Scarlett was perfectly cast in Under the Skin, playing a character struggling to understand and mimic human emotions.
.
One definition I’ve heard is that an A-List star is somebody who can get a movie made just be agreeing to star in it.
A million seems a bit light for, like, Schwarzenegger, Stallone or Willis in their prime (20-30 years ago), but B- and C-listers routinely show up for a lot less. And I suspect that a lot of the “big names” attached to The Expendables 1, 2 and 3 did it for six figures and were damned happy to be there.
The newest Hollywood power couple comes close on both fronts:
Mila Kunis
Ashton Kutcher
Mila more than Ashton, I think, and even she might fall a bit short. But not by much. We’ll see how big her star is when Jupiter Ascending opens next month.
I’m gonna second Pratt here. A lot of people might say “A comic book superhero movie doesn’t count, those sell on the basis of the character alone.” But Guardians of the Galaxy isn’t exactly a household name comic book, and lots of characters that are–Hulk, Punisher, Catwoman–can’t seem to get out of first gear. Pratt was definitely a big selling point to Guardians and has gotten quite a fan base as a result of it.
It’s just that, whenever there’s a news story or something about her, she’s introduced as “Jennifer Lawrence, star of The Hunger Games”, or the like. Her other roles don’t seem to be mentioned as much. I mean, I guess I can understand why, given that that’s the role that has been seen by gazillions of people and made ten gazillion dollars, but it seems to give short shrift to her other roles.
I don’t know about that. I think I hear her referenced as “Oscar Winner Jennifer Lawrence” almost as much as “Star of Hunger Games…”
Another name I thought of is Keira Knightley.
The Mel Gibson part is funny, he is actually 59, looks terrible though. Julia Roberts is the youngest on that list, and she is close to 50. Hanks is also about to turn 60 next year, and Cruise is 52. But you knew that already. I agree those are A List celebs no doubt about it.
I don’t know about that, pretty famous but does Mila Kunis have any memorable movies to her credit? She and her husband are the most successful of the “That 70’S Show” cast, but I would not place Kunis at A List just yet.
Ashton would be bigger, but other than the Steve Jobs role, nothing really sticks recently. He used to do many comedies.
Neither are A List.
Kaley Kuoco(correct spelling or is it with a “C”) is NOT A list, at least not yet.
Black Swan? But I would agree she is a bit short of A list.
When I think of Black Swan, I always think of Portman, not Kunis. I’m not sure which of the two was actually the lead, but if it was Kunis, she (or her publicists) must not have done a good enough job at it.
Natalie Portman was the lead in “Black Swan”.
I’d say Emma Watson’s on a trajectory to be A-list, but maybe isn’t there right yet. She’ll have to be leading lady in a few successful films first, and hasn’t really done that just yet.
Without a doubt, Portman was the lead. But the question was if Kunis had any memorable movies to her credit. I should have mentioned that it was in a supporting role, but still, Black Swan is a pretty good movie.
imho being A-list is not some sort of award you get for being the lead in an x number of successful films - you’re on it when studios want you to headline their +100 million dollar movies, specifically because you’re perceived as the main marketing draw.
But those two are closely tied together: If you’re in a bunch of really successful movies, it won’t take long for the Hollywood powers that be to decide that maybe there’s a reason those movies were successful.
Mila Kunis was in one of those “lad mags” (either Stuff or Maxim) once, like 15 years ago, and she seemed poised for greater things even then. She may have hung on the vine too long. They said that because of her slight Ukrainian accent, she’d be great as a Bond girl. I guess if great things were gonna happen with her, they’d have happened by now.
i think being the lead in a multi-million dollar movie is greater than being featured as a Bond Girl…
She’s headlining a $175 million sci-fi “blockbuster” (at least the studio sure hopes it is) from the Wachowski brothers (er, siblings?) opening next Friday called Jupiter Ascending.
Early reviews from Sundance aren’t good, but even if (when) it tanks, just her being the headliner in such a major motion picture puts her close to the A-List. When it bombs, though, we coule probably cross her name off the list.