As summer starts to wind down, the kids are heading back to school and all of the best movies have had their turn to dazzle us, it's time to take a look at who had a good summer, and who can't wait for fall and winter to start making our days and nights a bit chillier, so we don't realize how chilly their careers have become. Sadly, we are starting the series with a look at one of Summer's biggest losers - Tom Hanks.
I don't care what you say or think about Tom Hanks. To me, he will always be one of the greatest Hollywood stars of all time, and still should be considered one of the best actors working in the game today. However, Larry Crowne marked the end of an era.
Perhaps Universal should not have released the movie up against Transformers: Dark of the Moon. While it was a good idea to be the counter-programming alternative to one of summer's biggest blockbusters, it reminded everyone that Tom Hanks doesn't sell tickets the way he used to.
Written by, directed by and starring Tom Hanks, Larry Crowne brought in an anemic $35.6 million domestically. Ten or fifteen years ago, if you told me Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks were going to make a movie together, I would have bet it would make $35 million in the first weekend (it would have cost $40 million just to buy their services).
Alas, those days are gone. Much like a great baseball player starts to fade, and everyone still respects him, but realizes he will never be an MVP or lead a team to a World Series again, Tom Hanks will not top the box office again. He'll have the big franchises like Toy Story and The Da Vinci Code to fall back on, but those movies would be successful with or without him.
Should we weep for Tom Hanks?
No, because he can be free to be the actor he is and wants to be. I would love to see him team up with a young, talented, eager writer/director and make some amazing, Oscary-worthy movie that will blow our minds (Darren Aronofsky, are you out there and reading this?).
No, because he can be free to make a great ensemble comedy with any team of actors he wishes to assemble. He doesn't even need to be the star. He could be the scene stealing supporting character that has all of the best lines (Kind of like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, or Betty White in anything Betty White does).
No, because he can be free to experiment with short films and segments that can be posted directly to the internet.
It's not over for Tom Hanks, as long as he doesn't try to be the guy who makes the $200 million movie.
Perhaps Universal should not have released the movie up against Transformers: Dark of the Moon. While it was a good idea to be the counter-programming alternative to one of summer's biggest blockbusters, it reminded everyone that Tom Hanks doesn't sell tickets the way he used to.
Written by, directed by and starring Tom Hanks, Larry Crowne brought in an anemic $35.6 million domestically. Ten or fifteen years ago, if you told me Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks were going to make a movie together, I would have bet it would make $35 million in the first weekend (it would have cost $40 million just to buy their services).
Alas, those days are gone. Much like a great baseball player starts to fade, and everyone still respects him, but realizes he will never be an MVP or lead a team to a World Series again, Tom Hanks will not top the box office again. He'll have the big franchises like Toy Story and The Da Vinci Code to fall back on, but those movies would be successful with or without him.
Should we weep for Tom Hanks?
No, because he can be free to be the actor he is and wants to be. I would love to see him team up with a young, talented, eager writer/director and make some amazing, Oscary-worthy movie that will blow our minds (Darren Aronofsky, are you out there and reading this?).
No, because he can be free to make a great ensemble comedy with any team of actors he wishes to assemble. He doesn't even need to be the star. He could be the scene stealing supporting character that has all of the best lines (Kind of like Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder, or Betty White in anything Betty White does).
No, because he can be free to experiment with short films and segments that can be posted directly to the internet.
It's not over for Tom Hanks, as long as he doesn't try to be the guy who makes the $200 million movie.
