https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/f...rio-became-hollywoods-last-movie-star-1225416

The whole article is great, but I couldn't help but laugh that the author seemed to go out of his way to piss on a few other actors to make his point.

Leo is one of the few people in the biz right now that can sell movies on his name alone. I don't know if that makes him the "last" movie star but it makes him unique. Other than him Dwayne Johnson and maybe Cruise and Pitt can sell movies on their name alone.

 

Well...some fair points, but at the same time, I think it's arguable whether all of his films are sold purely on his name. Most of the other films he's been in have been directed by people who are also highly respected and popular box office draws, and he's often not the only popular and acclaimed cast member - Catch Me If You Can, for example, directed by Spielberg and co-starring Tom Hanks, while Revolutionary Road reunited him with Kate Winslet, which surely drew in a big crowd of Titanic fans. And while the article mentions his collaboration with Danny Boyle, it's worth noting that The Beach is not a particularly well regarded film, although it did make a decent profit.

 

Just looked at his filmography and here's who he worked with in the last decade: Scorsese (many times), Tarantino, Luhrmann (who Leo worked with on Romeo and Juliet), Inarritu (coming off of Birdman), Eastwood, Nolan, Sam Mendes (director of American beauty and road to perdition before he worked with Leo).

Tom Cruise is the last movie Star and maybe Dwayne Johnson but he is more of an action star.

Tom, who still does all sorts of movies which end up at decent grosses though is religion hurting his box office pull. Even his “flops” like Oblivion, Jack Reacher 2, and Knight and Day have made $286M, $162M, and $262M, all making back their production budget. His most recent film MI: Fallout was a global hit and made over 3/4 billion dollars.

 

Leo and Tom are probably the last movie stars though I would argue that Tom is easier to prove that because he has more weak films that actually made a decent money because he was in them. Leo is a lot better with choosing his material and it could be argued that lot of his films would make a good money even without him.

Dwayne Johnson is the last big action star like Arnold and Sylvester. Whether or not that makes him a movie star depends on how you define it.

I disagree that Brad Pitt is a movie star though. His box office is very inconsistent compared to Leo and Tom.

 

Yeah, I don't buy it. I'd say people went to see Leo's recent, acclaimed films as much because of the director/other starring actors instead of just Leo. Not taking anything from the man, but this seems like undeserved praise, and an odd fight to pick. If we're talking a record of excellence, I'd argue that an actor has an easier time of that than say, a director, because the actor is responsible for their role, while every shortcoming of a film is often blamed on the director. Plenty of examples of films/shows that flopped or were unloved by critics/audiences (end seasons of GoT hello), save for that one actor's performance. I think Leo is great, but I also think someone like Nolan has a greater claim to a record of excellence.

 

I would argue that Nic Cage is up there too. I would say 99% of the movies he’s been in the last 20 years, people see because of the fact he’s in it. It doesn’t matter how bad the movie is or what character he’s playing, you always know you’re getting a certain level of performance from Cage.

 

Arguably you're right, but it would be better to describe Cage as a cult star actor than a classic movie star these days.