EW - Is 'Runner Runner' worse for Ben Affleck or Justin Timberlake?
It says something about our weird multihyphenate celebrity era that the two lead actors of Runner Runner are both highly regarded for everything besides their acting. Ben Affleck just won an Oscar as the director-producer of Argo, part of a larger career renaissance that started with Gone Baby Gone and The Town. And Justin Timberlake is, well, Justin Timberlake, the omnipresent musician who split his comeback album in two and saw both parts climb to the top of the music charts. It seems unlikely that either of them are smarting over the box office failure of Runner Runner, partially because it still seems unlikely that either of them actually starred in Runner Runner.
And yet, the film’s failure offers an intriguing microcosmic look at the nature of Affleck’s and Timberlake’s star power. Neither of them needed the movie to be a hit, but both of them probably wanted the film to perform well. Upon close analysis, both men had a lot riding on Runner Runner. Let’s try to figure out who was more affected by the film’s failure.
Justin Timberlake: Few people have ever wanted to be a movie star as much as Justin Timberlake wants to be a movie star. In 2002, Timberlake had just silenced all the skeptics with Justified, an album that forever eradicated the idea that Timberlake was a boy band refugee. Making the leap from teen-dreamboat team player into serious solo artist is always difficult. Timberlake celebrated by taking a break from music to take minor roles in a whole assortment of good-on-paper projects: a police drama with Oscar-winning costars, a gritty indie based on true events, an auteurist epic from a cultishly adored young director, a sexy button-pushing drama from a dynamic young director, a voice role in a beloved animated franchise, and a supporting role in a new film from a beloved comedy mastermind.
Every one of those projects made sense — in theory — as a smart choice for a young music star desperate to prove himself as a legitimate actor. Unfortunately, those projects were Edison, Alpha Dog, Southland Tales, Black Snake Moan, Shrek the Third, and The Love Guru. (Frequently, the lone note of positivity in the bad reviews for those films was that Timberlake was actually pretty good.) Timberlake’s ascension continued: In 2006, he released FutureSex/LoveSounds and also performed “D— in a Box” on SNL. The latter was arguably more important for Timberlake, insofar as it cemented a certain notion of Timberlake as Mega-Talent in the pop culture firmament.
In response, Timberlake made a second attempt at movie stardom, this time with more success. In 2010, he had his best role, as a very Timberlake-esque Sean Parker in The Social Network. In 2011, he had three films: Bad Teacher, Friends with Benefits, and In Time. The first two were dark-ish comedies, and they were reasonably successful. In Time was Timberlake’s play at full-on action hero status, and although it made a decent amount of money, it was generally seen as a flop, possibly because Timberlake wasn’t very good and more likely because the movie was hilariously terrible.
Given the success of Friends with Benefits, Timberlake could probably sail through four or five romantic comedies if he wanted to. But the mere existence of Runner Runner implies that Timberlake wants to be the star that In Time failed to transform him into: An action hero. And Hollywood does badly want a new young action star. But after years of trying (Ryan Reynolds) and trying (Taylor Kitsch), Hollywood has implemented the Reboot Protocol, meaning that “new young action stars” are mostly unknowns taking on familiar roles in superhero movies or franchise remakes. This is good news if your name is Jeremy Renner and bad news if you’re Justin Timberlake, who is paradoxically probably too famous (and therefore too expensive) for a superhero film.
