He was pretty good in the Richie Valens movie, and seems a competent actor. Ye I don’t see much of him-why?
Hutton appears to have worked steadily, he just hasn’t been huge. His new series just got picked up for a second season.
I’ve been meaning to comment before, but your post really made me want to now. In my way of seeing it, women suffer from this problem way more than men. It takes something special, and not always astounding looks, for an actress to rise to the level of a Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts and even Salma Hayek. But I’d wager it’s more like at least 3-to-1 to 5-to-1 of males who get launched into stardom from smaller parts over their female counterparts.
Actresses in general have a short shelf life. And unless they can connect with the right agent, director, co-star or other promoter, their life expectancy as a star is pretty short. It seems to be especially true for the ones whose looks get them in the door, but whose talents aren’t given that much chance to grow. If they haven’t gotten to the next level in three or four decent roles, odds are it’s porn or support roles on TV at best.
At least that’s how it looks (and has looked since I was a kid) to me.
It might be fun to start two lists. One for the guys who rose through the ranks to Stardom, and one for the gals. If you’re fair with your lists, the guys’ list will be much longer.
…case in point! 
Too late for edit, but I just wanted to clarify that I don’t object to this thread at all, I just see way too many young actors who struggle so hard to get “that one part” - whether it’s Broadway or a film or TV - and think everything will be smooth sailing after that. I just want to tell them “you don’t get it: this struggle IS the job. After you get that part, if you are ever lucky enough to get it, you will still be fighting tooth and nail for every part you get after that.” Sigh. [steps off soapbox]
I guess what I’m having a hard time articulating is that it is not the part that makes one a star (per the OP). It is a crazy combination of luck, timing, public adoration, great marketing, and general lightning-in-a-bottle. Often stardom happens with a reckless disregard for true talent.
Cuba Gooding Junior
You’re right. Anwar is only one of many pretty starlets who never quite hit it big. I guess she stood out for me because her scene with Pacino was so memorable.
This is a good point. Note that everyone named here is a much bigger star than the majority of the working actors in Hollywood, simply by virtue of the fact that a bunch of regular people like us recognize their names and faces.
By the way, this is one of the reasons that I find the HBO series Entourage interesting, in that it shows the struggles of an up-and-coming movie actor.
Hollywood is full of has-beens and one-hit wonders.
My favorite story is Jaye Davidson. After he got the Oscar nomination for The Crying Game, he was offered the role in Stargate. He figured, “This is probably the only chance I will ever have, to get a major role in a big-budget picture, so I might as well try for a big paycheck.” So he told his agent to demand a million dollars. And he got it. And, as he predicted, he hasn’t done a big picture since.
Nigel Terry was great as Prince John in The Lion in Winter and especially as King Arthur in Excalibur, but hasn’t done a whole lot since. Too bad.
He was in Twilight, the “DVD release of the year!!!” 
There might be more male stars, but more female might-have-beens. If actresses have a short shelf life, that means more opportunities to get on the shelf in the first place. For each actress who ends her four-movie career, there’s an opening for the next next-big-thing. Meanwhile actors like Bruce Willis or Pierce Brosnan keep going for decades. You have to wait for someone to die for there to be an opening to get into the club.
Two words: Snow Dogs.
Perhaps if he had at least one other emotion than crying. Boyz in the Hood excellent. Everything since: dreck. That includes his Oscar performance.
This is one of the great urban myths of the cinema. Here’s what Wikipedia says:
As usual with anything that ever happened to any movie star, actual events have been overblown into a bigger, weirder, more nonsensical story. Yeah, he’s got a couple of scars, but he’s not the Phantom of the Opera or anything. Harrison Ford’s got a facial scar, too, and it hasn’t hurt his career or his appeal with female fans any.
The real difference between Ford and Hamill is that Ford got another iconic role in a huge hit movie in the midst of “Star Wars.” If Tom Selleck had been cast as Indiana Jones as originally planned, who knows what Ford’s career would be like today?
Gooding is an actor of moderate talent who, after getting his proverbial big break, then went on to choose absolutely the worst possible roles in the worst possible films.
He’s one of the rare actors that Hollywood appears to have given every chance to become a major star force who blew it due to a terminal case of incredibly bad taste.
Not to mention sucking out loud as an Oscar presenter!
I’m inclined to go with Boat Trip. (If I got the title wrong, sorry; I don’t have the will to look at up!)
Oh, all right, I’ll put in a good word for Cuba Gooding Jr. He was fine in Outbreak and actually had some funny scenes in Rat Race.
Good man! Somebody had to say something nice about an Oscar winner! 
Personally, I think this is bullshit. For one, the definition of “star” is hugely subjective and one person’s “star” is another person’s “That Guy!”
Secondly, men are not being pushed as much as women to be stars anymore. For men, it’s all about what kind of movie they’re in. Christian Bale is Batman and John Connor, but how many people actually know Christian Bale’s name? How many is he just “Batman” to?
In that case, I’d skip the lists if I were you. And I’ll try to skip your future comments.