Recommend some fast-paced movies?

[ShogunRua]

I've seen Snatch, not Mean Machine. And I've seen like 5 or 6 of his other films. Steve Austin's physique is actually terrible IMO, a walking advertisement to deter kids from taking steroids because this is what you will end up looking like and moving like later in life.

This is wrong. Austin's physique is not bad, but the reason he's not more built is due to several serious neck injuries which essentially forced him to retire as a wrestler in 2003, at 38 years old. Has nothing to do with steroids.

If anything, he's a walking advertisement for kids not to become pro wrestlers, because you will end up looking and walking like Austin if you're lucky.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Statham acting skills. You think he's awesome, I think he's horrible.

I don't know if he's "awesome" in the same terms as a serious dramatic actor, but being an action lead doesn't require that.

Anyways, it's fine if you dislike Statham, but you then noted Dolph Lundgren and Jet Li as people you wanted to seem more of, who are fucking awful as actors. (I love them both for various reasons, but from an acting standpoint, they are total trash)

[TheDenizen]

I think Statham is the greatest action star today and the second greatest ever, after the legendary Charlie Bronson.

wow. I think you must be the only guy who likes Statham more than me. I think he's a decent actor and a great action movie tough guy...but second greatest ever? I don't think I could go quite that far, and I'm prone to hyperbole.

I'm totally with you on Bronson though.

[ShogunRua]

I think Statham is the greatest action star today and the second greatest ever, after the legendary Charlie Bronson.

wow. I think you must be the only guy who likes Statham more than me. I think he's a decent actor and a great action movie tough guy...but second greatest ever? I don't think I could go quite that far, and I'm prone to hyperbole.

I'm totally with you on Bronson though.

There's an argument to be made for Tomisaburo Wakayama and Jean Reno, yes. And there are better actors that have played action roles, although I don't consider them strictly action stars. (Shintaro Katsu, Toshiro Mifune, arguably Alain Delon)

But among strictly English-language action stars, Statham is the undisputed number two after Bronson. I'm curious who you would put ahead of him.

[TheDenizen]

EDIT: post moved to appropriate thread.

[nauru]

I've started a Jason Statham thread where we can continue this discussion.

[by Devol]

you (Nauru) probably already seen Brazil and After Hours, I'm guessing.

aside - I always liked the crazy tracking shot through the office at the end of AH

[nauru]

Brazil was a really strange case. PSI was through the roof, and there were a couple of funny lines but for the most part I did not like it -- so severe I turned it off a little after halfway (I've only done this with a handful of films, like the Avengers with Uma Thurman and Sean Connery). I wanted to like it because I could tell it was different from most films I've seen, but the pacing was just too slow for me. What was with the cutaway to a random extra-extended battle scene with some giant thing that is unexplained and seemingly unrelated to the rest of the film?

Haven't seen After Hours.

[nauru]

I've seen Snatch, not Mean Machine. And I've seen like 5 or 6 of his other films. Steve Austin's physique is actually terrible IMO, a walking advertisement to deter kids from taking steroids because this is what you will end up looking like and moving like later in life.

This is wrong. Austin's physique is not bad, but the reason he's not more built is due to several serious neck injuries which essentially forced him to retire as a wrestler in 2003, at 38 years old. Has nothing to do with steroids.

If anything, he's a walking advertisement for kids not to become pro wrestlers, because you will end up looking and walking like Austin if you're lucky.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Statham acting skills. You think he's awesome, I think he's horrible.

I don't know if he's "awesome" in the same terms as a serious dramatic actor, but being an action lead doesn't require that.

Anyways, it's fine if you dislike Statham, but you then noted Dolph Lundgren and Jet Li as people you wanted to seem more of, who are fucking awful as actors. (I love them both for various reasons, but from an acting standpoint, they are total trash)

After adjusting for lower expectations that we have for action stars' acting ability compared to other genres, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. As an action movie lead, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. I thought he was bearable in Death Race, mind you. But the Transporter is one of, if not the worst action movie I've ever seen. I'm not sure there's much point in debating this with you because we are really at opposite ends of the spectrum here. You can hardly think of anyone better for the lead role in action films, and I can hardly think of anyone worse (Ryan Reynolds might come close, if he starts making a lot more action movies).

Austin's physique: again, a matter of opinion. I don't want to rag on the guy's appearance too much here, he's taken a lot of punishment in his life and had some serious injuries. Partly as a result of these injuries, his physique, at 47, is not good, in my opinion. I realize this differs from your opinion. He does resemble a roid head at your nearby corporate gym who ate way too much protein powder, pumped way too much iron and now has a lot of pasty formless bulk and an unnatural way of walking/running/moving (in my opinion). Pro wrestling is hazardous to your health, and so are steroids and copious amounts of protein powder -- both common in that line of work.

Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren are not good dramatic actors, but I'd rather much rather see one of them in the lead role of an action movie like the Expendables than Jason Statham. I would also prefer Steve Austin in the lead role instead of Statham. Or Edward James Olmos for all I care, if it bumps Statham to something more secondary/tertiary/cameo in the action movie. You see where this is going.

[ShogunRua]

After adjusting for lower expectations that we have for action stars' acting ability compared to other genres, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. As an action movie lead, you think he's awesome and I think he's horrible. I thought he was bearable in Death Race, mind you. But the Transporter is one of, if not the worst action movie I've ever seen. I'm not sure there's much point in debating this with you because we are really at opposite ends of the spectrum here. You can hardly think of anyone better for the lead role in action films, and I can hardly think of anyone worse (Ryan Reynolds might come close, if he starts making a lot more action movies).

You're free to believe whatever you want, but if you think he is bad, then who is good?

What really confused me, though, is that after knocking Statham, you then go on to name Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren, two of the worst actors EVER, as people you wanted to see more of. Literally two guys who can't act to save their lives, although I still love them both. I can imagine a reasonable person disliking Jason Statham for whatever reason, but then praising LI and Lundgren's ACTING in the same breath?

Does not compute. I can see reasons for disliking a great director like, say, Robert Altman. But when that same person praises Michael Bay in the same sentence?

Austin's physique: again, a matter of opinion.

No, this question is anything but opinion, unlike the one about Statham. Austin's neck and back injuries and surgeries are VERY well-documented, ever since Owen Hart almost paralyzed him with a piledriver.

I don't want to rag on the guy's appearance too much here, he's taken a lot of punishment in his life and had some serious injuries. Partly as a result of these injuries, his physique, at 47, is not good, in my opinion.

It's not "partly"; it's "completely".

First of all, steroids do not cause neck and back problems, by themselves.

Secondly, there are a lot of wrestlers from Austin's time, many who didn't even do steroids, that are in FAR worse physical shape than he is, if not outright dead. Look at someone like Mitsuhiro Misawa, who was roughly the same age as Austin, never took steroids, and is now dead, after his neck degenerated so much that a basic move in the ring killed him at 46.

Or hell, look at a guy like CM Punk (the present champion), who has a skinny physique and is famously straight edge. He's 33 years old, and has already endured several major surgeries, fractured his skull, and almost had a hip replacement. That's all thanks to the brutal nature of pro wrestling.

By the way, I'm not even sure whether Austin did steroids. His physique was never amazing, and he was a naturally big guy who used to play football.

Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren are not good dramatic actors, but I'd rather much rather see one of them in the lead role of an action movie like the Expendables than Jason Statham. I would also prefer Steve Austin in the lead role instead of Statham. Or Edward James Olmos for all I care, if it bumps Statham to something more secondary/tertiary/cameo in the action movie. You see where this is going.

But why? (Stick to Li and Lundgren)

[TheDenizen]

I'd pay good money to watch Edward James Olmos beating the shit out of punks.