News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Clint and Sylvester Stallone  (Read 28197 times)
Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #20 on: October 19, 2004, 08:12:38 PM »

Seemed to me after making Rocky, Sly forgot how to act...maybe because he wasn't acting in Rocky, but just being himself?

I've seen interviews with Stallone and he doesn't speak the way Rocky speaks and he's very intelligent (except at picking film projects).
Logged
jjgonski
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 84



View Profile Email
« Reply #21 on: October 22, 2004, 04:45:11 PM »

Stallone's choice of projects as of lately has been less than steller.  Copland was a movie in which he proved he could act.  I would agree to the fact that he was very good in Lock Up as well, kind of a sleeper hit but had an interesting story line and more of a drama for Sly.  As for Clint's pairing with Kevin Costner in a Perfect World, I think that Costner was great, being the megastar that he was at the time.  He pressed his own self destruct with his movie choices.  Still, it does seem that when Clint pairs with someone in his league, only Clint comes out smelling like a rose.  What about Clint revisting his Dirty Harry role and Stallone being a killer? ??? ???
Logged

Just because your standing over me doesn't mean we're gonna be taking long showers together
vik
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2802


flags of our fathers


View Profile Email
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2004, 12:19:41 AM »

nope - clint speaks his lines he don't mumble

if i had a critism of marlon brando was that at times he never put the effort in for his fellow actors or maybe he did and he wasn't putting it in for the audience - he had a voice but didn't always use it

i think thats why clint films are great he always chooses people who will act with him or for him
stallone you never know what your getting -  i think your right about costner in a perfect world he really did put himself into the film - i have never seen it in stallone
i think blood work would have been better if noone had been other than daniels, he wasn't dynamic enough, acting is a bit more than just being on the screen

and thats why i liked true crime i thought the acting was great although you can say the story is a bit dark
« Last Edit: October 23, 2004, 12:31:30 AM by vik » Logged

england -  its flag the St George flag
Jed Cooper
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5262



View Profile Email
« Reply #23 on: October 30, 2004, 07:30:26 PM »

Clint and Sylvester Stallone in a movie together?  That would be weird.  I'd be more interested in seeing Sly work with Arnie, though time is running out for each of them for action movies.  Who knows, first we had Freddie vs. Jason and then Alien vs. Predator...maybe next is Rambo vs. Terminator!  I agree Clint doing a movie w/Bronson would've been a lot more interesting.  Pity City Heat was a major blunder.  Clint & Reynolds should've teamed in the 70s instead.
Logged

“Eyuh.”
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 319



View Profile Email
« Reply #24 on: November 29, 2004, 07:43:26 AM »

Okay, I am feeling a need to step in here and defend Sylvester Stallone. It still honestly amazes me that people can watch a person playing a role, and BELIEVE that they are the role. "God look at Stallone, he is SO STUPID"...not to offend anyone, but if you BELIEVE that...YOU are the stupid one.

Lets set the record straight. Stallone and Eastwood picqued at different times in their lives, thats all. Stallone is EXTREMELY intelligent. Have you ever looked at the characters in the movie ROCKY? How well developed they are? Mickey, Paulie, Apollo, Rocky, Adrianne, etc....all those characters are the product of Stallone...and a YOUNG Stallone at that!!! I believe he was in his early twenties when he wrote that movie, VERY early twenties.

The first movie studio he took it to, LOVED the script. But didnt like him for the lead role. They wanted to buy it. He gave them the middle finger and went next door. Hey, at twenty something, would any of YOU had the nerve to walk away from money on a principle like that? Considering he isnt the best looking guy in the world at the time???

There are also alot of movies that Stallone acted in that dont get alot of credit...SUCH as the movie VICTORY, or NIGHTHAWKS. Now did he do like Al Pacino in CARLITOS WAY and completely change his dimeanor? Of course not, hes Stallone. But you wont see Clint out there dressing as a drag queen anytime soon either.

Come to think of it, now that it was brought up...both Stallone and Eastwood DO have that in common. They were both considered one dimensional "retards" next to real actors. Even though we who are Eastwood fans have always loved him...its not coincidental that OUTLAW and GOOD/BAD/UGLY got passed up for Oscars. Eastwood wasnt considered acting either, because all of his characters were "cool quiet steely eyed" characters. So Stallone and Eastwood were "type cast" by acting society at large.

People were shocked to find that someone as brutal and stupid as Eastwood, played golf. The same way that they were as dumbfounded that Stallone is an accomplished artist (painting).

And PLEASE, judge no actor by their output of movies during the eighties. The eighties did nothing but produce dogs. Oh yes, Rocky three four five and Rambos two and three were total dogs. But lets compare and contrast to some of the award winners that CLINT put out during the eighties.

BRONCO BILLY, ANY WHICH WAY YOU CAN, THE DEAD POOL, BIRD, PINK CADILLAC, HEARTBREAK RIDGE, FIREFOX......now Im being selective..because Clint DID put out some awesome movies during the eighties. Im just saying picking the LOWEST CULTURAL POINT ON THE PLANET and judging its movie output, which just happened to be Sly's picque...is kinda harsh.

Oh, and let me go also on record and say this. GET CARTER WITH MICHAEL CAINE is boring and mudane. The only interesting thing ABOUT the movie is Michael Caine. The plot drags, the characters are one dimensional, and the tempo of the movie is horrid. No one even CARED about the movie until Stallone made a remake of it, to which suddenly people said "Why would he try to remake a masterpiece like that"? Come on now...GET CARTER, the original, was as every bit a classic as was McQ.
Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
slacker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338


its been a long road, there's no turning back


View Profile Email
« Reply #25 on: November 29, 2004, 09:41:39 AM »

Bdc28 said

"Oh, and let me go also on record and say this. GET CARTER WITH MICHAEL CAINE is boring and mudane. The only interesting thing ABOUT the movie is Michael Caine. The plot drags, the characters are one dimensional, and the tempo of the movie is horrid. No one even CARED about the movie until Stallone made a remake of it, to which suddenly people said "Why would he try to remake a masterpiece like that"? Come on now...GET CARTER, the original, was as every bit a classic as was McQ."


Are you sure your watching the right film my friend, Get Carter is a classic Brit Flick.

The characters are believable, particuarly Jack Carter the seedy anti hero who your not supposed to like and who does in fact die at the end (sorry for the spoiler).

This is a film about the sleazy underworld of crime and the characters within this world are not gentleman and interesting merely hard and nasty.

Heck in the much watered down remake Sly with his designer suits even survives and totally misses the meaning behind the whole film. Why remake something and change the basics why not just give the film a different title.

This is not my opinion alone go to IMDB and see what others think of the film, 7.3 stars out of ten aint bad.

"This is how movies used to be made"

So bdc28 i suggest you watch again and concentrate

 
Logged

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 319



View Profile Email
« Reply #26 on: November 29, 2004, 10:24:03 AM »

Slacker,

Im not giving Stallones version of GET CARTER any props, and saying its better than the previous version at all. Im saying they both sucked in a different manner.

You used the term "classic brit film". Okay, I agree with you on that. But "classic brit films" are KNOWN for being much higher on content and slower tempos than what you would call your "classic action flick"....such as a Dirty Harry or the one I mentioned before, McQ.

My original point....and please..read what I am saying and dont lash in response, was that the ORIGINAL film was not what you would call the "high watermark" of british film making. Far from it. Was it a different perspective? Absolutely. America has those to, but believe me RESERVOIR DOGS will not make the AFI's top one hundred list. A GET CARTER remake did no disservice to the original film. The original will stand on its own. BUT its not like Stallone remade THE GUNS OF NAVARRONE, or FOR A FEW DOLLARS MORE.

Bruce Willis was retarded enough in trying to remake Fistful of Dollars/Yojimbo, and renaming it THE LAST MAN STANDING.

In my opinion both were failures. Im just saying that in order to measure the man (Stallone), measure his ENTIRE body of work, not just his decline.
Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
slacker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338


its been a long road, there's no turning back


View Profile Email
« Reply #27 on: November 29, 2004, 10:36:26 AM »

Fair enough and i agree with what you said in the last post.

But you must agree your critique of Get Carter was harsh to say the least.

Sly has talent i agree but i as i watched the Remake of said film i cringed all the way throught it.

I guess some films should be left the way they are.

Logged

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14885



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #28 on: November 29, 2004, 10:36:14 PM »


The first movie studio he took it to, LOVED the script. But didnt like him for the lead role. They wanted to buy it. He gave them the middle finger and went next door. Hey, at twenty something, would any of YOU had the nerve to walk away from money on a principle like that? Considering he isnt the best looking guy in the world at the time???

bdc28 and I share one brain. That's why we think so much alike, and why neither one of us makes sense more than half the time. ;) Seriously, I love reading your posts, BDC... wish you were around more often.

Anyway, I'm with you again (it's almost scary). Stallone's refusal to sell Rocky unless he could play the role--walking away from hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time when he was so broke he nearly had to sell his dog--finally getting the opportunity against all odds-- sinking his entire heart and soul into the role and finally being nominated for both Best Actor and Best Original Screenplay (actually winning Best Picture) is as good a story as Rocky itself. In fact, it's almost the same story... and absolutely amazing. For this alone, I have to respect Stallone. For his performance as Rocky, I have to recognize him as a good actor. And for that screenplay, I have to acknowledge his intelligence as well as his sensitivity in understanding people and relationships. I've said it before, if he had never made another movie after Rocky, I think he'd go down in history as a great actor just for that ONE role. Rocky is one of my favorite movies of all time, and I consider it one of the best relationship movies ever written. It's pure joy to watch.

Stallone has made a lot of bad films (what was he thinking with Stop or My Mom Will Shoot?  :-\ ) but he CAN act-- he proved that again fairly recently with his performance in Copland. But, the stigma is that he's horrible--he's been voted WORST ACTOR OF ALL TIME.  Sly has become a joke--he's done too many bad sequels and too many awful movies, and yes, most of them were in the 80s. Clint, on the other hand, weathered the 80s fairly well, even with the clunkers that BDC listed (BTW, remove Bronco Billy from list, insert City Heat) and in the ensuing decade and a half has finally found the long-coming and hard-earned respect of critics and his peers. There's even buzz of a Best Actor Oscar for Clint for his performance in Million Dollar Baby, and this from critics who haven't even SEEN the movie yet! Simply put, Clint has won the world's respect. Stallone had it, lost it and only time will tell if he ever finds that respect again.
Logged
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #29 on: November 30, 2004, 05:05:17 AM »

I'm waiting for Stallone to have a comeback in the next 5 years and win another Oscar ;).


WKC.
Logged

slacker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 338


its been a long road, there's no turning back


View Profile Email
« Reply #30 on: November 30, 2004, 09:15:06 AM »

You wanna wager on that
Logged

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist"
Conan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2943


JP


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #31 on: November 30, 2004, 03:34:54 PM »

  Clint has his flops, but Stallone has him beat for total number of bad choices.  Which is pretty ridiculous considering Stallone's career is (was?) shorter.
  It would be nice to see Stallone in a good movie; its been since "Cliffhanger" I think.  I like the guy and am in his corner, but he just keeps cranking out average and below flicks.  The last movie I saw him in Stallone played a professional poker player; it was watchable at least, but it didn't break average for me.

  I agree BDC, people do think that Stallone is the character he plays in movies.  Sure he was in "Cobra" and directed "Staying Alive", but "Rocky" alone shows that he's not a moron.

  Remember "Deathrace 2000"?  Its one of Stallone's first roles I believe.
Logged

Brendan
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6030



View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: November 30, 2004, 07:20:45 PM »

 Remember "Deathrace 2000"?  Its one of Stallone's first roles I believe.

Well, there was that OTHER film he did... :-X
Logged
Philo Beddoe Jr
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1750



View Profile Email
« Reply #33 on: November 30, 2004, 10:47:39 PM »

You wanna wager on that

Nope :).

But I'll keep a positive attitude ;D.

Rocky 6, Rambo 4.... then Stallone's Unforgiven?

WKC.
Logged

Doug
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2940


"May I make a suggestion..."


View Profile Email
« Reply #34 on: November 30, 2004, 10:54:36 PM »

bdc28....  Bird is a great movie, whether you care for it or not.  Stallone has Rocky.... and what else?  Nothing.   You can argue a couple of his other movies aren't bad, but that's all.  Copland was way over-rated, but at least it wasn't Demolition Man.  :P  To be fair Stallone has two big drawbacks: his face is not very expressive (and he has those droopy eyes) and his voice, which makes him sound a little dimwitted, even when he's throwing out 50-cent words, as he likes to do in his interviews.  

But he will always have Rocky, I grant him that, even while I agree with Holden (as he said in another post) that Rocky is simply average.  Bronco Billy is a far better movie, but for a variety of reasons it didn't connect with the audience in the way Rocky did.

Clint is cool, while Stallone is blue collar.   (I'm talking their screen presence.)
Logged

"Yes, well, when I see five weirdos dressed in togas stabbing a guy in the middle of a park in full view of a hundred people, I shoot the bastards, that's my policy."  Frank Drebin, Police Squad.
vik
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2802


flags of our fathers


View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: December 01, 2004, 02:07:54 AM »

rocky is such a dumb movie - and so predictable

Logged

england -  its flag the St George flag
Christopher
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6970



View Profile Email
« Reply #36 on: December 01, 2004, 07:48:42 AM »

I think if you was going to compare Eastwood and Stallone, which I believe is the purpose of this thread if I remember right, one that comes to mind is that both are multi-talented. Both direct. Stallone writes screenplays, Eastwood scores music.

Some good points have already been brought up. Eastwood wasn't always as respected as he is now. Maybe part of the reason why Eastwood has remained on top is because he's been more independent of anybody else. He's continued to do what he wants, and not what studios might have wanted to shove at him. Maybe Stallone hasn't done the same thing. His choices haven't been as good. I've said so before on here, I think Stallone could have been every bit as good as any other actor out there. I've always pointed to De Niro in the past, which was an actor he was compared to when Rocky came out. BTW, I still say De Niro owes a great deal to Martin Scorsese. Stallone never met and got with his "Scorsese." He went more of the "action star" route, which, ultimately, doesn't get much respect. He was still on the right track with First Blood. Maybe he shouldn't have done the sequels. ???

And I've taken some notes from Doug's post, ;) so I'll say that whether or not you think Rocky is great, it IS very rich in characters, which is what it's about. It's a character driven story. When I think of Rocky, the first thing I think of is never the boxing scenes. They were wonderfully well done, but it's simply not the most important part of the movie. Hardly an average movie.
Logged
vik
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2802


flags of our fathers


View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: December 01, 2004, 08:35:25 AM »

i just think of the ending - very laughable

i think if the end fight had been better then i might have said differently

rocky to me is almost comic book stuff - which perhaps is what it was suppose to be
« Last Edit: December 01, 2004, 08:36:51 AM by vik » Logged

england -  its flag the St George flag
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14885



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #38 on: December 01, 2004, 05:29:53 PM »

The fight in Rocky was only about ten minutes of the two hour film. And, I remember when it was released, everyone was surprised by the ending. It wasn't predictable at all. That's one reason they had to make Rocky II, to give everyone the ending they wanted. ;)

I'm going to have to strongly disagree with Doug and Holden on Rocky being just average. I have to rate this as one of the best films of all time. I absolutely LOVE the characters, and the relationships between all the characters--Rocky and Mick, Rocky and Adrian, Rocky and Paulie, and Paulie and Adrian. I've posted here before that my family is from Philly, and these characters, particularly Paulie, are just like people I knew growing up. I'd say these parts were all very realistically written and each character is very well-developed and comes alive on screen.

I don't find anything at all 'comic bookish' about Rocky. And, like Christopher has said, it's really not about boxing. It's about unrealized dreams, second chances, life, people, relationships, love, fear, self-dignity, determination, and pride, and says more about ALL these things than any other ONE movie I can think of.  I think it's a beautiful film that is also pretty funny at times and is full of incredibly tender moments. There's a scene with Mickey at Rocky's apartment where you can see this 76-year-old man realize that he's just lost the last chance he'll ever have to fulfill his dream, and you can see the self-pity and failure he feels fully evident within such a simple motion that it tears your heart out. The last scene, after the fight, when Rocky calls for Adrian, and instead of looking for her to congratulate him, or celebrating his own moment, he recognizes that she lost her hat in the crowd. And one of the most remarkable scenes I've ever watched--just before Rocky and Adrian first kiss and she looks at him--just LOOKS at him, and she's wondering if he's teasing her; if he could possibly actually find her pretty or be interested in her; if she should trust him; whether this was really happening to her... and then realizing that he really did love her, and the relief and happiness that she feels with that realization as she melts into his arms is one of the most beautiful scenes I've ever watched. The only scene comparable to this of someone coming alive out of the awareness of being loved is in The Bridges of Madison County. How does this scene compare with even that brilliant one? In my opinion, it's actually even better. That's how good this movie is! It's full of so many beautiful, subtle moments that I just can't see watching this movie and not recognizing it for the remarkable film that it is. I don't see how anyone could watch it and not feel absolutely GREAT afterward. It's probably the single best feel-good film I've ever seen.

All that about Rocky and barely a mention of a Clint movie. And this is in the Clint Eastwood forum. I'm going to mention Clint here to keep it somewhat on topic.  :-\

I think everyone here knows that I love Bronco Billy, but I just can't say that it's a better movie than Rocky. Technically, both films are solid with fine directing and camera work, but I'd have to say that I find the cinematography on Rocky to be much more impressive than Bronco Billy. I absolutely love the way they presented Philadelphia--this is the real Philly, more realistic and less glamorized than any other movie I've ever seen set there. John Avildsen's directing of Rocky is phenomenal, and although I think Bronco Billy is a very well-directed film, I think some of the humor cheapens the film a bit (John Arlington passing wind while climbing the outer wall of the sanatorium comes to mind). The characters in Rocky are richer and more realistic than those in Bronco Billy, and you have to realize that none of these comments are a dig on Bronco Billy because I love that film... but if we're comparing it to Rocky, it's just not as deep or as convincing a movie. If I take the best scene from Bronco Billy (I consider that to be where Running Water asks Antoinette "Don't you understand what Bronco Billy and the Wild West Show are all about?")... it doesn't stack up anywhere near as beautiful and moving a scene as the best scenes in Rocky, of which there are many. When I look at the characters in Bronco Billy, they're not even close to being as well-developed as any of the four main characters in Rocky. And the SCORE. Oh my God--hands down Rocky blows not only Bronco Billy but almost every other film ever made away! In every aspect, when I compare these two films, Rocky comes out on top every time and twice on Sunday. But, they're comparable in that they're both very enjoyable feel-good movies that both feature in leading roles a strong male and a misunderstood female who appear at first to be opposites, but that fit together perfectly, the pursuit and realization of life-long dreams, and the importance of friendship.
« Last Edit: December 02, 2004, 05:11:08 PM by Matt » Logged
bdc28
Classic Member
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 319



View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: December 03, 2004, 07:22:44 AM »

Matt and I are actually siamese twins, seperated at birth.

Oh and another point
"Some good points have already been brought up. Eastwood wasn't always as respected as he is now. Maybe part of the reason why Eastwood has remained on top is because he's been more independent of anybody else. He's continued to do what he wants, and not what studios might have wanted to shove at him. Maybe Stallone hasn't done the same thing. His choices haven't been as good. I've said so before on here, I think Stallone could have been every bit as good as any other actor out there. I've always pointed to De Niro in the past, which was an actor he was compared to when Rocky came out. BTW, I still say De Niro owes a great deal to Martin Scorsese. Stallone never met and got with his "Scorsese." He went more of the "action star" route, which, ultimately, doesn't get much respect. He was still on the right track with First Blood. Maybe he shouldn't have done the sequels"

I couldnt agree more.

Where I think that we are losing perspective is that, Clint didnt get affirmed in the movie community AT LARGE until UNFORGIVEN. Until MOST of the movie community said the same terrible things about him. Just read his reviews. (this is a bdc28 paraphrase)"Clint eastwood, surprise is MAKING A SEQUEL about Dirty Harry, which is basically a sequel to all of his westerns. Steely eyed, cold, lack of emotion or range in acting".

Now I may be paraphrasing, but Im not making it up. If you are a Eastwood fan worth your weight, at some point you have had to argue this point with SOMEONE. "OH, Eastwood just plays the same character in all of his movies..super cool tough guy".

And I agree, Eastwood has always been secure enough to do the projects he WANTS. But then again, being sypathetic to Stallone, Eastwood wasnt stygmatized with being known as STUPID...because you can act the part so well. At some point, Stallone got more caught up with the acting community respecting him (ie: Trying to show hes whimsical by not playing serious roles and playing TANGO AND CASH) rather than just do something he felt was right. In trying to not look stupid, he just looked worse.

I would also be willing to bet that Stallones better bodies of work are ahead of him. He just recently tested his range in playing a card shark in a move called SHADE, which was an ensemble cast, of which he was only a part. His clothes stayed on, and he actually played the part very well. As he matures and his options to need to take his shirt off in a movie less, Im sure he will have better bodies of work offered to him. There ARE people that respect him enough to send him scripts to work with that may test his range.

Now, being fair to Matt, BRONCO BILLY shouldnt have made thiat list and CITY HEAT definitely deserved it (as a matter of fact I thought I put it there). But lets just be fair, after you win an Oscar, suddenly people look at your entire body of work in a new light. You never know, people may end up looking at RAMBO III and saying "My God, Stallone did THE ONLY movie about the Afghanistanian movement, ten years before 9-11, he was a visionary".

Hey, Hollywood has done things much more idiotic than that.

Oh and one more thing...to say that Rocky's ending was predictable is HORSE hockey. In the first one, after all that emotional strife, and challenge, and you end up rooting for the dumb lug, HE LOST. How predictable is that??
« Last Edit: December 03, 2004, 07:26:19 AM by bdc28 » Logged

"I once shot an elephant in my pajamas. What he was doing wearing my pajamas I have no idea..."
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T