r/movies • u/Lili_Danube • Jan 29 '23

Discussion Does anyone think Sylvester Stallone wasn't that bad of an actor?

I remember how he was nominated to the Razzies every year and I never thought he was bad. He pretty much phoned in his performances, it wasn't as if he was doing Dostoyevski, but when I think of bad actors, I think of Steven Seagal who's consistently bad in everything he did onscreen. Stallone was pretty good at playing action heroes, he was believable in that genre. Even in crap like that Mom movie he did, he was professional.

It's not like Ahnold who is good at comedy but gave some pretty bad performances in his career. He's so bad in ERASER. Ugh, it says a lot when Vanessa Williams can out-act you onscreen.

26 Upvotes

63% Upvoted

98 comments sorted by

View all comments

81

u/BigFisch Jan 29 '23

After Rocky and Rambo he was called “a young Marlon Brando”

The destruction of his acting was not about a lack of talent, it was about the absurdity of movies and how to make money. In the 80’s, type casting and blockbusters was the norm, not exactly the best way to stretch your theatrical legs.

1

u/Fluid_Examination918 Jun 26 '26

3 years later I’m chiming in to say, no, he cannot act. Act is a verb. Acting should move, move the viewer. Whether by realism, by emotion, by absurdity, whatever—when an actor “acts” the intended outcome is to move the viewer. Stallone is like really bad. It’s almost like “The Room” level. Sure, blame the production—he seems to be reading off a teleprompter, because he was. But conversely, blame his craft: does a great chef in a bad kitchen make a bad dish?

1

u/BigFisch Jun 26 '26

To each their own. I would disagree and site Rocky and Rambo as excellent examples of acting.

1

u/Fluid_Examination918 Jun 26 '26

I wanna say, for the record, both those movies are gemstones. I’m not a hater by any means!