Home

 › 

Entertainment

 › 

Movies

 › 

Least Bankable Actors of 2018

Least Bankable Actors of 2018

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.

Source: Andreas Rentz / Getty Images

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

Source: Rich Fury / Getty Images

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

Source: gageskidmore / Flickr

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

Source: John Phillips / Getty Images

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

Source: Rich Fury / Getty Images

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

Source: Mark Kolbe / Getty Images

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

Source: Sascha Steinbach / Getty Images

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

Source: Theo Wargo / Getty Images

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

Source: Carlos Alvarez / Getty Images

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

Source: Jason Kempin / Getty Images

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

Source: Jason Merritt / Getty Images

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

Source: Dave Kotinsky / Getty Images

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

Source: Siebbi / Wikimedia Commons

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

Source: Harold Cunningham / Getty Images

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

Source: Mike Windle / Getty Images

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

Source: Anthony Harvey / Getty Images

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

Source: Eamonn M. McCormack / Getty Images

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

Source: Frederick M. Brown / Getty Images

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

Source: Jesse Grant / Getty Images

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

Source: Dimitrios Kambouris / Getty Images

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

Source: Pascal Le Segretain / Getty Images

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

Source: Pascal Le Segretain / Getty Images

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

Source: John Phillips / Getty Images

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

Source: Pascal Le Segretain / Getty Images

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

Source: Alberto E. Rodriguez / Getty Images

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.

To top