Which of these action stars do you consider OK actors and which do you think are horrible? Seagal has usually got most of the stick,but i wonded what u guys think.
They’ve got muscles.
Actually, given the right role Arnold is ok, and I’d go so far as to say that Stallone is pretty smart with bad choices in his recent roles.
Van Damme and Seagull on the other hand…
They are usually as good as their scripts.
Did you ever see Seagall on SNL circa 1990? Apart from the opening monologue when he sang Kung Fu Fighting and played the guitar, it was horrible. The guy was pathetic.
I’d say Ah-nold is halfway decent. Van Damm and Seagal are hopeless.
I agree completely.
I would add that Stallone is a down-right good actor in certain roles. For instance, in Rocky, the original one, watch him with a critical eye in the non-boxing scenes and he does a fine job of acting. Granted, he becomes a bit of a cartoon as the series goes on though.
TV
AH-nold can be quite entertaining in the right movie. Total Recall and the Terminators are both fun action/sci-fi movies that, for better or worse, wouldn’t be the same without him. I even liked the universally-panned Last Action Hero.
Stallone can be a better actor than he gets credit for, as in the first Rocky and the excellent Copland (with a great cast including Robert DeNiro, Ray Liotta, Harvey Keitel, and Janeane Garofalo). However, my favorite Stallone movies are purely guilty pleasures: Rocky III (where he fights Hulk Hogan AND Mr. T) and Rocky IV (where he fights Dolph Lundgren as the cartoonist Russian menace “Ivan Drago”).
If you ask me, Van Damme has two good movies. Bloodsport (his first lead role) is great if you take it for what it is: a martial arts tournament movie with lots of cool fighting styles on display. But his accent is thick, and his acting not very good. Then John Woo’s Hard Target may be Van Damme’s shining hour: a ridiculous action movie set in New Orleans, where he takes on villains who hunt and kill homeless veterans. Great Woo-signature cinematography and action scenes, Yancy Butler at the damsel in distress, Wilford Brimley as Van Damme’s drunken Cajun uncle, and Van Damme in a trench coat and a MULLET. Plus, he’s supposed to be Cajun too, so at least there is a half-assed explanation for his accent. Great movie, overall.
And I’ve never cared for Seagal at all, but my dad loves his movies.
None of these guys are stupid (at all) but that doesn’t make them good actors. With the right vehicle tuned to their strengths any of these guys can make a decent action movie. Arnold, within the narrow range of his “skills” does the best with comedy situations and probably does the best job (overall) choosing scripts (or possibly they are available to him more readily). Stallone is the best with dramatic situations, Van Damme can be amusing but with very limited range and Segal is even more limited.
As I’m typing this it stikes me how relatively old all these “action stars” are
Stallone born - 6 July 1946 - age 56
Seagal - 10 April 1951 - Age 53
Schwarzenegger - 30 July 1947 - Age 55
Van Damme - 18 October 1960 - Age 43
I’d say that Seagal only has one character, but it’s a character that he plays with an intensity and sence of menace that is quite effective. I enjoy him in the same way I might enjoy a Marvel or DC character. In other words, he’s damn good at what he does, and I happen to like that. Great actor ? no
my .02
China Guy: Yeah, but the Jacky Chan monolog including faux Segal was great. ‘You better watch out, or I’m gonna . . . go eat a sandwich.’
None of 'em are gonna inspire anyone. Schawtznegger and Stalone are at least familiar with the basic emotions and how they are traditionaly expressed, Van Damme and Segal are not.
The late 80’s and early 90’s were pretty much of the opinion that acting or plot in an ‘action movie’ was not only unnecisary, it was insulting to the people involved. That and the fact that all the people who could both act a bit and kick ass either didn’t sell movies, died, or left the country go a bit towards explaining the dip in quality of those kind of movies, at that point in time.
–
‘How can they miss this huge, slow-moving white thing?’
Well, for all of you Jean Claude fans, he may get a chance to stretch his acting muscles a bit in an upcoming film.
He is in line for a role in Swan Lake.
Admittedly, it is a non dancing role, and the producer is also looking at Ewan MacGregor for the role, but still, Jean Claude Van Damme might just be in Swan Lake.
I can’t believed I just typed those words.
I thought Jean-Claude’s best role was in Universal Soldier, when he was supposed to be zombie-like and easily-confused. The scene in the diner where he casually eats the entire menu is hysterical.
He was playing a Cajun character in that movie, too.
Dolph Lungdren doesn’t do too badly as the bad guy in Universal Soldier, either, and the early scene when both men are in Vietnam was really creepy.
I think they’re all mostly fine for the roles that they play. Reminds me of a possibly apocryphal quote from Victor Mature: “I never considered myself an actor, and I have 80 movies to prove it.”
Steven Seagal did a passable job of acting in Above the Law, and he did about as well in Under Siege, which was his best movie by far. Basically, he had the chops to portray the type of character that these kinds of movies require.
Stallone is without a doubt the best actor in this bunch. I forget the name of the movie, but he did a very good job as an overweight cop, and the movie received a reasonable amount of critical acclaim, as did his acting.
Schwartenegger is good at being Schwartzenegger. Give him that kind of a role, and he pulls it off very well. Terminator 2, for example.
Van Damme is a hack.
But the best actor among modern action stars isn’t listed here. The two best actors in the action biz, bar none, are Mel Gibson and Bruce Willis. Both of them have the kind of range that allows them to take roles in serious movies and pull it off. In fact, both of them are good enough to be in the top ranks of actors on the big screen. Oh, and let’s add Harrison Ford to that list, although he’s getting a little long in the tooth to do much action any more.
Just thought of another one - Kurt Russell.
From best to worst, I’d rate them:
Mel Gibson
Bruce Willis
Harrison Ford
Kurt Russell
Sylvester Stallone
Arnold Schwartzenegger
Steven Seagal
Chuck Norris (Let’s throw hm in the mix for fun)
Jeane-Claude Van Damme
Bruce, Mel, Kurt, and Harrison are all great. You won’t get any arguments from me, or from most people. Samuel L. Jackson and Brad Pitt are two actors I love to see in action roles, but who are too good to relegate to mere “action stars.”
I’d definitely include Vin Diesel among “action stars,” as opposed to “actors.” While I didn’t care for Fast and the Furious or XXX, he was awesome in Pitch Black, and I predicted from there he’d go on to be a huge movie star. I think they are making a “sequel” to Pitch Black based around his character, Riddick.
Also, at the risk of being flamed, I think The Rock is going to only get bigger. Scorpion King was a lot of fun for what it was, and I’m eagerly waiting Helldorado/Welcome To the Jungle/whatever they’re calling it this week, with Rock vs. evil Christopher Walken. He is extremely charismatic and surprisingly funny. I think if he loses some of his wrestling bulk so he can look slightly more “normal,” his career will skyrocket.
And finally, Brandon Lee was incredible. He had so much potential to be a breakthrough star after The Crow. It is such a tragedy what happened to him. He was very good looking, and displayed real “star quality” in his few action roles like Rapid Fire, Showdown In Little Tokyo (total guilty pleasure movie with him, Dolph Lundgren, and Tia Carrere), and especially The Crow.
Lets take one movie as an example
12 Monkeys
with the exception of Harrison Ford, Nobody on this list could’ve touched the work Bruce Willis did. He also showed great depth in the either loved or hated “Unbreakable”.
imho Willis and Ford are hands above any others on this list.
Sure Mel can play a crazy, but … he’s been doing that since Road Warrior, he added “goofy crazy” to the “lethal weapon” series.
reminds me, I haven’t seen “Signs” yet
I think he was over rated. I think alot of his allure came from the fact that he died while making the Crow so it kinda gave the performance an “oooo” factor. Don’t get me wrong, it was a great movie, but there wasn’t really a whole lot of dialog for him to deliver in that one.
[slight hijack] does anyone else think he looked just like Jim Carrey when he smiled?
If you think all Mel Gibson can play is a crazy, I suggest you check out:
Gallipolli
We Were Soldiers
Braveheart
Hamlet
The Year of Living Dangerously
Gibson is a great actor. Those are all Oscar-worthy roles.
Yeah, but Bruce Willis is a better actor than Gibson. My proof? Hudson Hawk!!!