I agree Reeves is an actor of limited range, but he is a great action movie star, so I would defend him in Speed, The Matrix, John Wick, Point Break, and so on, on those grounds.

Yes, Predator is too sci-fi, but it is a cracking film. I recently saw it again at a cinema rerelease. I'd never seen it on the big screen before and it certainly improves the film. I was particularly pleased at how much more claustrophobic the jungle feels in that immersive environment.

Leaving action films aside for a moment, regarding Matt Damon, I offer the following rebuke: The Talented Mr Ripley. It features a truly astonishing central performance from Damon. He's a far better actor than you give him credit for.

To your point about CGI, yes, it is becoming a real problem but not necessarily because I always oppose CGI. Certain films could not be made without it. However, I've noticed a sharp decline in CGI quality over the last few years, as more and more films become lazily dependant on it and overworked VFX houses that desperately need to unionise struggle to keep up ("We'll fix it in post" is a common remark on film sets, much to the chagrin of my friends working in editing and VFX).

CGI should be a last resort in most cases, used when a shot cannot be done any other way. There are good examples of CGI in film - Gollum in The Lord of the Rings, for instance. Or dinosaurs in Jurassic Park (again, Spielberg used animatronics for many of the closer shots, resorting to CGI only in wide angles where the shot would have otherwise been impossible). But regarding action thrillers, directors like Christopher Nolan and Christopher McQuarrie (what is it with directors called Christopher?) are proving old school stunt work is best, with CGI deployed purely for wire removal or other minor augmentations.

I might write an article on CGI soon. You've inspired me. :)