This year’s biggest movies starred some of Hollywood’s most popular actors – some relatively new and some far more established. Chadwick Boseman – the star of the year’s top-grossing film “Black Panther” — only had a few starring roles under his belt before becoming T’Challa, a character in the film. Alternatively, Tom Cruise simply added one more blockbuster success to his filmography with this year’s “Mission: Impossible – Fallout.”
An actor’s popularity with moviegoers is a delicate matter, however, and even the industry’s biggest stars are always at risk of falling out of the public’s favor. When an actor alone is no longer enough to ensure a movie’s box-office success, that actor may receive fewer leads in big budget productions, quickening his or her decline.
24/7 Wall St. has identified the least bankable actors as of 2018. These are the performers whose films have the worst average box-office returns in relation to their production budgets. While many of these actors are still considered big stars, they fail to command the level of box- office success that is standard among the industry’s most bankable actors either due to waning popularity or poor career decisions with regard to the movies they make.
Click here to see the least bankable actors of 2018.
Click here to see our methodology.
25. Charlize Theron
> Avg. return on investment: 96.5%
> Most recent leading role: “Tully” (2018)
> Film with worst return: “The Astronaut’s Wife” (1999)
> Lifetime lead roles: 10
[in-text-ad]
24. Brad Pitt
> Avg. return on investment: 95.2%
> Most recent leading role: “War Machine” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “Allied” (2016)
> Lifetime lead roles: 22
24/7 Wall St.
23. Kurt Russell
> Avg. return on investment: 94.7%
> Most recent leading role: “Bone Tomahawk” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “Soldier” (1998)
> Lifetime lead roles: 19
22. Simon Pegg
> Avg. return on investment: 91.9%
> Most recent leading role: “Absolutely Anything” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “How to Lose Friends & Alienate People” (2008)
> Lifetime lead roles: 8
[in-text-ad-2]
21. Joseph Gordon-Levitt
> Avg. return on investment: 88.4%
> Most recent leading role: “Snowden” (2016)
> Film with worst return: “Treasure Planet” (2002)
> Lifetime lead roles: 11
20. Russell Crowe
> Avg. return on investment: 84.9%
> Most recent leading role: “The Nice Guys” (2016)
> Film with worst return: “Robin Hood” (2010)
> Lifetime lead roles: 16
[in-text-ad]
19. Nicolas Cage
> Avg. return on investment: 84.1%
> Most recent leading role: “Mandy” (2018)
> Film with worst return: “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” (2010)
> Lifetime lead roles: 41
24/7 Wall St.
18. Robert Redford
> Avg. return on investment: 84.0%
> Most recent leading role: “The Discovery” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “The Last Castle” (2001)
> Lifetime lead roles: 15
17. Antonio Banderas
> Avg. return on investment: 81.9%
> Most recent leading role: “Security” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “The 13th Warrior” (1999)
> Lifetime lead roles: 10
[in-text-ad-2]
16. Eric Bana
> Avg. return on investment: 81.7%
> Most recent leading role: “Deliver Us from Evil” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “Lucky You” (2007)
> Lifetime lead roles: 8
15. Scarlett Johansson
> Avg. return on investment: 81.6%
> Most recent leading role: “Ghost in the Shell” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “The Island” (2005)
> Lifetime lead roles: 11
[in-text-ad]
14. Jim Caviezel
> Avg. return on investment: 80.2%
> Most recent leading role: “When the Game Stands Tall” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “Outlander” (2008)
> Lifetime lead roles: 6
13. Julianne Moore
> Avg. return on investment: 75.7%
> Most recent leading role: “Freeheld” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “Children of Men” (2006)
> Lifetime lead roles: 11
12. Cate Blanchett
> Avg. return on investment: 75.2%
> Most recent leading role: “Carol” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” (2007)
> Lifetime lead roles: 9
[in-text-ad-2]
11. Kate Winslet
> Avg. return on investment: 73.3%
> Most recent leading role: “The Dressmaker” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “The Holiday” (2006)
> Lifetime lead roles: 7
10. Keira Knightley
> Avg. return on investment: 69.9%
> Most recent leading role: “Laggies” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “Domino” (2005)
> Lifetime lead roles: 10
[in-text-ad]
9. Jason Statham
> Avg. return on investment: 68.2%
> Most recent leading role: “The Meg” (2018)
> Film with worst return: “In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale” (2007)
> Lifetime lead roles: 18
24/7 Wall St.
8. Jude Law
> Avg. return on investment: 67.1%
> Most recent leading role: “Black Sea” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “Enemy at the Gates” (2001)
> Lifetime lead roles: 8
7. Aaron Eckhart
> Avg. return on investment: 66.8%
> Most recent leading role: “I, Frankenstein” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “The Core” (2003)
> Lifetime lead roles: 7
[in-text-ad-2]
6. Nicole Kidman
> Avg. return on investment: 61.2%
> Most recent leading role: “The Beguiled” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “The Golden Compass” (2007)
> Lifetime lead roles: 18
5. Guy Pearce
> Avg. return on investment: 60.2%
> Most recent leading role: “The Rover” (2014)
> Film with worst return: “Two Brothers” (2004)
> Lifetime lead roles: 6
[in-text-ad]
4. Miles Teller
> Avg. return on investment: 56.6%
> Most recent leading role: “Bleed for This” (2016)
> Film with worst return: “Fantastic Four” (2015)
> Lifetime lead roles: 6
24/7 Wall St.
3. Michael Fassbender
> Avg. return on investment: 51.6%
> Most recent leading role: “Alien: Covenant” (2017)
> Film with worst return: “Assassin’s Creed” (2016)
> Lifetime lead roles: 11
2. Colin Farrell
> Avg. return on investment: 45.3%
> Most recent leading role: “The Lobster” (2015)
> Film with worst return: “Alexander” (2004)
> Lifetime lead roles: 16
[in-text-ad-2]
1. Clive Owen
> Avg. return on investment: 44.9%
> Most recent leading role: “Anon” (2018)
> Film with worst return: “Beyond Borders” (2003)
> Lifetime lead roles: 10
Detailed findings
While not all of these actors’ biggest flops were released in 2018, none starred in any major hits. Jason Statham’s monster shark movie “The Meg” grossed $143 million in the U.S. on a reported budget of $150 million. While the film did better at the international box office, its domestic performance shows that having Statham as the lead star is not enough to justify such a massive budget.
Other featured actors may have scored recent box office successes but are dragged down by past failures. Charlize Theron has done well with this year’s “Tully” and last year’s “Atomic Blonde.” Older films like 1999’s “The Astronaut’s Wife,” which grossed less than one-third of its budget of $34 million in the U.S., imply that she is not a sure-fire bet as a movie’s lead.
Methodology
To determine the least bankable actors as of 2018, 24/7 Wall St. analyzed the average return on investment for the films of 2,383 actors with data from the Internet Movie Database. Only films with the actor in a lead role were considered in his or her average return on investment using U.S. box office earnings, and only films with at least 10,000 user ratings on IMDb were included. Actors were excluded from consideration if 30% or more of their lead acting credits were in sequels to their own movies. Additionally, actors who have not starred in at least five original projects throughout their careers, and at least one movie since 2014, were excluded from consideration. If an actor met the qualifications, however, their films that are sequels or included in a franchise were included in the average. Finally, actors who met these criteria yet managed to gross an average of at least $70 million at the U.S. box office for films in which they were the lead were excluded. Budget data came from film data service The Numbers.
100 Million Americans Are Missing This Crucial Retirement Tool
The thought of burdening your family with a financial disaster is most Americans’ nightmare. However, recent studies show that over 100 million Americans still don’t have proper life insurance in the event they pass away.
Life insurance can bring peace of mind – ensuring your loved ones are safeguarded against unforeseen expenses and debts. With premiums often lower than expected and a variety of plans tailored to different life stages and health conditions, securing a policy is more accessible than ever.
A quick, no-obligation quote can provide valuable insight into what’s available and what might best suit your family’s needs. Life insurance is a simple step you can take today to help secure peace of mind for your loved ones tomorrow.
Click here to learn how to get a quote in just a few minutes.
Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.
Latest from 24/7
