New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

If nothing else, we know he's a basterd.

Kim Hollis: This is the second film in a row that has opened well where Brad Pitt was the sole draw as opposed to being a co-lead or supporting player. Has he finally become a quantifiable box office draw?

Josh Spiegel: No more or less than he was before Inglourious Basterds. Tarantino probably has Pitt to thank for the film doing so well (and I'd argue that Pitt is only the most well-known actor in the movie, not the film's lead), but this is an actor who's had eight movies that hit $100 million or more; if this one has solid enough legs, he's looking at nine movies with the century mark. Pitt has always been an actor more interested in his work than the money it makes, so it's hard to quantify too much. At the very least, Pitt is Pitt, so he's not bound to lose a movie money, what with being one of the most famous people in the world.





Tim Briody: Way back in the day, I handled the forecast the weekend Troy was released. I was astonished to discover how little in the way of box office success Brad Pitt has had in his career. While it turns out Troy was the first of three straight big films for him (including his highest earner, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), he's still to this day had only eight $100 million films, three of which are the Ocean's movies. That is stunning for someone who is probably one of the top five most famous people in the world. While it's largely due to him picking smarter projects that don't necessarily strike a chord with audiences, I'd still hesitate to call him a draw just yet.

Continued:       1       2       3