|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2018 0:04:12 GMT
His post-Caligula career seems to mostly consist of TV appearances, cartoon voice overs, straight to DVD schlock, and uh...Tank Girl, so yeah I think "ruined" is pretty accurate. Though his drug abuse probably didn't help either. McDowell always had work though, regardless of what it was he starred in. Even after A Clockwork Orange, he was never really a mainstream actor. He was I suppose what is called a character actor, not so much generic leading man material, unless it was something outlandish and over-the-top, which I would say suited his occasionally manic and perhaps even smug on-screen persona. His style didn't sit well with superstar actor material. I thought he was good in "Time After Time," and he didn't even play the bad guy. David Warner played the bad guy. YouTube has an interview with McDowell in which he reminisces about what it was like to work with Stanley Kubrick. It was pretty funny. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Jul 1, 2018 0:19:46 GMT
McDowell has a massive filmography after he did Caligula. How did it destroy his career?
The version I originally saw had all the hardcore scenes and some violence modified. It was soft core sex\porn only. It lost around 10mins and actually makes it a better film. It still runs for around 2 half hours.
His post-Caligula career seems to mostly consist of TV appearances, cartoon voice overs, straight to DVD schlock, and uh...Tank Girl,... ...and Star Trek - Generations. And a Hollywood Star. So "ruined" is pretty inaccurate. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 1, 2018 0:19:48 GMT
McDowell always had work though, regardless of what it was he starred in. Even after A Clockwork Orange, he was never really a mainstream actor. He was I suppose what is called a character actor, not so much generic leading man material, unless it was something outlandish and over-the-top, which I would say suited his occasionally manic and perhaps even smug on-screen persona. His style didn't sit well with superstar actor material. I thought he was good in "Time After Time," and he didn't even play the bad guy. David Warner played the bad guy. YouTube has an interview with McDowell in which he reminisces about what it was like to work with Stanley Kubrick. It was pretty funny. Yes, I have Time After Time on vhs. I guess Warner pretty falls into the same acting league as McDowell. The film was well cast and McDowell could just have easily played the Ripper character, but he has softer features than Warner. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2018 0:28:52 GMT
McDowell has a massive filmography after he did Caligula. How did it destroy his career?
The version I originally saw had all the hardcore scenes and some violence modified. It was soft core sex\porn only. It lost around 10mins and actually makes it a better film. It still runs for around 2 half hours.
His post-Caligula career seems to mostly consist of TV appearances, cartoon voice overs, straight to DVD schlock, and uh...Tank Girl, so yeah I think "ruined" is pretty accurate. Though his drug abuse probably didn't help either. "Tank Girl" was a little over my head, but I thought "Blue Thunder" and the remake "Cat People" were pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 1, 2018 0:30:31 GMT
Trivia Question: Which actor played Emperor Caligula in more theatrical movies than anyone else?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 1, 2018 1:27:35 GMT
His post-Caligula career seems to mostly consist of TV appearances, cartoon voice overs, straight to DVD schlock, and uh...Tank Girl,... ...and Star Trek - Generations. And a Hollywood Star. So "ruined" is pretty inaccurate. Second billing in a mediocre, forgettable Star Trek film? Yeah, I'm sure that made him the hottest commodity in Tinseltown. They don't necessarily hand out those Stars during a an actors career peak (it took four decades after "Star Wars" for Mark Hamil to get his star) |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 1, 2018 2:07:54 GMT
...and Star Trek - Generations. And a Hollywood Star. So "ruined" is pretty inaccurate. Second billing in a mediocre, forgettable Star Trek film? Yeah, I'm sure that made him the hottest commodity in Tinseltown. They don't necessarily hand out those Stars during a an actors career peak ( it took four decades after "Star Wars" for Mark Hamil to get his star)And only because of the Star Wars franchise boosting him into the spotlight again with The Last Jedi. His character is iconic, not his acting.
Like I mentioned earlier, many actors aren't interested in being superstars or hot commodities. |
|
|
|
Post by OldSamVimes on Jul 1, 2018 2:15:03 GMT
..I probably would have done the same thing if I was him.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jul 1, 2018 2:19:11 GMT
Second billing in a mediocre, forgettable Star Trek film? Yeah, I'm sure that made him the hottest commodity in Tinseltown. They don't necessarily hand out those Stars during a an actors career peak ( it took four decades after "Star Wars" for Mark Hamil to get his star)And only because of the Star Wars franchise boosting him into the spotlight again with The Last Jedi. His character is iconic, not his acting.
Like I mentioned earlier, many actors aren't interested in being superstars or hot commodities. "His character is iconic, not his acting."
Which was kinda the point I was trying make. Stars being given out aren't necessarily an indicator of how "successful" an actor's career is at the time given.
"Like I mentioned earlier, many actors aren't interested in being superstars or hot commodities."
OK, but even as a "character actor" his career hasn't always been the best. Compare him to someone like say Steve Buscemi. He was never really a "huge" star or anyting, but he has still had a pretty impressive career even though he's pretty always had second billing in a movie. If you compare their careers since the 90s, Buscemi easily comes out on top. (how much straight to video and TV movies has Buscemi done compared to McDowell?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 1, 2018 6:44:15 GMT
And only because of the Star Wars franchise boosting him into the spotlight again with The Last Jedi. His character is iconic, not his acting.
Like I mentioned earlier, many actors aren't interested in being superstars or hot commodities. "His character is iconic, not his acting."
Which was kinda the point I was trying make. Stars being given out aren't necessarily an indicator of how "successful" an actor's career is at the time given.
"Like I mentioned earlier, many actors aren't interested in being superstars or hot commodities."
OK, but even as a "character actor" his career hasn't always been the best. Compare him to someone like say Steve Buscemi. He was never really a "huge" star or anyting, but he has still had a pretty impressive career even though he's pretty always had second billing in a movie. If you compare their careers since the 90s, Buscemi easily comes out on top. (how much straight to video and TV movies has Buscemi done compared to McDowell?)
Different generation and Buscemi has about 100 credits less than McDowell. I am not getting down on either of them and I am not a big fan of either of them, but both actors appear to have managed to keep their heads above water in a very competitive industry. McDowell, also had good looks to fall back onto in the 70's. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 8:44:21 GMT
Hey come on all he did was to declare war on the sea. He was not insane he just hated the sea. And can you blame him ?
Ok he did some other stuff too but i am sure he had a good reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jul 3, 2018 14:38:34 GMT
Malcolm McDowell was in biopic about Caligula, the theatrical version had to be heavily cut and censored, pretty much ruined his career McDowell has a massive filmography after he did Caligula. How did it destroy his career?
The version I originally saw had all the hardcore scenes and some violence modified. It was soft core sex\porn only. It lost around 10mins and actually makes it a better film. It still runs for around 2 half hours.
My understanding was that the hard core version was put together, to the embarrassment of the original cast, using additional talent or body doubles, after filming had finished by the producers. Hence the softer version was probably closer to the film McDowell & etc thought they had signed up for. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jul 3, 2018 17:47:59 GMT
McDowell has a massive filmography after he did Caligula. How did it destroy his career?
The version I originally saw had all the hardcore scenes and some violence modified. It was soft core sex\porn only. It lost around 10mins and actually makes it a better film. It still runs for around 2 half hours.
My understanding was that the hard core version was put together, to the embarrassment of the original cast, using additional talent or body doubles, after filming had finished by the producers. Hence the softer version was probably closer to the film McDowell & etc thought they had signed up for. McDowell said in an interview that there are several versions of "Caligula" worldwide, with different levels of pornography, and from what he had heard the most pornographic version of all went to Russia. |
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 3, 2018 19:38:40 GMT
Well what else could they have expected from an epileptic that possibly suffered hyperthyroidism? Sunshine and lollipops?
|
|
