Sylvester Stallone Thinks Modern Action Movies Have One Big Problem

In the past ten years or so, old-school action movies with regular and relatable heroes have been slowly dying. Younger audiences are no longer interested in guys like John Rambo and John McClane — they seemingly want flashy superheroes, unrealistically skilled hitmen, and supernaturally powerful protagonists. We're lucky that Tom Cruise is still relentless in being the last true action hero, delivering life-defying stunts in his 60s and bringing us such bangers as "Top Gun: Maverick" and the reinvigorated sequels of his beloved "Mission Impossible" franchise. But those are IP-driven films with monstrous budgets behind them (and a highly profitable nostalgia) rather than fresh and new concepts. The more modest, low and mid-budget action movies like Taylor Sheridan's "Hell or High Water" or Jason Statham's yearly macho flicks have become comparative rarities over time.

Yes, we still get the occasional action nirvana experience like George Miller's Mad Max films (the heart-pumping "Fury Road" and its spin-off prequel "Furiosa"), but today, it's mostly caped crusaders and super agents who rule the field. That, unsurprisingly, kind of pisses off Sylvester Stallone, who basically owned the genre (alongside his rival and friend Arnold Schwarzenegger) throughout the 1980s and early 1990s. And he has not shied away from expressing his frustrations about what the state of action cinema has become.

As much as Sly's recent action flicks feel outdated and downright laughable at times (some are straight-to-video monstrosities with dumb plots and subpar acting), there are many valid points in his thinking about the way he sees modern action films and how they've changed over the years. The overuse of CGI and comic book characters that become unrealistic and over-the-top action heroes strikes a particular chord for him. In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter in 2022, the actor didn't hold back and gave voice to his irritations:

"[Great action movies are] like buying a vintage watch. Originally it was $35, and now it's $35,000. Why? Because it's handmade. It wasn't over the top. It wasn't supernatural. It was something a unique human being could achieve. That's why I think "First Blood" is one of the first action films. I relied on body acting to tell the story. The character never talks, but you know exactly what's going on through the other characters. They're almost like narrators in his Greek tragedy. The guy never stops moving, and that's what I call an "action film." There's not one CGI shot. The audience goes: That is pretty special."

It's hard to argue with the "Tulsa King" star. These days, most action films are bombastic spectacles drowning in visual effects, providing a sort of fleeting entertainment value that dissipates the moment you leave the theater and likely forget within a week. That especially rings true for most Marvel and DC films, but even smaller-scaled and more original actioners like "Novocaine," "Love Hurts," or "Havoc" (which wasn't in theaters, but you know what I mean) have very little substance beyond the usual offerings. I, for one, would love to see a surge of those more old-school type action flicks (like Jeremy Saulnier's viscerally exciting "Rebel Ridge") that bring back a distinctive yet more grounded hero you can truly feel and root for. Perhaps it won't happen anytime soon, but I have hope — especially with the rise of Taylor Sheridan's shows that appeal to a large and older audience.