General Discussion : Jason Statham: great, horrible, or in between?

[ShogunRua]

No problem with making money. I got no objection with that. I was under the impression that the thread was created to debate Statham's acting ability and i am of the opinion that unless he chooses more challenging roles then he wont be regarded as a serious actor with a depth of range.

This same criticism can be applied to Pacino and De Niro during the last 20 years. Their diversity of roles and overall number of quality films is the same as those of Statham in the same timespan. Clearly, those two guys have no depth of range or serious acting chops either, right?

No it can't. For sure the roles Pacino and De Niro have chosen in the last years have been pants but what they did in their early careers far outstrips anything Statham has ever done. To suggest otherwise is far fetched.

Which was my entire point. Pacino and De Niro had the awesome fucking luck to have their careers take off in the 1970s, the greatest era for Hollywood films ever. They got to work with legendary directors like Lumet, Scorsese, Coppola, etc. when they were all at the peak of their powers. This was back when directors and writers had unprecedented freedom to make films they wanted to, as opposed to something that has to appeal to "4 quadrants" in movie analyst speak.

Statham didn't have the same luck. Thus, he never had an opportunity to show whether he was a truly amazing actor or not. His roles in Mean Machine and Snatch would suggest he has good ability, but without the chance to play someone like a Travis Bickle or Michael Corleone, how do you know for certain?

Hell, look at freaking Vin Diesel. The guy can't act to save his life, right? Well, pair him with that same Sidney Lumet in an excellent movie with a great script and all-around cast like Find Me Guilty, and guess what? Suddenly, he is pretty good. Not great, but pretty damn good. A performance many Oscar winners would be fine with.

And once you take away the fantastic directors and masterpiece films Pacino and De Niro have starred in (two legitimately great actors), then all of a sudden, they're not that much better than someone like Statham. That was my point about the last 20 years, which you are still not understanding.

[Zozan]

There are good movies being made today. Probably as many as the 70s.

Thinking of some of the better action movies from late times, like Warrior, Dark Knight, Sin City… It doesn’t occur to me that Statham could carry the load if he was starring in one of these…

Say, would Bourne series be what they are if it was Statham who had the lead? Even considering that Statham probably has better hand to hand combat skills compared to Damon?

Didn’t see Mean Machine but I never thought it was Statham who carried the movie in Snatch, I don’t remember him to be outstanding. The movie had many leading guys but if I was to name one memorable performance, it would be that of Pitts’.

I don’t have no grudge against Statham. I think he carries out his part ok in the brainless action genre. Would never go far enough to put him in the same basket with the likes of Al Pacino and Robert De Niro tho. That don’t make no sense to me at all.

Wesley Snipes, Vin Diesel, Steven Seagal etc. could be the guys he should be compared with.

[ShogunRua]

There are good movies being made today. Probably as many as the 70s.

In terms of Hollywood movies? No, not even close. There were far more quality films made back in the 70s than in Hollywood today.

Thinking of some of the better action movies from late times, like Warrior, Dark Knight, Sin City… It doesn’t occur to me that Statham could carry the load if he was starring in one of these…

These are hilarious examples. Please explain to me what protagonist role in either "Dark Knight" or "Sin City" (haven't seen "Warrior") required "acting"? Batman was the most boring and banal role imaginable. Christian Bale (who is a fine actor) was practically invisible and meaningless in that movie. A stuffed animal could have played his role.

Ditto for "Sin City". Even Bruce Willis's role was a simple, generic, forgettable one.

And you're seriously comparing those to a role like Travis Bickle or Michael Corleone? That's the point; most films today don't have any real roles or characters to them. They're not character-driven.

Say, would Bourne series be what they are if it was Statham who had the lead? Even considering that Statham probably has better hand to hand combat skills compared to Damon?

The Bourne series is hot garbage, and Damon hardly does any "acting" in it. He looks mean, says some insipid dialogue, and appears in a couple of the shaky cam scenes when not watching his stunt double.

So yes, the Bourne series would be better with Statham as the lead. At least we know Statham is an all-time great action lead, and he has elevated action crap as bad as or even worse than the Bourne series.

Didn’t see Mean Machine but I never thought it was Statham who carried the movie in Snatch, I don’t remember him to be outstanding. The movie had many leading guys but if I was to name one memorable performance, it would be that of Pitts’.

Statham is the main character, has the most speaking lines, and is a narrator of sorts. Pitt's gypsy is a minor, one-note character.

I don’t have no grudge against Statham. I think he carries out his part ok in the brainless action genre. Would never go far enough to put him in the same basket with the likes of Al Pacino and Robert De Niro tho. That don’t make no sense to me at all.

Yeah, you don't understand basic analogies, either.

The point is that without masterpiece films to star in and great directors to work with, you wouldn't have a clue whether Pacino or De Niro was truly great or not. You wouldn't know if he was truly outstanding or a Ryan O'Neal.

Same thing with Statham. You can't make too many statements on his acting ability (or supposed lack thereof) because he gets so damn few worthwhile roles. Just like Pacino and De Niro get so damn few worthwhile roles nowadays.

Blaming Statham for having the bad luck of being born into a shitty era of Hollywood movies that despise character-driven works is foolish.

[Zozan]

I don’t know why you must narrow it down to Holywood movies. And I also don’t know how you state it as a commonly accepted fact that 70s films are better. When I look at my ratings, 65/693 movies in T10 from 2000-2012 range. 9.3%. 16/241 movies in T10 from 1970-1990 range. 6.6%. I don’t know what you base your theory on, but it doesn’t seem to be true from here.

I gave the examples as “some of the better action movies from late times.” I didn’t say that these movies are the best movies of this age and are superior to the masterpieces of Al Pacino or Robert De Niro. I also didn’t say that these movies require a good deal of superb acting. What I am saying is Statham is too flat of a guy to take a role in the good movies of late times, even from the action genre.

Stuff animal replacing Christian Bale, Bruce Wills being forgettable. I don’t know why you have to make these absurd statemements. Bruce Wills of Sin City, I remember him after 6-7 years. Christian Bale fulfilled his role in Dark Knight. And Matt Damon was very convincing as the cold blooded agent seeking answers from his past. You may say Bourne Series is hot garbage but I doubt you will find much to back you up there. Most of your arguments are offensive, exaggerated and based on nothing.

Also Statham is not the leading character in Snatch. He is not the shining guy. Snatch is not snatch becouse Statham did a good job. I am not saying he sucked. But his was a side role. Even can be told from the movie poster. Of course, I don’t know how many lines each guy speak. But I believe majority would agree that he was not the leading guy.

And I understand what you say. You are saying that Statham could prove to be a world class actor if he had played in Taxi Driver or Godfather. You claim that he is unlucky becouse the movies where Statham could shine as a character guy are not being shot today. I sure understand what you are saying. And it sure don’t make no sense to me becouse 10% T10 of mine has no Stathams in them. Good movies are being shot today. Statham don’t get a piece from those. He is not considered to be worthy. There are way better options out there.

He may evolve, he may mature up in the future. I don’t know. But he is what he is now, a flat action star of the low quality action movies.

[nauru]

He may evolve, he may mature up in the future. I don’t know. But he is what he is now, a flat action star of the low quality action movies.

This.

[ShogunRua]

I don’t know why you must narrow it down to Holywood movies.

Because Statham makes his living playing in Hollywood, and he is the subject of this topic?

For instance, Korean films nowadays being better than they were in the 70s is completely irrelevant to his career.

And I also don’t know how you state it as a commonly accepted fact that 70s films are better. When I look at my ratings, 65/693 movies in T10 from 2000-2012 range. 9.3%. 16/241 movies in T10 from 1970-1990 range. 6.6%. I don’t know what you base your theory on, but it doesn’t seem to be true from here.

You're missing the main point, as usual. Even if you disagree that 70's Hollywood films are better (which I doubt you accounted for in your stats above), far more films from back then were character-driven.

You mention films like "Sin City" (which I thought was good) and "The Dark Knight" (which I thought was great). But neither was character-driven, and between the two of them, had a grand total of 2 worthwhile roles. (Harvey Dent and the Joker) Compare that to a single good 70's film, which had like 5-6 juicy, significant roles.

Really, the main reason "Sin City" and "The Dark Knight" succeeded had little to do with the acting. "Sin City" was gorgeous, stylish, and violent. TDK had superb pacing, editing, and presentation.

What I am saying is Statham is too flat of a guy to take a role in the good movies of late times, even from the action genre/

And I'm saying that you can't know this when he stars in lousy movies with mediocre directors!

The few times Statham has been in good movies with talented directors, however, he has flourished.

You may say Bourne Series is hot garbage but I doubt you will find much to back you up there.

Populist arguments are dumb to begin with, but coming from you, of all people? You have some of the weirdest tastes on this entire site! That's not a bad thing by itself, but a guy who hated films like "Burn After Reading" or action fare like "Conan the Barbarian" and "Planet Terror" is getting butt-hurt over the cartoonish Bourne series, of all things? Really?

Most of your arguments are offensive, exaggerated and based on nothing.

Offensive to little children who cry when someone disagrees with their opinions on a freaking movie, or offensive to you? Oh, wait...

Also Statham is not the leading character in Snatch. He is not the shining guy. Snatch is not snatch becouse Statham did a good job. I am not saying he sucked. But his was a side role. Even can be told from the movie poster. Of course, I don’t know how many lines each guy speak. But I believe majority would agree that he was not the leading guy.

Again this blind appeal to the "majority" in lieu of actual thinking. Even though in this case, you can't even back that up. I'm sure if you polled most people, many would in fact consider Statham the main star of Snatch.

Good movies are being shot today. Statham don’t get a piece from those. He is not considered to be worthy. There are way better options out there.

Well, I guess Pacino and De Niro aren't considered worthy then either, because they're not playing in significant roles in Hollywood movies, either.

[movieboy]

Populist arguments are dumb to begin with, but coming from you, of all people? You have some of the weirdest tastes on this entire site! That's not a bad thing by itself, but a guy who hated films like "Burn After Reading" or action fare like "Conan the Barbarian" and "Planet Terror" is getting butt-hurt over the cartoonish Bourne series, of all things? Really?

How do you define 'wierd'? Is it something which is disliked by the majority?

[ShogunRua]

Populist arguments are dumb to begin with, but coming from you, of all people? You have some of the weirdest tastes on this entire site! That's not a bad thing by itself, but a guy who hated films like "Burn After Reading" or action fare like "Conan the Barbarian" and "Planet Terror" is getting butt-hurt over the cartoonish Bourne series, of all things? Really?

How do you define 'wierd'? Is it something which is disliked by the majority?

Yeah, and it's often a good thing. But in this case, we have someone who has tastes far different than the majority chastising someone else for having tastes slightly different than the majority.

On the flip side, it makes about as much sense as all his other arguments.

[movieboy]

Yeah, and it's often a good thing. But in this case, we have someone who has tastes far different than the majority chastising someone else for having tastes slightly different than the majority.

Not getting involved in the rest of the argument/debate. But as far as majority opinion goes(in criticker & imdb at least), all of the Bourne series movies have an average ranking higher than Conan (1982). At both places, I think all movies of the Bourne series are at least a point higher with some even more than that.

[Zozan]

Everybody has different tastes than the majority.

Your quest to save the reputation of Statham is the very first example of this.

Oh but but if Statham had lived in the 70s he would be the biggest star in character driven movies, no? He is so unlucky he was born in the wrong era. Becouse he is such a guy who is made to carry out character driven movies, imbaness would flourish out of him only if he had the chance. But since they dont exist or they were 5-6 juicy ones bk then but now there is 2, so he must fuck women in the street to make a living, must kick 250 butts per movie and his heart will explode if he moves 10 miles away from holywood.

Do you realise how lame you sound? You keep up bringing irrelevant things into discussion to promote your way of thinking. Like I am a blind little crying butt hurting child with the wierdest taste in this entire site. And the likes of Planet Terror, Burn After Reading is the proof you present? Do you actually realize how you sound in terms of logic and relevancy?

If I am a blind little crying butt hurting child with a wierd taste, then would that make Statham character driven actor of the decade?