Just because he put on a fake accent and some white makeup everyone seems head over heels with his acting.
I didn't find Val Kilmers acting particularly impressive, what exactly is it that makes his performance so great in your eyes?
If your view of his acting is limited to percieving a phony accent and white makeup, then further explanation would most likely be a waste of time for whoever might be inclined to engage. Sorry you didn't enjoy it.
shareNo need to be sorry as I did in fact enjoy the movie, I just don't see his acting as being anything exceptional.
shareIt was more of a sympathy sorry than an apology sorry. I just think you should account for more than an accent and makeup in drawing your conclusion.
This is my sig: I'm now using a previous ID. I say so to be accountable for previous posts.
Actually makeup and accents are some of the least concerns I have when judging whether I find someone's acting good, bad, impressive, mediocre etc.
The reason I made the statement concerning his makeup and accent was because people being blinded by superficial things as these is the only reason I can think of why one would be so impressed with his acting.
I am not saying he was particularly bad, just that I don't see it as anything out of the ordinary.
The reason I made the statement concerning his makeup and accent was because people being blinded by superficial things as these is the only reason I can think of why one would be so impressed with his acting.
Ok, that's fair, even if it is making some pretty broad assumptions. True people do sometimes stop short with the elements such as accent or makeup, but I really don't think that's the case here. In fact, it's interesting to me why you didn't like him, or if I'm correct, felt he was overrated? But let me explain why I think he is so eagerly embraced.
I think there's a lot of natural reasons why people enjoyed him so much. First off, he sort of made every scene pop; he was always wearing something cool and flashy compared to Wyatt's more toned down, black and white clothing. Also, most scenarios, especially the tense ones, were usually capped by some witticism from Doc. Add to that his cool and his courage, and it creates a character that I think it's easy for people to be drawn to.
Wyatt's story was compelling and created a narrative worthy of making a movie around it, but it was Doc's presence that brought in an element of escapism, and viewers will often gravitate towards that kind of character when done well.
Obviously his acting and personal story are subjective as to whether or not they should be considered great or not, but I personally felt that he carried the proper emotional engagement for each occasion that he faced.
This is my sig: I'm now using a different ID; I say so to be accountable for previous posts.
Thank you for taking the time to write up the things you enjoy about Val Kilmer's character.
I see what you are talking about and I can understand it to some extent, but Doc Holliday wearing flashy clothes and having witty or cool lines comes more down to having a good script writer and wardrobe department than a good actor.
Anyone can put on clothes and speak whatever lines they are told but for me to consider someone's acting to be really good I have to forget that it's an actor playing some role, I have to actually believe that the person I'm seeing on screen is a real person and not someone portraying a certain character.
In my opinion an actor has to own the character he is portraying and to speak and act as if it was completely natural to him while still being appropriate in the context of the film - I didn't feel this way about the way Val Kilmer portrayd Doc Holliday.
We may have different views on what good acting is or we might simply disagree on this particular case, either way we are each entitled to our own opinion on the matter.
No problem, I'm glad to respond! I just honestly couldn't tell from the first post how in depth you were wanting to look at it. I agree that what you're saying about an actors requirements for fulfilling a role are, and of course the reception by the audience is up to each individual member of the audience. It's also why I tried to state elements that I think have an impact on the viewer in a more universal sense, rather than just subjectively saying "Because he kicked ass!" (no offense to "courtjes" below me).
The ability to engage by an actor is a funny thing. Some people say that Leo DiCaprio is one of the most engaging actors ever, and that what he does on the screen just pulls in the viewer. And then others feel that everything he does feels the same. I guess maybe it's almost like a plutonic version of the laws of attraction; there's just something that pulls you in. For me Kilmer was great as Doc and I bought it, and same for a lot of people. But definitely not everybody.
And on that note, if you haven't seen it but you are interested Doc Holliday, then you might watch Wyatt Earp with Kevin Costner. I personally think the movie is a bit too big in its intention but a little lacking in it's delivery, but Dennis Quaid also gives a much praised performance as Holliday (and believe me there's arguments a plenty over who's better). But if you have seen it and are fully aware, then I apologize if it sounded patronizing.
This is my sig: I'm now using a different ID; I say so to be accountable for previous posts.
Thank you for the recommendation, I don't think I will watch it however.
I am not that interested in Doc Holliday to be honest, I have heard that the movie is quite long and dull, and I have a LOT of other movies in my watchlist that I want to watch first.
"In my opinion an actor has to own the character he is portraying and to speak and act as if it was completely natural to him while still being appropriate in the context of the film..."
I felt that Kilmer did own the character of Doc Holliday, and his monologues (and dialogues) seemed incredibly effortless. I bought his portrayal of a flawed Southern gentleman gunslinger.
I'm not going to respond to the generalizations you made, as they could be taken as quite insulting. Let's just say that you are in the extreme minority with your opinion. Has nothing to do with his accent or make-up, which is absurd.
shareGood lines and good wardrobe sure doesn't hurt. Regardless I think he did own the part and I did believe his character completely.
shareNone of the things you listed have anything to do with great acting.
'Then' and 'than' are different words - stop confusing them.
Because he's awesome. No further explanation needed.
shareAt the risk of repeating what others have already stated....I enjoyed the performance of Kilmer because, he played him in a way that I have never seen before. In the older movies Pre 1980's genre, Doc Holiday is the same character, gambling, rambling and famous as the shootist and second banana for the famous Wyatt Earp. He was the same in nearly every movie that had a Doc Holliday character. The performance by Val Kilmer was different, he brought a coolness to the role, a dangerous and flawed man that was both educated and base at once, without proclaiming it with a scream or loudmouth declaration (see Dennis Quaid in the Movie WYATT). He also stole the scenes with an assurance that was believable and entertaining; He played the role with an air and attitude that was believable. Having said that, I know that the director may have played fast and loose with the facts concerning Wyatt and Doc, but nevertheless, I believe his method fit the character. for example; the scene where Wyatt is surrounded by the cowboys in the street, and Wyatt tells Ike Clanton that he will turn his head into a canoe, Doc walks up with a drink (and a gun). Billy Clanton remarks that Doc is seeing double, to which he replies. "I have two guns..one for each of you." while he recites the phrase he twirls his pistols (in opposite directions. This is what made Kilmer's performance top notch and led to what is now a movie favorite if not a classic. although Holliday has been characterized as loud, brash and belligerent, he reinvented the character without offending, or making a mockery of his legend. Also noting the good performances by the other talent. Stephen Lang, Kurt Russell, Powers Boothe and others. IMHO regards.
share. "I have two guns..one for each of you." while he recites the phrase he twirls his pistols (in opposite directions.
This is what made Kilmer's performance top notch and led to what is now a movie favorite if not a classic. although Holliday has been characterized as loud, brash and belligerent,
Excellent point on Wyatts comments!
shareBrilliantly stated.
shareEveryone loves Kilmer because he not only gets one of the most fun, endearing, comical, and entertaining characters to play in modern westerns, but he also absolutely nailed it.
He was going to be a fan favorite character of the film regardless of who got cast, but Kilmer owned it in a way that it's hard to imagine anyone else in the role.
[deleted]
Val? Is that you fishing for compliments again? 😒
I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe
I think Val Kilmer himself nailed it in at least one interview where he said "the character was magnificently written."
Think of all his great lines in Tombstone, including the famous ""I'm your Huckleberry" and all the rest, all delivered in that flavorful dying-aristocrat tone.
Something sad in movie history: A movie called "Wyatt Earp" with Kevin Costner as Earp and Dennis Quaid as Holliday LOOKED to be the big Earp/Holliday movie of the 90's. But Tombstone was rushed into production and release ahead of it(evidently to "spite" the egotistical Costner, who had won Oscars for Dances with Wolves.")
Dennis Quaid starved his body down to 100 pounds or some such to play the diseased Doc Holliday, but by the time HIS movie came out...Val Kilmer had done something bigger, better, more FUN.
Key: does anybody remember ANY line spoken by Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday?
My take is He's the epitome of cool, charming and a badass character. He has that likeable southern drawl. hes sickly has the experience of weak, yet is an extremely capable fighter. Whether its guns or his quick movement using a knife to stab an armed opponent. a big strong hero is cool. the contrast of a "sickly weak looking" guy who is a badass is better. hes a gambler quick witted and with a silver tongue
shareMy take is He's the epitome of cool, charming and a badass character.
---
I'd say a lot of that is in the great script and the great lines again, but clearly, Kilmer brought his own talents to the role: that great Southern drawl, his enactment of fighting his illness at all times, his sudden proficiency with pistols, tin drinking cups, and knives...
---
He has that likeable southern drawl. hes sickly has the experience of weak, yet is an extremely capable fighter. Whether its guns or his quick movement using a knife to stab an armed opponent. a big strong hero is cool. the contrast of a "sickly weak looking" guy who is a badass is better. hes a gambler quick witted and with a silver tongue
--
Well stated! That covers a lot of why Kilmer is so great here, and the character of Doc here, too.
"I'd say a lot of that is in the great script and the great lines again, but clearly, Kilmer brought his own talents to the role: that great Southern drawl, his enactment of fighting his illness at all times, his sudden proficiency with pistols, tin drinking cups, and knives..."
agreed. actors can elevate a bad script. a good script and dialogue can elevate a bad actor to an extent. Val is a talented actor who took a great script and lines like you said and made it not just great but legendary
I only watched it once after not having watched it in years ill probably give it another go to pick up more. But hes also incredible at reading a situation and people. And despite being a man with an ego he will put this aside if the situation calls for it. As shown in the saloon scene where rather than challenge the guy, he does his thing with the cup and lessens the tension and threat. Later on Wyatt Earp asks him about one of the other bad guys and his nature showing he is fairly aware of others
hes clearly insightful. its the cliche blurry eyed drunk/ seemingly aloof person who actually sees more than everyone else.
"I'd say a lot of that is in the great script and the great lines again, but clearly, Kilmer brought his own talents to the role: that great Southern drawl, his enactment of fighting his illness at all times, his sudden proficiency with pistols, tin drinking cups, and knives..."
agreed. actors can elevate a bad script. a good script and dialogue can elevate a bad actor to an extent. Val is a talented actor who took a great script and lines like you said and made it not just great but legendary
---
Yes, and to a great script, with great lines, and a pretty good actor reading them, there is the character of Doc Holliday himself.
I happened to watch Val Kilmer in "Ghost in the Darkness" the other day (his movies are being run to help promote his new self-made documentary.) That's the one about the killer pair of lions kiilling native workers on an African railway project. It was made three years after Tombstone and one year after Batman Forever, and Kilmer was about as hot as he'd ever be.
Kilmer is handsome and starry enough in his role, but he is clean shaven and he speaks pretty much in his own voice. But you just MISS all the schtick he got as Doc Holliday -- the moustache, the little beard, the pallor, the sweat and the great Southern accent. With no real character to play, Kilmer has to give over THIS movie to "the other guy" -- Michael Douglas (with less screen time) who wears his hair long and with a big beard and plays his Great White Hunter role with panache. Douglas isn't as good as Kilmer was as Doc Holliday, but it is the same kind of flamboyant role -- and Kilmer can only stand around and look pretty.
CONT
I only watched it once after not having watched it in years ill probably give it another go to pick up more. But hes also incredible at reading a situation and people. And despite being a man with an ego he will put this aside if the situation calls for it. As shown in the saloon scene where rather than challenge the guy, he does his thing with the cup and lessens the tension and threat. Later on Wyatt Earp asks him about one of the other bad guys and his nature showing he is fairly aware of others
hes clearly insightful. its the cliche blurry eyed drunk/ seemingly aloof person who actually sees more than everyone else
---
Well, again -- a well written character who interests us in his choices. Tombstone gets into the issue of "when to draw down and when to hold fire" and for much of the film, Wyatt and Doc hold fire and use the threat of their prowess to stand down the Cowboys and other foes. There is the weirdness of the lawmen having to co-exist with gang members. This is made clear when EVERYBODY -- Wyatt and Doc and their women in the balcony; the Cowboys down below -- come to watch the travelling actors show in the Tombstone theater. A "truce" exists.
But when that "truce" is broken and some Earp brothers are brought down -- both Wyatt and the enfeebled but deadly Doc go into action.
In other words, "Tombstone" takes the interesting characters of Doc and Wyatt(and Wyatt's brothers) and THEN plugs them into an interesting look at how "law and order" came to "the Wild West."