Do you think Sylvester Stallone's a talented filmmaker?

[jeffkjoe]

People make fun of this guy's intelligence b/c of the way he talks, but as a screenwriter, I think he's pretty damn talented.

Who else could squeeze 6 stories out of a guy named Rocky Balboa? The guy writes, the guy directs....

[uncle-frank]

hes a decent writer. i mean what do you expect, if someone has a career not everything is going to be great. everyones going to have those projects they wished they never did. but if you dont take chances than how do you know what works and what doesnt.

alot of people probly wrote rocky balboa off as soon as they seen the first trailer, but that movie was imo one of the best in the series.

after seeing balboa last year, i honestly think rambo 4 will be good

[Brent L]

I think he's a fine writer, director, and actor, albeit not very consistent. Sure, the guy has made more than a few bad decisions in his career, he had a few stumbles after his initial success especially, but overall he's fine at all three.

I'm really looking forward to Stalllone's Poe.

[kaze0]

I think he's very underrated and just hated on for his bad decisions.

[PopcornTreeCt]

He wrote Rocky so he has to be pretty good. I gained respect for him after watching the extras on Rocky Balboa he acknowledges how ridiculous the sequels were.

[BuddhaWake]

I think he definitely has talents as a writer and director.

[William Fuld]

No.

[mikelowry]

Not bad.

[Lastyear]

Never been a fan.I think he's a terrible actor.Plays every character exactly the same.And hard to look at too(male equivalent of Barbra Streisand).

[DeputyDave]

Yes.

[invisiblegt]

Rocky. Rambo. Cop Land.

I'm happy having him in the wood of Holly.

[Artman]

I'd say he's a serviceable writer and director... let's face it, he's not exceptional... but I get the feeling that he puts his heart and soul into those projects, so I give him credit there. As an actor he's cashed in more than a few times...but who wouldn't. A couple of good ol' American Icons does count for something...and not many actors can really boast that at the end of a career.

[Heat]

He's a very talanted filmmaker - Rocky proved that. As far as the rest of the Rocky movies and Rambo movies, they huge money makers. Can't really blame a guy for wanting to make a few hundred million. (complete guess on my part, I have no idea how much they actually netted)

[Charlie Goose]

He's hit or miss. Mostly miss.

[inri222]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y5AYB09XL._SS500_.jpg

[rennervision]

I like Sly. But I think what taints his reputation and makes him difficult to take seriously is the phase he went through in the mid-80s. He made some real crap back then - and a lot of times he was also the writer and director, so it would be very hard to excuse it and blame someone else.

My biggest annoyance during this "crap phase" was how he insisted every movie have a runtime of 90 minutes or less. That way, theaters could always have at least one more showing of his movie each day. That makes it kind of obvious that he wasn't really trying to make movies for the sake of art, or movies that even tried to be good for that matter. He wanted to make movies as lacking in plot and complicated storylines as humanly possible just to make money. (Example: An honest to goodness movie about arm wrestling!)

[Shannon Nutt]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41Y5AYB09XL._SS500_.jpg

I like this film. The story isn't great, but the direction by Stallone is actually pretty good.

Plus it has Finola Hughes. :drool:

[Dean Kousoulas]

Yes.

[SFranke]

My biggest annoyance during this "crap phase" was how he insisted every movie have a runtime of 90 minutes or less. That way, theaters could always have at least one more showing of his movie each day. That makes it kind of obvious that he wasn't really trying to make movies for the sake of art, or movies that even tried to be good for that matter. He wanted to make movies as lacking in plot and complicated storylines as humanly possible just to make money. (Example: An honest to goodness movie about arm wrestling!)

Please name an example where a longer run-time would benefit a Stallone film and not weigh it down with the unnecessary. Rocky III? Did we need more character development for Rocky, maybe with some long-shots of him sitting sullen in his mansion in the dark? No. 90 minutes is lean and says all that needs to be said, and his films are the better for it. If I were to fault Stallone for anything he did in the 80s, then I cite the AOR soundtrack to Rocky IV. However, ending the Cold War made up for it.

[ytrez]

I respect the man and his talent.

[j123vt_99]

Rocky. Rambo. Cop Land.

I'm happy having him in the wood of Holly.


Agreed.. Demolition Man, Cliffhanger even Judge Dredd... They may not be Oscar worthy, but they are a lot of fun to watch.

Actually listening to him do an interview with O&A and he sounds pretty intelligent. He was talking about the industry and some of the movies he did.

I think he just gets a bad rap

[stinkeye]

Talented, yes. He's intelligent and quite articulate when interviewed. Clearly his ego has led to many poor choices (which he has acknowledged), but he has had some artistic achievements as an actor and/or writer and/or director that can't be considered lucky: Rocky, Copland, Cliffhanger (yes, Cliffhanger). Even though a lot of his biggest hits may not be critical triumphs, some of them are well made films. Unfortunately most of these things have not aged well and lend themselves to parody, especially when his most well known work is from the 80's :
http://lexikon.freenet.de/images/de/thumb/6/64/Sylvester_Stallone_(1983)_2.jpg/180px-Sylvester_Stallone_(1983)_2.jpg