Kate Hudson self sabotaged by doing almost nothing but crap after Almost Famous. She rendered herself disposable.

You can't compare that to others in this thread. Water for Elephants was a solid success, Mud is a great indie success, Four Christmases, a major hit, happened less than five years ago.

Orlando Bloom is an even better example than Hamill or Christensen. He had LOTR, three Pirates films and Troy. Was given leading roles in a Ridley Scott film (Kingdom of Heaven) and a Cameron Crowe film (Elizabethtown) and failed in both. Had only one wide release since At World's End - Three Musketeers - and that bombed badly.

Katherine Heigl is well on her way there too, to become the new Kate Hudson.

Bloom is an excellent pick. Perhaps Mortensen is too.

Mortensen has made some really great films before and after LOTR. The Road and A Dangerous Method were both well received. I'm sure Eastern Promises 2 will maintain the respect he's racked up on the critical side.

Lol, Eastern Promises 2 has been cancelled more than half a year ago...

Blooms an easy one, Heigl wasn't ever that popular.

Witherspoons totally fallen off the face of the Earth. Her once mighty clout is now non existent.

Bloom and Catherine Zeta Jones/Renee Zelwegger are the poster child s.

Heigl had quite a streak with her popularity on Grey's Anatomy (remember, I include success on TV here as well), 27 Dresses, Knocked Up, The Ugly Truth. She was quite successful.

Some of the suggestions thrown out in this thread are kinda unfair.

I'm waiting for someone to toss out Julia Roberts or something.

If Noah were not on the horizon, I might say Russell Crowe seems to be easing into elder statesmen/character actor territory versus the intensely masculine major movie star he was during the period of Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander, and Cinderella Man. For three years, ever since the poor performance of The Next Three Days, he has focused on smaller roles. Friendship with the RZA or not, I doubt Crowe circa 2002 would have found the time nor the creative patience for The Man with the Iron Fists.

I think that was good sense of humor on his part (though the film sucked).

Orlando Bloom is a good example. He was being positioned as a leading man and never made it. Around 2002-2006 Colin Farrell seemed to be everywhere and never had a break out hit.Studios seem to be trying launch Farrell again as a leading man with Total Recall, Fright Night ect without success. I also thought Eric Bana would be a big star after Munich I didn't even recognize him until later in the first Star Trek film.

Farrell so much better in smaller films, such as The New World, In Bruges, Ondine, and Seven Psychopaths.

That may be the case, but his career is nowhere right now. He hasn't made a good film since, what...The Road? which was a fair few years ago now. He fits into this thread very neatly.

Alicia Silverstone!!!

After Clueless her career was supposed to take off big time but it failed to launch.

Well she did Batman & Robin and then... I guess you're right!

Yes, but it is obviously because he has chosen to lay low, playing smaller parts in prestigious films (A Dangerous Method, On the Road) versus going for action-hero roles.

You might as well say Jack Nicholson fits neatly into this thread.

Chris O'Donnell if not for NCIS, LL Cool J too.

Pre 2002 would have been a great case for Leo too, thankfully he bounced back.

Tobey Mcguire has noticeably quiet since Spiderman too. I was surprised to see him Gatsby.

Nah, he's had a career and been at the top.

I think Mortensen's career path right now is a deliberate decision, that is the difference between him and, say, Orlando Bloom. For instance, Mortensen himself declined to return to The Hobbit, which would have been an easy paycheck.

I guess this all depends on what your definition of "nowhere" is.

Just because you don't consistently star in popular films doesn't mean your career went "nowhere".

Wow. Chippy just made the most intelligent post in this thread. A sign of the Apocalypse. The end is near...

I guess it is difficult to express what one means exactly in one line of a thread's title, but I think most got it right.

I would replace most with some. And one line is enough to express what you mean. Some just don't get it.

Oh, I know what Lecter meant by the thread. But some people are throwing out names of people who had what some lesser actors would consider a HUGE career, but just didn't follow it up with other huge movies.

There are only so many Streeps/DiCaprios/DeNiros.