CheckEmoji Community · the emoji forum
🏠 Home 🆕 What's new ❓ Unanswered 🔥 Popular 📡 RSS Members 👥 0 online log in · register
Home › Culture & Entertainment › Movies › Sylvester Stallone

Sylvester Stallone

Started by redwalker6 · · 👁 7 views · 36 replies

📡 Subscribe to replies

Participants redwalker6Eric Phillips3Kenneth Martinez3nimblemarlin17Jason Chavez32Walter Fowler53mellowtrucker44northernlynx7Alex Collins26darkwalker512Emily Johnson27Sophia Hughes8hollowstag13David Price5urbanmaker6Timothy Rodriguez3Chloe Patel36
mellowtrucker44 mellowtrucker44 Member
16 messages
joined Jun 2007
#21 ·
Sophia Hughes8 said:back when I was younger he was definitely my favorite, but honestly I still don't mind popping on one of his movies now and then, it's solid action, which is what I'm after

Finally, a girl who actually digs action flicks and Rambo! Plus you’re into Rocky too? Now we're talking... 😘

Just a heads up though, Stallone didn't direct all the Rocky movies except for the first one—and even then, the fifth installment was actually directed by a remake of the first guy, John G. Avildsen.

Personally, I always thought CopLand was kind of a miss for him. Aside from Rocky and Rambo, my go-tos are probably Lock Up and Cliffhanger...
hollowstag13 hollowstag13 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Aug 2007
#22 ·
Stallone?🙂
Hands down, the greatest action icon to ever grace the silver screen.👍
David Price5 David Price5 Regular
435 messages
joined Jul 2012
#23 ·
Sean Harris98 said:You should look into it a bit more deeply; one side of his facial muscles died off due to paralysis.

Birth complications, caused by forceps, resulted in paralysis of the lower left side of his face, manifested by a perennial snarl and slurred speech.

So, it wasn't childhood paralysis after all.

I actually just watched him in Death Race 2000. He was quite good, though he gets beaten up in the movie.
urbanmaker6 urbanmaker6 Member
21 messages
joined May 2007
#24 ·
darkwalker512 said:Even if he spends the whole movie acting like his face is under local anesthesia, and despite the fact that in the Rocky series—which is literally about boxing—the fighting scenes are actually the worst part, he’s still better with two spears than Steven Seagal 😬

Totally👍
hollowstag13 hollowstag13 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Aug 2007
#25 ·
Most people only ever see him through the lens of characters like Rocky or Rambo, which essentially defines his entire legacy in the public eye. It’s easy to overlook the fact that he actually graduated from art school and has penned about twenty different screenplays himself...

He isn't just some muscle-bound brawler; the man is a legitimate actor and a writer to boot. If you’ve ever sat through CopLand, you'll know exactly what I mean.
hollowstag13 hollowstag13 Newcomer
5 messages
joined Aug 2007
#26 ·
One more thing before I go!
It feels like the human physique has undergone a complete, grotesque transformation lately. Just look at what these growth hormones are doing to people! 😲

image
redwalker6 redwalker6 MemberOP
37 messages
joined Jun 2007
#27 ·
redwalker6
sly21 (No content provided to rewrite.)
Most people only see him through the lens of Rocky and Rambo, and that's about all they know. They pigeonhole him because those two roles defined his career. But there’s more to the guy than just muscle and action movies. He actually graduated from art school and even wrote about twenty different screenplays. People really need to look past the tough guy persona.

He’s not just some action hero; the guy is a legitimate actor and a damn fine writer too. If you’ve actually sat down and watched Cop Land, you’d know exactly what I’m talking about.
👍 👍 I'm with you on everything you said. Personally, I’ve always preferred him over Arnold Schwarzenegger—to me, Arnie just lacks that raw, heavy-hitting energy.

And this whole mess with the hormones.😲 I even heard he’s facing serious legal trouble because of this. Word is, it’s about banned vials and violating Australian customs laws—specifically 48 vials of Jintropin growth hormone. Just three days after his customs inspection, Stallone tossed four testosterone vials into his hotel room trash, and the authorities sniffed out the contraband and hauled him in. You can't just fly growth hormone into Australia without a special permit from a government agency. Since this falls under local jurisdiction rather than federal court, Stallone is looking at a maximum fine of around $18,000. He’s lucky he isn't facing the federal hammer, which would have slapped him with a $91,000 fine and up to five years behind bars. We should know the verdict next week, on Monday.
Sylvester Stallone's attorney, Philip Boulten, claims the whole thing was about "medical necessity." He wouldn't get specific on what exactly Stallone needed hormones for—maybe he’s still trying to hit another growth spurt? Regardless, the lawyer insists everything was done under strict medical supervision. The defense strategy is basically: "If he knew it was illegal in Australia, he never would have touched it." It sounds ridiculous. Apparently, Stallone just didn't know the rules, which explains why he checked "no" on the customs declaration when asked if he was carrying medications, steroids, or any prohibited substances into the country. After being detained, Stallone brushed it off to reporters, calling the entire ordeal a "minor misunderstanding." His take? "They're just doing their jobs, and I simply didn't realize the regulations." Give me a break.
Timothy Rodriguez3 Timothy Rodriguez3 Newcomer
2 messages
joined Jul 2007
#28 ·
To put it simply: I’m just not a fan. While *Rocky* is an absolute classic on its own, the whole package doesn't really do much for me. Now, if you look at Rambo, that guy is on a completely different level. He takes out half the Russian army using nothing but a bow and arrow and a helicopter—that’s a real powerhouse right there. Then you have that one scene where he's jumping around a freezing mountain wrapped in plastic, taking out a sniper with a rock or some other miracle. If I'm wrong about *Rocky*, please correct me, but Rambo definitely doesn't have that kind of intensity. Honestly, compared to what Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls off in *Commando*, all of that is nothing.🙂
redwalker6 redwalker6 MemberOP
37 messages
joined Jun 2007
#29 ·
Timothy Rodriguez3 said:Look, let me be blunt: I don't like it. Sure, Rocky is a masterpiece, but as a whole package? Nothing special. And please, give me a break with Rambo—the guy uses a bow and arrow to take out helicopters and wipes out half the damn Russian army single-handedly. That's ridiculous. Then you have this unit jumping around a mountain in freezing temperatures wrapped in nothing but plastic, killing snipers with rocks or some other miracle. Sorry if I'm wrong and Rocky doesn't have those issues, but compared to that, Commando is absolute garbage for Arnold Schwarzenegger.🙂

Well, everyone has their own taste.
But if you ask me, Commando is even stupider than Rambo. Yeah, Rambo turns up the action way too high in the sequels, but in my book, Commando is even more over-the-top than Rambo 3. To me, the original Rambo is actually a solid film for 🙏 🙏. The second and third ones aren't terrible either. Honestly, Sylvester Stallone's older action flicks, like Rambo and Cliffhanger, are leagues better than most of the mindless junk we see today like Romeo Must Die and The Fast and the Furious.
Chloe Patel36 Chloe Patel36 Member
12 messages
joined Apr 2007
#30 ·
redwalker6 said:I mean, honestly, those old-school Sylvester Stallone action flicks like Rambo and Cliffhanger just hit different, you know? They're way better than most of the mindless junk we see nowadays, like Romeo Must Die or The Fast and the Furious.

Man, what kind of comparison is that even supposed to be!!
redwalker6 redwalker6 MemberOP
37 messages
joined Jun 2007
#31 ·
Tyler Hall83 said:What kind of comparison is that even supposed to be?!

I don't follow your logic.
All I said was that his action flicks blow most modern movies out of the water.
David Price5 David Price5 Regular
435 messages
joined Jul 2012
#32 ·
redwalker6 said:I am not quite following your logic.
I simply meant his action movies hold up much better than most modern releases.

But the truth is, The Fast and the Furious isn't even a pure action movie..
Chloe Patel36 Chloe Patel36 Member
12 messages
joined Apr 2007
#33 ·
redwalker6 said:I don't really get what you're getting at, I guess.
I was just saying his action flicks hit way harder than most of the stuff coming out today.

I mean, I feel like you're comparing things that just don't even belong in the same conversation, you know? Like, all those old-school movies like Rambo are basically just mindless fun, kind of like the junk we see now, it's just that you're super attached to that whole "Rambo style" vibe, or specifically Stallone's movies, mostly because it's Stallone himself on screen. You gotta admit, when you were a kid, you probably loved watching Stallone absolutely demolish like, five hundred thousand soldiers or something! Just be honest about it!😁
Chloe Patel36 Chloe Patel36 Member
12 messages
joined Apr 2007
#34 ·
David Price5 said:but the thing is, F&F isn't even a pure action flick...

exactly! I mean, it just doesn't count as real action if you don't have that one guy against a million odds scenario! 🤣 🤣
redwalker6 redwalker6 MemberOP
37 messages
joined Jun 2007
#35 ·
Tyler Hall83 said:Look, you’re comparing apples to oranges here. Every mindless action flick—whether it’s an old Rambo movie or some modern garbage—is essentially the same level of stupidity. The difference is you’re stuck on those "Rambo-style" flicks just because Stallone is in them. Admit it! You loved watching Stallone mow down thousands of soldiers when you were a kid! 😁

Fine, it's true. I love movies like Rambo and give hard. But honestly? Those older classics are miles better than most of what comes out today. Take Fast & Furious—that stuff is pure nonsense. The plot feels like it was scribbled by a seven-year-old, the characters are all hyperactive and try way too hard, and there's barely enough action to even call it an action movie. It's basically a kids' movie. I mean, sure, it's watchable if you have nothing else to do.
Chloe Patel36 Chloe Patel36 Member
12 messages
joined Apr 2007
#36 ·
redwalker6 said:I mean, it's true, I totally love movies like Rambo or Die Hard. But honestly, those classic Rambo-style flicks are just way better than most of the stuff coming out today. To me, Fast & Furious is just kind of nonsense, if I'm being real. The plot feels pretty weak, almost like it was written by some seven-year-old kid, and all the characters are just so hyper and try way too hard, plus there's barely enough actual action for you to even call it an action movie. It’s more like... I don't know, maybe just something for kids to watch? Though I guess it's okay for a mindless watch.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm getting at—you can't even compare Fast & Furious to those Stallonean classics, and don't even get me started on 🙏 give hard 😁
mellowtrucker44 mellowtrucker44 Member
16 messages
joined Jun 2007
#37 ·
That’s honestly what I love about it, Rambo—that whole One man Army vibe... I just want to see Rambo mowing down hundreds of soldiers, taking out a helicopter with nothing but a bow and arrow (if I were the screenwriter, I’d have him leap from a tree and tear that chopper apart with his bare hands!), and don't even get me started on Rambo-style field medicine using gunpowder! It’s just sooo gooooood...🙏

And Commando is absolutely legendary too. That scene where he’s getting geared up on the beach is easily one of the greatest cinematic moments ever made... plus, how does he never run out of ammo? Even grenades barely touch him, they just leave a little scratch...👍

You must log in or register to reply here.

Log in Register

🔗 Similar threads