How about:
Standing Tall
Welcome to the Jungle
Scorpion King
Gladiator
Predator
Commando
Hulk
Batman Begins
Mortal Combat
Fight Club
Spartacus
Omar Mukhtar
Van Helsing
X Men (I and II)
Final Death
Die Hard ( I)
Quick and the Dead
This whole thread is pretty bizarre.
However, if you simply want to watch a movie that has the largest collection of big, powerful looking dudes in it, look no further than the recent remake of the “Longest Yard”.
Road Trip
[quote]Professor X wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Pitch Black
The only Vin Diesel flick worth watching.
Bullshit.
Let’s just forget:
Boiler Room
Saving Private Ryan
and even Chronicles of Riddick
You sound like someone who watched Fast and the Furious and based your judgement of his entire skill at acting on it.
The Boiler Room is possibly one of my favorites. It is the only movie I can tolerate Ben Affleck in.[/quote]
I might sound like someone who rushed to judgment, but I am not. Let’s do the list. I’ll only include the movies I’ve seen.
The Pacifier (2005)
Kid’s movie. I’m not the target audience, and neither is anybody here without a kid.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
I was really disappointed. It was not Vin’s fault. It is the writer/director.
A Man Apart (2003)
Generic cop movie.
xXx (2002)
Started out good, went downhill.
Knockaround Guys (2001)
Good movie. But it’s Barry Pepper’s movie. Vin’s just a co-star.
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
Not my kind of movie.
Pitch Black (2000)
Loved it.
Boiler Room (2000)
Great movie, but it’s Giovanni Ribisi’s movie, Vin’s just a member of the cast.
The Iron Giant (1999)
Do cartoons count?
Saving Private Ryan
Great movie, but Vin’s just a member of the cast.
So when I say “The only Vin Diesel flick worth watching.” I mean only movie starring Vin Diesel worth watching.
300!!!
and
Terminator II.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OneDay wrote:
I’ve always been a fan of the Rocky movies. I enjoy comparing the likes of Stallone who doesn’t look all that impressive to me until like Rocky 3 and 4, with the like of Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed) who actually played professional football. You can truly see the difference between someone who just kinda screws around in the gym (Stallone) versus someone who works for a living (Weathers)…
Just my 2 cents…
That would be genetics. I seriously doubt Stallone just “screws around in the gym”. You don’t look like that at SIXTY by just screwing around. Carl Weathers just has better genetics for bodybuilding as far as esthetics. I doubt anyone would argue against that. [/quote]
Right, you look like that at 60 by using steroids
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/12/stallone.australia.ap/index.html
[quote]jcv423 wrote:
Right, you look like that at 60 by using steroids
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/12/stallone.australia.ap/index.html
[/quote]
Yeeeeeeeeees, those steroids really do all the hard work for you, you know?
4 Brothers, Wahlberg has some good size on him.
Saw II, I forget the dudes name. Hes a bodybuilder though.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
OneDay wrote:
I’ve always been a fan of the Rocky movies. I enjoy comparing the likes of Stallone who doesn’t look all that impressive to me until like Rocky 3 and 4, with the like of Carl Weathers (Apollo Creed) who actually played professional football. You can truly see the difference between someone who just kinda screws around in the gym (Stallone) versus someone who works for a living (Weathers)…
Just my 2 cents…
That would be genetics. I seriously doubt Stallone just “screws around in the gym”. You don’t look like that at SIXTY by just screwing around. Carl Weathers just has better genetics for bodybuilding as far as esthetics. I doubt anyone would argue against that. [/quote]
I thought about this issue many times in the past.
I think weathers worked out in a normal bodybuilding style…working each muscle group as hard as possibly…with a calorie surplus…carl looks much more like a bodybuiler…(throw a suit on carl and he looks BIG)
I think stallone trained just as hard but I think he overemphasized certain body parts and deemphasized
others…while keeping a calorie deficit diet…sly looks more like a lean athlete rather than a bodybuilder…I think due to his strict dieting…especially during the rocky 3, rambo 2, rocky 4 era…(throw a suit on sly during those times, he appeared thin)
[quote]sugarfree wrote:
Professor X wrote:
sugarfree wrote:
Pitch Black
The only Vin Diesel flick worth watching.
Bullshit.
Let’s just forget:
Boiler Room
Saving Private Ryan
and even Chronicles of Riddick
You sound like someone who watched Fast and the Furious and based your judgement of his entire skill at acting on it.
The Boiler Room is possibly one of my favorites. It is the only movie I can tolerate Ben Affleck in.
I might sound like someone who rushed to judgment, but I am not. Let’s do the list. I’ll only include the movies I’ve seen.
The Pacifier (2005)
Kid’s movie. I’m not the target audience, and neither is anybody here without a kid.
The Chronicles of Riddick (2004)
I was really disappointed. It was not Vin’s fault. It is the writer/director.
A Man Apart (2003)
Generic cop movie.
xXx (2002)
Started out good, went downhill.
Knockaround Guys (2001)
Good movie. But it’s Barry Pepper’s movie. Vin’s just a co-star.
The Fast and the Furious (2001)
Not my kind of movie.
Pitch Black (2000)
Loved it.
Boiler Room (2000)
Great movie, but it’s Giovanni Ribisi’s movie, Vin’s just a member of the cast.
The Iron Giant (1999)
Do cartoons count?
Saving Private Ryan
Great movie, but Vin’s just a member of the cast.
So when I say “The only Vin Diesel flick worth watching.” I mean only movie starring Vin Diesel worth watching.[/quote]
Decent come back, but I think you need to get the Director’s cut of Chronicles of Riddick. The extra scenes should have never been deleted. They explained who The Furians really are/were and why he is so important. They cut all of that out because they felt it would make the story too complicated. It needed “complicated”.
I’m not staying Stallone didn’t get into shape and train hard for his roles. I’m just saying that if you look at the differences in physiques of weathers and stallone it’s like comparing apples to oranges. And I don’t really think it’s genetics.
Weathers was an athlete, stallone was a bodybuilder. Take a look at Rocky 3 sometime, specifically the scenes of Rocky and Apollo running on the beach. Stallone runs kind all over the place and sloppy. Weathers runs with perfect technique, every muscle moving efficiently and with a purpose.
All I meant was comparing an athlete to a bodybuilder. sheesh…
[quote]OneDay wrote:
I’m not staying Stallone didn’t get into shape and train hard for his roles. I’m just saying that if you look at the differences in physiques of weathers and stallone it’s like comparing apples to oranges. And I don’t really think it’s genetics.
Weathers was an athlete, stallone was a bodybuilder. Take a look at Rocky 3 sometime, specifically the scenes of Rocky and Apollo running on the beach. Stallone runs kind all over the place and sloppy. Weathers runs with perfect technique, every muscle moving efficiently and with a purpose.
All I meant was comparing an athlete to a bodybuilder. sheesh…[/quote]
They are both “bodybuilders”. That was the point made to you. Genetics are what makes the difference.
[quote]WeaponXXX wrote:
carl weathers has just better genetics. after all he is black. we all know black people have better genetics when it comes to sports.
[/quote]
Really? You do know that’s a load of horse dung, an unsupportable myth originally used to justify not teaching Blacks to read, but I digress…Carl’s genetics ain’t holdin’ up too good as of late, he’s chunked up a bit…
It wasn’t a muscle movie, but it was 100% bad ass.
The Professional.
Not even in the same league, but a testosterone movie with some actual muscle in it, The Big Hit.
[quote]rsg wrote:
jcv423 wrote:
Right, you look like that at 60 by using steroids
Yeeeeeeeeees, those steroids really do all the hard work for you, you know?[/quote]
…and for the record, Jintropin HGH ain’t a steroid, Einstien…
DC Cab- It had the Barbarians AND Mr. T.
Red Sonja
Conan the Barbarian
Conan the Destroyer
Hercules- w/ Steve Reeves
[quote]Weathers was an athlete, stallone was a bodybuilder. Take a look at Rocky 3 sometime, specifically the scenes of Rocky and Apollo running on the beach. Stallone runs kind all over the place and sloppy. Weathers runs with perfect technique, every muscle moving efficiently and with a purpose. [quote]
Not to detract from the OP’s thread, but could you not say that Stallone was “acting”? I know that may be a difficult concept to grasp but from what I remember, he was supposed to be heavy on his feet and lacking the “rhythm” of Apollo.
When I was younger, I always watched No Retreat, No Surrender whenever I didn’t feel like training. Not a “muscle movie” by any stretch of the imagination, but it got me off my ass.
Wesley snipes in the Blade movies - Blade 1 and 3 were great.
The Program - Lattimer is a beast!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
They are both “bodybuilders”. That was the point made to you. Genetics are what makes the difference.[/quote]
I agree with PX, Weathers actually trained at Vince Gironda’s gym for a while and you don’t get more “bodybuilder” than that since Vince really emphasised aesthetic-type training over athletic and strength training.
Just look at Carl W’s head size and bone structure. It’s easy to see that his skeletal frame is build to hold on a lot of mass (kinda like Vic Richards and former KC Chiefs Christian Okoye), while Stallone has a more “narrow/small” structure which isn’t designed to hold a lot of structural mass.