chicken Run, The Patriot, even We Were Soldiers. And we know he can still draw them from behind the camera.
Matt Damon – The Bourne franchise is built around him, he’s a key part of the Ocean’s 11 franchise. Brothers Grimm wil help this one.
Johnny Depp – I agree with what’s been said. Charlie & Choc Factory will make it a done deal.
Mike Myers – Since 1999: 5 lead roles, 4 $100M films, 3 $200M films, and the third-highest grosser of all time.
My top 10:
1) Smith
2) Cruise
3) Hanks
4) Carrey
5) Sandler
6) DiCaprio
7) Crowe
8) Denzel
9) Stiller
10) Myers
Ferrell and Depp will probably join the list by the end of the summer. Brad Pitt’s not even close (nor is Steve Martin…)
Obviously I’d love to include some women, but Julia’s fallen off the map, Nicole has never been huge box office, Zellweger just misses, and Reese isn’t quite there yet.
The Tuxedo actually made $104.3 million worldwide. You’re gonna tell me that was Jennifer Love Hewitt’s doing, and Jackie had nothing to do with that, either?
And “Rush Hour 2” actually made $347 million worldwide. Outside of the US, how much of that do you think was generated by Chan’s overseas fan base.
Look, I’m not saying Tucker had NOTHING to do with the success of the “Rush Hour” movies. That would be idiotic: He obviously was a key ingredient in a very appealing mix. (Of course, have you noticed how odd it is that the BoxOfficeMojo pages for “RH” and “RH2” b.o. figures don’t even list Tucker in the cast?) All I’m saying is, it’s shortsighed to claim that Chan had nothing to with it. Well, I’m saying that, and this: Only considering domestic b.o. is fairly antiquated thinking these days.
This list changes every year. How can Will SMith be one when Hitch wasn’t a blockbuster? Until he proves he can do light comedies he cannot be one.
Wait, you’re saying Hitch isn’t a blockbuster? Did I read that right? You can’t be serious Mark. It has made over $177 million! It’s the highest grossing movie of 2005. How much more blockbuster can you get? How many other actors have starred in a straightforward romantic comedy that has grossed that much? You’ve got to be kidding.
As of yesterday, “Hitch” has grossed $177 mil domestic, $175 mil overseas. That’s right: $352 mil worldwide for a romantic comedy. How does this NOT qualify as a blockbuster?
Stella: Great minds think alike.
That they do Joe.
well if TROY is a disaster at nearly 140.. then HITCH at 170+ is a minor success. Didn’t you know – due to the overabundance of wannabe boxoffice prophets – a film now needs to gross 200m to even be considered a blockbuster. Kiss that 100m mark way back.. thats for sports mad dogs and ice cube kidflicks now.
But “Hitch” was made for less than $100mil. I think it cost around $75mil but I’m probably wrong there. I KNOW it wasn’t above $100mil though.
“Troy”, on the other hand, cause roughly $200mil to produce.
But, still, Troy wasn’t a disaster considering it essentially tripled it’s domestic take overseas. I know that in Australia it was the fifth highest grossing movie of the year!
And may I put out a suggestion as to why there are no women on the list?
Consider this. There are a very small amount of roles for females in blockbuster-esque movies. You get a few occasionally, but for the most part they’re lacking. And movies that have main male roles (for instance, Hitch) is filled with actresses such as… EVA MENDES, who is definitely not a star.
So, to combat this, the women that would otherwise be considered movie stars such as Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Charlize Theron, etc, must go to smaller movies. I mean, nobody expected Birth to be a hit, but almost all the reviews I’ve read have said she gives one of the best performances of her career. Yet, the big movies she makes are stuff like The Stepford Wives…?
And because movie makers aren’t willing to place a blockbuster on the films of a woman of, say, Kirsten Dunst, she has to go and make movies like Marie Antionette with Sophia Coppola who will no doubt win Dunst her first Oscar nomination.
I mean, it’s all well and good for people like Will Smith, Mike Myers, Adam Sandler, etc to make huge blockbusters but you can’t really blame the ladies themselves for not being able to make movies that gross $200mil.
And on Julia Roberts, I believe Dave mentioned that it was a list reflecting today’s movie goers… Closer wasn’t a huge hit (unfortunately), Mona Lisa Smile underperformed (righly so) and the less said about Full Frontal the better. Even Ocean’s 11 underperformed. So i don’t think you could put her on the list.
And Mike Myers…? MIKE MYERS. God, I hate him. He has two franchises. One of which was funny the first two times and another which was funny all of once… for a while. I grew a new appreciation for the original Shrek when I realised “hey, it CAN get worse.”
Steve Martin spot will undoubtedly drop once The Pink Panther surfaces, non?
This is a pointless discussion. We should be talking about who are the best actors working today. Who’s doing the best, most creative work. Not who can sell the most merchandise.
Nicole Kidman is currently the biggest female draw in the world. Ignoring her oddball, limited release, limited interest arthouse fare like Birth, Dogville, her last 6 “mainstream”, wide release track record looks like this:
The Interpreter: On course to earn over 170 million worldwide.
The Stepford Wives: Earned 102 million worldwide, despite getting Razzie worthy reviews. The movie should have been a flop of Gigli proportions.
Cold Mountain: 173 million worldwide
The Hours: 108 million worldwide. Pretty good for a movie about depressed lesbians.
The Others: 209 million worldwide
Moulin Rouge: 177 million worldwide.
Kidman has a pretty consistent record in mainstream, wide releases. Julia Roberts has a similar record in recent years, but I think Kidman is in the ascendency, while Roberts may have peaked. Kidman has had 20 million + domestic openings for her last two wide releases (The Interpreter, Stepford Wives). The last wide release that Roberts had a 20 million plus opening was for American Sweethearts, way back in 2001. Mona Lisa Smile, Roberts’ last domestic wide release, opened to only 11 million.
this is a pointless discussion since it all depends on movies and not stars. its all about how u spin it. troys a bomb here at 140 mill yet school of rock is a hit at 100? whats the criteria? only way to tell is to make 10 of the same movie with different actors starring. then u would know
When it comes to females, Nicole Kidman is probably at the top of the list. Worldwide, her films do very well. I CANNOT believe The Hours made that much.
But you guys are forgetting about Queen Latifa and Drew Barrymore. They consistently open every one of their films, even if they don’t have staying power. Taxi and Beauty Shop both opened in the teens, and she deserves as much credit for the blockbuster grosses of Bringing Down the House as Steve Martin.
As for Drew, she has certainly contributed to blockbuster openings for 40 First Dates and the Charlies Angels movies.
Hell, even Halle Berry can be counted on to OPEN a film, which is really what we are talking about, here. Sure, Catwoman underperformed, but it opened. Gothika opened and made way more than it could possibly deserve, based on her starpower. And she has to get some credit for Die Another Day being the highest Bond grosser, considering that she was the first co-star in Bond history to share top billing with Bond over the title. You include Monsters Ball and Swordfish and she has significantly outgrossed Julia over the past five years.
Wow, how the mighty have fallen. I’m not sure if Julia even qualifies for the top five female movie stars, as this point.
Jeff MCM: To a large degree, I agree with you. But I would go one step further: Any attempt to rank or compare actors based on talent, versatility and/or willingness to take risks is doomed from the start, because any standards for such measuring are purely, hopelessly arbitrary. Give you an example: If you consider the overall body of his work, Michael Caine should be on any list of today’s great actors. But I’m sure someone would come along and say,
I agree with most of those appearances in general, but not the rankings. Hanks should be above Sandler and Carrey– not because he’s “classier” or anything like that, but because he can get people to see a more diverse bunch of films (even if he may not have as many recent $200mil+ hits as Carrey). Carrey and Sandler are money in the bank for comedies or maybe family films (more in Carrey’s case), but Hanks got a somber hitman drama to $100 million. A movie about a guy on a desert island to $240 million. Tom Hanks in Spanglish might’ve grossed twice as much. (Can’t prove it, of course, but that’s my gut — and I thought Sandler was very good in the film.)
I love Steve Martin, but he’s had two big hits and one medium hit (Bowfinger, a terrific movie) in the past few years… he certainly gained some cache, but he’s not quite in the Sandler/Carrey/Stiller range. Similarly, I love Ferrell, but I’m not sure if he’s top ten yet.
I’d ditch Ferrell and Martin (or maybe Murphy) in favor of Russell Crowe and Mel Gibson (how many women are really into Will Ferrell movies?). This is assuming we’re really talking just males here.
Other possibilities:
I think Nic Cage has underrated (lately) appeal. Besides the action stuff that does well, he got Family Man to $70mil… but maybe that’s reaching too far back. He can still flop, but so can Murphy!
Depp has definitely increased, but so far, apart from Pirates, he’s displayed starpower mainly by getting movies that audiences might otherwise be ignored or rejected to the $50 million mark. People love him, but he’s more of a next-ten guy.
how does steve martin make any top ten list?
I agree that Gibson (remember how much Signs did? and he certainly used himself to promote Passion) and Crowe should be in in place of Martin and Farrell.
Farrell is nothing in the foreign market (Old School was a straight to video release here and Elf was sold as family film whose leading actor was unimportant) and he is yet to have a 100m film after Elf. So how he get into a Top 10 when he doesn’t prove yet that he take a film to 100m?
Filipe – good to have you back and for bringing another non-US sane voice. Hail Filipe.
The thing with comedy stars is they can change very quickly. Sometimes movie to movie and season to season. One bad miscue and its all over. Will F better not make any missteps ie Bewitched.
What about eminem?