Admittedly, action films are on the lower half of my preferred film genres. Nevertheless, if there’s one that comes along and blows my innocent mind, I’ll be fist-pumping like a drunk frat boy at an O-week beer pong tourney. Although action is not my forte, I can be pretty unforgiving towards lazy efforts.
Being a self-indulgent film geek with one-too-many opinions, I feel I’m justified in my freakishly specific tastes. Being a self-indulgent movie blogger, it’s imperative that I try to convince others (i.e. you, fine reader) of my view.
Try to have: Creativity
As hard as it may be to believe, bullets, fists and explosions do not make an action film. I’m sorry, but it’s true. They are merely tools that a director can use to make an exciting set piece. Unfortunately, a lot of directors do not bother to experiment with the tools they’re given, often falling back on the safe, generic option.
It’s very much like cooking: just because you own a set of blades, a George Forman and a tacky man-apron does not mean you can cook shit. Sure, you might be able to grill an edible steak, but that doesn’t mean it has flavour or that it’s worth eating.
The same applies to action sequences: blandness is not worth watching. An example I just cannot avoid is The Expendables. The majority of the set pieces were nothing more than montages of overused gunfire, earth-shattering kabooms and suplexes. With nothing interesting connecting them, how am I meant to be interested in it?
The films worth watching are the ones that either try to stretch the filmmaking boundaries or go in imaginative directions. In both cases, they’re presenting sequences that we never/hardly ever see in other films.
I’m an absolute sucker for one-shot scenes (hence the Hanna clip). To me, they’re boundary pushers, ones that only skilled, confident, creative visionaries would attempt for action sequences. Other examples include Old Boy (hallway fight scene) and Children of Men (take your pick).
Avoid: An edited mess
It’s one thing to string a bunch of generic action elements to present the illusion of kick-ass creativity, but it’s a far greater offence to chop up an already incoherent scene of violence in a piss-poor attempt to hide your inability to entertain an audience.
I want to actually see shit. I want to be able to comprehend what is going on so I’ll be able to tell my buddy “Hey, wasn’t it great when that (x) ripped that (y)’s (z) off with its (₪)!? I’m so glad I comprehended that!”
And this is the sole reason why Transformers: Dark of the Moon is superior to Revenge of the Fallen. Do not get me wrong, I find both films as tolerable as a Fox News editorial, but at least the 3rd film had some creative set pieces that actually inspired awe (and that I could actually follow). Granted, you had to dig through two hours of shit to find that half-hour gold nugget at the end, but at least you weren’t caught in a blaze of frantic editing and blurry shaky cam work ala Transformers the 2nd.
Try to have: Personality
http://youtu.be/uqzNYlYCz-Q
I don’t mean to sound like an overly sensitive blind date (even though I totes am), but please give your protagonists some personality. Just a little will do me. If you can create a pretty ballet of bullets, that’s great, more power to ya. But given that I’m watching a movie, I’m forced to follow at least one lead character.
They are essentially my tour guide through the glorious chaos presented on screen. If I’m with this dude(s)/gal(s), I don’t want to be bored or irritated by them. I don’t have to love ’em or be emotionally invested in their plight either. I simply want to like them, and there are numerous avenues to getting there.
Camaraderie is a very effective method, exclusive to more than one character. The ’80s saw a hefty wave of buddy-cop films that relied on the banter of its chosen leads (48 Hours, Lethal Weapon). That interaction often eclipses any action set piece within that film, and it’s perfectly OK to do that. One thing is certain: a movie that generates an entertaining camaraderie trumps a film that attempts one but fails to make it feel organic or interesting. To me, this is what made The A-team superior to The Expendables.
Another trickier method is in making a sympathetic lead character. It takes more than a well-written character to make it a success; it takes the right actor. This is what made Taken such a hit, turning Liam Neeson into a total badass.
Avoid: Simple testosterone
Grouping things that are socially identifiable as being masculine does not equate to personality. In fact, I’m pretty sure a distinct lack of personality is interpreted as being more masculine.
So, you’re a lone wolf space-marine who goes by the name of Phoenix Brolin? Good for you. I don’t care.
You’re a ‘roid-using, cigar-chomping, right-winged marine who is the last of his platoon who abandoned his name in Vietnam? So what?
Those are characters without any real character. Following them around for 90+ minutes is like being stuck on an island with a massive rock with a frowny face drawn on it.
Only exception: when testosterone is overblown to the point of hilarity; an unaware parody of itself. I like to call this The Commando Exception.
Try to have: Pacing
Failing everything else, at least make sure the pacing is bearable. If this means cutting your story down to the bone, do it. Simplicity can save an action film. I cannot emphasise this enough.
I’ma ’bout to drop an A-bomb of an opinion: deep, intellectual plots are not necessary in an action film. Often I hear people saying “It had hardly any plot” as if it’s a legitimate criticism against action films. Then there are the brave and the bold who go all-out, stating that a film has no plot at all.
Let me just pull over to the side and clarify what it means for a movie to have no plot. A plotless film is one devoid of an objective, purpose or goal. Unless you’re delving into the worst of avant garde filmmaking, there’s shit-all films that have “no plot.” So for those that criticised Tron: Legacy, Hanna and Crank for failing to have a plot, please correct yourselves.
Back to the point: a simple plot can serve so very well to an action film’s pacing. The story arcs could be stupid as hell, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll take away from the entertainment factor. Going back to Commando, it had a simple premise: ex-army dude’s daughter is kidnapped, ex-army dude grabs a gun and minces through the scumbags holding her hostage. That’s it. That’s all you need.
The movie doesn’t fill you in on John Matrix’s back story ’cause it knows we don’t care. Running at 90 minutes long, boredom is deemed an impossibility, and despite being completely implausible, laughably absurd and terribly pubescent, I have great respect for the film as an action film simply for getting the pacing right.
Avoid: Being boring
Plot holes, continuity errors, atrocious acting, horrible dialog: in many instances, these cinematic downfalls can be forgiven in an action film. The one thing that can NEVER be forgiven is boredom-inducing dullness. The sole purpose of an action film is to entertain you. When we are not entertained, we are bored.
There is more than one method to achieving this type of devilish debauchery. Sometimes a movie will overload the running time with uninteresting action sequences with little to no pause (Battle: Los Angeles). On the flipside, too much time is spent on a needlessly stupid and convoluted plot (Sucker Punch, Transformers 2 & 3). If your story lacks focus, then the audience will lack focus. There is no shame in telling a simple, straightforward story in an action film as long as it has some sort of focus.
To make an action film that isn’t entertaining is to make a product that doesn’t work. It’s not enough to call it a bad movie; it’s a rip-off, and I despise being ripped-off.
Perhaps my guidelines are too broad. Perhaps they’re too stringent. Perhaps I’m right on the money. Maybe not. Can you contradict me?
