« Star Wars on Blu-ray, so what? | Filmstalker | Retreat trailer offers mixed bag »


Caviezel blames Hollywood for bad career

JimCaviezel.jpgJim Caviezel is suggesting that Hollywood is to blame for his bad career since Passion of the Christ, saying that it was this role that resulted in him being shunned from Hollywood and pushed to the side for film roles.

It seems that Mel Gibson even tried to dissuade him from taking the role, concerned that it would damage his Hollywood career and suggested that he back away from it.

It's true, well according to the recanted story it is. Jim Caviezel says that Mel Gibson had offered him the role and called him back twenty minutes later to try and get him to pull out, he says that Gibson had said:

"You'll never work in this town again"

That wasn't a threat, rather it seemed that Gibson was concerned for the actor and was offering him a way out. To that Caviezel apparently said:

"We all have to embrace our crosses"

Ah, clever pun. He went on to tell the Baptist Church audience he was speaking to that:

"We have to give up our names, our reputations, our lives to speak the truth"

Well that would depend on whose truth you are referring to I would guess and what truth the people giving you that reputation believe, however that's a whole different argument.

It's rather interesting that the article in The Guardian that highlights Caviezel's comments suggests the following as evidence of his rising career before Passion of the Christ:

He headlined the 2002 remake of The Count of Monte Cristo and starred opposite Jennifer Lopez in the 2001 romantic drama Angel Eyes.

Seriously, those films indicate he had a huge career ahead of him? Does anyone even remember those films? They're just part of the conveyor belt of Hollywood and haven't had any lasting affect. To be fair he was in some good films before that, but they were smaller roles - Wyatt Earp, The Rock, G.I. Jane, The Thin Red, Frequency and Pay it Forward.

So was his career really flying towards the stars? No, not at all. It was Passion of the Christ that really brought him to the fore as a big name actor, so what happened after that? Well Bobby Jones: Stroke of Genius and Unknown did.

To be fair what also followed were Déjà Vu (Filmstalker review) but so did Outlander (Filmstalker review) and the joke of a film Nature's Grave (Long Weekend) (Filmstalker review), but again to add balance, he did appear in The Stoning of Soraya M. and his Prisoner role on television wasn't terrible.

Yes, there were some complete stinkers in there though and for me it was these choices that helped to flatten his career, and I'm not really a great fan of his acting which doesn't seem to offer a lot of variance in character.

Apart from The Prisoner television remake he was quiet from 2008, after the Nature's Grave (Long Weekend), until 2011 and he has two films from that year in post production with another two due next year also in the same phase.

He could be planning a resurgence of his career, although the upcoming films Transit, Person of Interest, Savannah and Sound of Mind aren't exactly about to set the world on fire.

Was it Hollywood that destroyed his career or his terrible choice of films? I think the latter, coupled with the fact that whenever I see him act I see Jim Caviezel, oh and I have not seen Passion of the Christ either so I am unaffected in my judgement by that film.

Surely there have been much more independent film choices out there, films which haven't had the terrible plot holes and problems as Outlander or the terrible dead sea cow of Nature's Grave (Long Weekend)? Perhaps it needed him to turn away from Hollywood?



I think you're right...

Did Willem DeFoe's career nosedive after The Last Temptation? That film was arguably far more controversial then passion ever was, which seemed to be embraced by the public rather unanimously (the box office numbers speak to this...)

That being said, I do feel Caviezel's talents have been rather wasted since his role in Passion. However, Outlander was very entertaining due largely to his performance. I just wish the Weinstein brothers didn't smother the film into obscurity. I think it could've done well with some shine and hollywood treatment.

Hey Andrew, good to see you.

Great comparison, Willem DeFoe has gone from strength to strength since that role.

I wonder why the public took to Passion so much more than Temptation? Was it the great furore about the negative aspects of Temptation?

He has had some good moments, but never capitalised on them. Outlander could have been good and it was close to it, but I just felt there were too many daft mistakes, most of all at the end.

Still, he's got plenty of time to turn things around, if only he starts picking good scripts and giving strong performances every time.


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories


Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:



Help Out

Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34