It might pay to be Matthew McConaughey’s costar. Unfortunately.
By Burbanked on Sep 19, 2007 in Celebrities, Development Heck, Movies | 5,259 views |
I find it very difficult to get through most of Matthew McConaughey’s movies. Sure, there’s a Lone Star in there, a Dazed and Confused, but in general I find his delivery, his smug persona and his general smarminess to be real cinematic turn-offs.
So it’s with an exuberant sense of “bleh” that I read a piece like this one from The Hollywood Reporter in which we learn that Jennifer Garner is contemplating costarring with McConaughey in a romantic comedy called Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, which the trade describes thusly:
The story follows a bachelor (McConaughey) who goes to his younger brother’s wedding, where he is visited by the ghosts of his past and future girlfriends who endeavor to connect him with his true love (Garner).
Wow. That is about the worst, most contrived movie premise I’ve seen in quite a while. What exactly is it about that logline that’s appealing?
I also find it interesting that the Reporter doesn’t mention any screenwriter in its article, which is usually standard. Maybe the writer’s already embarrassed that the piece of crap he/she dusted off when a development executive off-handedly asked, “So, what else have you got?” is now being touted as a prime piece of rom-com studio programming.
But this piece got me thinking about Garner, and wondering if it helps or hurts an actress’s career to costar with McConaughey. His movies are all generally kind of crap, aren’t they? So what do you suppose we could conjecture about the success or failure of his leading ladies?
Let’s take a look after the jump.
Here’s how I see a breakdown of actresses in McConaughey movies when they function as romantic costars:
| McConaughey Leading Lady | Movie | RT.com Critics’ Rating | At Least One Critic Said: | Worldwide Gross |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Sarah Jessica Parker |
Failure To Launch, 2006 | 26% | “Parker does a reasonable job with material she’s given.” | $128 million |
Penelope Cruz |
Sahara, 2005 | 38% | “…the chemistry between real-life couple McConaughey and Cruz is so feeble…” | $119 million |
Kate Beckinsale |
Tiptoes, 2003 | 33% | “Tiptoes is just baffling in its lameness.” | Not available |
Kate Hudson |
How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days, 2003 | 42% | “The purpose of movies like this is to revel in the leading lady’s beauty, check out her hair and ogle her wardrobe.” | $177 million |
Jennifer Lopez |
The Wedding Planner, 2001 | 15% | “The chemistry so crucial to the success of any screen romance is absent.” | $94 million |
Jenna Elfman |
EdTV, 1999 | 63% | “…she’s annoying[ly] one-note and completely facile in her approach.” | $35 million |
Unfortunately, what these highly scientific results indicate to me is that McConaughey’s movies are generally awful – with an average critics’ rating of 36% – yet their box office returns remain solid, surpassing or coming near the magical $100 million benchmark more than half the time.
That means, at least on its surface, that it’s a good career move for an actress to be in a McConaughey movie. At the very least it’s a solid double with potential to stretch it into something more. A McConaughey movie won’t win you an award, Hollywood actresses, but it will allow you to buy more things, vacation in Milan again, and build a bigger pool in your backyard.
The only people who lose in this equation, of course, are us.
© Copyright
Sulu at the Helm | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
I actually saw “How to Lose a Guy…”, but years before it came out—in a puddle of puke…one that I blew after a night of boozing on tequila and Iron City…That’s when I knew Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson and most of Hollywood had to die. But they just keep on making predictable, embarassingly crappy movies that appeal to the most rearded segment of our population that for some reason always has $10 to spend on really crappy movies. But hey, it’s a formula that works.
MC | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
I say hire Matt Damon for every one of those roles… as he does a killer McConaughey impression and he actually has some, you know, range.
Burbanked | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
Sulu: Hm.
*nods understandingly while secretly dialing 911*
MC: It’s indeed a great impression, and I agree: I’d rather plunk down my money for someone acting like McConaughey than for McConaughey’s acting.
Chris | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
His movies do usually suck. Valentine’s Day fluff.
Doesn’t appear to be a bad move though financially
Megan | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
Thanks Burbank for that spot on ’smug and smarmy’ description. I am totally unable to comprehend McC’s sexiest man status. Interesting though that Garner is brunette, they seem to outnumber the blondes here.
Bob | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
I remember when McC was first annointed by the media as a golden boy. I found his cheekbones irritating even then.
On the other hand, he does seem kind of affable. A lot weed will do that.
Bob | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
Damn. I left out “of” up there (before the word “weed”). I seem to have be having a prepositional/article problem these days. Soon, I’ll be blogging like Tarzan, Frankenstein, and/or Tonto.
Ray | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
Here’s a question – do the ghosts of his girlfriends past and future come to him because they’re all DEAD? Is he some sort of mass murderer being goaded into true love by his victims??
Matthew shall not get my money for this one.
You’re forgetting about the palpable chemistry between McConaughey and Jodie Foster in “Contact.” That “romance” will form icicles on your balls.
http://www.therecshow.com
Norm Schrager | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
A big ugh to the concept. Especially since he wallowed in Failure to Launch as the same character with probably the same issues. He’s simply average.
Ray, you slag Contact, but his role in it was probably one of the deepest he’s ever seen. He needs to play the male lead in something like Premonition, where he can’t cause too much trouble, but he can stretch just a little. Something that’s not a romantic comedy, but a solid ‘C’ for the average thriller set.
Now go enter to win a free DVD on our site! Hooray!
Norm S.
http://www.meetinthelobby.com
Ray | Sep 19, 2007 | Reply
Pffft … that movie was all surface intellect. And his dumb southern drawl made every pretentious argument that much cornier.
Burbanked | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply
I find Contact strangely watchable, probably due to Foster grounding it (ha!) in a kind of believable truth. McC just takes me out of it every time he’s on screen, though, and I agree with Ray that the romance angle there is DOA.
Matthew McConaughey | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply
Sulu you just made me so angry I’m gonna take my shirt off.
KC | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply
Love that breakdown Burbanked. This new movie somehow manages to sound even worse than the McC predecessors.
I don’t think its McC himself, because I don’t mind him on screen. It’s just these roles that he takes. He could do much better if he chose these better. Of course, these are the only characters he’s known for, and thus, will only be offered such from now on.
http://www.therecshow.com
Ray | Sep 20, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know about that, KC. Don’t mistake physical beauty with acting chops. The guy is a vapid void whose southern drawl projects more personality than any of his other qualities combined.
http://www.therecshow.com
KC | Sep 21, 2007 | Reply
I don’t think so Ray. Just look at his amazing performance in “Reign of Fire.” Breathtaking I tell you.
http://www.therecshow.com
KC | Sep 21, 2007 | Reply
But seriously, he was very good in movies like “Amistad” and “A Time To Kill.” Such films showed that he is a very good actor. He has just picked the same dumb “boyfriend” role over and over for the past several years, which has earned him his current reputation.
Ray | Sep 21, 2007 | Reply
@ KC – Because he is a Himbo. All McC wants to do is exercise on a beach, fuck a couple of models, and occasionally appear in a movie to support his lifestyle. He has little to offer beyond that.
Megan | Sep 21, 2007 | Reply
@Ray – I wouldn’t mind doing that for a living. Male models, though, please.
Ray | Sep 22, 2007 | Reply
@ Megan – Well, sure .. that sounds great. Except that any actor I respect will choose parts that stretch him and will then tackle that part with abandon. McC, on the other hand, is content to wander onscreen and drawl for two hours, flash a couple of magazine-ready smirks, and collect a paycheck.
http://www.therecshow.com