Like his great predecessor Errol Flynn, the American actor Mickey Rourke has also had his ups and downs, both in and out of film. In their youth, both men were good looking, athletic, typecast actors known as much for their on-screen roles as for their womanizing off screen. Both tried to make their mark outside of film: Rourke in boxing, Flynn as an author. History has been very kind to Flynn, the swashbuckling star of the Adventures of Robin Hood and the Sea Hawk. Meanwhile, Rourke, after a stretch where he was unemployable (due to his deranged behavior caused by head trauma from his boxing career, drugs and an unhealthy addiction to plastic surgery), has made a gradual comeback, first in bit parts (Get Carter, Man on Fire) and now in supporting roles (Sin City, Domino). It's probably too early to tell, but will history be as kind to Rourke as it has been to Flynn?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterI, too, am hopeful. If only he could put down that eyeliner.
Angel Heart is Rourke's best starring role to date, however, he's been spectacular in some recent supporting roles: Get Carter, Once Upon A Time in Mexico, Sin City; Domino. I think his best work may still lie ahead.
Edit: Why use an adjective like 'spectacular' when 'egregious' will do?