Michael Cera vs. the Box Office

Everyone who loves all things film has their own pick of actors they like and dislike. If you know me, you know I loooovvveee Ethan Hawke (for a multitude of reasons), and I absolutely loath Nicolas Cage with a passion. For some, their Nicolas Cage is Michael Cera.

Like everyone else, I started out liking Michael Cera. I thought he was adorably cute and awkward in Superbad. Then I thought he was even more adorably cute and awkward in Juno, but as his movies continued to play I started to wonder what was with the whole adorably cute and awkward act. While many serious and hilarious actors choose to jump around and try new roles, Cera only had eyes for scripts with wide-eyed loser teenagers with a heart for a hot girl that wants little or nothing to do with him.



Juno

In the beginning, these rolls didn't put him completely in the spotlight, so his own brand of teenage angst flew under the radar. Yet, that didn't mean people weren't watching him. While everyone was Googling Diablo Cody, producers and directors were hungry for Cera's strange handsomeless tween appeal. Two big gigs were signed, sealed and filmed with Michael Cera as the leading man in more mainstream young adult geekiness, yet by 2010 nobody cared to see or hear what Cera had to offer as a leading man. We'd already seen all the puppy dog eyes and brown corduroy we could handle.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

I can't lie, I was on that same bandwagon and in some ways I still am. I didn't want to see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World and I couldn't give any better excuse either than I didn't care to see Michael Cera ever again. The same went for Youth in Revolt. Been there, seen that. But things turned around and one evening while my boyfriend and I had nothing to do, he drug me to the movies to see Scott Pilgrim and strangely enough I LOVED IT! I laughed so hard, I had tears in my eyes. It wasn't that Michael Cera had made a turn as an actor, but the movie was really well written and funny. The music was cool and the the graphics were awesome. It was the perfect movie for all those who cherish old school video games and garage band music. And although it bombed big time at the box office, the comic books from which it was adapted has been on the New York Times best seller list for months.

Youth in Revolt shared a similar fate. No one wanted to see it, but when I sat down and I watched it, I didn't hate it. It was neither bad, nor life changing It was just cute. So, why does everyone still hate Michael Cera so much? I went to the IMDB.com message boards to collect some thoughts:

-      He is very flat as an actor which is why he always plays the same roles.
Elemental_Mind

-     He also needs to seriously consider the roles he picks because sooner or later (if not already) he is going to become too old for the geeky, anxiously, love-starved nerd he plays in his movies.
michaelsteel1989

-       I have a strong feeling many people think of Michael Cera as one of their guilty pleasures, but they're ashamed about it and think many people might know it, so they go out and try to prove everyone they hate him.
sardonic_and_erudite

-       most actors just play the same character in films over and over. Clooney plays the same smooth character over and over.
Joes_owl



Across the board, most people that disapproved of Michael Cera on IMDB complained that he was a flat, one-dimensional actor. This may have been true, but it could hardly explain why his luck ran out so quickly. Like Joes_owl said, "most actors just play the same character in films over and over." And he's right, I've seen George Clooney play the same Danny Ocean character 20 times. The same goes for Matthew Maconahay, Hugh Grant, Luke Wilson, Will Arnett,  and Bruce Willis. They've all played the same characters 50 times over. So, why couldn't Michael Cera trick us into loving his brand of timid-goober?

Hugh Grant plays another strangely charming rich guy in Two Weeks Notice.



Truth is, I think people fell out of love with him because he a) isn't generically handsome  b) he doesn't have a problem with choosing bad movies, but he does have a problem with choosing the right movies for him and c)he switched into leading role status too fast. He went from sidekick to lead ass kicker in Scott Pilgrim in the span of 3 years (and you can see the change in the box office numbers below). Although it is completely out of his control, the spacing of his movies would have helped him significantly. It was like we were being told that Michael Cera was the new Shia Labeouf, but by that point nobody liked Shia Labeouf any more either.

All and all, my advice to Michael Cera would be to lay low for a little while. He's only 21, so he has time to grow a real mustache and get some tattoos. His best bet would be to do a little theater.  It doesn't matter if it is a comedy or a drama, he just needs to get out there and do something different. It worked for Daniel Radcliffe. I'm not saying Michael Cera needs to get naked on stage, but he does need to separate himself from being a timid teenager with bad hair.

Juno (2007)

Domestic Box Office Gross: $143,495, 265  

Production Cost: $7.5 million (made nearly 20x as much as cost to make)

Superbad (2007)

Domestic Box Office Gross: $121,463,226 

Production Cost: $20 million (made 6x as much as to make)

Youth in Revolt (2010)

Domestic Box Office Gross: $15,281,286 

Production Cost: $18 million (lost a  $-3 million)

Scott Pilgrim (2010)

Domestic Box Office Gross: $31,524,275 

Production  Cost: $60 million (lost a $-29 million)

Ferris Bueller Re-Imaged

In honor of my sick day at home, I present to you this awesome re-cut trailer of Ferris Buellers Day Off. Don't be surprised if you all of a sudden have an urgent feeling to watch Lost in Translation, The Virgin Suicides or anything else directed by Sofia Coppola.