The "Rounders" Effect

10/24/98
Both Entertainment Weekly (in its Power 101 article, which lists Matt at 93rd) and the A&E Biography (shown today - Matt was one of three young actors profiled) made note of "Rounders"' disappointing box-office performance. That's exactly what I was afraid of.

So wrote Entertainment Weekly

That last line stings. How much more so to Matt, I can only imagine.

The A&E bio ended with this discouraging note: "Matt Damon's last movie choice was not so smart. 'Rounders' was roundly criticized and quickly fizzled at the box office."

"Rounders" did fizzle at the b.o., but it was definitely not roundly criticized (see my Rounders page). Such is the Hollywood mentality - if a movie doesn't sell, it's bad.

"Rounders" netted only 23M during its first run here in the U.S., a perfectly respect- able take for a film made for probably $15M. Unfortunately, what was at stake is not just that the film makes money or not, but whether Matt can carry a film on his own. As EW pointed out, that Rounders did not fly has cast doubts on Matt's ability to headline a film, and Miramax is probably worrying bigtime about "Ripley", and Columbia is doing likewise about "Pretty Horses".

It's ironic: had Matt not made "Rounders", he would probably not have gotten this bad rap.

"Ripley" too is a risky film, and it could well also end up not being a commercial success, in which case all the good will showered on Matt may vanish faster than you can say Matt Damon.

I AM worried. However, meanwhile Matt is listed in the Daily Variety, once again along with Brad Pitt, as an actor being considered for yet another film, this one a story on Lindberg, the pioneering pilot. The other film that has him named similarly is one on Mickey Mantle, the baseball player.

I know in my heart that Matt is a talented actor, but far too many talented persons have fallen by the wayside in show biz. Matt has gotten his big break last year. He will need some luck now to hang in there.


12/10/98 A footnote to the "Rounders" Syndrome: In an article in today's Daily Variety about actors who have double performances during the year, thereby enhancing their Oscar nomination chances: What utter nonsense. First of all, Matt was THE star, not the co-star of "Rounders". Secondly, Matt simply didn't get enough time in SPR to merit a supporting-actor nomination. Thirdly, Ed Burns - who did get enough time - is not getting the buzz for that nomination either, and he sure doesn't have the "Rounder's problem".