Hollywood’s Big Risks: 30 Daring Studio Films from the Last 15 Years

“Nope” (2022)

At this point, every new Jordan Peele movie is a daring studio film. The Oscar winner has firmly established himself as one of Hollywood’s most exciting genre filmmakers, operating at the intersection of popcorn spectacle and astute social commentary. His latest work, “Nope,” finds the director aiming his distinct voice towards the cosmos in what he called his attempt at a “great American UFO story.” The horror-science fiction hybrid is just another reminder that Peele’s partnership with Universal is the kind of studio-artist pairing that benefits all of us. —CZ

“Babylon” (2022)

Love it or hate it, nobody can deny that Damien Chazelle’s “Babylon” is the kind of big swing we’re always complaining that studios don’t take anymore. The sprawling, debaucherous tribute to Old Hollywood doesn’t spare a single expense in its quest to document the drug-fueled orgies, underground freak shows, and chaotic movie sets of 1920s Los Angeles. You can almost hear stacks of Paramount’s money being lit on fire during some of the biggest scenes, but it’s hard to think of a better person to do that than Damien Chazelle. —CZ

“Dune: Part One” (2021)

Even after proving himself on masterpieces like “Prisoners” and “Arrival,” many were still skeptical that Denis Villeneuve could turn “Dune” into a great movie.

Still, Warner Bros. and Villeneuve took a chance on it, and the result was absolutely magnificent. The director’s passion for the material is apparent in every shot, as he creates the world of Arrakis and the fantastical technologies that come with it in a way that feels cinematic and realistic at the same time. The cinematography and sound design are masterful, and the script does an impressive job of streamlining the esoteric story into something watchable without losing any of the key themes. “Dune” is the rare movie that can truly have its cake and eat it too, a bona fide blockbuster that also received some serious award season love. —CZ

“The Matrix Resurrections” (2021)

When it was announced that Keanu Reeves and Lana Wachowski were re-teaming for a fourth “Matrix” movie, most fans expected it to be one of two things: either excellent, or gratuitously meta. As it turns out, “The Matrix Ressurections” was both. The film once again follows Reeves’ Neo, now working as a video game designer who has turned his experiences into a series of “Matrix” games.

In an incredibly unsubtle metaphor for life in the Hollywood studio system, he finds himself facing pressure to make yet another sequel despite the tolls that such a project would face on his mental health. The film eventually evolves into a stellar sci-fi love story, but given the current climate at Warner Bros. Discovery, it’s hard to imagine such a film being greenlit today. —CZ

“Prey” (2022)

The “Predator” franchise has never won many points for creativity, consistently churning out solidly generic stories about various people fighting very large monsters. So the initial news about a new direct-to-Hulu entry in the series did not exactly inspire excitement. But with “Prey,” Dan Trachtenberg found a way to inject a much-needed shot of adrenaline into the sleepy series by going back to the 18th century.

The film introduced a winning twist (and potentially created the new formula for legacy horror sequels moving forward) by placing a Predator in a period setting and forcing characters to fight it without modern technology. But perhaps even bolder is the decision to use a cast comprised entirely of Native American actors, making a star out of Amber Midthunder in the process. —CZ

“Tenet” (2020)

At this point, Christopher Nolan is such a well-established cinematic brand that backing an original film from him isn’t that much riskier than making a franchise sequel. Still, even by his high standards, “Tenet” is an undeniably bold movie. The globe-trotting espionage thriller follows an unnamed protagonist as he attempts to prevent World War III, and upon a first viewing it’s as tough to crack as other Nolan classics like “Inception.” Even with Nolan’s pedigree behind it, dropping $200 million on “Tenet” was a bold move. —CZ

“Cloud Atlas” (2012)

David Mitchell’s novel “Cloud Atlas” is such a difficult book to adapt that any filmmaker who takes it on deserves massive credit for even trying. The fact that the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer were able to make such a great film out of it is just an added bonus. The novel tells a series of seemingly unrelated stories that take place around the world at various points in history. It deals with ideas about reincarnation and universal human experiences, but part of what makes it such great literature is the way that readers are forced to connect things themselves. Nothing about it seemed like a natural fit for the big screen, but the film used the brilliant device of having actors play multiple roles, creating a stunning movie that both honors and builds on the themes of the novel. —CZ

“Ad Astra” (2019)

Add James Gray’s slow-burn space epic “Ad Astra” to the list of auteur-driven studio science-fiction projects that underwhelmed at the box office despite critical praise (see “Blade Runner 2049” and “Annihilation” below). The takeaway is clear: Science-fiction films that avoid action-driven spectacle are risky, no matter how big an A-list star is front and center. The Brad Pitt-starring “Ad Astra” was more George Clooney’s “Solaris” than George Clooney’s “Gravity” thanks to its withdrawn and ruminative tone. While Gray flirted with an action set piece (see the moon pirates chase), much of the film juxtaposes the eye-popping visuals of the cosmos with the intimate emotional reckoning of Pitt’s character. It’s a subdued character study projected on the scope of a sprawling space saga. —ZS

“The Greatest Showman” (2017).

An original musical that’s also a biopic about Barnum & Bailey Circus founder P. T. Barnum? That would have been a risk in any year, let alone in 2017. The majority of movie musicals set up at major studios over the last decade have either been Broadway film adaptations or Disney live-action remakes, so it was a gamble for 20th Century Fox to produce the original “Greatest Showman” on a reported $80 million production budget. With catchy songs from “La La Land” Oscar winners Benj Pasek and Justin Paul, plus star power courtesy of Hugh Jackman, “The Greatest Showman” opened in December 2017 and proved to have enormous staying power at the box office, grossing 21 times its opening weekend gross to the tune of $435 million worldwide. —ZS

“Joker” (2019)

Releasing a comic book movie is perhaps the least risky thing a studio can do these days. Even with an R rating, films such as “Logan” and “Deadpool” weren’t so much risks as they were explicit bents on a reliable film genre. But outside of “The Dark Knight,” the riskiest comic book movie of the century is Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix’s “Joker,” which strips the genre of all of its VFX set pieces and action-oriented storytelling. “Joker” is more an R-rated “Taxi Driver” character study than a superhero movie (how successful of a character study is a debate for a different time), yet it still grossed over $1 billion worldwide to become the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time and the most profitable comic book film in history (plus 11 Oscar nominations and wins for Best Actor and Best Original Score). The success of “Joker” hints that any risky film release can be sold to the masses when packaged and sold through a comic book lens. —ZS

“Soul” (2020)

Perhaps the $858 million worldwide success of “Inside Out” made Pete Docter’s follow-up “Soul” less of a risk (see below), but not by any wide margin. “Soul,” with its existential musings on the purpose of life, feels like the Pixar movie most directly aimed at adults. Outside of a wacky body-swapping subplot, there’s almost nothing in “Soul” that feels designed for the entertainment of children. “Soul” is the most daring leap Pixar has ever taken in terms of storytelling, and that it’s committed to such risk taking after three decades proves why it’s one of the most essential studios operating in Hollywood. The pandemic switched up the film’s release from theaters to streaming (via Disney+), so we’ll never know just how much money “Soul” would’ve earned. Regardless, its subject matter makes it Pixar’s biggest risk to date. —ZS

“Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk” (2016)

A box office bomb any way you cut it ($30 million worldwide on a $40 million production budget), Ang Lee’s 2016 war drama “Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk” was a giant technical risk that proved exhibtors and moviegoers aren’t ready to embrace high-frame-rate movies shot at 120 frames per second. Sony pumped a lot of money into the experiment, and tried again to make 120 frames per second happen with Lee’s 2019 action movie “Gemini Man,” but it turned into Lee’s second consecutive box office bomb. No wonder other studios haven’t touched high frame rate filmmaking. It’s too risky. —ZS

“Annihilation” (2018)

Alex Garland’s “Annihilation” rightfully earned comparisons to Kubrick and Tarkovsky, which makes it all the more amazing Paramount released it in 2018. The film’s transcendent third act in particular is some of the most risk-taking studio filmmaking of the 21st century. The film was such a gamble that Paramount sold international rights to Netflix, fearing general audiences wouldn’t be able to understand the intricate plot. Moviegoers who did seek it out in theaters got to experience a new science-fiction classic. —ZS

“Arrival” (2016)

Denis Villeneuve’s “Arrival” may have been based on a short story, but in Hollywood’s eyes it was an original science-fiction movie, the kind that studios rarely take a chance on these days. Villeneuve approaches an alien invasion story without relying on typical studio action beats. In collaboration with Amy Adams, he creates a psychological study of the human mind that recalls Christopher Nolan’s “Inception” and “Memento,” only with an even more humanistic touch. —ZS

“Children of Men” (2006)

Alfonso Cuarón’s “Children of Men” was not a box office hit for Universal, but the studio deserves praise for allowing the director to see his vision through on a sizable $70 million budget. The film has elements of accessible genre fare, but Cuarón refuses to play by the mainstream filmmaking game. His action scenes skip boring coverage for a more subjective and challenging approach courtesy of Alfonso Cuaron’s immersive long takes, while his storytelling creates a mystery not as a puzzle box to answer but as a way to self-examine where our society is heading. —ZS

“Blade Runner 2049” (2017)

In an age where blockbusters feature mile-a-minute plotting and over-energized editing, Denis Villeneuve slowed things down dramatically with “Blade Runner 2049.” The film marinates in its evocative imagery (all hail Roger Deakins, who won his long overdue first Oscar for Best Cinematography thanks to this sequel) and immersive sound design, drawing out its relatively basic plot across 163 minutes of pure atmosphere. “2049” is the blockbuster epic as an arthouse mood piece. —ZS

“Crazy Rich Asians” (2018)

“Crazy Rich Asians” might have been based on a bestselling novel, but Warner Bros. faced an uphill battle in turning the movie into a hit. Not only was the studio film the first to feature an all-Asian cast since “The Joy Luck Club” in 1993, but it was also a full-blown romantic comedy, which had been such box office poison by the late 2010s that studios just stopped making them. Gone were the days where studios would churn out rom-coms like “The Proposal or “The Break-Up.” And yet, “Crazy Rich Asians” didn’t just meet expectations, it shattered them as the second most profitable Warner Bros. release of 2018. —ZS

“The Dark Knight” (2008)

Calling Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” a “game-changer” is nothing new, but don’t forget what a gamble Warner Bros. took on the project. Nolan had realized his grounded approach to the genre in “Batman Begins,” but he elevated things by envisioning the superhero movie as a sprawling crime saga for adults. “The Dark Knight” is more “Heat” than Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man.” The film was hardly a financial risk, as people were always going to pay to see a Batman movie (especially a sequel to the well-reviewed “Batman Begins”), but Warner Bros. took a leap by trusting in Nolan’s risky creative vision. The success of Nolan’s sequel proved audiences were eager to embrace a different kind of comic book spectacle. —ZS

“Dunkirk” (2017)

Christopher Nolan is one of few directors who is allowed the chance to take narrative risks on a massive budget. The director’s war drama “Dunkirk” was made for well over $100 million, which is remarkable considering the film’s cast is hardly star-studded, and the movie features Nolan’s most intricate plotting to date. “Dunkirk” tells three separate stories all occurring over separate time periods, editing them together into an experiential montage film that is far more experimental in ambition than any studio film of the decade. —ZS

“The Fountain” (2006)

Darren Aronofsky doesn’t make it easy for studios. After Warner Bros. shut down his original $75 million “The Fountain,” the director redrafted his script and scaled the narrative back significantly so the film could be made with a cheaper $35 million. Regardless, the original fantasy starring Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz as lovers across centuries of history remained grand in thematic reach and more ambitious than any studio would know what to do with it.—ZS

“The Great Gatsby” (2013)

Warner Bros. bet big on Leonardo DiCaprio’s star power when moving ahead with Baz Luhrmann’s expensive “The Great Gatsby.” Aside from DiCaprio, everything about this production was a financial risk, from the use of 3D on an adult drama to the casting of Carey Mulligan as Daisy (a great actress, but hardly a box office attraction at the time). Whatever you think of the end result, Luhrmann made a kind of CGI-driven, adult-oriented drama that is increasingly rare in Hollywood (see “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” or “Life of Pi”). —ZS

“Inside Out” (2015)

Pixar has made a name for itself by taking risks (they made a movie about a rat who loves to cook, remember?), but “Inside Out” leaves most of its other titles in the dust in terms of ambition. The movie is about processing emotions and emotional growth, which means it’s virtually impossible for young children to understand its profound emotional purpose. How’s that for kids’ entertainment? That Pixar was able to make its most adult-oriented film to date and still earn over $850 million worldwide is a testament to its genius. —ZS

“Mad Max: Fury Road” (2015)

Blockbusters these days have trained moviegoers to watch most action scenes as separate from the narrative. But what happens when the narrative is entirely action, and the characters are conveyed solely through their physicality? Enter “Mad Max: Fury Road.” George Miller’s masterpiece is the most daring studio action movie of the 21st century, entrusting its audience to abandon how they interact with the genre’s usual fare and to learn how to speak a more involving kind of action-driven storytelling. —ZS

“mother!” (2017)

Jennifer Lawrence is one of the biggest superstars on the planet, and she’s probably the only reason a major studio like Paramount would take a chance on releasing a movie as baffling as Darren Aronofsky’s “mother!” Not only is the film’s visual approach a challenge to sit through (the film is all handheld tracking shots and extreme close-ups), but the narrative goes off the rails with one of the most audacious third acts of the century. Aronofsky unleashes an orgy of violence and allegorical narrative twists that viewers might never see in a studio film again. —ZS

“The Revenant” (2015)

Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the world’s last movie stars capable of opening a movie on his name alone, but that didn’t make Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s “The Revenant” a slam dunk. The film is a virtually silent, 156-minute wilderness epic set in 1823 and featuring graphic violence, made on a budget of over $130 million. 20th Century Fox deserves praise for getting the title over the $500 million mark at the worldwide box office. Adult R-rated period dramas are becoming rare (see “The Sisters Brothers” bombing), but “The Revenant” proves with they can still succeed with the right ingredients. —ZS

“Silence” (2016)

Only Martin Scorsese could get a $50 million budget to make a 160-minute religious epic about the crisis of compromising your faith. “Silence” was a passion project for the director, but the challenging subject matter and the lack of star power from the cast (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver are not box office attractions) made it impossible from the get-go for Paramount to turn a profit. Fortunately, the film remains one of Scorsese’s most personal offerings ever, and that he was able to wrestle with his own faith on a multimillion budget is worth celebrating. —ZS

“Steve Jobs” (2015)

Universal Pictures thought it had an easy box office winner on its hands with a star-studded Steve Jobs biopic, but everything about Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay is the antithesis of what on paper sounds like an easily digestible slice of Oscar bait. Sorkin tells Jobs’ story by narrowing his life down to three 40-minute scenes unfolding in real-time. “Steve Jobs” failed at the box office, but it represents a daring approach to the biopic genre that hasn’t been seen since on a studio scale. —ZS

“WALL-E” (2008)

The rule of thumb for animated movies is to be bright, loud, and energetic, but Pixar threw out the rule book with “WALL-E,” widely considered their crowning achievement. The movie’s first act is a silent romance film, and its back-half evolves into a story that’s incredibly esoteric for a children’s movie (unless your child is passionate about environmental studies). “WALL-E” was the first time Pixar truly prioritized adult moviegoing sensibilities. —ZS

“Widows” (2018)

The movies rarely see an original R-rated heist drama featuring a cast led by women, which makes “Widows” all the more of a much-needed gamble from 20th Century Fox. Steve McQueen constantly upends traditional studio filmmaking in his approach to action scenes and in the way he builds the film on a socioeconomic and racial foundation that studios rarely want to touch. The film trusts its audience to follow along and rewards them for doing so. —ZS

“Zodiac” (2007)

David Fincher’s “Zodiac” was daring in its production, as it represented one of the first major studio productions to rely almost entirely on digital photography. It was also risky to think the masses would be able to embrace its challenging and dense narrative, which is almost entirely dialogue-driven. Paramount Pictures and Warner Bros. split production and distribution costs to minimize the financial risk after MGM balked over Fincher’s desired 157-minute runtime. —ZS