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

Matthew Huntley: I think there could definitely be more in his future because, let's face it, Crowe is a good actor, despite his off-screen troubles. People still appreciate his skills as an actor and I don't think anybody wouldn't see a movie because Crowe is in it. He's only ever been viewed as an asset, not a liability. From here on out, it all depends on the kind of role he plays. Could Crowe strike gold in a comedy just like Robert De Niro did at the end of the '90s/early 2000s? We're so used to seeing him play tough, macho parts that it could be worth his while to play against type and try something a little more silly. Maybe that's his return ticket to big box-office numbers.

Michael Lynderey: I think Crowe'll be around for a long, long time - long enough for him to end up in another major hit or two, even if it's just by default. He's certainly earned enough respect and clout, and any film that's not primarily based on the box office prowess of its star - which is most of them - will be glad to have him on board.

Jason Lee: I agree with Michael and Matthew that the respect that Crowe commands as an actor will lead him to be in some well-received, strong-earning pictures in the future, but will he be the draw for those films? I doubt it. I don't think he has nearly the box office pull stateside that he does internationally.

Reagen Sulewski: I'd say the more pertinent question is whether he cares. He's always been attracted to the darker, more dramatic roles, or just plain having fun on set with a character. You don't make State of Play or A Good Year thinking it's going to be a box office smash. I would say that there is always the potential for him to have another Gladiator, but it seems far more likely that we've elevated him as an "actor" or a "star" to a place he never intended to get to. Anything's possible, though - who would have predicted the resurgence of Liam Neeson?

David Mumpower: I am of the opinion that Crowe does not have the upside as an aging actor that some of the others mentioned do. The reason is that his personality makes him an unwieldy selection as second banana on a project. The projects he gets over the next 15 years will be ones where everyone bites the bullet and attempts to put up with his overhead in exchange for his talent. If one or two of those don't pan out, he's just a jackass who used to be a lead actor. And Crowe will have no one to blame but himself. I'd hate to see that happen as I believe he's one of the hundred finest performers in the history of the industry, but I don't know how he avoids it. He's too old to get a personality transplant.

Max Braden: I was going to point to Gran Torino as evidence there's always time left to hit a homerun, but that was lightning in a bottle. Liam Neeson is a good example of what's possible. I agree too that Crowe isn't very aggressive at trying to maintain his box office clout, but even though he did star in Tenderness last year and it didn't get a theatrical release, at least he hasn't taken any junk DVD projects (why, Val Kilmer, why??). If he is in big box office movies in the future I could see him as part of a strong ensemble cast.

Continued:       1       2       3