What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?

[Solid Snake PAC]

Originally Posted by MinLShaw

"Retarded" doesn't tell us what your problem with his performance was; it only tells us that you're used to thoughtless, immature language. I can work with "terribly boring and zombielike," though.

Bruce Wayne in this story is on the cusp of a catharsis. This storyline is a direct continuation of the previous two movies; so when Bruce tells Dick Grayson that killing Two-Face will only lead him to a temporary high, that he'll eventually become addicted to going out, looking for victims, I read it that he's really filling us in on what's been going on between movies for the character.

He's a traumatized, vulnerable Bruce Wayne trying very hard to reconcile the ambitions of Batman with his own needs. That's how he's written. I think Kilmer's portrayal was thoughtful, nuanced and perfectly appropriate for the part as it was scripted.

Edit to add:

As I've said previously in this thread, another thing I find most interesting about Kilmer's performance is that there's not a pronounced difference between Bruce Wayne and Batman. He plays the character as one guy, rather than a Jeckyll and Hyde kind of thing. I really get a sense that Kilmer was conscious that under the Bat-suit he was still playing Bruce Wayne. I can't say that about the other actors who've played Batman in movies.

If any thing Shumacher was to blame for that. Directors direct actors to act in a certain form and way. If anything...it leads to JS's wanting for a specific performance. Personally, I never thought of it as Zombie like but...I can see that.

[slop101]

I can't believe this picture hasn't been posted yet!

Just stare at it - it is full of so much win that it genuinely warms my cockles.

[Trout]

Maybe Richard Stanley's curse is finally working...

[Johnny Boy]

Originally Posted by MinLShaw

"Retarded" doesn't tell us what your problem with his performance was; it only tells us that you're used to thoughtless, immature language. I can work with "terribly boring and zombielike," though.

He's a traumatized, vulnerable Bruce Wayne trying very hard to reconcile the ambitions of Batman with his own needs. That's how he's written. I think Kilmer's portrayal was thoughtful, nuanced and perfectly appropriate for the part as it was scripted.

"Retarded" is just a playful word that means "bad". If I had said "that's bad" instead you probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Anyway, about Val Kilmer, I guess we just disagree on the Batman role. Kilmer made Al Gore look like Busta Rhymez in that role. He didn't bring it at all. And even if the script was written like that he still could've done better. Al Pacino played a zombielike character in The Godfather Part 2 but he did it well becase he was believable.

[Johnny Boy]

^Pacino acted with his eyes and it worked well. But there was nothng going on in Val Kilmer's eyes in the Batman role. He acted like he didn't want to dothe part. (kind of like the old De Niro in some of his latest roles)

[PopcornTreeCt]

Originally Posted by Johnny Boy

"Retarded" is just a playful word that means "bad". If I had said "that's bad" instead you probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.

Anyway, about Val Kilmer, I guess we just disagree on the Batman role. Kilmer made Al Gore look like Busta Rhymez in that role. He didn't bring it at all. And even if the script was written like that he still could've done better. Al Pacino played a zombielike character in The Godfather Part 2 but he did it well becase he was believable.

WTF does this mean?

[Johnny Boy]

Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt

WTF does this mean?

Because Busta brings explosive energy and is very animated in his work.

Kilmer was so unanimated that he made Al Gore (another unanimated character) look animated.

[PopcornTreeCt]

Originally Posted by Johnny Boy

Because Busta brings explosive energy and is very animated in his work.

Kilmer was so unanimated that he made Al Gore (another unanimated character) look animated.

Ah, gotcha.

[Johnny Boy]

Originally Posted by PopcornTreeCt

Ah, gotcha.

One of Busta Rhymez' curly chest hairs contains enough concentrated energy to blow up a trash can.

[brayzie]

@MinLShaw
I guess you're right. He had to have gotten the role of Iron Man based on some kind of relatively recent little buzz.

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

One of the great things about TOMBSTONE is its wonderful ensemble cast. Russell and the others clearly understood that Kilmer was giving a scene-stealing performance and allowed him to do so. They understood instinctively that it made for a better movie. And I would argue that Kilmer's crowd-pleasing performance was the single most important element in making TOMBSTONE a hit.

They had a nice cast, but yeah, if it weren't for Doc, I wouldn't have bought it on DVD. I only wish Mickey Rourke had chosen to do the Johnny Ringo role. I think he would have matched Val Kilmer's alpha-maleness much better than Michael Bein. You know from the beginning who's going to come out on top, and with Rourke I think it would have been a little more in question.

Cut to Kevin Costner's WYATT EARP (1994). The film's failure to capitalize on Dennis Quaid's performance as Doc Holliday is its biggest flaw. As J. Hoberman put it in his review of the film, implicitly referencing Kilmer's role in TOMBSTONE, "Costner wouldn't allow Quaid to steal the film." As long as WYATT EARP is--3 hours and 10 min.--there are few scenes with Doc Holliday. Big mistake.

Even so, Quaid's Doc was somewhat interesting, I guess, but I found the portrayal just overall ugly.

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by Ash Ketchum

One of the great things about TOMBSTONE is its wonderful ensemble cast. Russell and the others clearly understood that Kilmer was giving a scene-stealing performance and allowed him to do so. They understood instinctively that it made for a better movie. And I would argue that Kilmer's crowd-pleasing performance was the single most important element in making TOMBSTONE a hit.

Cut to Kevin Costner's WYATT EARP (1994). The film's failure to capitalize on Dennis Quaid's performance as Doc Holliday is its biggest flaw. As J. Hoberman put it in his review of the film, implicitly referencing Kilmer's role in TOMBSTONE, "Costner wouldn't allow Quaid to steal the film." As long as WYATT EARP is--3 hours and 10 min.--there are few scenes with Doc Holliday. Big mistake.

I disagree.

[MinLShaw]

Originally Posted by Johnny Boy

"Retarded" is just a playful word that means "bad". If I had said "that's bad" instead you probably wouldn't have had a problem with it.

I still would have pressed you to clarify what you actually meant, had you said, "bad" rather than "retarded." "Bad" wouldn't have made you appear immature, though.

Anyway, about Val Kilmer, I guess we just disagree on the Batman role.

Yes, we do.

[gmanca]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

I disagree.

In what respect? I have yet to see Tombstone but having seen Quaid's Holliday performance, I can't think of how Kilmer's could top it.

[MinLShaw]

Originally Posted by gmanca

In what respect? I have yet to see Tombstone but having seen Quaid's Holliday performance, I can't think of how Kilmer's could top it.

It's funny how out of all the movies ever made about Earp, Holliday, et al, we only ever seem to compare Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. I don't even know why I still haven't seen the latter, because I'm a fan of Kevin Costner. I have, however, seen Tombstone and I'm pretty sure that one of the movie reviews was from the ghost of Doc Holliday himself, who declared, "Hot damn! I came off as awesome!"

[PopcornTreeCt]

Originally Posted by gmanca

In what respect? I have yet to see Tombstone but having seen Quaid's Holliday performance, I can't think of how Kilmer's could top it.

I'm not a big fan of Tombstone but Kilmer's performance is his defining role of his career.

[Johnny Boy]

Originally Posted by MinLShaw

It's funny how out of all the movies ever made about Earp, Holliday, et al, we only ever seem to compare Tombstone and Wyatt Earp. I don't even know why I still haven't seen the latter, because I'm a fan of Kevin Costner. I have, however, seen Tombstone and I'm pretty sure that one of the movie reviews was from the ghost of Doc Holliday himself, who declared, "Hot damn! I came off as awesome!"

From defending Val Kilmer's Batman performance to being a Kevin Costner fan, I bet I could have a lot of fun busting your balls.

But I won't since I'm going to try to be more mature now.

[slimdude]

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

Blockbuster rents the UNRATED version of Caligula as well as many titles that could easily be considered softcore pornography.

The Unrated Version of Caligula contains real hardcore penetration, oral, and masturbation sex scenes. Originally, Caligula was Rated X, when it was first released theatrically.

[Nick Danger]

Originally Posted by MinLShaw

In any event, I've never met the guy so he continues to exist purely as an entertainer to me. Knowing how cash-strapped New Mexico is, I tip my hat to the guy for bringing in the kind of business that Ropes Pierre cited.

It's not clear if bringing movie productions to New Mexico is helping the state. Advocates on both sides have statistics to back up their positions.

The pro side says that the tax breaks, low-interest loans, and other benefits are an investment, so a movie-making industry gets started that will help the economy for years to come. It may not be cost-effective at the present, but there will be a payoff in the future.

The anti side says that production companies are highly mobile, and as soon as another state offers a better deal, they will be gone. Although jobs are created, there are other industries which could create jobs if the money were redirected their way, and they would not deposit their profits in Los Angeles.

I favor the anti side, myself.

[Sonic]

Kilmer made a very cool Batman.

Just sucks that he let himself get so big!

[Burnt Thru]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

I disagree.

How nice.

[Burnt Thru]

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

Part of it? Yes. Cause of it? Nope.

And the cause was?

[Dr Mabuse]

Originally Posted by gmanca

In what respect? I have yet to see Tombstone but having seen Quaid's Holliday performance, I can't think of how Kilmer's could top it.

Completely really.

'Tombstone' was a mediocre(at best) film that will be forgotten over time. The over the top, cartoonish turn from Kilmer definitely aimed to please the masses, but the film in whole did as well. It was a silly and grotesque bit of work meant to put asses from that meaty part of the bell curve who 'don't want to think, just be entertained' in the seats. Powers Boothe and his unlimited-shot revolvers, Beign's over the top 'gunslinger' routine, who naturally turns into a 'crowd pleasing' coward when faced with Kilmer's 'superhero' Holiday. It had a talented cast to be sure, but they were wasted in caricatures and not characters.

The whole thing is less than your average Michael Bay film on the artistic merit and intelligence scale. Which made it a hit.

'Wyatt Earp' is a modern masterpiece of a western. Gorgeous to look at, thoughtful and developed in the script, great performances abounding, it's truly great film making. It's intelligent... with real characters and not silly caricatures. It forgoes silly nonsense for realism and organic period accuracy. Instead of the ham-handed 'cartoonish' nonsense of Kilmer's Holiday, Quaid gave the performance of his career and played a large and crucial role in the film. Costner neither directed, produced, or wrote the film so some point saying 'Costner didn't let him' do anything is nonsense. Kasdan handled those scenes with both Quaid and Costner very well, highlighting the differences in the characters, and the similarities that made them the best of friends, very well. The scene where they meet, Quaid dominates the conversation and the scene, he is the central focus in whole, but the key ingredients are the subtle aspects of things like Costner catching the bottle when it's knocked over and both men taking note, the two men subtly sizing each up other up and liking what they see. It's really good stuff.

There is no way in hell that a serious, intelligent film like 'Wyatt Earp', that took the running time to develop a character and the story to some depth, was ever going to be a hit in the US. Some notion that more of Quaid in the film would have changed that is silly.

In 50 years 'Wyatt Earp' will be remembered as a great film and the pulpy 'Tombstone' will thankfully(hopefully) be forgotten.

I disagree with the entirety of the post.

[Hokeyboy]

Originally Posted by MinLShaw

I don't have a time line constructed of when a movie opened vs. when Downey was signed for a subsequent movie. I hadn't even heard of either Eros or Game 6 until I cobbled together his recent filmography from IMDb. It was my understanding that Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was the movie that had viewers reacting, "Hey! Robert Downey, Jr. is still alive and making movies again!"

In any event, the purpose of the information I provided was to demonstrate that he'd become quite active in recent years, prior to Iron Man.

"Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang" is a great movie, but at BEST it's a tiny cult hit. It flopped at the box office, had no buzz whatsoever until a small group of devotees discovered it on cable or home video. You could just as easily say "The Singing Detective" caused his career renaissance.

I will agree though that he was quite active before Iron Man, but he wasn't on any kind of real "upswing" other than the fact that he was sober and working. Also, Favreau really had to fight to convince the studio to cast Downey. It wasn't a fait accompli, although in retrospect it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role.

[Hokeyboy]

Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse

Completely really.

'Tombstone' was a mediocre(at best) film that will be forgotten over time. The over the top, cartoonish turn from Kilmer definitely aimed to please the masses, but the film in whole did as well. It was a silly and grotesque bit of work meant to put asses from that meaty part of the bell curve who 'don't want to think, just be entertained' in the seats. Powers Boothe and his unlimited-shot revolvers, Beign's over the top 'gunslinger' routine, who naturally turns into a 'crowd pleasing' coward when faced with Kilmer's 'superhero' Holiday. It had a talented cast to be sure, but they were wasted in caricatures and not characters.

The whole thing is less than your average Michael Bay film on the artistic merit and intelligence scale. Which made it a hit.

'Wyatt Earp' is a modern masterpiece of a western. Gorgeous to look at, thoughtful and developed in the script, great performances abounding, it's truly great film making. It's intelligent... with real characters and not silly caricatures. It forgoes silly nonsense for realism and organic period accuracy. Instead of the ham-handed 'cartoonish' nonsense of Kilmer's Holiday, Quaid gave the performance of his career and played a large and crucial role in the film. Costner neither directed, produced, or wrote the film so some point saying 'Costner didn't let him' do anything is nonsense. Kasdan handled those scenes with both Quaid and Costner very well, highlighting the differences in the characters, and the similarities that made them the best of friends, very well. The scene where they meet, Quaid dominates the conversation and the scene, he is the central focus in whole, but the key ingredients are the subtle aspects of things like Costner catching the bottle when it's knocked over and both men taking note, the two men subtly sizing each up other up and liking what they see. It's really good stuff.

There is no way in hell that a serious, intelligent film like 'Wyatt Earp', that took the running time to develop a character and the story to some depth, was ever going to be a hit in the US. Some notion that more of Quaid in the film would have changed that is silly.

In 50 years 'Wyatt Earp' will be remembered as a great film and the pulpy 'Tombstone' will thankfully(hopefully) be forgotten.

I disagree with the entirety of the post.

I agree with your disagreement. Tombstone is a Western for women. It's slick, vacuous, surface-level entertainment. An empty, dunderheaded bauble. I enjoy Wyatt Earp infinitely more; although it does have its flaws, as a movie it runs circles around Tombstone.

Although My Darling Clementine puts them all to shame.

[MinLShaw]

I'm not a woman and I don't consider myself a viewer resistant to thinking, and I loved Tombstone. Despite holding a degree in history, I hold Westerns to a very low standard for depicting reality. Like a lot of Americans, I favor a romantic belief about the era held aloft by fanciful movies and an admittedly willful ability to ignore things so long as the story at hand is entertaining and lives up to my desire that the Old West be treated as a mythological period.

In any event, most of the criticisms leveled at Tombstone in this thread may very well be fair. They don't detract from my enjoyment of the movie in the least, and a large part of that enjoyment comes from the terrific dialog.

Just offhand:

Ringo: You must be Doc Holliday. You retired, too?
Doc: Not me. I'm in my prime.
Ringo: Yeah, you look it.

Doc: Maybe poker's just not your game, Ike. I know! Let's have a spelling contest!

Wyatt: "You gonna do somethin', or just stand there and bleed?"

Doc: Nonsense! I have not yet begun to defile myself!

Texas Jack: You ever seen somethin' like that before?
Turkey Creek: Hell, I never even heard of somethin' like that.

Wyatt: Already got a guilty conscience. Might as well have the money, too.

Curly Bill: You know what I'd do? I'd take that deal and then crawfish, drill that ol' Devil in the ass.