Snapshot: November 26-28, 1993
By Joel West
January 16, 2009
The box office performance of a film these days is almost as important as the film's quality itself. As unfortunate as that may be, the facts are the facts. So while your movie maybe as good as It's a Wonderful Life, Citizen Kane, or even The Shawshank Redemption (all box office disappointments in their own right), if the marketing, release date, and apparent quality don't resonate with audiences, its commercial success could suffer. As with everything in history, time produces clarity. This column will take a look back at a specific time at the movies and try and determine the factors that led to a movie's success or failure.
Fifteen years ago, one actor had it all. He was respected by men and adored by women. However, when he agreed to star in the surest of bets, the rug was quite literally pulled out from under his career. And unfortunately, it has since never recovered.
A-list actors never stay on top forever, especially in today's movie market. Tom Cruise, Tom Hanks, Eddie Murphy, Bruce Willis, and Julia Roberts all dominated Hollywood during their careers. At one point, they each were pulling in outrageous sums of money to star in films and their salaries were (mostly) justified by the box office they were pulling in. However, as the 1990s ended, so went their drawing power. Audiences began focusing more on trends and franchises instead of just the movie star. While each of the aforementioned actors still incites interest, clearly their bottom line isn't what it once was. Cruise (2007's Lion for Lambs - $15 million), Murphy (2008's Meet Dave - $11 million), Willis (2007's Perfect Stranger - $23 million), Hanks and Roberts (both headlined 2007's Charlie Wilson's War - $66 million) were just not packing theater houses like they did in the '90s. They did, however, find ways to reinvent their careers and stay relevant. Seldom do you see an actor completely fall off the A-list; even Murphy and Sylvester Stallone found ways to get their films seen (Murphy sold out to the family-friendly crowd years ago and Stallone just keeps adding entries into his nostalgic franchises). Quite simply, no actor falls completely from commercial and critical significance.
That is, except Kevin Costner. And for whatever reason, there was one specific film that changed his career forever. And no, it wasn't Waterworld.
During a span of five years (1987-1992), there was not a hotter actor around than Kevin Costner. After bursting onto the scene in 1985's Silverado, Costner emerged as a leading man in the summer of 1987 with two critical and commercial successes. Starring as Elliot Ness in The Untouchables, Costner might have been overshadowed by master thespians Robert DeNiro and Sean Connery (who won his only Oscar for his role), but he was able to piggyback the film's success ($76 million) to leading man status. Later that summer, Costner had his first big test carrying a movie with No Way Out. While the film did only moderately well ($35.5 million), it proved that big things were ahead for Costner. Bull Durham ($50 million), Field of Dreams ($64 million), Dances with Wolves ($184 million), Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves ($165 million), JFK ($70 million), and The Bodyguard ($121 million) collectively elevated Costner to the A-list stratosphere. Costner even established credibility with 1990's Oscar-winning Dances with Wolves, which pre-release buzz had suggested would ruin his career. A Best Picture and Best Director Oscar (and some serious bank) signified Costner's era of dominance would be long-lasting. Costner even proved to be "untouchable" from the critics, as Robin Hood and The Bodyguard (both films were savaged by critics) had moviegoers lining up in droves.
Continued:
1
2
3
Print this column
