Slyvester Stallone: what makes him a bad actor? (1 Viewer)

[Lee_eel]

Hard to say really. Stallone was good in Rocky, but by Rocky 5 his acting was crap! Like someone mentioned, he is good when giving the right material. A bit like his pall Arnie. Although Arnie has probably uttered around 5,000 less words in his career.

 

[Mikah Cerucco]

I'm in the camp that believes Stallone is a much better actor than Arnold. Rocky, Rambo, and Copland are enough for me to be convinced he CAN act. There's no way I'd consider him a "worst" actor. I would say that he reached a point in his career where he could coast, and he did.

That said, his range is limited.

However, if he's forget his past BO success and focus on acting like he did in Copland, I'd continue to watch him.

 

[rhett]

I think Stallone is a fine actor, and that his limited range comes from his face paralysis. He was great in Rocky, First Blood, Copland, F.I.S.T., Lock Up and Driven. He projects a worrisome vulnerability through his eyes that few actors can recreate.
I think with his age and dwindling success at the box office, he is going to seek salvation with dramatic roles like in Copland. The way the Razzie's pick on him is cruel and unjust. He has been in some stinkers, but he always remains intruiging to watch on screen, and I always get excited to view his next film. D-Tox looked rather promising too, but it seems to be heading Direct-to-Video in the States...

 

[Mitty]

I don't think he's a bad actor, he just made a decision at a certain point in his career to take the easy path, after a long, long time of struggling.
Early in his career, after Lord's of Flatbust, he was being hailed as the next Brando. He also resisted the temptation to sell Rocky for a LOT of money to a studio who would then recast it with a big star. He was a courageous young actor then, with finely honed instincts. But, I think the combination of facing further struggle to break away from post-Rocky audience expectations and seeing big dollar signs in front of him, he eventually gave in and, took the path of least resistance.
I can't really fault him, although he is an actor who, when reflecting on his career, one can't help but think, "if only..."

 

[streeter]

I think Sly has hit a career low:

His long-shelved movie D-Tox will be released direct-to-video. It was already released DTV in the UK, but at that time was still planned for a US theatrical release. Now, it's officially DTV at the end of the year.

Don't worry though, Sly-fans! Remember that Steven Seagal briefly re-emerged from DTV hell with his hit film Exit Wounds... And remember Mel Gibson's Million Dollar Hotel going *practically* direct-to-video. That certainly didn't hurt Mel's career.

 

[Scott Weinberg]

I don't want to seem mean or anything, but try this experiment out:

When I say "good actor", who are the people you think of right away?

Now, put those actors next to Sly. Who ranks lowest?

Just my opinion, but a 'screen presence' alone doesn't make a guy a good actor. One of the ongoing themes in this thread seems to be that Sly 'isn't awful but has a rather limited range'. I'd say 'limited' is you guys being generous.

Sure, he's been good in 3 or 4 movies...but he's made over 70.

Do I like Stallone? Yes. Do I think he's even remotely a good actor? No.

 

[Mike Broadman]

This reminds of the Saturday Night Live skit where Norm McDonald is in a car accident and Stalone, as himself, tries to help him. McDonald recognizes him and starts making fun of his career.
"Arm wrestling? What were you thinking?"
And then he kept referencing the arm wrestling thing.

 

[Gruson]

I personally think he is a wondferful actor and I have enjoyed him in everything....yes, even "Stop or my Mom will Shoot."

Over the Top is one of my favorites too.

 

[Andy Sheets]

From what I've read about the guy, he strikes me as being frightened of fully committing to a new direction in his career. When Copland came out, he was talking about how great it felt to be an actor again, how the flabby build he developed made him realize how narcissistic he had become with his bodybuilding, how Copland would be a new direction for him...then the movie didn't make very much and didn't get Oscar nominations. It seemed like after that Stallone reverted right back to being a puffed up movie star. I think he needs to understand that if he wants to turn his career around, he needs to allow for the probability that it's going to take more than one movie to do it. Situations like Travolta's rub from Pulp Fiction are the exception and not the rule, but it seems like Stallone wants to conquer the world with one single stroke and I don't think that's reasonable in his case.

 

[Louis C]

Rambo and Rocky were custom fit 'character roles' for Stallone, and I enjoyed that. After Rocky 3 and Rambo 2, I wrote him off. Cliffhanger got my interest, but didn't bother with that one either. Saw parts of the bombs, but couldn't bear to watch them all the way through.

I think he was a decent 'character actor' who caught a lucky break or two, but then pushed his luck.

 

[Dean DeMass]

Sly isn't a bad actor but he isn't god either. I put him in the "OK' range. Now his brother, Frank, is another story.
-Dean-

 

[David Rogers]

I'll echo the general theme of the comments thus far … Stallone has acting talent, but has more than perhaps is his share of bad films on his resume. The best of his films are pretty good, some bordering on or actually being rather impactful films (First Blood, Rocky), others are so bad its quite difficult to find a reasonable explanation for how he got involved with them save something like losing a lot of bets or heavy drinking. As with Arnold, his management or handlers, or maybe even his own taste in what would and wouldn't work … failed miserably over the course of their careers. Early stuff good, some even great … then lots and lots of questionable projects. Add it all up, they've become snicker material.

A shame really, to have turned out that way. I just hope some of the current actors moving into these types of roles have some good eyes looking over their scripts before they sign on a dotted line. Guys like Vin Diesel (who has some good picks so far with Pitch Black and Fast and the Furious, plus the upcoming Chronicles of Riddick) and Dwayne Johnson hopefully can pick some decent flicks that aren't awful and eye-rollingly bad.

 

[JamesDrake]

I would like to see him do something other than the tough guy role. I want to see a character that doesn't look or act anything like Stallone. He needs to do a character that does not fit the good guy role. Let him be the evil bad guy. I never liked John Lithgow until I saw him in Ricochet.

I love Stallone's action movies too and if he can't get a good drama or comedy role then at least give him a good action script to run with. If it can't be good at least entertaining.

EDIT:
I just realized that he is in several movies that I wasn't aware about including Spy Kids 3-D. I'll have to check them out.
Check Stallone's bio at IMDB.com for info.

 

[ChuckSolo]

I think Stallone is in the same vein of actors as Chuck Norris, Steven Sagal and the like. C'mon now, acting has nothing to do with the movies these guys make. Those films are pure action blow-em, shootem up type movies that I personally like. I actually really liked Stallone in "Eye See You" and "Copland." Being a racing fanatic, "Driven" left me cold, but you have to put it in perspective. Heck, look at some of the movies Michael Caine has been in, bad movies, maybe, bad actor, not hardly. Bottom line is, Stallone is a movie star, not a serious actor. A very entertaining one, sometimes, in my opinion.

 

[Steve_Tk]

When you are a movie star instead of an actor, like Ahnald, you tend to only get roles where you blow stuff up. After those type movies, people can not see you in any other role, so you get pigeon holed to the point that regardelss how good a performance you might do, people can't accept it. Just like me with Jim Carrey, I can't watch anything he does without thinking he is an idiot, even if it's a serious role. Not saying Stallone could pull anything off, but you get the point. He is probably a better actor than I would be.

 

[MattBu]

I think what makes Stallone a bad actor, and Im SURPRISED that no one has brought this up - is that he plays himself in EVERY single movie. Because of his VERY Italian looks it's VERY hard for him to play anyone but himself. I mean do you think if you removed the characters from Cobra, Rambo, Demolition Man, and Over the Top that you could distinguish between them? They are practically IDENTICAL characters with dissimilar back stories.

 

[Chad R]

That just makes him an actor with a very limited range, not necessarily bad. To be a truly bad actor you can't be believable in even the simplest roles, such as Freddie Prinze Jr., or Paul Walker. Those guys can't even play themsleves correctly. Sadly, they also have no screen presence. Sly has presence and can be believable within his limited range, which makes him a personality actor rather than a character actor. But I would never call him bad.

 

[Dan_Br_]

he can't act and is not believable in a role. same as Tom Cruise, it always seems like Cruise pretending to be someone instead of being someone. Russell Crowe disolves into his roles

 

[DaveB]

I agree that Stallone has shown limited range thus far, but I would rank his acting talent a bit higher than someone like Bruce Willis who plays the same character in every movie.

 

[Shane S.]

My name is Carter and you don't want to watch this.

As a kid I was always a huge fan of Sly but then again I was also a Van Damme fan and