Yeah I saw Uncut Gems in a theater. I still feel the tension 
Not sure that was a hit though.
It was almost universally well reviewed. I have seen it but I had seen none of Guadagnino’s prior works and only one movie (West Side Story) featuring any of the 3 leads. I have since seen Faist in The Bikeriders.
Not quite sure what you’re asking but Tom Cruise is the last movie star.
And Tarantino was right. He just didn’t word it very well.
If I told you a new trilogy coming out with Sebastian Stan as Luke Skywalker between the Jedi Temple burning and his exile ending and directed by Lucas…no one would see it for Sebastian Stan. They’d see it cause Lucas is directing and they’re intrigued by the idea of Stan.
Naw, if you told me Lucas was direcring another star wars movie, that would cross it off my list of movies to see.
You know, that makes me wonder.
For the sake of argument, imagine there is a movie star who — right now — could headline a plain-vanilla movie and it’d be a hit. Not a sequel or a remake or whatever; not an adaptation of some well-known franchise; just a courtroom drama FEATURING THIS GUY, or a romantic comedy FEATURING THIS GUY, or an action movie FEATURING THIS GUY, or whatever: that’s the only pitch you’d really need, it’s a sure thing to hit screens at number one and promptly rake in more than 2.5x its budget.
And imagine that — even though that’s so — said movie star opts to headline franchise-tastic blockbusters. Oh, sure, he reasons, I could do a film with a low-key premise, and it’d be a hit; but I don’t want to do that; I want to do this. And he proceeds to, like, make tons of money.
Would we be able to tell?
That’s how I generally feel about Reynolds movies - Red Notice, Free Guy, Adam Project , The Hitman’s Bodyguard etc… I mean, they are often effects-laden, but that’s not why I want to watch them. There are lots of FX-fests I wouldn’t watch if you paid me. And they’re all original properties, AFAIK.
Tom Hanks is your guy. For either stand alone or franchise, plain jane or big budget.
There may be a more recent example, but I’d argue that “Free Guy” or “Red Notice” from a few years ago falls into this bucket. The premise of those movies is unimportant and kind of silly and the movies themselves were kind of unimportant and kind of silly, but made at least 2.5x its budget on the basis of “RYAN REYNOLDS”!!1!
And he certainly (now) knows a few things about the whole franchise blockbuster thing.
The Rock got close and may even get there (he’s got a TON of generic action movies), but he might have over-extended with the whole “Black Adam” fiasco. He could have done pretty well for himself in the 80s or 90s.
I think those days are past for him. He’s been in a fair number of plain jane and big budget movies over the last decade or so, and while most have been decently successful, Toy Story is probably the only real standout. Maybe “Sully” but that one didn’t rely solely on Hanks, either.
For me, he might be the answer. I watched a lot of Mr Rock’s actioners just because I like his style. Unfortunately, not all were actually good. I liked Skyscraper, but San Andreas was stupid beyond belief. And Baywatch was actually fun. I never watched the show, so I guess I did watch the film just because of Mr Rock.
Now I’ve gotten too old for this shit. I wait and see if the movie reviews say the right things before I risk wasting time.
Action movies tend to be special effects movies, though, which the OP is excluding on the grounds that people might be seeing them just for the effects, not the star. Though I will say that I’m more likely to see an effects movie starring Dwayne Johnson than one starring most other action stars.
I feel like Timothee Chalamet is the big leading man star power to bring out the young folks now. But it’s hard to say because he was in Dune and Wonka, both effects-heavy and nostalgia-heavy films. I think a regular-old film starring him would still do well, though.
“Oppenheimer” was a major movie attraction based on the star power of the director.
I’ve seen Dwayne Johnson’s masterpiece “Rampage”, and I assure you, people watched it for the specials effects just as much as they watched “The Running Man” on the basis of its dystopian philosophical musings rather than some unknown Austrian bodybuilder.
Rampage was a bad movie where everyone involved in it knew that it was bad, and therefore decided to have fun with it, leading to it being so-bad-it’s-good. And Johnson is an actor who could pull that off, where many couldn’t or wouldn’t. So I’d still credit him some with supporting that movie.
I remember when Hanks was maybe the biggest star in Hollywood, winning two Oscars in a row and hitting it out of the park box office wise every time. In the past decade he’s had a few moderate successes outside of Pixar, but he’s also made films that barely got a North American release, if at all. That said, he’s likely enjoying the phase of his career in which he gets to choose interesting projects and filmmakers because he believes in the project, not because he thinks it’s a surefire hit. He’s worked with Tom Twyker twice now; wouldn’t have done something like that back in the mid-90s.
He seems to be a creative voice in their production too. He doesn’t just sign onto a project and do what’s written, he’ll shepherd it himself, find a team, funding, and get it created, but not take the front-facing credit for it beyond starring in it.