Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts Movie, LARRY CROWNE, Bombs

[AndyDursin]

I love the comment "who the ---- wants to see Tom Hanks, who just bought a $26 million house, play one of the “regular” folks getting laid off from a big box store? I wonder how he got into character…did he go around the Valley, asking people “what it’s like living with no dreams in an economic Holocaust”?

This movie looked terrible, true, but it is a real sign of the times that Hanks and Roberts can no longer get by on their names...the age of the "movie star" is coming to a real, genuine end. (Look at Jim Carrey's last few films -- nobody cares about him anymore either).

There look to be no fireworks for Hollywood movies this Fourth Of July long weekend. Sources tell me that early numbers show that not even the pairing of veteran Hollywood stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts could open Larry Crowne which also was produced and directed and co-written by Hanks. Even though the two stars did any and all publicity for it, the romantic comedy is tracking only $3.5M-$4M today for only a $14M-$15M four-day holiday from a wide release into 2,972 theaters. That's very disappointing North American grosses for two stars who individually should be able to open a new pic to at least $20M and presumably more when paired. Good thing Universal was only distributing, not financing, and good thing the film's negative cost was only $30M.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/transfo ... d-tuesday/

[Monterey Jack]

Hanks and Roberts haven't been a guarantee of big box office since the late 90's. What was the last Roberts movie to top $100 million based on her presence alone, Erin Brockovich? And while The Da Vinci Code and its sequel were fairly successful, the films had a built-in audince from the books who would have seen them no matter who was cast in the lead.

Andy is right that the era of the giant box office stars is on the wane. Back in the 90's, a movie with Hanks, Roberts, Mel Gibson, Tom Cruise, ect., in the lead was a virtual lock for a $100+ million gross, but now its the movies themselves that attract viewers, with the lead actors just being along for the ride (who goes to see the Transformers movies specifically because Shia LaBeouf is in them? ). Will Smith was the last of the "sure-thing" box office draws, and even he hasn't had a sizeable hit in a while (which is no doubt why he's dusting off a decade-old franchise like Men In Black for a belated entry, always a sign of desperation for an aging former megastar). Up until his couch-jumping antics, Tom Cruise was still fairly invincible as a box office draw (even a film as poorly-received as Vanilla Sky managed to limp over the $100 million mark), but now films like Valkyre and Knight & Day are stalling out around $80 million or less (and, like Smith with MIB, Cruise is dusting off his own long-in-the-tooth franchise with the new Mission: Impossible flick coming in December). Some might argue that this is an interesting and even refreshing development...movies making a killing just because people want to see the movie itself instead of a familiar actor plugged into a new situation. But I kind of miss the days when I could get excited about a movie based simply on who was starring in it. You used to say, "Hey, the new Schwarzenegger movie is out on Friday! Wanna go...?", but now it's like, "Dude, there's a new 'Fast & Furious' movie coming out! Man, those cars look sweet...!" It's the hardware selling tickets now, not the human beings.

[Eric W.]

Shoot, I miss old school Tom Hanks before he got all super serious all the time.

Past that, I agree with both of you.

I love the comment "who the ---- wants to see Tom Hanks, who just bought a $26 million house, play one of the “regular” folks getting laid off from a big box store? I wonder how he got into character…did he go around the Valley, asking people “what it’s like living with no dreams in an economic Holocaust”?

It's really absurd and insulting isn't it, to say the least?

Hollywood is suddenly going to try and pander and descend from the elitist clouds and try to "relate to the common man"? What a bunch of crap.

This movie looked terrible, true, but it is a real sign of the times that Hanks and Roberts can no longer get by on their names...the age of the "movie star" is coming to a real, genuine end. (Look at Jim Carrey's last few films -- nobody cares about him anymore either).

Oh yeah, he's a dead dog in terms of box office. He's done.

Watch him make another Ace Ventura film, out of desperation and way after the fact. You heard it here first.

[mkaroly]

My respect for Hanks dropped immensely with FORREST GUMP, a horrible movie that I can't to this day even see snippets of without getting angry. I did like his work for Spielberg though; SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and CATCH ME IF YOU CAN were entertaining. I also liked SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE. He's a good actor, but he takes the roles he plays too seriously.

I never liked Julia Roberts....worthless actress who isn't as pretty as everyone says (IMO) and never was. Her laugh is annoying and her smile is disgusting...lol...sorry, but when I saw the advertisements for LARRY CROWE I wanted to puke. I'm glad she's on the out...I never liked her and can't think of one film she ever helped in a positive way. One of the worst actresses ever...EVER! Lol...

At any rate, I hope the film bombs. Sorry for the bad attitude!

[AndyDursin]

Truth be told Hanks is kind of like Spielberg politically to me: I don't always agree with where they're coming from, but unlike some other pundits on the other side of the aisle, I respect them because I think they mean well (if you know what I mean). We'll just agree to disagree.

The bigger problem with Hanks is that I always liked the carefree "comedic" Hanks -- not the "oscar winning leading man" he morphed into with FOREST GUMP and PHILADELPHIA. At that point he started taking himself too seriously; these days, though, I think he's just suffering from having gotten old.

Roberts I've never been a big fan of at all. I respected her work in ERIN BROKOVICH (she was good in that film) but this "fake laugh" routine she's been doing for a long while has worn off. Really her box-office appeal died a while ago (anyone remember that movie she did with Clive Owen? me neither) as Monterey Jack mentioned. Beyond that I've never found her, personally, appealing or really all that attractive...I'm more of a Marisa Tomei/Elisabeth Shue fan amongst leading ladies of her generation

The thing with this movie's failure is that they, collectively, have joined the "Cinematic Geritol Crowd" if you will. If together they can't open a movie (and nobody saw CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, their other film together from a few years ago), then it's not looking good for them landing huge pay days just because of who they are.

Those days, in general, are fading away. Audiences seemed more interested in attending "event" films or franchises with pre-built fanbases. The actors starring in them (hello Shia LaBeouf!) are peripheral to their success.

[Paul MacLean]

I'm more of a Marisa Tomei/Elisabeth Shue fan amongst leading ladies of her generation

Yeah, Tomei possesses a much greater range of characterization (AND is better-looking and has far-more sensual allure than Roberts)...




Shue has a much stronger screen presence than Roberts (whereas Roberts gives off a very weak, helpless vibe -- though perhaps that is part of her allure for some?). And Shue is also better-looking...

[Eric W.]

^^ They both own Julia Roberts hands down in every single category you wish to name.