He’s been around for a long time and has rarely ever faltered. He’s cool, calm and can kick ass. The one star I think about who is this consistent over such a long period of time…

No such thing really anymore.

And Reeves is definitely not that bankable. Bankable is "capable of guaranteeing box-office success simply by showing up in a movie" and that is not Reeves.

He’s made 4 Wick movies, more on way and spin off. 3 Matrix movies. Countless small roles that he nails. Speed, Point Break and on and on. How’s that not bankable each and every-time?

Tom Cruise too, I think.

Here's your answer right there. There are 4 Matrix movies and the 4th was a bomb. Replicas in 2019. Bomb. Outside of Wick movies, the last decade has been mostly direct to video releases. People are not seeing movies on the sheer fact that he is in it. That is what "bankable" means. They will show up for the "John Wick" name.

Here is the correct answer.

Samuel L. Jackson would probably get in on a technicality.

I agree with Tom Cruise. The dude’s a true “Movie Star”.

I’d also throw Leonardo DiCaprio out there although he seems to have the luxury of being incredibly choosy in his roles that he can afford to only make a movie every couple of years now.

Cruise
Hanks
Pitt
Dicaprio
Denzel

There's no such thing anymore.

Anyone you can name, like Tom Cruise, has their perceived bankability status artificially inflated by the success of a franchise's brand. If Tom Cruise made a stand-alone film like Jerry Maguire or Vanilla Sky, today, would they be big successes?

Somewhere an accountant knows. There's literally no way of knowing otherwise.

Cruise was the first name that leapt to my mind too.

Dwayne Johnson... A lot of his movies are not that good or are very cheesy, but people go to see them because of him.

Not Baywatch or Black Adam or Jungle Cruise

Cruise for me too.

Hanks and Pitt are in a lot of underperforming movies (even if they're really good).

If you look at any actor's "bankable" career in film, they tend to have 5-10 years where they're on fire at the box office. Similar to a pop star. Even then, it's because of the films they choose too.

People that saw those movie didn't go mostly because of his name?

I think OP meant, 'coolest, most likeable star IMO'

ETA: This. If Cruise were to star in a drama, it wouldn't guarantee BO returns. He is smart because he knows what he does well at this point. MI and Top Gun sequels.

There isn't a name out there that really guarantees box office anymore. Everything is a niche.

Yep. Bankability seems to come in 5 or so year chunks. A certain time period determines who the bankable star is. Right now? Probably Cruise. 5 years ago? Probably Dwayne Johnson. Mid 90s? Will Smith. 80s? Harrison Ford. 70s. Burt Reynolds, etc.

But as others have said, “Bankable Stars” no longer exist. The days of going to see the latest Bruce Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, regardless of what the movie was about, are over.

Maybe nobody since Marvel proved they did not need big stars to make money for their films.

I don't think anybody goes to movies for the stars anymore.

Will Smith pre-slap was a guaranteed hit maker.

Concussion? After Earth? Focus? Seven Pounds?

Jim Carrey was probably it for a while, but now other than Sonic movies he hasn't been a big draw in some time.

At best, there's actors who are a big draw for a while, but they can't really sustain it over the long run. People like Angelina Jolie, Kevin Hart, Melissa McCarthy, Will Ferrell, Jennifer Lawrence, and Hugh Jackman were up there for a while. Ryan Reynolds might still be there but it depends what he does after Deadpool 3. Chris Pratt too. Have to see what he does next.

Yep. Cruise has been smart in that aspect. Very few bombs for the most part. I don't watch the Rock (I think he's a shitty actor) and his movies but he's smart enough to sign on to franchises that are sort of guaranteed to make money for the most part. Someone else posed this question elsewhere, but do you really need to pay an actor or actress 30-40 million dollars anyway? You can just plug in some actor for a role in one of those superhero flicks and it wouldn't matter

BANK-able does not mean you are a star that draws audiences to your movies, it means the movies you star in make money because you are the star.

I'm certain there are many people who will see a movie just because Florence Pugh is its star, but she is not BANK-able until just her face on the poster guarantees big box office returns and profits.

If your movies don't make money, then you are not "money in the bank."

What about the women? No one current really comes to mind. 90s was Julia Roberts. Sandra Bullock is in there somewhere over the past 25 years.

Jennifer Lawrence probably comes closest. But I wouldn’t call her a bankable star.

I don't think we will ever see another huge comedy film star in our lifetime since Hollywood does not make comedies anymore for the theater.