They why keep hiring him at all, when there are younger, hotter, and ostensibly more talented actors out there?
And no, 65 is not 71. But let’s be honest, they’re both pretty damned old, from Hollywood’s perspective.
Assuming you mean Harrison Ford, I think the only excuse for that is inertia.
On that we can certainly agree. 
Judi Dench’s last romantic lead was in the BBC television series “As Time Goes By”, the last episode of which aired in 2005. Which leads to the question, why do all these actresses decry the lack of roles in romantic movies?
Judi Dench has been nominated for a Best Actress Oscar in each of the last two years and most Bond fans will tell you that she’s one of the best things to happen to the series in a long time.
That sounds like a pretty good couple of years for an “older actress” who’s not supposed to be getting parts anymore. Oh, and she’s almost a decade older than Faye Dunaway to boot.
I’d say it’s close enough for AARP work. 
We’re talking Hollywood standards here, not reality. Stallone made another Rocky movie at age 60 just last year, supposedly he’s making another Rambo movie.
I won’t debate the merits of Reynolds v. Ford because I don’t know the Burt ouevre well enough. Similarly I didn’t see much of League, because why the hell would I want to watch it?
I don’t think the Burt Reynolds comparison is a good one anyway. Dunaway isn’t asking to get the parts a 20-year-old gets, she’s wondering why you see men her age with women in their 20s and 30s and not much of the opposite.
And in this case, less of an impetus to do anything about it, which seems to me to be more of an issue here.
Faye Dunaway. . . she’s still alive? Huh.
See, I think you’ve got this thing by the 'nads right there.
Anthony Hopkins has a love interest half his age in Fracture (it doesn’t end well).
In National Treasure the archivist responsible for teh Declaration of Independence is ridiculously young- that’s a job you’d have to have almost as much experience as her lifespan to be trusted with.
I’d say it’s a lot harder for the women in the middle years. Once you’ve hit a certain age you can do Miss Daisy or Doddering Grandma or Queen Elizabeth, Current. When you’re young you can be Cocaine Stripper. Is there anything interesting at all for women in their 40’s that isn’t an HBO Original Series?
If you don’t mind being beaten on, cheated on or just killed outright, there’s always Lifetime Original Movies.
I think this is a false comparison, because men and women are often attracted to each other for different reasons. I think men are going to be offered romantic roles later in life, because the women in the audience are still likely to find them sexy even as they age. It evens out in other ways, though. How many men of below-average height get romantic leads as opposed to women of below-average height? There’s Tom Cruise, and that’s probably about it. For women, being short isn’t a major impediment, because they can still be cute and thus marketable as sex symbols. The studios go with what sells; I don’t think they’re discriminating just to be mean.
And how many romantic lead roles are there for men who play garbage collectors, clerks, pharmacists, mechanics, systems analysts, and milkmen? Noo-ooo, it’s got to be doctors and lawyers and policemen and mobsters and soldiers and Air Force pilots and pirates and swashbuckling barbarian princes. All the glamorous occupations.
It isn’t just about looking for cute Young Thangs for women to play. The mens’ roles are custom-tailored for a certain brand of “attractiveness” too.
Which ultimately comes down to biology. Men can (in principle) father children at any age, even if it gets a bit harder (er, less hard. Um, more difficult. You know what I mean) as they get older, but women can’t. So we’ve evolved to value youth in women more than in men.
Which still doesn’t make Entrapment any less ridiculous.