What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
04-06-11, 02:21 PM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
"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.
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.
04-06-11, 03:57 PM
#77
DVD Talk Hero
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
Just stare at it - it is full of so much win that it genuinely warms my cockles.
04-06-11, 05:20 PM
#79
Senior Member
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
"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.
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.
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.
04-06-11, 05:23 PM
#80
Senior Member
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
^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)
04-06-11, 05:27 PM
#81
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
"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.
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.
04-06-11, 05:30 PM
#82
Senior Member
04-06-11, 05:42 PM
#83
04-06-11, 05:53 PM
#84
Senior Member
04-06-11, 06:18 PM
#85
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
@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.
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.
Even so, Quaid's Doc was somewhat interesting, I guess, but I found the portrayal just overall ugly.
I guess you're right. He had to have gotten the role of Iron Man based on some kind of relatively recent little buzz.
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.
04-06-11, 06:44 PM
#86
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
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.
04-06-11, 08:05 PM
#87
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
Anyway, about Val Kilmer, I guess we just disagree on the Batman role.
04-06-11, 08:29 PM
#88
04-06-11, 08:35 PM
#89
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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!"
04-06-11, 08:35 PM
#90
04-06-11, 08:50 PM
#91
Senior Member
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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!"
But I won't since I'm going to try to be more mature now.
04-06-11, 08:54 PM
#92
Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
04-06-11, 08:55 PM
#93
DVD Talk Hero
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
04-07-11, 09:28 AM
#97
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,946
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
'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.
04-07-11, 10:37 AM
#98
DVD Talk Legend
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
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.
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.
04-07-11, 12:36 PM
#99
DVD Talk Legend
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
'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.
Although My Darling Clementine puts them all to shame.
04-07-11, 02:22 PM
#100
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: What the hell happened to Val Kilmer?!?
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.
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.