I'm a very lucky chap for many reasons, but the important one for the purposes of this post is that my girlfriend is a big geek. She loves comics, sci fi, fantasy and everything in between. As such we have a great deal in common and tend to have similar opinions on the films that we watch. That is with one big exception: action movies.
If she tells me that a film is really good and well worth watching I'll almost always do so. However, I've made it clear to her that if she recommends an action movie to me then I'll almost certainly avoid it like the plague. To give you some examples, in the last year she has lauded The Losers, GI Joe and RED. After seeing the first two in that list I point blank refused to watch the third despite her ongoing attempts to change my mind.
Now as much as I like the idea of just using this post to shame my girlfriend, I'm actually getting on to a bigger point. I have started to ask myself what actually makes a good action film. Well, what makes an action film that I like anyway.
Explosions and heavy weaponry is probably a good place to start. A good bit of slow motion and, if you're a John Woo fan such as myself, someone flying through the air firing two pistols at once while a couple of doves flap around nearby. However, most action movies provide this sort of thing, making them more prerequisites than signs of quality (except the doves of course...).
If I think back to the big action movies that I grew up with in the 80s, I'd say my favourites by quite a distance are Die Hard and Leathal Weapon.
With Die Hard you have the brilliance of Alan Rickman as one of the best movie villains of all time, which is almost enough to give Die Hard the title alone. However, what gives it the extra edge is the superb wise-cracking Bruce Willis. John McClane is a fallible, unlikely action hero and, unlike Swarchenegger or Stallone at the time, he could get hurt. He felt like a regular guy in an extraordinary situation that really brought the audience in.
Then you have the true genius of McClane. His sense of humour. His glib remarks didn't cause eyes to roll like Arnie did, they made you laugh out loud. That, of course, is also why Lethal Weapon is also at the top of my list. Gibson and Glover play off each other perfectly every step of the way, creating my favourite buddy cop duo of all time. In fact if I'm comparing the two, Lethal Weapon just scrapes it for me because the first sequel was actually really good. Certainly superior to Die Harder at least.
So it's fair to say that the right amount of comedy is something I look for in an action movie, whether it's in the form of quick wit or just a sense that no one is taking things too seriously.
However, that doesn't explain my John Woo love as his movies don't really do comedy. Of course they are usually extremely well made, quite well written and superbly directed, which goes a long way.
I suppose that leads me to conclude that the prerequisites just aren't enough for me. If an action film is going to get my approval it needs to bring something more than a reliance on special effects, explosions and a ropey script.
Sorry my dear, you can tell me GI Joe is fun as much as you like but I'm off to watch Riggs and Murtagh take down the bad guys.
Posts
2 comments:
The way action scenes win me over is for me to become involved, either by (a) befriending the main character, a la john mclain, or alternatively being swept into the scene such as feeling part of the charge of the rohirrim
For the first part (a), as you say, you need a hook for the title role, someone who's either genuinely funny, or is a broken enough character to keep you fascinated as to how they move through the scenes, and when the breakdowns are gonna come.
For the second, you need a real sense of do or die.
You always need a switch. That thing that flips in the protagonist and makes them lose it in an exciting fashion, that's the rush of blood the viewer is craving. to be brought along for the journey as optimus prime goes down in a blaze of glory, nero realises he's the one, boromir's last stand, wolverine going postal at the school in x2, happy gilmore fighting bob barker, hit girl rescuing dig daddy and kick ass..
the problems with most action films these days is they read like a jack reacher novel. guy who's good with a gun, gets into gun fight with other people with guns, good guys wins.
there's sadly very seldom anything in between, people don't move around a huge amount, they just get a bigger gun to blow the others up. there's sod all emotion or reason to the fights, other than 'that guys a baddie and i must stop him'
I think the problem that you have is that you're comparing apples and oranges. Is GI Joe or The Losers or Red (or indeed The Expendables, The A Team remake or anything like that) the same as Lethal Weapon or Die Hard? Of course not. But it's easy to look back at the halcyon days of eighties action movies like that only remembering the good stuff - are they are good as Commando or Road House or Beverley Hills Cop or The Running Man? Yeah, probably.
Maybe we just need to divide things up into several film genres - maybe popcorn action vs action thriller, with The Losers and GI Joe (and Battle LA, another favourite of my mine recently, and Transformers) coming in as popcorn action, while action thrillers are more things like Taken and more weighty films with less disposable plots/characters.
Frothy fun films can be just that - not everything will have the staying power of Die Hard but that doesn't negate them as worth seeing.
Although as a side point when you compare the original to Die Hard 4 you can see how the need for all films to be PG13/12A has sanitised things across the board - even John Maclain isn't safe from the moneymen keen to maximise their potential market...
Post a Comment