|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| |||||
January 13, 2003
"The Biggest Opening of 2003!!!"
Welcome to the pull quote for the Worst Film of 2003. Just Married was as omnipresent at this weekend’s box office as flatulence was in the film. 18 million estimated dollars for a Brittany Murphy movie… now we’re stuck with her for even longer. Great.
The rest of the box office over the weekend was pretty uneventful. The limiteds continued to perform pretty much as they have in the past. Catch Me If You Can almost passed Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, but not quite. Looks like it may make another 10 days before the R2:T2 passes $300 million… sigh. Catch has a couple more open weekends to come up behind $150 million before things slow down.
Tom Hanks has become Father Christmas for the studios, delivering large while barely making any noise. Catch is Hanks fifth holiday release in a row to have grossed over $115 million domestic. No one else even comes close to that degree consistent success.
This, combined with a Sunday morning look at Jerry Maguire and the hype around Ms. Murphy, spurred me to wonder, realistically, exactly who are the world’s biggest box office stars at this moment?
At the top of the list is Tom Hanks, by an even clearer margin than I imagined before I started looking at the data. No one in the history of film has come close to his current streak of 10 straight films that have grossed over $100 million. (I am including the two Toy Story movies and not including That Thing You Do!, in which he played a minor role.) The run goes back to 1993’s Philadelphia, which came up a little short at the box office, but won Hanks an Academy Award. Hanks was in two more movies, both grossing more than $100 million, in the last decade.
Here’s the entire list:
Catch Me If You Can
Road To Perdition
Cast Away
The Green Mile
Toy Story 2
You’ve Got Mail
Saving Private Ryan
Toy Story
Apollo 13
Forrest Gump
Philadelphia
Sleepless in Seattle
A League of their OwnOf course, before that, he had Bonfire of the Vanities and Joe Versus the Volcano back-to-back, which caused many to speculate that his career was over. Bzzt! Wrong.
Of the next three, Tom Cruise and Mel Gibson each have their unique claim to the #2 slot. In the last decade, Cruise has made 11 movies (with major roles) to Gibson’s 16. Cruise has had a run of three $100 million-plus movies, before which he had Magnolia and Eyes Wide Shut come up short of eight figures. Gibson is four for his last five in the $100 million category, not including the barely released Million Dollar Hotel and including the animated Chicken Run. Going farther back, Cruise had a five for five run and Gibson went three for five.
I would give Gibson the #2 ranking over Cruise for a couple of reasons. First, as much as Shymalan is a franchise of his own, Signs doing $200 million is a testament to Gibson, much as The Sixth Sense’s $200 million-plus status had more than a little to do with Bruce Willis. Second, I’m impressed with Gibson’s single-handed ability to get We Were Soldiers to $78 million domestic, even more so than Cruise’s heady ability to get Vanilla Sky over the $100 million mark. Gibson’s achievement was perceived as politically incorrect and he had no other draws to help build the box office. Cruise had Cameron Crowe and Cameron Diaz and Penelope Cruz and the heat around their relationship. I admire both men for taking chances that one would not expect superstars to take.
Close on their tails – and perhaps worthy of a higher ranking - is Will Smith. His entire movie career is only 10 years - and 11 films - old. Five of the last seven – which were really the only intentionally highly commercial films – grossed over $100 million… two of them pulling in over $250 million. The two films that failed to reach the high water mark were The Legend of Bagger Vance – a true dud – and Ali, a serious attempt at a serious film. Smith is like the Schwarzenegger of his era… he sells the hell out of his films and then goes and makes some more. In any given year, Will Smith could be the biggest movie star in the world.
Now it gets trickier… much, much trickier. It’s easy to look at this year’s box office results and say that this one is on top and this one is “over.” But beware quick judgments. They make for good Entertainment Weekly copy and terribly misleading spin.
Movie stars drove none of the Top 5 movies of 2002. In fact, of the 13 films to gross more than $300 million, none are movie star driven. But the next tier of films, between $200 million and $250 million, are dominated by “movie star movies.” And at least two-thirds of the films between $150 and $200 million are star-driven.
Number five on my list is Jim Carrey. It’s easy to forget a guy who didn’t have a movie in release this year and whose last movie was The Majestic. His most spectacular run of films was from 1994 to 1998, when he had six $100 million films out of seven. People remember The Truman Show as a financial disappointment, but $126 million for a drama, without the white-hot Carrey, would have been a big hit. Man on the Moon didn’t deliver the Oscar. The R-rated comedy, Me, Myself & Irene, failed to crack $100 million. And The Grinch was expensive. Then, The Majestic. But Bruce Almight could well turn it all around again. Until something suggests that Carrey isn’t going to draw a huge crowd to any film that fits his profile, he’s right up there.
Number six is Julia Roberts. As the top woman on the list, there is a pressure to put her even higher. She’s had six $100 million movies in the last nine years. Should she get credit for Ocean’s Eleven? Not really. But she’s the only reason that America’s Sweethearts even came close to the 9-spot. And this year, she’s only done two small roles in two arty Soderbergh movies. November’s Mona Lisa Smile should put her right back up there in the box office stratosphere.
In the seven spot, Eddie Murphy sits. It was kind of inevitable, since Murphy has had six $100 million movies in the last six years. True, two were animated. But still, Murphy draws a crowd and he’s done it while doing almost no press. 2002 was about as a bad a year as any actor has ever had. Three releases…. three dogs. But with Daddy Day Care on the way and Disney’s Haunted Mansion, which no one believes in but might turn out to be a surprise, don’t be shocked if this year is forgotten the same way that the Harlem Nights/Another 48 Hours/Boomerang/The Distinguished Gentleman/Beverly Hills Cop III/Vampire In Brooklyn run was fumigated by The Nutty Professor and Dr. Dolittle. In fact, I’ll bet that there are only a few of you who remembered just how ugly a run Murphy had just a few years ago.
Bruce Willis could make a strong case for being higher than #8. But even though three of the five films he’s done since The Sixth Sense did okay, none was gangbusters. Then again, only Hanks has more $200 million titles (4) than Willis. What Willis is not is a mortal box office lock. But once you get past the Big Three, there’s no such thing.
At #9, Sandra Bullock. Since 1994’s Speed, Bullock has had five films in the $100 million club, the fifth is currently in the process of getting there and one is animated (Prince of Egypt). But Bullock remains this high on the list because no matter how bad the movie – and Two Weeks Notice is terrible - she can deliver a $100 million romantic comedy pretty much at will.
Adam Sandler takes his place at #10. The diminished perception of his box office power is right out of the classical “bad movie, not doing well, followed by a year off” syndrome. But $126 million for Mr. Deeds should have cleared that right up. Eight Crazy Nights turned out to be yet another “what audience is this for?” animated flop, joining Titan A.E. and Treasure Planet. But anyone betting against Anger Management is probably going to be very disappointed.
At one point, I had Robin Williams higher than #11. But looking back, it’s hard to push a guy higher when he hasn’t seen $100 million in four years. But Williams has shown his power in 2003. Death to Smoochy may have died (WB had no idea how to sell that one!), but Insomnia (with Al Pacino in the lead) did okay and One Hour Photo’s take of $32 million is fairly remarkable given the dark, dark subject matter.
The Top Ten is really The Top Twelve, since Harrison Ford really deserves a spot in the group. His career has been in a tumble lately, filled with missteps and non-starters. But when, as in the summer of 2000 with What Lies Beneath, Ford gets a hold of a film that fits, he can still hit it out of the park. The unfortunate K:19 The Widowmaker has been his only film since. (Time off after a flop is deadly.) But with Hollywood Homicide on the way and a fourth Indiana Jones movie, Ford should still be able to deliver his audience.
THE NEXT GROUP
There are 57 more people on my list of box office players with strong histories or strong futures or both.
Six of them are The Great Unproven. These six actors have been heavily hyped and are very well paid, but none of them have proven that they can really draw an audience large enough to open a movie. They are:
Halle Berry
Colin Farrell
Josh Hartnett
Heath Ledger
The Rock
Owen WilsonThere are others who have been hyped and have been in big movies, but have no real box office weight of any kind. (See Kate Beckinsale or Paul Walker as examples.)
Six more are Been There, Done Thats. There are actors who still get plenty of attention, but whose ability to assure box office has seriously dissipated as of late. It’s been so long since Stallone has even made a small wave in the box office pond that he didn’t make this list. But they are;
Arnold Schwarzenegger –5 years since his last $100 million movie, Batman & Robin
Billy Crystal – One hit in 10 years (Analyze That), plus Disney/Pixar’s animated hit
Robert DeNiro – Meet The Parents and Analyze This are the only two real box office smashes. Still a great actor… when he acts… it’s become rare.
Michael Douglas – He’s become a better actor and made some wonderful choices, but hasn’t come close to a $100 million star vehicle in eight years.
Gene Hackman – Perhaps our greatest movie actor… was box office for a couple of years
Al Pacino – Doesn’t guarantee business… period.
Five actors fit the “Only In THAT Part” category”
Jackie Chan – As Some America’s Partner
Jet Li – As An English-Challenged Martial Arts Guy
Anthony Hopkins – As Hannibal Lechter
Mike Myers – as Austin Powers or Wayne
Chris Tucker – In Rush Hour MoviesThat leaves 40 people who are still in the game, a step or two out of the Top Eleven. But before I get to that list, there are 12 non-actors who I consider “box office.” These names have a certain cache with audiences and don’t necessarily need acting names to assure box office success. They are:
a. Steven Spielberg
b. Peter Jackson
c. Disney Animation
d. The Wachowski Bros
e. Tim Burton
f. Ridley Scott
g. George Lucas
h. Jerry Bruckheimer
i. Imagine Entertainment
j. Bob Zemeckis
k. Michael Bay
l. The Coen Bros.And now, in constantly evolving order, the rest of the box office beauties!
13. Jodie Foster
14. Reese Witherspoon
15. Russell Crowe
16. Denzel Washington
17. Nicolas Cage
18. John Travolta
19. Kirsten Dunst
20. Ashley Judd
21. Martin Lawrence
22 Nicole Kidman
23. Julia Stiles
24. Rob Schneider
25. Jennifer Lopez
26. Jack Nicholson
27. Hugh Grant
28. Matthew Broderick
29. Matt Damon
30. Cameron Diaz
31. Brendan Fraser
32. Angelina Jolie
33. Wesley Snipes
34. Drew Barrymore
35. Kevin Costner
36. Sam Jackson
37. Ben Affleck
38. George Clooney
39. Leonardo DiCaprio
40. Meg Ryan
41. Brad Pitt
42. Ice Cube
43. Ben Stiller
44. Tim Allen
45. Steve Martin
46. Antonio Banderas
47. Vin Diesel
48. John Cusack
49. Sean Connery
50. Catherine Zeta Jones
51. Matthew McConaugheyREADER OF THE DAY: HI LILY, HI LILLY, HI LO writes: “What would make me picket the Oscars? "Far from Heaven" getting any nominations at all would make me picket the Oscars. I've spent the last hour reading, literally, dozens of reviews off of Rotten Tomatoes, nearly all of them positive (I notice you haven't really reviewed it yet, by the way...), and I just don't get it at all.
Okay, so the film's a recreation of a Douglas Sirk film, except it acknowledges black people and homosexuals exist. Fine. So what? Even if it's a flawless recreation of a Sirk film, so what? Am I supposed to care? If I made a flawless recreation of a Sirk film with space aliens and Nazi werewolves instead of black people and homosexuals, would people be trying to hand me Oscars? What, exactly, was I supposed to get out of this movie?
I read descriptions of the film that make me think that the reviewers may have actually been *crying* at certain points in the film, and I just have no idea what in the world they saw that might cause that. I see nothing in Julianne Moore's performance that makes me think that any other actress wouldn't have done just as good a job in the film. And I see a number of reviewers who seem to think, somehow, that the film lacks irony, which makes me think they watched the film from the comfort of the lobby or the bathroom. (I'm *not* alone in this, judging from the laughter in the theater I was in.)
Perhaps this is a generational thing-- I'm 26, and I don't think that there's anyone near my age who actually is surprised by the idea that the 1950s weren't as picture-perfect as the films (which I've seen plenty of, mind you) and television from that era might suggest. I've gone on long rants on numerous occasions about people who refer to the fifties as some sort of golden era without taking into account the perspective of anyone other than white males. And yet I'm not even certain that that's what the movie is *about*. I have NO IDEA why anyone even wanted to make it in the first place.
What am I missing here, David? Is the attraction of this film just that it so lovingly (and, hell, I'll admit it-- effectively) recreates the Sirk style of moviemaking, or is there something here I can't see? And if it's just about Sirk, should I start on my nazi werewolf idea?”
E ME: You wanna explain it to him? And what do you think of the Big List O’ Cash?
