The following is a blog (of sorts) where I discuss movie-related and site-related thoughts that I can't express within the confines of a normal review. Some of them may be responses to e-mail I've received, trailers I've seen, or just an overall theme not specific to a movie. Most of these writings are meant strictly for me, but I do consider them of potential interest to those of you that love movies or are just interested in the running of the site in general. I welcome any feedback you might have on any of the subjects listed in this (or any other) section of my site.
4/30/2007 -- Today's action movies: I wasn't porn yesterday
Believe it or not, contrary to what you might see in my other Quips, I actually do get more positive feedback than negative. However, the negative comments inspire me more to write than the complimentary letters, even though the compliments provide the fuel for my drive to keep the site running. However, once in a while, I will get a positive comment that also inspires thought and reflection, as evidenced from a reader named Abe. Here is the letter, which I will follow with my thoughts:
Hi there, Qwipster,
Say, I recently discovered your site and I've enjoyed reading your reviews. I don't always agree, but I do find that you make extremely persuasive arguments for your perspective. Thank you for the obvious effort you put into your reviews. They're--one and all--very thorough, persuasive (as I mentioned before), and insightful.
I just read your review of Hot Fuzz. It seems to me, based on the review, that you don't like action movies. Do you--as a general rule--dislike them, and, if not, any come to mind that stand out as examples of intelligent and worthwhile action films? What do you think is done wrong in the action films of today? Granted, too often there's an explicit over-reliance on one over-the-top action scene after another--such films leave me bored rather than exhilarated; Such films also end up being their worst enemy as they struggle to one-up themselves for two hours.
I find myself pondering what makes an action film great. Why are some so exhilarating and worthwhile, and others so banal and forgettable?
If you'd share your thoughts with me on this topic I'd appreciate it very much. As a screenwriter, I strive to craft stories which are fresh and genuine. Which is why I'm pondering what makes the rare great action films so great.
Thanks again for your excellent reviews!
Regards,
AbeI guess I should state up front that I don't dislike any particular genre of movie, as I love movies, period. There are some genres that tend to produce a great deal of inferior examples though -- most horror films are pretty bad, and I guess I tend to be a bit negative on action films as well. In the case of action flicks, I think that it's generally true that these films aren't trying to challenge your intellect or pull on your heart strings. Rather, they intend to be an exhilarating experience though a strong visceral style, tight editing, and in many cases, plenty of supercharged scenes of violence and explosions.
One of the comments I read quite often on movie forums posted by people who generally despise critics is that we (I guess I'll include myself here) often don't understand what the purpose of a movie is. People don't go to action movies for character development, great performances, or heartfelt dialogue, these people say. Action movies are for action -- audiences go to these films in order to see explosions, 20 car pile-ups, and as much carnage as you can cram into 120 minutes.
While I can understand these arguments, I don't necessarily agree. It's not that I don't think people are entertained by violence, even completely mindless violence, but I do think that action films are often made better when you do build up the characters, put in great actors, and can inject the dialogue with a bit of creativity. However, there has been a trend since the advent of realistic CGI in live-action films where the sky is the limit when it comes to depictions of violence, car crashes, explosions, and even humans engaged in fights are often completely CGI. Mostly gone are the days when the plot and story came first and then action scenes are injected into it -- today's action films put the action sequences first, and then build the plot around it. The scenes of dialogue and plot are merely a means to get from one action scene to another. In other words, many action films today are nothing other than porn.
By porn, I don't mean to suggest that these films are obscene or appealing to sexual desires. What I mean to say is that, if one were to compare the two genres, porn and today's action flicks, they are constructed in very similar fashions. Both genres don't go for the best actors, they go for the most visually appealing. Both tend to minimalize story and characterizations in favor of prolonged action scenes (sex in one case, violence in the other). Both are full of tight edits, different angles, and explosive money shots. In both cases, these scenes aren't really necessary from a story standpoint, merely injected because they are pleasing to the eye, and the baser human instincts (not inferior, just more primal) that suggest sex and violence are stimulating, titillating, and intoxicating. In essence, they are built on the notion of exciting the senses.
It would be ridiculous for a film critic to condemn a porn film (if we were to review them) because it features bad actors, a boring plot, or skimpy character development. In this case, people would think that we are missing the point of a porn film -- no one cares about character or plot -- they just want steamy sex! This is my point about today's action films exactly -- when people criticize critics because we are foolishly asking for better storytelling or talent on display, obviously not understanding the nature of the film, then it's not much of a stretch to say we aren't watching stories anymore, we're watching a porno flick.
I don't dislike action movies. I love action films when they are done well. I guess the question is what I consider to be a well-done action film. There will be exceptions, but here is what I generally feel. A good action film is built on a central plot that injects action sequences when needed; a bad action film is built on the action scenes, injecting plot when needed. A well-made action film is one in which we are rooted in the outcome of the action scenes, whether because we care about the characters or because it provides a narrative fulfillment whereby the omission of these scenes would weaken the story as a whole. A poorly-made action film is one in which we don't care who wins or loses, who lives or dies, and where these scenes could be omitted and it would make no difference to the story at all.
Here are the films I consider to be good action flicks, though I should tell you I will be omitting quite a few, so don't take this as comprehensive: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars, The Terminator (and Terminator 2), The Matrix, Aliens, The Wild Bunch, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard. When Ripley prevails against the Alien Queen, when Sarah Conner smashes the Terminator, when Riggs exacts revenge on the captors of Murtaugh and his daughter, it makes me feel exhilaration -- so excited I want to cheer from my seat, even if I were alone. I should point out that I am excited that the characters I care about ultimately prevail in the conflict, not just because I am witnessing lots of blood, carnage, or explosions.
I suppose that one could say that these are older films, or not quite pure action films, which may or may not have merit, depending on the movie. So, here is the list of action films I enjoyed in 2006 & 2007 (so far): Casino Royale, Deja Vu, The Departed, Fearless, Grindhouse, The Host, Inside Man, Miami Vice, Mission: Impossible III, Superman Returns, and X-Men: The Last Stand.
Perhaps not all of these are purist action films, but all do have considerable amounts of action scenes. In each case, I didn't merely enjoy the action for the action's sake. I actually liked each film on a conceptual, intellectual, or emotional level above and beyond the mere shootouts, car crashes, or CGI eye-candy. Not all of the recent films are lauded universally, but they worked well enough for me, and when I'm in the mood for action, I'm sure they'll get another spin in my DVD player.
When I watch recent films like 300, Ghost Rider, Pirates of the Caribbean 2, Snakes on a Plane, Waist Deep, DOA, Smokin Aces,, Ultraviolet, or The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, I don't feel like they involve me as much as the aforementioned films. I don't think the makers of these films care whether they involve audiences, and I don't think the lovers of these films do either -- they are completely titillated by the sight of explosions, the sounds of car crashes, the visual stimuli of a world rendered completely in state-of-the-art CGI. I can see that these all contain slick editing, good special effects, explosive action, and a strong visceral component. Yet, these are also movies where the films didn't reel me in sufficiently to the characters to the point where I cared about their plights, and when I witnessed scenes of them in action, it really didn't matter to me what happened during the action from a story standpoint. I watched them and have been impressed by the special effects or interesting editing, and I'll give them personal credit for looking good visually. I still think they were not very good as movies, though.
My dislike for many of today's action films has nothing to do with how I feel about action films as a genre. It has everything to do with my disdain for action films that adhere to the narrative format of your average porno -- stimulating your eyes and ears, not once registering a thoughtful blip on the organ that lies between them.
©2007 Vince Leo
