Random Mode Keyboard shortcut: Command/Ctrl + Shift + R
thumbnail

Top Box Office Stars of the 1990s

Can you name the top ten actors and actresses for each year of the 1990s, as voted by movie exhibitors?
Quiz by Quizmaster
Rate:
Last updated: February 9, 2018
You have not attempted this quiz yet.
First submittedAugust 16, 2015
Times taken27,603
Average score36.8%
Rating4.28
7:00
Enter actor/actress here:
0
 / 38 guessed
The quiz is paused. You have remaining.
Scoring
You scored / = %
This beats or equals % of test takers also scored 100%
The average score is
Your high score is
Your fastest time is
Keep scrolling down for answers and more stats ...
1999
Julia Roberts
Tom Hanks
Adam Sandler
Bruce Willis
Mike Myers
Tom Cruise
Will Smith
Mel Gibson
Meg Ryan
Sandra Bullock
 
1995
Tom Hanks
Jim Carrey
Brad Pitt
Harrison Ford
Robin Williams
Sandra Bullock
Mel Gibson
Demi Moore
John Travolta
Kevin Costner
Michael Douglas
 
1991
Kevin Costner
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Robin Williams
Julia Roberts
Macaulay Culkin
Jodie Foster
Billy Crystal
Dustin Hoffman
Robert De Niro
Mel Gibson
1998
Tom Hanks
Jim Carrey
Leonardo DiCaprio
Robin Williams
Meg Ryan
Mel Gibson
Adam Sandler
Eddie Murphy
Cameron Diaz
Julia Roberts
 
1994
Tom Hanks
Jim Carrey
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Tom Cruise
Harrison Ford
Tim Allen
Mel Gibson
Jodie Foster
Michael Douglas
Tommy Lee Jones
 
 
1990
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Julia Roberts
Bruce Willis
Tom Cruise
Mel Gibson
Kevin Costner
Patrick Swayze
Sean Connery
Harrison Ford
Richard Gere
1997
Harrison Ford
Julia Roberts
Leonardo DiCaprio
Will Smith
Tom Cruise
Jack Nicholson
Jim Carrey
John Travolta
Robin Williams
Tommy Lee Jones
 
1993
Clint Eastwood
Tom Cruise
Robin Williams
Kevin Costner
Harrison Ford
Julia Roberts
Tom Hanks
Mel Gibson
Whoopi Goldberg
Sylvester Stallone
1996
Tom Cruise
Mel Gibson
John Travolta
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Sandra Bullock
Robin Williams
Sean Connery
Harrison Ford
Kevin Costner
Michelle Pfeiffer
 
1992
Tom Cruise
Mel Gibson
Kevin Costner
Jack Nicholson
Macaulay Culkin
Whoopi Goldberg
Michael Douglas
Clint Eastwood
Steven Seagal
Robin Williams
+5
Level 92
Sep 29, 2015
MUCH harder than the since 2000 version, had to remember a lot of films I'd rather forget.
+1
Level 73
Nov 12, 2015
Very true
+4
Level 75
Nov 12, 2015
Can't believe I forgot Tom Cruise, and can't believe I remembered Steven Seagal.
+2
Level 63
Nov 12, 2015
hahaha! Well I forgot Harrison Ford and remembered Macaulay Culkin....
+1
Level 77
Nov 12, 2015
In the answer section, Mel Gibson has 1993 listed twice, and 1994 is omitted.
+1
Level 12
Sep 21, 2017
Oh sure, you put Sean Connery on there, but not Sam Neill. WHY?
+2
Level 82
Jun 13, 2018
Was Sam Neill in *any* movies that did big box office other than Jurassic Park? Not really a big box office draw.
+1
Level 75
Jun 14, 2018
I liked him in Hunt for Red October, but agree, he's not one who first comes to mind when talking about big box office draw.
+2
Level 82
Jul 24, 2021
I like him, too, he's just not a box office star by any stretch of the imagination. Even in the 90s, but especially now, he mostly does little indie movies and rarely more than 1 or 2 a year.
+1
Level 46
Mar 14, 2024
I find him to be an amazing actor while Sharon Stone is white bread.
+1
Level 22
Jun 13, 2018
Misspelt Steven Segal :(
+2
Level 46
Jun 15, 2018
You mean, Seagal?
+3
Level 82
Jun 13, 2018
What about Gina Davis? Alicia Silverstone? Quite a few others.. Pacino?
+1
Level 82
Jun 13, 2018
Sharon Stone? I think she was a bigger draw for a while than her costar on Basic Instinct.
+2
Level 67
Jun 14, 2018
I was shocked Sharon Stone didn't make the list. I forgot about Silverstone, but seems like she should be there. Really wanted Pauly Shore, but alas...
+8
Level 65
Jun 13, 2018
How depressing is the low number of women here? Not surprising, I know. Lets hope Quizmaster's equivalent quiz on the 2020s proves to be a little different.
+3
Level 76
Jun 23, 2018
Why is it depressing?
+5
Level 54
Dec 15, 2019
Actresses aren't as big a draw as actors, it's not depressing, it's just the way it is. There's nothing wrong with it and they are still compensated extremely well. Be depressed about veterans living in the streets or something else that is actually important.
+7
Level ∞
Jul 15, 2021
At the risk of wading into the culture wars, I've started noticing lately how any example of male advantage is bemoaned, while examples of female advantage are celebrated.

It's true that a higher percentage millionaires and celebrities are male.

On the other hand, men are more likely to perform dangerous and dirty jobs, to die on the job, to commit suicide, to be murdered, to die early in general, to be childless, and to be imprisoned.

For high status people, it is probably better to be male. But low status men are treated absolutely terribly by society, and their legitimate grievances are ignored.

+6
Level 72
Jul 24, 2021
That last sentence is incomplete. It should end with "but low status women are treated worse." To quote https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/reports/2020/08/03/488536/basic-facts-women-poverty/ "In the United States, more women than men live in poverty. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, of the 38.1 million people living in poverty in 2018, 56 percent—or 21.4 million—were women."

And while the entertainment industry pays much better for those actors, stars and otherwise, who get steady work, the disparity of earnings at the top tier is even greater. https://theconversation.com/exploring-the-data-on-hollywoods-gender-pay-gap-127414. There are also fewer female stars these days, as compared to the 1930s when Davis, Shearer, Crawford and Stanwyck had movies written for them. Now as the industry converts itself into producing blockbusters for 14 year olds (of whatever chronological age), women have fewer opportunities.

+5
Level ∞
Jul 24, 2021
So I've learned more about the poverty in the U.S. recently. It turns out that the poverty rate doesn't include many government transfers such as food stamps, Medicaid, and Section 8 housing. Taking those into account, the poverty rate falls to something like 3%.

When it comes to extreme poverty in Western countries, which I'll define as the lack of either income or access to government programs, it is men who are more likely to be poor. This becomes obvious when you look at the homeless populations of any major city.

I'm not saying that "something should be done about". It is what it is. But neither do I think we should care if one gender of millionaire actor is more successful than another.

+2
Level 82
Jul 24, 2021
I've seen it said many times that giant Hollywood mega stars, like Hanks, Cruise, Roberts, Costner, Carrey, or Arnie in the 80s-90s, don't really exist anymore. And I think that's accurate. Any one celebrity actor's star power is no longer significant enough to get a movie made or make it successful in today's blockbuster economy. Much more important is the studio or franchise that the film is a part of - if it's in the MCU, in the Star Wars or Fast & Furious or some other huge franchise, or made by Disney or Pixar, it will be successful. Who's cast in the film is 95%+ less relevant than the Marvel logo at the beginning.

On the other hand, when I see people say this, they sometimes make an exception for Scarlett Johansson. And she's female. So... yay?

But if you look at the top 50 highest-grossing films of the 2010s there's not a single one that succeeded based on its star power. Arguably excepting Jason Momoa in Aquaman.

+1
Level 82
Jul 24, 2021
Will Smith, Gal Gadot, and Margot Robbie are also arguably big enough names to sell a movie on their own. Most of them are female. And culture warriors may rejoice in Will Smith not being "white." Not really anyone else. Ryan Reynolds? Angelina Jolie probably if she was still working?

Also QM is mostly right. Except for what I think is his evidence for higher-status males having advantages over higher-status females. Being CEO of a Fortune 500 Company or being elected to Congress is not evidence of privilege. It's evidence of psychopathy. Men are more likely to be psychopaths than women. They're also more likely to be assigned value based on how much money they make or power they have and feel more pressure to spend their whole lives trying to pursue these things so that people will think they aren't worthless. Which most of the time makes them completely miserable even while it makes some of them rich and/or famous.

+1
Level 67
Jul 24, 2021
I think The Rock probably has enough star power to sell a movie on his own. Adam Sandler too. But his movies are basically their own genre...and it's not a good one.
+1
Level 82
Jul 25, 2021
Yeah, The Rock, I guess. But Adam Sandler? Maybe 15 years ago. He's done nothing lately that didn't go straight to streaming video services, and even his biggest hits (back in the 90s and early 2000s - he actually peaked right around the end of the period covered by the above quiz) never made that much money. $100-$200M at best, and often much less than that. So if he wanted to make a low-budget crude comedy starring him and his friends he could get that done, but he never had the star power necessary to get a big-budget blockbuster green lit on the back of name recognition alone.
+2
Level 72
Jul 25, 2021
I'd add Jennifer Lawrence to the mix. She hasn't been as active lately as she was a couple of years ago, but she still has an impressive draw on moviegoers. Big-name directors also seem to be more and more of a draw these days. But I agree that franchises are currently the big thing in cinema. Hollywood doesn't like to take risks...
+1
Level 67
Jul 25, 2021
I agree re Sandler. By "selling a movie on his own," I meant that his movies are guaranteed to make money. His formula is to pair himself with a famous female lead, then populate the rest of the movie with his friends. They shoot in one location, using no lighting or cinematography or effects, so it's basically just Sandler walking around doing his stupid voices. But they always make money. I think we're just using different terminology. I agree Sandler doesn't have the drawing power to anchor a major blockbuster. What I meant is that he is a sure thing at the box office (or on Netflix). He's always profitable.
+1
Level 82
Jul 26, 2021
I see what you're saying. But in that case I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I'm only talking about big-budget blockbuster movies. The kind that would be made in the past without being part of some big franchise just because the name Tom Cruise or Kevin Costner or Arnold Schwarzenegger was attached. With one of those names attached to the picture a studio would be willing to put up $100 million to budget assuming that the lead actor's star power would get butts in seats and they would make their money back. *Those* kinds of actors are extremely rare these days.

When it comes to smaller, but still profitable, films... there are a ton of people that can get those made, easily. And actually the proliferation of streaming services like Netflix and Disney + has made it easier than ever to get even quirky, risky, or niche projects green-lit and made and have them find their audience. They just won't be giant international blockbusters.

+1
Level 75
Jun 14, 2018
Misspellings on my part: segal, schwarzeneggar. Add em?
+2
Level 44
Jul 27, 2023
I'm surprised Johnny depp, Cathy Bates, Al Pacino, Susan Sarandon and Winona Ryder aren't on here. Cathy bates was in a lot of films from Fried Green Tomatoes to Misery etc. She won an oscar and i think the latter did quite well at the box office. I remember Bram Stoker's Dracula bei ng an huge hit (not with critics) and both Ryder and Reeves are in that film. I don't understand why Julia Roberts got so many roles and so much clout. It's who you know.