Thursday
Nov062008
Thursday, November 6, 2008 at 2:30PM The Bad Acting Trifecta: Stallone! Statham! Jet!
This movie starts to go downhill once you get past the
title. The Expendables is a magnificent thing to call a movie about
soldiers, and I think we can all agree on that. It gets shaky, however when you
tack these names to the bulletin board:
Sylvester
Stallone,
Jason Statham, and
Jet Li.
Stallone will direct, according to Worst Previews, which says that Nu Image/Millennium will produce the film, just as they did this January's Rambo. On top of that, Sly wrote the script, so give him credit for a doozy of a title, but the mercenaries-overthrowing-a-dictator storyline is boring, expected, and not particularly timely.I've read on some websites that people are actually excited about this, but I can't see how that's actually possible. Stallone's only worthwhile movies in fifteen long years are Rocky Balboa and Copland, Jet Li is never that good in movies where he has to speak English, and frankly, neither is Jason Statham. It makes me wonder if the guys at Nu Image/Millennium asked themselves, "How can we get more out of those three chronically underperforming action stars? I got it: Pool our resources!"
Reader Comments (16)
Sweet Internet Jeebus! Stallone looks like HELL.
This is a beer movie. Okay... maybe a whiskey movie.
Bottom line - I do not think seeing this sober is good for anyone.
Wow y'all are really lame. If you knew anything about Hollywood, movies, or the box office, you would know that all three of these guys command top earnings in the box office and have all had incredible careers. A team up like this has the potential to be great. So stop with your know it all pessimistic view and try and have an open mind.
I agree with Papa Smurf. There are not many action stars who are fantastic actors. Plus you have to be an idiot to think that every single movie is going to have great acting and a great story. The point of an action movie is to enjoy the action scenes not the acting. If you want a movie with great acting and monologues watch a drama, not an action movie. Plus Stallone, Statham & Li are three of the greatest actors in ACTION films ever. Plus you cant compare action stars to drama stars so whoever wrote this artical needs to shut up and talk about drama movies
Here's the thing, Papa Smurf and The Godfather: None of these guys are even stars anymore. I like Jet Li's Hong Kong movies a lot, but his English-language films aren't very good, even for action movies. Hell, did you see Unleashed? That's amazingly bad.
Stallone is well into his 60s, and just look at that picture. Would you really be enthused about watching that thing fight in a movie? Statham has never been a bankable star. Irrefutable. His movies aren't that successful. And he has all the range of a rubber band slingshot.
Statham is also the worst actor of the bunch. With one exception, the Uwe Boll movie, I've seen everything he's done. His characters are interchangeable. None of these guys are great actors, though Stallone was believable in Rocky Balboa. Jet Li, again, is fine in his native language. Of course, most of his movies don't require him to do a lot of acting. But Statham is really limited.
The main point, though, is that they aren't box office draws. That's why I can't believe this is actually going to be a movie. It's like building a naval fleet with three sinking ships. Papa Smurf, you are totally and unequivocally incorrect that they command top earnings. Stallone's last big payday was a long time ago, and neither Statham nor Jet Li has the track record to make serious bank, like $20 million a picture or anything.
You can count the hits these three guys have made in the last ten years - collectively - on one hand: Hero, Forbidden Kingdom, Rocky Balboa, and Romeo Must Die. Maybe Transporter 2 and Rambo, if we're adding in international box office and DVD sales. If you want to count Italian Job and the new Mummy movie, go ahead, but we both know those weren't successful because of the actors we're talking about.
Still, let's give you all of those. That's eight box office successes in 33 attempts - 24%...for all three of them!
And where in the hell is it written that stars aren't supposed to be good actors? Really? Then how are we supposed to believe any of the action? Perhaps if they were better actors, they'd have more than one hit every 15 months over the past decade between them.
Would you like a list of action stars that actually can act? OK:
The Rock
Bruce Willis
Harrison Ford
Hugh Jackman
Christian Bale
Will Smith
Robert Downey, Jr.
Brad Pitt
Mark Wahlberg
Matt Damon
Daniel Craig
Sigourney Weaver
Tom Cruise
Eric Bana
Mel Gibson
Russell Crowe
Leonardo DiCaprio
Godfather, your statement about being an idiot to think every single movie is going to have great acting and a great story is completely flawed. Why shouldn't a movie try to be compelling and hire competent actors? How is that my fault?
If the point of an action movie is to enjoy the action scenes, you must have hated all that other stuff in The Bourne Ultimatum, you know...the acting?
I imagine you guys will find The Expendables totally fucking awesome because they blew shit up real good, but I've seen shit blowed up good lots of times. At a certain point, it's nothing new. Audiences respond to that, which is why these guys don't make hit after hit after hit. Enjoy the empty theater.
I'm sorry, Colin, but you're a jackass. First of all your list isn't even that of action stars. Sure some of them have been in a few action flicks, but they don't warrent that title. So that really shows us your lack of knowledge. Plus you added Tom Cruise. I don't even know what to say to that. Wow, just wow...
How can you think Danny the Dog is "amazingly bad"? That's a great film that shows you how well Jet Li can act in an English production. You even said you liked his non-English films, so just because the majority of his English films haven't done well doesn't make him a bad actor.
Stallone is a great actor given the right project. Why don't you go and watch Rocky, Rocky II, First Blood, Rocky Balboa, and Cop Land to witness that. Sure he's been in some bad movies, but every actor has.
Jason Statham is great in Lock, Stock and Snatch. Hell, he's not that bad in The Transporter. Once again it's a case being given the right project.
How about you wait for the film to come out before you say anything about it? You're not any kind of film expert, so quit trying to be, buddy.
Actually, Clown, if you look at the box office totals for all three of those guys and match them with the totals for Tom Cruise, he's clearly the bigger action star. What's your definition of action star? A marginal actor who plays variations of the same role over and over again because he's not good enough to get a better movie?
I would put the Bourne series, the Batman series, the Mission: Impossible series, Gladiator, the Alien series, the two Daniel Craig 007 movies, the Die Hard movies, the Indiana Jones series, the Lethal Weapon series, and all of Will Smith's action movies up against Transporter, any action movie Stallone has done in the past 10 years, and Jet Li's English-language movies for entertainment value, precise editing, clever filmmaking, consistency of action, and box office performance. They're just better movies. With better actors. Action movies don't need bad actors, and in fact, they're better with better actors.
If you'd read the article, you'd see that I singled out Stallone's performances in Rocky Balboa and Copland, the two times since I was in college that he actually gave a better-than-expected performance, so I don't need to go back and watch anything. Why don't you try watching Driven, Get Carter, or Judge Dredd, or for that matter, about 70% of his movies, in which he's either plain bad or lazy?
Statham has been OK a few times, never good. He has never shown the capacity to play anything other than a version of himself, and in the majority of his films, he drives fast, takes off his shirt, and kicks people's ass. Big deal. If he's such a star, he can pick "the right project," and the same goes for the other guys. If he's bad in movie after movie, and generally he is, how much of that is somebody else's fault? Especially when he does a bunch of sequels...and bad action movies?
The directive I was given was if I wanted to watch great acting, watch a drama, not an action movie, and I listed over a dozen good actors who have made very good action movies. Is Transporter 2 better than The Bourne Ultimatum? Not by any reasonable standard, no.
Hmmm, Colin Boyd....I don't quite know how to feel about this site or you as a film reviewer. You seem like you have already condemned this movie before even seeing it, which is really immature. Then you state your suprise at people getting excited over three major action stars getting together to make a potentially awesome movie. Wow, real suprising there huh.
Don't tell me they aren't major action stars either. It's not about what your total box office gross is for action stars and character actors. It's about making memorable characters and action scenes that people will enjoy. Go out on the street, find one person who doesn't know about Rocky Balboa, or Rambo. While not everyone knows about Jet Li or Jason Statham, you talk to any self-proclaimed movie-goer and they will know about Jet and Jason, easy.
PS: The way you throw your opinions around like fact is really fuckin annoying too. This is the last time I'll visit this site.
BoxerJoe (who will never visit this site again) -
I would not be surprised that people were excited if it were three modern action starts getting together for a film. That would be cause for celebration. But instead, we have a guy in his mid-60s who has had exactly one movie people cared to see in the past 15 years, a guy whose English language films are clearly inferior to his Hong Kong output, and a guy who has played one character over the span of his last nine films (none of which did particularly well, proving it must not be working).
I haven't condemned the film; I've condemned the idea, and they're two separate things. I have been wowed by trailers and casting news for movies I think will be incredible that just wind up stinking to high heaven, just as there are movies that look lousy on paper that are really pretty damn good. Happens all the time.
Here's what I want you to do, Joe: Consider your own reaction to this story. Or to any story. Or to any movie trailer you see. You will form an opinion and it won't always be that the movie looks "potentially awesome." What you think might suck others might think will be brilliant. The difference in my case is that I have a website based on forming opinions about movie news.
Should my movie reviews find neither anything good nor bad about each film? When we show you a trailer, should we not care if it looks like shit? No. Grow up. Stop getting your feelings hurt over a damn Rambo sausagefest movie.