MovieChat Forums > Val Kilmer Discussion > When was the absolute bottom of his car...

When was the absolute bottom of his career ?


2009 with The Steam Experiment ?

reply

I think what hurt Kilmer was his over spending and had to accept jobs , in lesser films, to keep his revenue streams from drying up.
Being hard to work with didn’t help…
2008/2009 housing marked wiped him out. He lost millions and to avoid going under he kept doing more bad films.
Not unlike Nic Cage.

Kilmer is retired, his passion is bad art. He looks extremely frail now. Drop by HelMel Studio & Gallery is located at the corner of Heliotrope Drive and Melrose Ave. and say hallo.

reply

He's mostly retired now due to illness and surviving throat cancer which robbed him of his regular voice.

reply

There wasn't any. He was always Fake Movie Star. That's why Saint flopped. And The Ghost and the Darkness. And The Island of Dr. Moreau. And Red Planet.

He could not carry a movie. Hollywood tried to make him happen and was casting him in all those big movies. But they flopped because he is not leading actor. He is not interesting enough. So after few flops Hollywood gave up and stopped trying. So he vanished from big movies.

reply

This is sadly true... I love Val, and I've always been lured to his films, but sadly none of his films were blockbusters the way the studios wanted, except for maybe Batman Forever. I think the Sultan Sea and The Doors did well, too.

reply

The Doors was his biggest hit! Sultan Sea , a good movie, was a low bud production.

reply

I still need to watch The Doors, and I've never seen Sultan Sea all the way through.

reply

Yeah. Batman would succeed with any actor. But his own blockbusters flopped. Simply because he was never a real movie star that Hollywood tried to pretend he is. When they saw it - they stopped trying. And that fact that he was difficult to work with and was acting like spoiled brat - didn't help him.

I think it was 1995 with the supporting in Heat when they started hyping him and tried to Make Him Happen As Next Big Thing.

Then came The Island of Dr. Moreau and The Ghost and the Darkness in 1996.

Then The Saint came in 1997 that they thought would become Mission Impossible level of hype. They gave it crazy budget of 90 millions. And were planning for sequels and franchise. They had big plans on it and Val Kilmer as some Ethan Hunt level of Famous Cool Spy.

And then The Saint flopped making 61 millions in USA because turned out no one cared about Val Kilmer and he aint Stallone or Willis. The Saint opened to 16 millions on second place behind third week of Liar Liar.

That was the breaking point when they stopped trying to make him Movie Star. There was also Red Planet in 2000 with the budget f 80 millions that flopped too. I think it was his last big budget movie where he was cast as Main Star.

There was Alexander in 2004. But he had small supporting role and was not carrying it.

And he turned 40 years old in 1999. Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt he wasnt. And he could not do Oscarish movies like some other movie stars to stay relevant. And could not carry action movies. So his career as Movie Star ended. And all he could score some low budget Direct-to-video movies. I counted 19 of them on his Wiki page. Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Val_Kilmer

reply

Then The Saint came in 1997 that they thought would become Mission Impossible level of hype. They gave it crazy budget of 90 millions. And were planning for sequels and franchise. They had big plans on it and Val Kilmer as some Ethan Hunt level of Famous Cool Spy.


I liked Val Kilmer's charisma in that film, but he lacked the action chops to make the movie stand out, and that's really what could have made it timeless.

I do wonder what that film would have been like if they had cast an action star in the role instead? Seems like it would have been an awesome vehicle for Jean-Claude had he not gone off the deep-end on coke, as he could do more serious stuff than the other action stars and looked the part. But his accent definitely would have been a drawback for his disguises.

Jackie Chan would have definitely been able to make the movie feel more energetic and the globetrotting would have fit in well with his uncanny style to make every scenario feel enlivened. But sadly, his acting at the time was extremely limited, and I feel the disguises would have been treated as horrible comedy acts, and he certainly wouldn't have been able to pull off the romance angle as well as Jean-Claude.

The only one I think that actually could have made it work back then is Jean Reno, who could act, and did the action beats well in The Professional just three years prior. Plus he would have had Ronin coming out a year after which could have helped propel him up the international box office totem.

reply

Bruce Willis could have pulled off being The Saint. His performance in The Jackal was like the evil version.

reply

Bruce Willis was definitely good in The Jackal -- I don't know if he really gave off the spy-vibe, though. He has a bit too much of an everyman vibe about him. It worked in the Jackal because he was supposed to blend in and be unassuming. But he wasn't quite as captivating as Edward Fox in the original Day of the Jackal, who pretty much was everything that I think they wanted out of The Saint remake with Val Kilmer.

Heck, if Fox had just been 20 years younger he would have been perfect for the role.

reply

Cruise, Pitt could carry it better. Val was just not leading man. Something was missing from his face to be one.

reply

I regularly listen to Graeme Revelle's soundtrack for the film, and it has such airy and whimsically idealistic tone to it (especially the theme song and the love theme). I think in that regard, the visuals and the soundtrack would have lent themselves well to Pitt's visual presence on the screen -- almost as if he would be a statuesque muse for the accompanying aesthetics. But I feel it would have been way too charming and not really masculine enough, if that makes sense.

The problem is that Pitt -- at the time -- definitely wouldn't have been right for the role. I feel he was a bit too boyish. And he was quite brusk about being in films where he had to get physical, hence his petulant rants during interviews about his dislike of the violence required of him for Fight Club.

But yeah, I think Cruise carried the more masculine traits for an action role at the time (between him and Pitt). But he was already in Mission Impossible, so it would have made The Saint redundant for him.

Cruise actually might have been able to pull it off, though. His acting still really left something to be desired at the time, and I don't know how well he would have done the whole disguises thing, but I do feel he would have been a lot more adept at the physical requirements in the action parts.

reply

Ghost in the Darkness is absolutely amazing in every regard, however, it's a hidden gem if not a masterpiece.
Kilmer stopped getting roles because he was the prime example of "difficult to work with". Nothing to do with him not carrying a movie, he clearly did in GatD.

He's a great actor. You calling him a fake movie star says more about you than you might like to share...

reply

What is GatD? Ghost in the Darkness?

That movie had a budget of 55 millions and only made 38 millions in USA. It flopped. He was the main hot star of it. But public didnt care. If Brad Pitt would play that role - it would probably earn more.

Val Kilmer is not great actor. He always looks the same and plays himself. He was actually better when supporting. And should have stayed there. Not every pretty faces can be lead. I liked him in Heat, Real McCoy and Alexander better then in movies where he was lead.

reply

It's Ghost AND the Darkness, not in. It refers to the names of the two lions.

Yes, it flopped, nobody is denying that. However, there are plenty of amazing movies that flopped. Reasons for that can be plenty and can have nothing to do at all with the movie or the actors, but marketing for example.

Master & Commander was a "flop" as well - and yet it is a masterpiece, just to name one example.

Kilmer is a great actor and he has proven his versatility in movies like Heat and Tombstone, two completely different roles yet here you are saying he always plays himself, what nonsense. I do agree he is a better supporting actor, but that doesn't mean he cannot be a lead and the movie I mentioned proved this.

You're jumping to conclusions out of pretty thin air and make claims that are flat out incorrect.

reply

My bad. Yes, its The Ghost and the Darkness.

Somehow its always in my mind as The Ghost in the Darkness. As the Ghost (lion) that hides during night in bushes (Darkness) LOL. I forget that its names of the lions.

The Ghost and the Darkness is well shot. But I remember I was bored while watching it. Its a good movie I guess. Not masterpiece. And it has no legacy and cult status. No one ever talks about it. People forgot it the moment it came out.

I was bored out of my mind with Master & Commander. Same problem. Again - no legacy.

Sorry but Val could never dissapear in role. I watched clips of Heat today. He looks like Val Kilmer in wig. He is one of those actors that will always play variations of themselves.

reply

He's been in films that nobody talks about, The Saint and Ghost And The Darkness aren't exactly films that anyone has talked about in over 25 years.

reply

The Ghost and the Darkness is seen as underrated by many people today. I saw it when it came out in theaters and to me it's one of his best movies that came out in the 90s.

reply

Red Planet was ROCK BOTTOM.

reply

Now.

reply

Getting throat cancer.

reply

Poor Val with his string of terrible films but he defiantly lost his integrity with the 2002 Hard cash!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0248640/?ref_=nm_flmg_t_74_act

reply

I don't quite know because I've never really followed him. I'm aware of "Top Gun". Let's see what else - "The Doors". The one he did with Mira Sorvino - he played a blind guy as I recall (don't remember the title).

And of course, the movie I really liked him in: "Batman Forever". He is probably my fave Batman. He's got the cool, calm exterior of Bruce Wayne - yet he's athletic enough to buy as Batman. This is the problem I had with Michael Keaton. Keaton is real good at playing a tormented soul. But he just isn't, I don't know, strong enough or big enough for Batman. I preferred what Kilmer did with the part.

As far as the rest of Kilmer's career - well, one is pretty clueless.

reply

Great, if somewhat sad, discussion here but amazingly without mention of his famous turn as Doc Holliday in Tombstone in 1993.

No Oscar nom but it made Kilmer hot enough for Batman Forever and a shot at a franchise with The Saint.

But Doc Holliday proved a one off driven by a great script, a great character, and great lines. Kilmer alone didnt have full star charisma and was evidently very hard to work with.

Kilmer himself in his autobio wrote that on his early movie Real Genius, where he was quite funny in a good role, the producer had to meet with him to warn him, "the other actors are scared of you," and asked him to tone it down.

reply