Top Ten Biggest Money-Making Actresses Right Now
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 at 6:00PM For today's Tuesday's Top Ten we're using Forbes numbers for discussion lift-off We recently discussed their list of the top paid actors from the past twelve months and came to the conclusion that they don't challenge themselves much at all. The women are a slightly different story. While it's true that no one would mistake this for a list of 'The Best Actresses Working' or 'The Actresses Who Are Currently Testing The Limits of Their Range,' this list does have slightly more variety in filmography though far less in terms of beauty and age as is always the case with the men and the women of Hollywood
01 Angelina Jolie $33
Tops the list by way of signing on to Maleficent for Disney. The Sleeping Beauty prequel is a surefire hit, both because it's presold -- branding being everything -- and because it's Jolie who rarely falters at the box office.
nine more ladies and an actress poll after the jump
02 Jennifer Lawrence $26
The youngest woman on the list (almost 23) is Hollywood's reigning "Best Actress" and Queen of Internet Fandom (seriously, people be obsessed!). She had a sleeper hit with Silver Linings Playbook (the first romantic comedy to strike it rich with the trifecta - critics, audiences, Oscars - in quite some time) but it's the Hunger Games and X-Men paychecks that will sustain her even if she retires by 25.
03 Kristen Stewart $22
With Twilight wrapping up, Forbes warns that she will drop off this list next year. She could certainly use a little time away from the spotlight since she doesn't seem to enjoy it all that much. Still, I doubt she's "over". (She was #1 last year)
04 Jennifer Aniston $20
Is the closest thing the female list has to someone who would not look at all out of place on the corresponding male list: she almost never tests her range and the films make money and are then instantly forgotten.
05 Emma Stone $16
Will this be the decade of Stone? She broke out big in 2010 with Easy A nd it's been smooth sailing since with big hits (The Help, The Amazing Spider-Man), regular size hits (Crazy Stupid Love), and a flop no one blamed on her (Gangster Squad). She's got adoring fans, adorable boyfriend, and critical adoration; Easy A indeed. But I'd say the next few projects are crucial if she wants to establish herself as a formidable actress and not just a popular one. Her best performance is still easily Easy A so shouldn't she be grabbing at juicier lead roles and stop playing second fiddle to another star as she's been doing ever since? (DEBUT ON THIS LIST)
06 Charlize Theron $15
We interviewed her. We love her. The comeback was a resounding success and we hope she sticks around this time. Forbest notes that her extracurricular activities (like the Dior campaign) are a big key to her financial success since she takes risks like Young Adult. We like our actresses best this way. If you have to be a gazillionaire do it with endorsements but create indelible characters that are yours alone on the big screen even if no one will pay you the big bucks to make them!
07 Sandra Bullock $14
With another big hit in theaters she'll be on the list again next year when she turns 50. Such longevity with that one (as previously discussed)!
08 Natalie Portman $14
09 Mila Kunis $11
The Black Swan girls are still circling each other... at least in list form. And if you ask me their acting careers are as f***ed up as their ballerina relationship was. Doesn't it seem like Portman hasn't registered much at all since Black Swan? The money keeps rolling in thanks to Thor in which she plays the girlfriend (a role that could have been played by anyone). Mila had two big hits recently with Oz: The Great and Powerful (in which she was terrible) and Ted (in which her role could have been played by anyone). These are all ways to make a lot of money but is this any way to sustain an A list career? They both really ought to be looking for the next Black Swan and not the next franchise which doesn't really need them. Do you agree?
10 Julia Roberts $11
Her instant hit-maker days are behind her but she still commands a hefty paycheck.
Falling off the list: Kristen Wiig, Cameron Diaz, Meryl Streep and Sarah Jessica Parker were all on the list last year
WHO DO YOU THINK WILL BE ON THE LIST SOON? Are you happy that Jennifer, Emma, and Mila have all recently ascended?
Reader Comments (46)
No Anne Hathaway? One would assume that Les Miserables and The Dark Knight would place her on a list as this.
Nice to see Charlize and Julia on the list,Bullock is infallable mostly and is such a big star,Jolie is a gr8 public figure but when were we last blown away,who keeps hiring Aniston,Lawrence is here to stay,Stewart is NOT a movie star per se,not sold on Stones pulling power yet and let's not talk about Portman or Kunis.
It will be so gratifying next year to see Melissa McCarthy on this list.
From this list, there's no contest as to my highest admiration: Charlize. She's a fine actress, a movie star, a risk-taker, and a stunning beauty who anyone would love to have a beer with. The rest of this list is so depressing. I wouldn't go to see any of their films on the strength of their names alone, though I have a soft spot for Mila. She has a natural quality on screen that I adore. But ITA, she was pretty awful in Oz.
I find it interesting that while the younger actresses are "stuck" in derivative franchises, the older ones tend to do more interesting work. Is it because audiences won't find them believable in adult roles? It seems like a lot of these roles fall under the cute girlfriend/high-schooler/damsel in distress categories, which is needless to say, very disheartening.
As for the list itself, I'm surprised at Jennifer Aniston's inclusion; I can't seem to recall any movies in the previous year that she was in. And I think the reason why she never tests her range is because she doesn't have any (see: Derailed ).
Oh, and I'm still pissed that Jennifer Lawrence won the Oscar...what the hell were they thinking?
Well Portman has two Malick films coming up and of course "Jane Got a Gun"... She was up for Fincher's "Gone Girl" too so I don't think her absence since "Black Swan" indicates a lack of desire to challenge her range.
Also this is a damn impressive line-up.
I don't get the Anniston love. She's not objectionable, but not special either.
Lawrence has a great future ahead of her as long as she doesn't get stuck in franchise hell. Kunis, on the other hand, needs to find a franchise to keep her working.
I think Roberts will be more of a fixture in the future depending on August.
I don't like Theron personally, but I do appreciate her willingness to take on varied roles when it would be so easy for her to coast on her looks, which are astounding.
Emma Stone is Easy A was a very exciting "star is born" moment. Let's hope at least one of her next 3 collaborators - Woody, Allen, Cameron Crowe and Alejandro González Iñárritu, furthers that early promise.
first of all MDA - I agree.
JLAW and that oscar win still gets to me.
It's an interesting list, but you're right, it's all about the movie because how many of these ladies have delivered a near to forgetable movie? most of them.
Their 2014 list will be interesting
It's all about the J.Law for me. I would see her in anything.
Aniston is the female version of Adam Sandler. So she's always gonna be in the list.
Next year, I think we will see Scarlett Johansson (she's getting $20 million from the Avengers right?) and Cate Blanchett (she's back to being ubiquitous Cate again - lol, loves it!) in the list. I hope some POC makes the top 10 (maybe Halle Berry?).
Well for the next list ScarJo probably will register. She's rumored to get a juicy $20.000.000 paycheck for "The Avengers".
Also Natalie Portman will have sort of a comeback next year. Hopeful a Malick, her passion project Jane Got a Gun and she also will have MacBeth coming.
But if she insists on doing films like Thor, No Strings Attached and Your Higness, she only has herself to blame. After all she seems to be on top of every casting list.
Emma Stone is totally doing it for my demographic.
Let's not forget Jennifer Aniston in 'Friends with Money'. That was definitely something.
My only interest is for Julia and Charlize. Maybe for Bullock, but only if Gravity will work as her artistic redemption.
my favorites here are law and theron.
(will never forget how disappointing "easy a" was after all the talk about it.)
I'd still label the actress list the same as the actor list: Hardly anyone here challenges themselves much at all.
I mean, I admire Jolie immensely and I love that she's making a move into directing so I can't really fault her placement (though I feel that a barometer for an acting list should include actually BEING in a movie in the past 24 months lol...something Jolie hasn't done in *does quick math* 31...) but outside of her and I guess maybe Portman (though Thor? Really? You can tell that even she doesn't want to be there) none of these women really try that hard in terms of risky and challenging material.
I almost want to include Bullock since she's doing Gravity (plus I just like her a lot), but I feel that her doing auteur driven films will end up being more of an anomaly than an actual shift.
Theron is an awesome personality and a great actress when given the chance, but I still feel that she coasts on obvious commercial projects more often than not. I don't get anyone calling her a risk taker outside of Monster and Young Adult. *shrugs*
The rest I can't even make excuses for. Franchises and (mostly) bad romantic comedies FTW! *roll eyes*
But I guess that's what it takes to make these lists, no risks allowed.
Lol, I hate these lists.
This list is deeply, deeply depressing. Aniston? Kunis???? K-Stew (vomit)????????? jesus....... So sad!
Emma Stone is ok and all but shouldnt be in this list yet. She hasnt proven herself that much yet and seems to be abandoning her somewhat original and fresh looks and personality and seems to be transforming herself into another generic Hollywood anorexic slave to personal stylists.
Its good to see Bullock and Roberts on the list, good for women over 40- I could say the same about Aniston but, with all due respect to Rachel Green and the central perk gang, I cant stand her.
Isnt Bullock approaching 50?
That picture of Jennifer Lawrence... WOW
That picture of JLaw is sexist and awful,
is jolie a risk taker though? with what, 2008's "changeling"?
I know people love her but she hasn't being a 'real' actress for some time.
Portman "hasn't registered much since Black Swan"?? Ummm ya think? She had a baby and took a well-deserved break. That might account for her not "registering." You can expect to register more of Ms. Portman next year with a lineup of upcoming projects (aside from the obligatory Marvel sequel -- which appears to have given her more to do) that proves quite compelling: Terrance Malick's Knight of Cups, that other Terrance Malick pic, Jane Got A Gun, In the Garden of Beasts...
LOL ferdi and I clearly get along so well.
I think the fact that Jolie decided to take a break from acting to focus on her own directorial debut about a really tough subject shows risk. I mean, yes, acting wise, she's not risky at all, though I do have respect for a lot of her choices. However superfluous the films end up being, at least she's not doing what most of the other women on this list are doing: mind-numbing franchises where, for the most part, they barely register or romantic comedies where, once again, they barely register (Lawrence is an exception and has been very smart in this area, but I'm hardly a fan of her main franchise or her acclaimed "romantic comedy")
Jolie's doing action flicks, sure, but I have to respect her for at least picking original, untested material for the most part, material that, sometimes, was originally written for a man. I give her props for that.
is it fair to count campaings here? I know today every actress HAS to be a fashion icon also, but this movie list lose its purpose if we consider those paychecks.
marcelo, fashion campaigns and all other endorsements count here, I think. That's how someone like Sarah Jessica Parker made it last year, I think.
I'm kinda ...happy... for Mila Kunis. Because I really love her, though she was awful in Oz (that was a horrendously atrocious movie, tho). I hope she gets better roles, though.
Angelina, meh. She hasn't done anything interesting acting-wise since A Mighty Heart, honestly.
JLaw is whatever, she's talented enough and super likable, though I don't like the fact that she won the Oscar and I don't love her as much as the internet does.
Kristen Stewart ... who? I feel like she doesn't even exist anymore, haha. But I think it'll be interesting to see what she does post-Twilight.
Oh Jen Aniston. I saw the preview for her new movie and I wanted to vomit. It's really pathetic. Especially since I've seen The Good Girl and I know she at least has a little more talent than what she utilizes.
Emma Stone is awesome but she definitely needs to go for riskier projects now and sorta take a Cameron Diaz turn (except actually get nominated for the Oscar :p), i.e. Being John Malkovich. Something that utilizes her talent but is a more artistic film.
Charlize is great as always.
I love Sandra Bullock. #sorryboutit Can't wait for Gravity.
I have jumped off the Natalie Portman train post-Black Swan but hopefully I can hop back on.
And Julia Roberts ... well she's super irrelevant, in my opinion.
I'm sorry (not sorry) but doesn't this list just further prove the sad state of women in hit films and the absolutely dynamite nature of female television these days? To be great on film is to be underpaid and underseen; if there were any justice this list would have Nicole, Julianne, Tilda, and Meryl (not my favorite but the lady earns her keep), not to mention all the other brilliant actresses who are obviously making relative peanuts to star in films no one ever watches. It would not shock me to learn that many of my favorite actresses further down the line are actually living on doctor's salaries or worse.
Meanwhile, look at what Kerry Washington, Claire Danes, Elisabeth Moss, and the other lovely ladies on TV have to look forward to in terms of financial consistency, recognition, and the quality of their roles?
Actresses like Nicole, Julianne and Tilda are doing major fashion campaigns that pay them in the millions (Nicole with Jimmy Choo, Tilda with Chanel, Julianne with Bulgari) and luckily it's things like that (along with, maybe, the odd horrible popcorn flick) that allows them to do the riskier material. Nicole and Tilda especially go by this rule.
And I'd rather them not make it on to lists like these, personally. Because sadly, the only way to make it is to do mostly uninteresting projects. There was a time when Nicole was literally at the top of this list and it was the most boring time for her, artistically. During that time (2005-2008ish) I think the only thing of note that she did was Margot at the Wedding (but what a note it was).
After 2008 she's mostly just stopped trying to be an Angelina Jolie/Sandra Bullock type and just went back to where her heart truly lies: risky art house films with the occasional Oscar tentpole.
She understands that she doesn't really "fit" into this mainstream world (she's even said it herself) and I love her for it. 90% of the ladies on this list just bore me to tears, personally. Theron and Portman (and sometimes Bullock...guilty pleasure) being the exceptions.
Can't help but think this is really a list of actresses with the best agents, given the fact that most of them either (a) seem too young to be making that much money or (b) haven't been in a hit movie (or even a good movie) in the last year. For example, the only movie Aniston did last year was Wanderlust, that crap indie pic. She must be getting major endorsement and royalty checks.
I'm excited to see where Emma Stone goes from here. She seems to genuinely love her work and does a good mix of popcorn and quality. With movies from Allen, Crowe and Inarritu all in the offing, you can't say she's playing it safe. I'll forgive her a thankless role in a soul-sucking Spidey reboot if she keeps that up.
RIP Eileen Brennan. Would never have been on a list like this, but a true actressexual's dream date.
Hayden -- but this argument maddens me because the people who should be supporting complex roles for women on the big screen are simply not going to see them and they're staying home watching complex roles for women on the small screen instead. I think this is an audience problem just as much as its a Hollywood problem. Audiences are lazy and then they pat themselves on the back for not trying ("oh movies aren't any good anymore - everythign good is on tv"). IT ENRAGES ME. but i try to keep it down since i like tv too. I just hate the argument that it's better. False equivalencies. Yes all these acclaimed tv series are better than Hollywood blockbusters. No, they are not better than acclaimed movies no one sees ;)
honestly i can't figure it out fully. I have a friend who seems to only like safe and predictable movies but she has good taste in television. give her a movie as complex and filled with "unlikeable" characters as something like, say, mad men and she will not like it.
People seem to have been conditioned to enjoy complexity on television and to reject it in the movies. Is it the safety of the home? Is it the shortness of tv which is, paradoxically, a much bigger time commitment than a movie.
It's really bothering me lately. If the same people who liked all these good television series would go to good movies more often, they'd work harder on the quality!
But right now the movie audience has proven that "execution" is a poor bet for Hollywood (because you can't guarantee quality even if you try your hardest) and you're better off with pre-branding which sells the movie no matter how bad it is. (this betting against quality thing was well documented superbly in an article MarK Harris wrote for GQ i think it was a year or two ago)
but now i'm off track: GLENN CLOSE ! :)
I don't get the equation do commercials to earn lots of money so that you can play riskier roles. Are riskier roles unpaid for by definition? And even if they were, any of these women have earned at least a million or two per movie in the past, you can't live with a million or several millions? Don't you save something? It's not like they have to use coupons to buy their groceries so the poor things need to do commercials to survive their flops.
I agree with you, Emma Stone is definitely in a transition phase... she needs to figure out her next big move. I know she's in a Woody Allen movie, but one never knows if it's one of his good or bad projects. But coming off the success of Blue jasmine, I'd be worried that it may be a down one.
This list is depressing.... And predictable
Hey! Stop bashing Portman!
She hasn't yet capitalized on her Black Swan performance yet, because she took a break to, you know... have a baby! Don't you remember her Oscars baby bump?!
Due to the strength of that performance she's managed to pick up TWO Malick gigs. &
lest you forget she turned down the W bro's for one of their new, potential, sci-fi blockbuster films. So I think, unlike Mila, she's actually trying to pick good projects - we'll see if she suceeds!
Unfortunatly, she's also stuck doing the Thor sequel. Although that was pre-black swan contract, but I agree, that is no excuse. Bash her Thor performance as much as you'd like, she deserves it.
@Nathan
Hollywood conditioned the general audience out of the multiplex. The general audience interested in things outside of genre franchises and recycled to death cliches have no place to turn to except for television. Broadway itself has experienced a dumbing down of its medium with the Hollywood mainstream blockbuster influence — no medium is safe and in the end the public chooses convenience and the comfort of making series characters apart of one's family. We're all a bunch of Annie Wilkes and when they kill our favorite character we hold the creators personally responsible for ruining a good thing for us.
These lists are fleeting (some of these women will be off next year) but I have to say that none of these actresses excite me. All are very white variations of the pretty American girl, including Angelina and Charlize. The movie / celebrity culture is getting so homogenized that Krisen Stewart is over paid for playing a dumb mouth breather in a vampire franchise. Maybe Jennifer Lawrence will be the next Meryl Streep, but let's be realistic. The days of the great actress are over.
@ Jason
Chastain is a real actress and is treated as such at the Academy Awards by giving the prizes she was up for to hacks and whores. They did the same thing to Close, Sigourney, and Bening.
I'd have to agree with Jason. I really don't get the love for Emma Stone either. Lindsey Lohan was more memorable in Mean Girls than Emma in Easy A.
If anyone on that list isn't living up to their potential it's Jennifer Aniston. Horrible Bosses aside she
never tries anything new and she is a talented comedienne, at least she used to be. She is certainly at a point where she could take a chance and have an artistic failure (or success). Maybe she's going to make hay while the sun shines and then effectively disappear like Goldie Hawn and Meg Ryan although both those women made films that are still watched and entertaining today, Jennifer doesn't really have any of those on her CV.
Kristen Stewart's done and I couldn't be happier. Talk about your empty void on the screen.
I really like Emma Stone but I agree she needs to start looking for better roles or her heat will drop which would be a pity.
Between Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis I think Mila has much more of a screen presence, I don't quite get Natalie's vibe, but she was terrible in Oz where Rachel Weisz wiped the floor with her. She's had a steady climb so far with only that one bump but she needs to be good or better in her next big picture to keep the momentum going
So much of Angelina's persona is tied to her public image it gets in the way of her performances but I don't know if that matters to her much. I'm not saying she doesn't try and do good work, she does I think she accepts the situation and does what she can and moves on.
Sandra Bullock and Julia Roberts are warhorses. To me Roberts has lost a lot of her charm, she doesn't enjoy her fame and seems sour on screen now but she'll keep going on name value for years. Sandra tries different things and is a wonderful comic actress but is less effective in drama so the coming years might be rough going.
The two on the list who are the risk takers are Charlize Theron & Jennifer Lawrence. They are also, in my opinion, the two best actresses on this list. Jennifer is doing the big tent pole movies but is mixing in smaller films that allow her to practice her craft, as long as she keeps doing that she'll be okay. Charlize was smart enough to build a foundation of quality work when she was starting, sometimes being the only good thing in bad films, thereby having a solid following. She was lucky once that rep was established to find a strong role that she socked across and now that she's a star, after a few rocky years, to also balance the bigger picks with risky choices. That's how you have a career that lasts. Just ask Meryl Streep.
I think Melissa McCarthy has a shot next year. She's charming and wonderfully talented but I hate her films, they're coarse, vulgar and beneath her gifts. She needs to find something that shows her to better advantage and will broaden her base even more.
Im all in for Jolie, Bullock and Theron. Jolie has taken the risk and directed a difficult movie with an interesting plot. Bullock is always great me think, even in bad comedies. Looking forward to her standalone Gravity movie. Theron totally stole the show as the whitch. And she has done well in other roles.
How can Roberts still commands a high pay check? She can barely act. She is just Julia Roberts
JLaw I dont know. Her Oscar win still bothers me. Emma Stone must pick riskier projects. Portman is ok. Kunis is in big trouble acting vice but her sex appeal will get here some places.
Aniston needs either to retire or get a new agent. Yes she was fun in Horrible Bosses, but ooh so bad in everything else
Nat- I think many of us TRY to see good movies at the theater and WANT to support quality, but unless you live in a place like LA or NYC, the theaters that show these films are few and far between. I had to travel 36 miles to catch "What Maisie Knew" and "Much Ado About Nothing", 24 miles for "Frances Ha", and 38 miles for "Beasts of the Southern Wild". And I live in a major metro area. Seriously, "Wolverine" is playing on 6 screens located less than 20 minutes from my house in all directions. My pals in San Diego say the same thing. The kind of movies you're talking about only show at Landmark, and there are only TWO Landmark theaters in the greater San Diego area.
But the good news is that at all of my showings, the theaters were packed. So there is an audience, but some of us just have to wait for DVD or on-demand because it can be too complicated to get to the big screen.
Pam -- these are all good points. it's part of the downward spiral though. people don't see them because they're not asked to see them. and then eventually because they can't see them. i shall find some happy thoughts about this somewhere soon ;)
I was going to come on here and defend Natalie Portman as a mother. Glad others beat me to it!! And glad to see she has some interesting films coming up. She's my pick here.
The best and easiest way to make money, as for me, is games. I started playing at various casinos, looked at reviews on the website https://casinoscanada.reviews/en/toronto-casinos/ and took a chance to bet. I won and now the best Toronto casinos
is my regular income, here's the quickest way to earn money