Let’s stop the Sly slagging please

I have to agree there. His acting style isnt perfect, but its human. In his best work, we can relate to him on every human level. The fact that he made rocky is enough to make him a ledgend even if he made crap for the rest of is life (though he didnt).

Why cant i hold the man in high regards for one film? If Michaelangelo's sistine chapel was his only famous work and everything else he did was considered crap, would you still call him an artist? I would. Most of Orson Welle's work in the cinematic field isnt held in nearly as high esteem as Kane, and many of them remain disliked, but his is called one of the greatest of all filmakers. I'm not comparing Stallone to Michelangelo or Welles though, I'm merely saying that if someone makes a wonderful, brilliant piece of art, that has touched people for many, many years, even if his other work is so-so, he should still be considered an artist for making a truley remarkable film (Rocky) that represents a high point in seventies filmaking, American filmaking, and maybe even filmaking in general.

But the funny thing is, even in the other rocky fillms, i was still rooting for him as Rocky. That takes skill. And first blood is an action film with a message, which seems very artistic too me. I feel the only reason he makes sequels is because 1: Rocky and Rambo still remain loveable and even though bad films can be made with them, there is still great story potential with those characters (the most recent rocky film received good reviews and proved that too a certain extent), and 2: Stallone grew up with little education in a bad neighborhood with little support, so its understandable that all his films are gritty, violent, and down to earth (at least his action films dont feel polished, but have a certain grittiness to them, which seems like an artistic choice to me).  In his case though, Rocky proves Stallone is an artist, just not a remakable one. But you can see the craftsmanship he put into first blood and rocky (the script he made with the very last dime he had, he was very poor at the time), and i feel that only an artist could do something like Rocky on a first try (Rocky was his first stint at moviemaking ever, other than a very short career as a porn actor). Rocky and First Blood has true emtion, and Rocky especially, emotions that could only come about through the work of an artist. Something that moved the world as deeply as Rocky had to have come from an artist, not a money hungry entertainer. We could go on though. You have valid points, and i hope mine seem valid as well

If rooting for the underdog is human nature, then how come most films that followed after Rocky were never as well recevied? In fact, most people hate films like that now, with the exception of Mickey Rourke in the wrestler. Yet people still love Rocky. So your theory on that is wrong. You almost sound like a hollywood producer, saying certain things naturally attract people no matter how it is handled. That quite insulting of you. Also, you left out the fact that Rocky six received good reviews, and (spoiler alert) Rocky loses! That wasnt predictable. All the punches taken in the  Rocky films were also actual punches, since Stallone wanted the fights to look as releastic as possible (the villain in Rocky 6 was actually played by a real proffesional boxer, although using the word villain seems a wrong word choice, as Rocky's opponent comes off as a nice guy with admiration for Rocky. That too, is not typical). If taking real punches to show the brutality of boxing isn't suffering for your art, then I don't know what is. I mean seriously, you think a money grubbing entertainer would take real punches to make a boxing match look dirty and realistic? I doubt it. You also make the word one trick pony seem like an insult to certain actors who play certain roles their entire lives. Leslie Neilsen of the airplane and naked gun films is a good example. He always plays the serious looking moron in the most comical events imaginable. But that dosnt make him any less of an artist (if you think he isnt one, then i guess your ignroing the fact that comedy is an art form).

First off, only the foruth and the 5th rockys were truley horribly recived. Second, those punches were real and Stallone actually took them. It isnt some fabricated tale he made up, and I'm starting to wonder if you actually saw the film. But you don't have to take my word for it. This can be found on WIKI or IMBD:   According to the behind-the-scenes documentary portions of the film's DVD, there were slight continuity problems during the filming of the fight. This was said to have been due to the fact that real punches were thrown by both Stallone and Tarver, resulting in some swelling and nosebleeds earlier than scripted

1. Ah, yes, once again, the first film. The only good one in the entire series. 2. Okay, so Stallone didn't want to use a stunt double. That doesn't prove he's any better as an actor, it just proves he's willing to take one for the team.