893 posts shown.
Richard Wilson4 said:A ton of actors have fallen straight to the B-list, but there’s one guy I’m not mourning at all...
That idiot Costner, right after the MASSIVE TOTAL DISASTER that was Waterworld, just went and crashed even harder with The Postman.
😵 😵 😵
20th Century Studios is pushing ahead with yet another "Donnie Darko" sequel, and word is Richard Kelly might actually be back reports Bloody Disgusting.
Kelly wrote and directed the 2001 cult hit featuring Jake Gyllenhaal, but he famously stayed away from that cheap direct-to-video follow-up, "S. Darko". That one, which focused on a side character from the original, just dropped last month.
The site mentions Kelly might actually be involved on some level but details are early so there's no official word on the plot yet.
Andrew Roberts3 said:I was just sitting here thinking about Val Kilmer. Man, what a ride his career has been. He was absolutely killer in stuff like "Top Gun," and let’s be honest, his turn as Jim Morrison in "The Doors" was legendary—he really captured that rock icon vibe. Then you’ve got "True Romance," which wasn't even his biggest role, but still great, plus he crushed it in "Tombstone" and that intense masterpiece "Heat." But then... things started to shift. He drifted into more B-movie territory and indie projects. Don't get me wrong, there were some gems in there where he actually delivered solid performances, like in "The Salton Sea," "Felon," or "Wonderland." But seriously, hitting rock bottom? That was definitely when he lent his voice to K.I.T.T. in that "Knight Rider" remake. Talk about a letdown! Still, looking at his recent schedule, the guy is working like crazy lately. It looks like we might see him pop up in ten different projects over the next couple of years, so who knows... maybe one of those will finally land him back on the A-list.
David Price5 said:but then it somehow ends up being totally over the top...
analogpilot16 said:That bike scene alone makes me want to take out Woo, Cruise, and myself just for having watched it.
Bryan Mills is the real deal. If he’s this lethal in his mid-40s, imagine how unstoppable he was at 30.
David Price5 said:Jack is just built different. Most people can't rack up a body count like thatin just 7 days..
briskhound2 said:He did a decent job in that thriller/drama ''The Chamber,'' but let’s be real, Gene Hackman basically carried that entire movie on his back, so I'm with you there. It's kind of funny how both him and Alicia Silverstone ended up in the fourth Batman movie. Maybe it's just me, but where the hell did Bill Paxton go? He might not have been an A-lister, but man, as a character actor, he always knew how to elevate a scene...
Richard Wilson4 said:Mickey Rourke was basically a washed-up relic from the 80s just a few years back...
But man, after Sin City and then hitting it big again in The Wrestler, he’s totally back in the game.
Now the real question is, does he blow this second chance like John Travolta did, or can he actually stay on that Hollywood A-list? Not that he ever really hit it, but you know what I mean.
I'd throw Uma Thurman into that comeback club too.
The list of actors who peaked way too early is massive. I'll just drop a few names here.:
Personally, I'm wondering whatever happened to these guys:
Renée Russo? Lethal Weapon 2, The Thomas Crown Affair.
Chris O'Donnell? Batman Forever, Indecent Proposal.
Alicia Silverstone? Clueless.
Edward Furlong? American History X, Terminator 2.
PS
In this thread, I don't want to includeB-list nobodies, but I'm also not looking forolder legends or people who just walked away from fame on their own terms.
Lisa Ross65 said:Now we have the great Werner Herzog working on a remake of Abel Ferrara's Bad Lieutenant. Starring Nicolas Cage and Val Kilmer. Honestly—pretty out of left field.
William Roberts2 said:Movies like Batman, Sin City, and Road to Perdition actually have some weight to them. And look, I’ll admit it—directors like Christopher Nolan or Robert Rodriguez are basically outliers in this industry; you always have to account for those rare exceptions.
Hulk is a good movie??? Are you kidding me? That whole thing is just typical Marvel fare, strictly for kids under 12 or 13.
As for A History of Violence, it's just middle-of-the-road stuff.
William Roberts2 said:Look, if you’re getting all worked up over X-Men, fine, whatever. It's basically a kids' movie. But honestly? Real directors—the heavy hitters—don't even bother wasting their breath on little flicks like that.
