By Katey Rich
My roommate decided without my knowledge that I have a crush on Will Smith. I realize I'm late to the party on this one-- he's been a heartthrob since I was in elementary school-- but I've recently become enamored with his ability to do, well, anything, and make it a success. And, thank goodness for Hollywood's sake, he hasn't tried to branch out as an entrepeneur and bring his golden touch to fashion or anything else. He's a bona fide, honest-to-God movie star, capable of creating lines around the block and instant franchises just by signing his name on the dotted line.
I'm realizing now how many other people share that same trust in Will Smith, reading Variety and The Hollywood Reporter's distinct pans of Smith's latest July 4 outing, Hancock. The Reporter calls it "spectacular but muddled," and Variety settles on "misguided." But even within its bad review, The Reporter stops to credit Smith's "effortless charisma in a vehicle that's only occasionally worthy of his superhuman skills. Who else on the planet could star in a summer tentpole in which his face dominates the entire poster and still not be blamed one iota for its failure?
In the responses to Hollywood Elsewhere's item about Variety's pan, a commenter pointed out that Wild Wild West, widely considered a gigantic flop even before it opened, debuted with $49 million in 2001, which amounts to even more in today's dollars. Is Will Smith really such a huge star that we will pay money to spend time with him, regardless of how bad the surrounding story is? For the time being, I guess that answer is yes. You'll have a hard time finding anyone who will predict that Hancock will flop, and even if it "underperforms" with something under $200 million, it will by no means be a chink in Will Smith's armor. The former Fresh Prince seems capable of carrying on as the invincible King of Blockbusters, and I for one will be happy to carry on with the boss. So long as he stays away from alcoholic superheroes in the future.
No comments:
Post a Comment