comment #1

ArchiveGuy says ...

No linky?

comment #2

JD says ...

Yeah, I've always found that random, out-of-context photos of people tell you everything you need to know. Clearly, Jim Carrey is evil. Last I heard, Tim Burton and him are still working on their imploded project and he hasn't had any flops in recent memory. Even Fun With Dick and Jane cracked $200 million worldwide, as did Lemony Snicket. As for his two films before that, Bruce Almighty made almost $500 million worldwide and Eternal Sunshine got the best reviews of his career. Cue the journalists, right on schedule, tearing down anyone with a string of successes.

comment #3

vansmith says ...

i watched the outtakes from that movie where morgan is God, carrey rifs in a kitchen with all the utensils hoping to catch lighting in the bottle, it was horribly not funny and he exuded alot of energy, i imagine it gets tiresome after a while...

comment #4

Hopscotch says ...

I know some people who work at Universal Studios, and the gossip about Carrey and Mike Myers is just amazing. We are talking burned hatred for those two funnymen.

And make no mistake, I think Jim Carrey is capable of being just a brilliant performer, but karma caught up to him.

comment #5

Hopscotch says ...

And Yeah!! where the hell's the link??? I'mnot going to BUY the magazine for god's sake.

comment #6

le corbeau says ...

I don't think I've ever posted a "Jeff why do you post this shit" message before, which makes me the last one here, and I'm not exactly going to say it now, but-- "Jeff, why do you post this shit without some perspective on how magazines love to scream the sky is falling?"

Yesterday it was Russell Crowe, today it's Jim Carrey. Based on what? One flop film each after a string of hits? If that's the standard for stardom there are no stars. Carrey may be twisted in a pretzel personally, but he's taken on one disastrous-sounding role after another (the Grinch) and made hits out of one after the other, while other new comedy stars quickly come and go. I'd bet on that string continuing more than I'd bet on him being finished.

comment #7

VedaPierce says ...

Funny how we don't get similar articles about Nicole Kidman. Here's a woman who is supposedly the highest paid actress in Hollywood and yet can't draw more than 10 people to any of her movies. When was the last time this supposed "star" actually carried a film at the box office?

comment #8

Mark says ...

just wait. the hollywood grinder has just been waiting for any crack in insert its wedge regarding the $20 million club. Sometimes all it takes is a jump on a couch, a toss of a phone, or a dipshit poster with the #23 scribbled all over your face.

this is obviously a power struggle over the rights to percentage points, and those who want the power back from the acting elite are learning how to play dirty.

comment #9

JD says ...

Don't count Kidman out yet, Veda. Between The Invasion, His Dark Materials, and Margot at the Wedding, she's bound to have at least one hit -- and a few critical successes -- in 2007.

comment #10

jse33 says ...

While we're ragging on movie stars, how about Gwyneth Paltrow? She won an undeserving Oscar over Cate Blanchett. What has she done since then?

comment #11

Mark says ...

i have a better question re Kidman. When was the last time she hasn't carried a film to box office success? And don't include the Furs and Births of the world, as she doesn't get paid $20 million for those choices.

Her biggest stumble i suppose was Bewitched, which did $131 million ww, plus at least another $50 million is vhs rentals alone. not a terrible stumble. Her success far exceeds some A list men such as Denzel, etc.

comment #12

Alan Cerny says ...

The press have a tendency to judge actors by their recent failures instead of their great successes. And by any possible measure, ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is a goddamn masterpiece, and Carrey is terrific in it.

Fuck, I'm putting that in tonight. "Meet me in Montauk..." gets me every time. For me, it's as classic a film line as "Rosebud" or "Nobody's perfect."

comment #13

Sean says ...

So you think people went to see a comedy for Nicole Kidman, not for Will Ferrell and Steve Carell?

Also, 'Stepford Wives' did worse than 'Bewitched', and 'The Interpreter' barely did any better.

"Her success far exceeds some A list men such as Denzel, etc."

In what sense? It's certainly not true in a box office sense. Unless you count 'Batman Forever', his high is better than her high, his low is way higher than her low, his small movies are bigger and his big movies are more consistent.

comment #14

Mark says ...

ha. that's pretty funny. I didn't even know Steve Carrell was in Bewitched. So the answer of course is no; i don't think people went to see Bewitched for Ferrill/Carrell. i think it was 80% chicks, 99% of whom like Nicole.

Actually, since 2001, the major releases of Denzel and Nicole are about even at $73 million domestic, and this excludes Happy Feet. But, i dare say that Denzel's movies have had much the bigger budgets.

comment #15

Joel says ...

I'd say Carrey's only bankable on silly comedies. Drama's, not so much.

comment #16

Mark says ...

sorry, correction. nicole has dealt with the bigger budgets, but over the last 6 years, Denzel's average box office is beneath her's at around $68 million.

comment #17

houmas says ...

I agree and disagree with jse33.

Kidman's international box office power sets her apart. When Kidman carries a studio movie, even if she doesn't hit a home run, it's never going to be a disaster. When even "flops" like The Stepford Wives and Bewitched do over 100 million worldwide, it shows that her presence in a tudio movie is insurance against total disaster. Her last studio movie, The Interepreter, made a very healthy 162 million worldwide, against an 80 million production budget. And trust me, it wasn't because of Sean Penn. Kidman is an international star in the truest sense, which some of the more myopic observers of American box office fail to observe. Movies like Moulin Rouge and The Others did HUGE box office overseas (more than any Denzel movie has done, btw)

As for Kidman exceeding Denzel....I might have agreed before 2006. But not anymore. Denzel is one of the most consistent box office draws in America. His films always open above 20 million on the opening weekend, and depending on legs, earn anywhere between 60-90 million domestic. He's Mr reliable. But Denzel has always been let down by his lack of international box office power. His films never did major buisness overseas. The theory being that international audiences had no use for any black dramatic actors not named Will Smith. Anyway, Denzel's lack of international clout always limited the potential of his worldwide box office gross. I believe his average, before 2006, was around 125 million worldwide.

2006 was one of the most important years of Denzel Washington's career as a box office force. His status quo in America has remained the same, with Inside Man grossing 88 million domestic, and Deja Vu earning 64 million domestic (I'm pretty sure at least 15 million dollars in the final domestic gross was lost by the idiotic decision to open the movie only 5 days after another adult action thriller, Casino Royale, now the most succesful Bond movie in box office history).

But the interesting thing for Denzel, is that both Inside Man and Deja Vu made more money overseas than domestic. Inside Man might have been considered a blip (it made 95 million dollars overseas), because it co-starred Jodie Foster and Clive Owen, who have pull in the international arena. But Deja Vu is all Denzel. And it's become the first movie headlined by him alone, with no bankable co-stars, to cross the 100 million dollar mark at the overseas box office (105 million dollars to date, with openings in Japan and China still to come). It's impossible to credit anyone else but him. Which is something of a milestone for black dramatic actors not named Will Smith.

Denzel is now arguably a bigger box office star in the rest of the world, than he is in America. Which is something NOBODY would have thought possible even 3 years ago. His last two movies will have each crossed the 180 million mark worldwide, which is a stunning leap from his previous average. Unlike most actors, Denzel's bankability is actually increasing, thanks to an unexpected breakthrough as a major overseas draw.

So, yes, Denzel has never experienced Kidman's level of consistent international successs. But based on his last two movies, his time as an international player has just arrived, so it's very likely he's going to improve on his mark set by Deja Vu. And based on the worldwide grosses of their last two movies, Denzel is easily the more bankable star at the moment.

comment #18

erniesouchak says ...

A prominent crewmember on one of Carrey's recent projects told me she had never worked with anyone as difficult or unpleasant as Carrey, and if I shared her resume with you, you'd agree she has worked with some high-maintenance types. Apparently the least of his offenses was that he was constantly trying to upstage anyone who shared a scene with him. No concept or understanding or consideration of co-workers or colleagues.

As for Kidman, PLEASE, she's the ultimate mediocrity.

comment #19

nemo says ...

I'm just grateful for a post that doesn't mention the mother freakin' Oscars or other silly awards.

It'll be great when the awards seasons are finally over, and Wells gets back to occasionally posting something interesting. This post isn't interesting, but at least it's a step in the right direction -- away from all that awards nonsense.

comment #20

cockeye says ...

Houmas,

First, I thought this was a discussion about Jim Carrey? But you brought up some excellent points. However, a couple of things to consider: Denzel is 52; Nicole is 39. Denzel's getting a little old to keep doing too many more action movies, and should be concentrating on serious dramas. Denzel is also not as prolific as Nicole; he's completed 10 films since 2000, whereas she's completed 16 (including one animated film). As for Denzel becoming a bigger international star, one measure of that is magazine covers - I never see Denzel get much play in European publications like Paris Match, Italian Vanity Fair, French Premiere, etc., whereas Nicole is all over the place. Not really sure why these two actors were pitted against each other, but just wanted to make a few points, too.

comment #21

cockeye says ...

Houmas,

First, I thought this was a discussion about Jim Carrey? But you brought up some excellent points. However, a couple of things to consider: Denzel is 52; Nicole is 39. Denzel's getting a little old to keep doing too many more action movies, and should be concentrating on serious dramas. Denzel is also not as prolific as Nicole; he's completed 10 films since 2000, whereas she's completed 16 (including one animated film). As for Denzel becoming a bigger international star, one measure of that is magazine covers - I never see Denzel get much play in European publications like Paris Match, Italian Vanity Fair, French Premiere, etc., whereas Nicole is all over the place. Not really sure why these two actors were pitted against each other, but just wanted to make a few points, too.

comment #22

MASON says ...

Um, Nicole is 39 going on 75. That's how it is for women in this biz. If I had to bet on someone's future box-office wise, I would go with Denzel over Nicole ten times out of ten, no matter how much botox she squirts into her forehead. Even if Denzel looked his age (and he looks a good ten years younger), there would be far more commercial roles over the next ten years than there will be for Nicole. It's just the way it is.

comment #23

Mark says ...

I'm partly responsible for making this thread a Kidman/Denzel battle royale.

My original point was that Mr. Wells, whether he's conscience of it or not, is simply acting as an extension of an industry-led witch hunt against the acting elite powerful enough to have gotten their manicured mitts on the back end of too many movies.

And to the guy who asked why there wasn't any articles on Kidman, i should have just answered to just wait until she starts asking for points, and then you can expect such an article. But since the comment whiffed of unsubstantiated chauvinism, i felt i had to better defend the lady.

comment #24

Thrudvangar says ...

So then Denzel must be capitalizing on his overseas success with Suntori commercials?
I just watched Deja Vu over the weekend for the third time and I still love that film. Was disappointed with second viewing of Ali though Will did good though I normally dispise him and I'm a fan of Mann and Lubezki. Just too slow.
I am glad that I rediscovered Aberdeen having watched it twice over the weekend. It's nice as a moviegoer to be treated with intelligence.

comment #25

IClavdivs says ...

RADAR should spend their efforts trying to actually make RADAR stay in print. They are too busy typing out this banal features to worry, I guess.

I will venture into the Kidman debate. She is earning $17m, she hasn't budged from around that fee for some time and she is not the highest paid actress. The other female stars like Diaz, Roberts who earn about $20m were off the list because they didn't work or didn't work for their full fees. The people who are going on about how she never makes money should actually take a good look at her BO records. You think people went to see Bewitched because of Ferrell? it was Kidman all the way, you think people went to see Penn for The Interpreter? I don't think so. Those 2 movies opened at £22m for TI and $20m for Bewitched. Even with TSW, Bewitched and TI underperforming in the States, she opens all 3 to over $20m, you think the studios will laugh that off or are you forgetting that opening numbers matter? overseas numbers are another thing, when TI opened at overseas markets, it was no.1 in over 8 countries at once. The studios also know that when they go to her for their very small budget movies, she will not say no, she just worked with Baumbach on his $10m movie and how much exactly did you think she was paid for that or for Fur, she also has directors who go to the studios and say "I want her." She is also one of the very few stars who actually promote her movies relentlessly and studios don't laugh that off, either. These big budget movies also come about because the producers/directors of the movies ask her, Oliver Hirschbiegel asked for her to be in Invasion and according to Joel Silver they had to work hard to get her. Scott Rudin asked her to be in TSW and Bewitched was something she asked to do, the producers and director said OK. For The Golden Compass, according to Deborah Forte, the role was already penciled in as hers 10 years ago. It is the money people who actually go to her.

Her relationship with filmmakers is not one they can easily throw away, there is ALWAYS good words for her from one director to another because of the support she gives them and never waiving when the studio heads butt in especially with the small budget directors. Someone like Sydney Pollack has worked with her for years as a producer on some of her movies and when he wanted to make a movie without that much of a script, she said OK, same for Baz Luhrmann in Moulin Rouge, these are things that put her up there. It is one thing to be a good actress and another to understand power and how to use it, Kidman understands that in spades.

She and Denzel are almost on the same level but I think she inches away from him a little, Deja Vu, Machurian Candidate, Out of Time, all underperformed, Machurian didn't even crack $100m worldwide at the BO. Kidman on the other hand still lead The Interpreter, Bewitched (just) and TSW to over $100m worldwide and as I pointed out, opened all of them to over $20m. How much is Denzel earning to justify his lack of hits? This is a guy who does mostly mainstream action movies, Kidman on the other hand has done a small budget movie every year since 2002 except for 2004. Denzel really isn't churning out hits but they both do okay. It is business and if they can say "this is my fee" then all power to them.

In what universe did they have to create hits to get paid any amount they want? if someone is willing to pay me whatever I ask for in my job regardless that it is too much based on my skills then I certainly won't refuse it so why should they?

To date Kidman has made $1,291bn. Btw, Kidman's only movie since 2002 that didn't make its budget back after worldwide BO numbers had been tallied was The Human Stain, the rest all did so let's not get carried away about how bad she is. Kidman will always be a divisive actress, some people see her as a mainstream performer and some don't. I have read enough articles, blogs analysing where she fits in without the analysts making much success but frankly, she is not someone to be dismissed so easily.

comment #26

houmas says ...

nemo,

Cockeye made some pretty good points. Kidman, as a 40 year old actress (who is starting to look her age) has probably peaked in terms of bankability. Actresses careers decline at a far earlier age than actors (sad, but true) Denzel may be 52, but he looks at least 10 years younger (does the man ever age?), and it'll hold him in good stead for the forseeable future. I'd say Denzel has a good decade or more left as a major worldwide draw, imho. Kidman may have a few hits left in her, but it's pretty much downhill from here. People will start looking for reasons not to give her credit for her successes. If The Visiting is a hit, people will say Daniel Craig was a major factor. If it's a flop, Kidman will get most of the flack. If The Golden Compass is a hit, more credit will be given to the hugely best selling status of the Philip Pullman books, than Kidman's presence.

Denzel's increasing international clout also means he'll get to work with bigger budgets. Bigger spectacles and production values will attract larger audiences. I believe he's wanted to make a historical epic about Hannibal Barca for a while, but studios were reluctant to pony up the cash (120 million dollar budget minimum), because they weren't sure whether they'd be able to recoup their investment internationally. Now that Denzel has shown his films can make big bucks overseas, I don't think that'll be a point of contention anymore. Denzel in a Gladiator-style historical epic---it'll be the biggest hit of his career, imho. I'm pretty sure that's going to be one of his next announced acting projects, and since Denzel visited Peter Jackson in New Zealand last year to talk about an upcoming project, I also wouldn't be surprised if it's announced that Peter Jackson is directing Denzel in the Hannibal project. When you consider American Gangster (which should do 250 million worldwide, with the amount of hype it's gonna recieve) is also about to come, I'd say Denzel's going to have an impressive few years of bankability ahead of him.

I'm not sure magazine covers mean much in terms of box office value. I see Cate Blanchett on more European magazines (especially fashion mags) than I've ever seen Denzel, but Blanchett isn't single handedly carrying any movies over 100 million dollars at the overseas box office that I've seen. Everyone in the world knows who Denzel is, and he doesn't need his face plastered on magazine covers to reinforce that. International audiences will have seen many of his movies on TV and DVD, and clearly they've decided that his movies and/or performances are good enough, to shell out on a cinema ticket when the latest Denzel flick is released. Remember, some of the biggest box office draws in the world don't get huge magazine front page coverage---Tom Hanks being a good example. People overseas know when a Tom Hanks movie is out, they'll turn up. He doesn't neccesarily need to be on the cover of every big magazine.

Lots of European magazine cover favorites are not huge box office draws (ie George Clooney, Angelina Jolie, Halle Berry, Jude Law, Ewan Mcgregor ect). People just like looking at them and talking about their lives, and won't neccesarily go out of their way to watch their movies.

comment #27

houmas says ...

IClavdivs;

In Hollywood, you are only as bankable as your last 2 studio movies.

Denzel is inching away from Kidman, not the other way round.

The Manchurian Canidate and Out Of Time all underperformed at a time when the common assumption was that Denzel's movies made little money overseas. Since 2006, that position has now changed.

Deja Vu is underperformed (slightly) domestically, but is performing like a blockbuster overseas. That makes it a hit in broad terms. It's going finish with around 190 million dollars in worldwide theatrical, with a production budget of 75 million. If that doesn't justify his 20 million dollar salary, I don't know what does.

Inside Man made 185 million worldwide, off a production budget of 45 million. The profit margin is huge. Denzel's most recent movies are cheaper to make, and now make more money than Kidman.

Kidman's last 2 studio movies are more expensive, and produced less profit. The Interpreter had a production budget of 80 million, and made 162 million worldwide. Deja Vu cost less, and made more. Bewitched cost 85 million to produce, and made 135 million worldwide. Inside Man cost a whole lot less, and made a whole lot more.

However well or poorly their movies performed in years gone by, based on their last 2 studio pictures, Denzel is showing an increasing worldwide box office strength, while Kidman isn't as much. Denzel's last two studio movies cost less than Kidman's, and made more. There's no getting around that. In 2007, that makes him the more bankable star.

comment #28

IClavdivs says ...

houmas, Deja Vu cost $75m and has made about $63m domestic since its release, Deja Vu ending on perhaps $190m? it won't. Inside Man was his one solid hit domestically last year and yes, I agree that with Deja Vu, he would have better Int. numbers than Kidman but realistically it is a very new thing that started just last year and Kidman's last big budget movie was in 2005 before last year, Man On Fire cost $70m and made $77m domestic, worldwide it made $130m so they are very much on the same level. I am looking at their BO numbers right now and the difference is not that particular. Let's remember that these movies that Denzel make are his kind of movies, intelligent action thrillers. Kidman's budgets on her movies edge out Washington's by about $5-10m and frankly that is not alot. I am not saying Washington should be dismissed but in all honesty, he is OK with his BO numbers. Neither he nor Kidman are slouches by any means but if we are talking about the fact that they barely make what are bonafide hits then they are both in the same boat.

comment #29

houmas says ...

Deja Vu has made 170 million worldwide to date. It's international run has yet to finish, and it has not yet opened in Japan, major market, and China. By next weekend, Deja Vu should be on around 176 million worldwide. In two weeks, it should have passed 180 million. As someone who follows box office, I think 190 million is almost a formality now. If not, it'll get awfully close to that mark. Which, imho renders it's domestic under-performance irrelevant. It's overcompensated by over-performing massively overseas. Based on the budget, it's a worldwide hit. Just like Moulin Rouge was a worldwide hit for Kidman, that was consider to have underperformed domestically. Even if Deja Vu hadn't underperformed domestically, I'm pretty sure Buena Vista didn't expect to make any more than 140 million worldwide on Deja Vu, at best (which would be a high performer for Washington in previous years). A Denzel movie making over 100 million dollars overseas simply isn't supposed to happen, no matter the genre. It's a major breakthrough, that will almost certainly continue with American Gangster. That's the main reason why I consider his bankability to be in the asecndency.

Basically, I agree that there isn't a huge difference between Kidman and Denzel, BO wise. But she'a a 40 year old actress, who has probably peaked in terms of her bankability. With Denzel's youthful looks, and the fact that old men like Sean Connery can remain bankable leading men in their zimmerframes, I think he's still going to be a major draw in 10 years, while Kidman is more likely to be playing Dakota Fanning's mother in a supporting role. Male stars last longer, which is why if we (and studios) compare the long term box office viability of both stars, Kidman's gonna lose.

I also think Denzel still has untapped potential in terms of improving his domestic box office, wheras I think Kidman has also peaked in America. His penchant for intelligent thrillers (often R-rated) limits his potential audience somewhat (kinda like Michael Douglas, who's movies did smilar domestic buisness to Denzel). I'm very surprised that studios don't offer Denzel more family friendly fare or lighter material, which would broaden his audience base. Remember The Titans crossed 100 million domestic partially because it appealed to a broader demographic audience than Denzel's usual movies. Families took their kids to watch that movie, which they can't exactly do with Man On Fire or The Manchurian Canidate. I honestly think if he made more family friendly movies recently, he'd have a few more 100 million dollar domestic hits under his belt. It's not too late either. He was recently voted America's favorite movie star in the Harris poll, ahead of Tom Hanks. So people clearly like him. He just needs to make movies to appeal to a wider demographic.

comment #30

OddDuck says ...

I know this thread started out as something else, but I'm really enjoying the back and forth on Denzel and Kidman. Nothing really to add, other than this:

"He [Denzel] just needs to make movies to appeal to a wider demographic."

From a numbers point of view that's probably a very smart observation, but that's a road that could easily lead to some truly terrible movies if he's not really careful about quality control. And despite my having no interest in seeing Deja Vu, I think it's admirable that he continues to churn out r-rated thrillers.

comment #31

Ju-osh says ...

I keep hoping either Spike Lee or David Thompson will show up to weigh in on this.

comment #32

Captain Midnight says ...

IClavdivs, RADAR is here to stay in print. Staying in print and hiring Kim Masters to find out what is going on with Jim Carrey's career have nothing to do with each other.

Frankly, it's ludicrous to say an article is "banal" when you have not even read it nor do you know what is in it. Buy the magazine and then make your judgement based on reality, not snark for snark's sake.

comment #33

MASON says ...

"You think people went to see Bewitched because of Ferrell? it was Kidman all the way."

That's hilarious. You must be Kidman's agent.

comment #34

thatmovieguy says ...

I have no insights to add to the Denzel vs. Nicole debate, but I will say that everyone out there who hates Carrey will find much ammunition in THE NUMBER 23. It's a dismal movie, and he doesn't help it one bit. It starts off like it's going to be a wacky comedy, then it begins to seem like ETERNAL SUNSHINE and finally it goes completely off the beam to become a hopelessly muddled thriller, punctuated by some of the least sexy sex scenes you've ever seen and plot twists that ought to have audiences snickering. Carrey has a couple of mildly funny moments, but his performance is all over the place and completely unconvincing. Virginia Madsen's talents are completely untapped in an equally unplayable role. Joel Schumacher has photographed large portions of it to look like an old Nine Inch Nails video, which only heightens the absurdity of it all. Curiosity may result in a big opening, but it's going to go the LADY IN THE WATER route, and fast.

comment #35

Abercrombie & Fitch says ...

интернет магазин женской одежды abercrombie & fitch интернет магазин UGG Australia интернет магазин ugg Herve Leger kiev