@DRDMovieMusings said:

@HarrySkywalker said:

@rooprect said:

@HarrySkywalker said:

In what planet isn The Rock a "stupid movie"?

Some people are so insecure that love to call everything "stupid".

Referring to a movie using any adjective isn't insecure.

Lashing out and trying to insult people for having a different opinion than you.... Doesn't exactly project self confidence now does it?

Clearly YOU are extremely insecure.

Yes, insecure people like you call "stupid" to every movie that has action there.

It's like you want to sound intelectual or superior to others.

I think you misread a few posts, mate.

I don't see where anyone called The Rock "stupid."

Rooprect wrote that Con Air "gave us what we want. Out and out stupid" and I think we can recognize this as slang/colloquial for "crazy silly fun", you know, "stoopid" as in "get stoopid, outrageous."

Yeah, that's true. I misread it.

I'm just sick of people when call movies stupid for no reason.

@DRDMovieMusings said:

@JustinJackFlash said:

Both crazy, high octane, Jerry Bruckheimer actioners. I went mental for these back in my teenage years.

Which do you prefer?

Wow, great question!

At first, I thought this was a no-brainer for The Rock...but as I reflected on Con Air, I realized, not so fast, there's more going on in Con Air than just explosions and John Malkovich being John Malkovich. While Con Air has tons of that campy fun that reminds me of Arnie's Total Recall, CA has a similar theme to The Hunt for Red October — John Cusack plays the role that Alec Baldwin played, trying to better understand the key dude who is not as evil as "they" made him out to be, in a race against time. That said, CA's set up that gets Cage's character into trouble seems, clumsily contrived.

Of course, the ambition of The Rock has been explored — I am among those who are convinced it really actually is a James Bond film (!). Thus, it, too, is much more than just a bit explosive action movie even though there are moments when it seems not as serious as it should be.

If I could, I'd be happy to embrace them both; if I had to choose, I'd give the edge, be it ever so slight, to The Rock.

You?

Yes, I remember you posting that video on Connery's character actually being Bond before, it was fascinating stuff.

It's The Rock for me. Not only for it's great action, but it was also possibly the film that started the trend of casting proper actors in action films while also giving a bit more depth and moral greyness to proceedings. Ed Harris' bad guy is a very conflicted character who does what he does with good intentions and (spoiler warning) doesn't actually have the guts to go through with his threats in the end, turning on the other bad guys. He displays genuine remorse at killing people, especially during Michael Biehn's Seal team massacre.

I find it interesting how Michael Bay is so often dismissed as the stupidest director around (and I know he does do things that don't exactly help his cause sometimes) yet it was The Rock that initially sent action cinema in a more elevated direction in the first place.

I do love Con Air too, it's a lot of fun, but it's action all feels squeezed towards the end, The Rock spreads it out while it's longer running time makes it feel more epic. I also prefer The Rock for the opposite reason Rooprect said. Con Air concentrates more on it's crazy, outrageous elements, while The Rock has more variety. And I prefer that variety.