Lost count on the amount of stories where he is accused of being a jerk and hard to work with. I also cannot remember the last time he seemed invested or cared about his performance. Now he seems to mostly do direct to DVD crap that he is barely in (his scenes are short and spread apart. Also he has lots of scenes that feature his double with his face obscured with terrible ADR).
After being one of the one of the biggest movie stars of the 90s, his movies were pretty hit or miss in the early 00s. He seemed to become increasingly indifferent and unambitious as an actor by the mid 00s with the occasional exception every few years like Sin City & Live Free or Die Hard.
Yeah, those tales have become public knowledge. It's too bad he only does straight-to-DVD crap, but even when he is in big budget movies he phones it in. He had a small part in Motherless Brooklyn which lost money. He also starred in Glass which was a terrible conclusion to the Unbreakable trilogy and he seems to barely care or register an emotion in the movie. So I say based on his piss poor work ethic and lack of enthusiasm in working in bigger budget movies along with a poor attitude that has burned many bridges, his days as a leading man are over.
Didn't he also try to extort a ridiculous sum to appear in the last Expendables film? I know Nic Cage was heavily in debt which made him star in all those B movies. Don't remember hearing about Bruce needing the money.
Yes. He was offered 3 million for four days of shooting and refused saying he wanted 4 million. Stallone then called him greedy and lazy on twitter and cast Harrison Ford instead.
If not Pulp Fiction, then definitely The Fifth Element.
Is he really giving a "performance" in Pulp Fiction? Not really. He's not the most memorable actor in it for that very reason. Everyone of course, talks about Samuel L. Jackson, John Travolta, Uma Thurman and Ving Rhames but not Willis. He's just a "guy" in that movie, not a memorable character. Any actor could've been in that role, and it wouldn't have made a difference.
But if anyone wants to argue about it, I'll happily concede and offer The Fifth Element. Everyone else completely outshines him in that movie, because they really seemed to enjoy the concept and characters (especially Chris Tucker) and run with them. Willis looks absolutely bored, and the more I watch the movie, the more I regret that Luc Besson hadn't chosen a different actor. I think he's the reason why the movie never became better received.
I did not mind him too much in Pulp-Fiction, because he is mostly suppose to be a slow-witted boxer and the silent type. Mickey Rourke was the first choice and I can definitely see him doing it but he was forced to turn it down, due to scheduling conflicts. The movie is so good and inventive that I do not really notice anything out of place in the film.
Everyone does outshine him in the Fifth Element (a very fun popcorn film that still holds up). This is Besson at his best. But again he had the less showy role of the blue-collar guy caught up in the action who is somewhat of a wise ass. I thought he was fine in the movie. At least he seems to be awake in the movie and it is actually a quality flick; two things I cannot say about his recent output.
It's funny that you mentioned Mickey Rourke, because that's who I was thinking of when I wrote my post. He was definitely the natural and better choice. He would've played the character as the strong, silent type but with a lot more onscreen charisma. Willis, I dunno. I'm not saying that he's horrible in Pulp Fiction, but that unlike the other actors, I can see the movie with someone else in the role because he really didn't do more than he had to.
Same thing with The Fifth Element. He's not terrible. He does what he's supposed to do. But he doesn't do much with the character. Anyone could've played that role better. Ahnuld would've made it a classic right up there with Total Recall.