Mickey Rourke's comeback...what happened?

dgnightwing

Civilian
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
65
Reaction score
0
Points
1
In 2008 after the release of The Wrestler, Mickey Rourke was back. He nearly won an Oscar (still say he should have beat Sean Penn), and he was on TOP of Hollywood. His comeback was all you could read or hear about. He was quickly cast in Iron Man 2 as the villian and he seemed like he was primed to take back his career.

It's almost five years later, and it seems like he is back to where he started. Sure, he's been in movies (and he has the Sin City sequel on the horizon), but nothing even remotely memorable.

Anybody want to throw out a guess why nothing big came of what looked to be one of the biggest comebacks in Hollywood history.
 
I think being in Iron Man 2, definitely hurt his comeback. If they didn't use Iron Man 2 to set up The Avengers, they could have done so much more with the character he did research for.
 
This is like his fifth comeback or whatever.

Sin City was also supposed to be like a comeback for him as well.

I think he's a moody dude and he's got a bit of an attitude so people don't want to work with him as much. It sounded like he didn't care about burning bridges after Iron Man 2.
 
He's still in a better place now than pre-the wrestler. Regardless he became about as hot as an aging 50 something year old could in hollywood.
 
I think he's in a better place too but I also think he's a self-sabator with his sometimes poor attitude.
 
Iron Man 2 that's what.
 
He kind of had Momentum after The Wrestler and now it's already faded. The type of roles he can do are pretty limited as well.
 
He's still in a better place now than pre-the wrestler. Regardless he became about as hot as an aging 50 something year old could in hollywood.

Yeah this. Mickey Rourke was never a Box office draw and became more famous for his attitude than his acting. The Wrestler gave him clout bigger than he ever had even in his young days. Iron Man 2 gave him a household name somewhat. Most actors don't even get that.

He did better in that window of 2008-2010 than he ever did in his entire career, nominated for an Oscar and became part of a huge blockbuster.
 
because of his face his roles are limtied. so he never had a chance to be in a lot of movies. but then he also started complaining...........again in interviews about his movies. like IM2 and so on.

he is in sin city 2. thats good
 
I think being in Iron Man 2, definitely hurt his comeback. If they didn't use Iron Man 2 to set up The Avengers, they could have done so much more with the character he did research for.

The Avengers stuff is in that movie for literally 10 minutes. The movie was just very poorly written. They had no idea what to do with Vanko because noone knew what kind of movie they wanted and it suffered very poorly from it. But yeah that movie definitely hurt his comeback but it seems like he didn't really take any roles, he resigned back to direct to dvd movies.
 
The Avengers stuff is in that movie for literally 10 minutes. The movie was just very poorly written. They had no idea what to do with Vanko because noone knew what kind of movie they wanted and it suffered very poorly from it. But yeah that movie definitely hurt his comeback but it seems like he didn't really take any roles, he resigned back to direct to dvd movies.
i think that because they were thinking about avengers :csad:
 
He was good in Immortals. Plays the villian, very, very well.
 
Are people honestly trying to blame IM2 for Rourke's decline?..lol, that movie actually got pretty decent reviews and made over 600 mill at the Box office. Its only hated by fanboys. That doesnt kill a career. Starring in that awful Immortals movie and that horrific movie with Megan Fox however will.
 
Immortals wasn't awful. Easily on par with Iron Man 2.
 
Immortals wasn't awful. Easily on par with Iron Man 2.

Agree to disagree there. I still say to this day, along with 300, Immortals was the most awesome looking terrible movie i've ever seen. Bad acting, cheesy lines, wooden characters..the whole nine yards. Luke Evans was pretty much the best part of the movie for me.

IM2 was just leagues better and every metric out there supports this. Critic scores, Box office, audience ratings, cinemascore..IM2 wins in all those aspects.
 
T"Challa;25466231 said:
Agree to disagree there. I still say to this day, along with 300, Immortals was the most awesome looking terrible movie i've ever seen. Bad acting, cheesy lines, wooden characters..the whole nine yards. Luke Evans was pretty much the best part of the movie for me.

IM2 was just leagues better and every metric out there supports this. Critic scores, Box office, audience ratings, cinemascore..IM2 wins in all those aspects.

The same can be said about Iron Man 2.

People think IM2 was good because it was an Iron Man film. The same way that people think the Transformers film(s) are good because they are Transformers.. or at least good enough to make so much money. Truth is, IM2 was an average film, same as Immortals.
 
With the way he looks now, what roles are they gonna offer him? Not to mention, he is 60 years old.
 
There's been a gap in his schedule because his Gareth Thomas biopic fell apart, plus turning down Expendables 2 to do Seven Psychopaths and then dropping out because the producer didn't want to pay his asking fee. Otherwise...

The Wrestler
Iron Man 2
The Expendables
Immortals
Sin City 2
Plus the occasional DTV paycheck job.

Seems like a fairly busy, well paid, guy. It's not like he's back to living in a closet eating canned hand me downs.
 
Rourke's not exactly the greatest or most versatile of actors, and his looks limit the roles he's going to be cast in, and as others have said, he picks crappy movies 2/3 of the time and has a tendency to have a sour attitude and complain afterwards about the few good movies he does, which makes people not eager to work with him.

He's still better-off than he used to be though. And he has Sin City 2 coming up, reprising what is easily one of his best and most popular roles.
 
I watched a old movie of his on the tv the other night called Year Of The Dragon. It was a pretty good film.
 
Rourke wont go into TV he has to big of an ego for that, its not like he's broke as far as I heard he's still very well off.
 
If they ever filmed John Irving's Last Night In Twisted River Mick would be a great Ketchum.
 
I don't think Iron Man 2 hurt his career. Fans might hate it because it helped to set up The Avengers (wow, what a terrible sin that was, huh?) but it isn't nearly as bad as people here make it out to be. I personally thought Rourke could have been utilized more but he was good in the scenes he had.

I do think, however, that Rourke's antics before and after the film might have hurt his reputation. First, to publicly raise a stink about how much you got paid never really looks great. Sure, $250K isn't a lot of money in Hollywood terms, but it's still a lot more than I make in a year. And then to go around and blatantly trash the movie and the studio afterward while promoting a movie that wasn't even as good (Immortals) had to make him look even worse.

Add to that a string of other bad movies and the Seven Psychopaths thing (I didn't even know about that one until now) I think some studios probably think it's not worth the hassle working with him. And why would they? It's not like he's a major Box office draw or this wildly versatile actor.
 
he ought to be on sons of anarchy. his acting is perfect for that show.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"