Zozan wrote: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.
Zozan wrote: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.
Zozan wrote: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.
Zozan wrote: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.
Zozan wrote: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.