Is it me or do Action Movies seriously suck these days

Status
Not open for further replies.
PG13 pretty much killed action movies.

CGI blood is another. Wtf is that about? It still looks shit. Blood packs will always look better. But oh no, they look too realistic!

What a load of shit.

Hard R action movies with brutal violence and language died in the 80's.

Nobodies got the balls to do it anymore
 
My mate is dead against CGI, blindly so. Example:

After watching Casino Royale, he said that the CGI on the Aston Martin crash looked totally lame. Apart from the fact that the ruined a load of Astons flipping them for real.

He just assumed it was CGI, and therefore it just had to be lame right?

True, CG is so prevalent it can be tough telling when certain shots are actually practical. I didn't realize the truck flip in TDK shown in trailers was practical until I caught some behind the scenes spot right before the film came out. Just looks like the type of shot that would be CG.
 
True, CG is so prevalent it can be tough telling when certain shots are actually practical. I didn't realize the truck flip in TDK shown in trailers was practical until I caught some behind the scenes spot right before the film came out. Just looks like the type of shot that would be CG.
Yeah.

I just thought that the idea of "it's CGI, therefore it looks awful, regardless of whether it actually looks awful" was quite funny. The look on his face when I told him it was 100% real was pretty funny!

It's like, if you honestly thought it was CGI, then it must surely have looked unbelievably impressive no?
 
CGI can be done expertly and it does not need to cost a billion dollars. Just look at Elysium.

But it can also ruin a movie, like X-Men Origins Wolverine.
Which is exactly my point. I'm just getting tired of the "practical effects = good, cgi = bad" opinion that people tend to have. There are certain things being done with CGI today that wouldn't have been made better through practical effects. Some wouldn't even be possible. Pacific Rim and Avengers come to mind. I still marvel at how fucking amazing the armor in Ironman looks.

CGI is a tool. Is can be used with care and affection and give us things to marvel at and it can give us crap to laugh at. It's not inherently bad. And practical effects aren't inherently good.

My problem with CGI movies is when it's obvious the characters are behind green screens, looking like they just got out of make-up and not out of the world they're inhabiting. They often lack that tactile, lived in feel, which ruins immersion. It's too clean.

80s action movies never had that problem, actors were put through the ringer in mostly real world settings and situations.

edit: Even Peter Jackson slipped up a bit in this regard with the Hobbit. A lot of the characters looked like pristine action figures, and not real world characters inhabiting a fantasy world. It was actually a step down from the original trilogy.

Don't get me wrong, I don't LOVE all CGI. The biggest trend I hate today is CG blood. It's not even the fact that it looks fake, it's that the actors don't know it's there so they don't know to react to it. So it ends up floating through space.

But I don't think the point you brought up has anything to do with CGI. I think it's the state of hollywood and the desire for actors to look pretty for trailers and their fans. I don't see how CG affects the amount of make up they put on these people.
 
Dredd did even CGI blood right. It looked trippy as fuck during the slo-mo (as in the drug from the movie) scenes when it started floating out of the frame. One of the few films that I liked seeing in 3D.

Prf5qxI.jpg
 
I don't know what it is but man do action movies suck today.

I watched Die Hard months ago and Point Break a few days ago and nothing has come close to them in any action movie I have seen recently.

Die Hard is a classic (and I watch it every Christmas with the wife), but Point Break? :lol Bro, come on. I don't about your movie taste.

And yes, it's you. I've enjoyed plenty of action movies lately. But sure, the main "problem" with action movies today is the forced PG13 rating for a lot of them.


Or Hanna, or Shoot Em Up or even like Drive.

Don't watch heavily group market shit like Avengers.

Huh, as I think it's one of the few movies that do it well.

In most films it's just overly zoomed "what the hell is happening, I think I am going to throw up" kinda thing.

:)
 
Die Hard is a classic (and I watch it every Christmas with the wife), but Point Break? :lol Bro, come on. I don't about your movie taste.

And yes, it's you. I've enjoyed plenty of action movies lately. But sure, the main "problem" with action movies today is the forced PG13 rating for a lot of them.



:)

i tell people its my favourite christmas movie apart from gremlins and they look at me like im nuts
it is my fav christmas movie though lol
 
Skyfall
Warrior
Children of Men
Hanna
Revenge of the Warrior
Looper
Dredd
Taken
Undisputed 3

Some of these are not straight action movies, but more of a sub-genre - from the top of my head I can say that I liked these very much!

When it comes to mostly practical oldschool action movies though, there is plenty of 'good' stuff if you look at some Statham movies, the Fast series, some Rock movies and some of the work Stallone has done (I liked Bullet to the Head, Parker, Faster - even if they didn't set the world on fire) - it's just missing some very good or brilliant entries atm.

Regarding the shaky cam - I did a thread about that last year, maybe you'll find some action movies you didn't see yet in there.
 
The book Action Speaks Louder suggests that today's action movies aren't really action movies anymore due to too much CG and fanciful elements.

Worth a read.
 
we'll never get the 80s godlike movies back.

Commando, Police Story, First Blood 2, Missing in Action, American Ninja, Die Hard, Escape from NY, Streets of Fire, Raw Deal, Beverly Hills Cop, Robocop, Predator... that era is over.
 
Dredd did even CGI blood right. It looked trippy as fuck during the slo-mo (as in the drug from the movie) scenes when it started floating out of the frame. One of the few films that I liked seeing in 3D.

Prf5qxI.jpg

Man Dredd was an amazing lookin film. The slow mo gore was so gross and beautiful all at once. Really hope we get a sequel to it.

In regards to the OP, this is why I started drifting towards Asian films for my action fix. Can't stand the overuse of CG and quick cuts. There haven't been many memorable characters like John McClane either
 
"Utah! Get me two!" is the best line in any action movie.

Also if you love practical action set prices, check out The Good the Bad and the Weird.
 
"Utah! Get me two!" is the best line in any action movie.

Also if you love practical action set prices, check out The Good the Bad and the Weird.

Lol I saw Point Break for the first time Saturday morning in anticipation for seeing Point Break live. That line got the biggest pop by far. Amazing.
 
I miss the days of skinny Seagal. Whens the last time an action film had a guy breaking limbs and snapping necks.
Hard To Kill

we'll never get the 80s godlike movies back.

Commando, Police Story, First Blood 2, Missing in Action, American Ninja, Die Hard, Escape from NY, Streets of Fire, Raw Deal, Beverly Hills Cop, Robocop, Predator... that era is over.
I've seen every Schwarzenegger action film except this one.
 
I don't know what it is but man do action movies suck today.

I watched Die Hard months ago and Point Break a few days ago and nothing has come close to them in any action movie I have seen recently. This isn't me acting on nostalgia or anything since it was the first time I saw those movies. It's not just those movies either. I also saw Lock Out for the first time around the same time frame and that movie was also pretty good.

Sure you might get movies which have a lot of action in them but they miss out on the suspense, which to me, makes the big action moments and the characters that much better. Also, both mentioned films look like they were shot better than a lot of movies I see today. I watched them in HD (BluRay) and they hold up!

Also, Johnny Utah.

Has there ever been a more bad-ass name in film history?

Someone hasn't watched the Fast and Furious series
 
Someone hasn't watched the Fast and Furious series

I watched Fast 1, 3, 5 - didn't watch 6 though. Thought they were okay

Die Hard is a classic (and I watch it every Christmas with the wife), but Point Break? :lol Bro, come on. I don't about your movie taste.

Well Point Break was good because it worked well as a dumb action movie - but it wasn't all dumb. It had character building in the right part, the villiain was interesting, the hero wasn't indestructible (Keanu's busted leg), the action scenes meant something and served a purpose.

and man, I never said Point Break was my favorite movie. That would have to be The Truman Show or something. Love that movie.
 
Action movies were the best in the 80s and 90s. Fact. A lot of the action movies today, I don't like the way a lot of them are filmed. They do this whole shaky camera thing which just doesn't seem necessary.
 
Taken
Craig's Bonds
Bourne Trilogy
Dredd
The Raid
Superhero movies that are actually good and not good solely for the cheese factor
The new Star Treks
Everything Tarantino does

The list goes on and on and on. We're doing fine.

I do agree to a certain degree though, especially in regards to story and characterization. There's never been anyone to top John McClane in the original Die Hard, and I think a lot of that has to do with the perceived necessity of expanding the scope of the film and shoehorning in certain elements. Die Hard was about something like 35 hostages in one building. There wasn't an overbearing love interest. There were no nuclear weapons being dropped or entire nations at stake. It was actually a big fucking deal when John's feet got cut up. People refuse to have these sorts of elements in their movies anymore because they're afraid if they don't take it to the max, people aren't going to care, and that's ruined a lot of stories.

There's also a good amount of nostalgia and retrospective ironic enjoyment that goes into loving a lot of 80's action movies. No one actually likes Commando, it's a terrible movie, but everyone loves it. Even First Blood Part 2 was good mostly in that bad way. You release movies like that nowadays though and everyone would hate them. They would be down there with the XXX franchise and Crank 2 and anything starring John Cena.
 
Die Hard was about something like 35 hostages in one building. There wasn't an overbearing love interest. There were no nuclear weapons being dropped or entire nations at stake. It was actually a big fucking deal when John's feet got cut up. People refuse to have these sorts of elements in their movies anymore because they're afraid if they don't take it to the max, people aren't going to care, and that's ruined a lot of stories.

What I liked A LOT about that movie was that every single encounter mattered. They were tense as hell and when someone died it was a big fucking deal save for a few instances. Even the better action movies these days get that wrong and the good guy ends up with this ridiculous body count by the end. I'd say the biggest offense of action movies these days is that lack of tension.

Also going to say that the Raid got this right though. Lots of people died but the way it was shot made me feel like the main character could die at any second. That's fucking rare.
 
I miss the days of skinny Seagal. Whens the last time an action film had a guy breaking limbs and snapping necks.

Steven Segal, the only action hero who can defeat an entire train/boat/building/city of terrorists solely by moving only his arms and nothing else.
 
Kick-Ass had some good action, and you cared about the characters. And you didn't really know who was going to live, and who was going to die, which adds to the suspense. You felt like the characters could really get hurt or killed. All of the heroes were at some point injured. Some severely. Some were killed pretty fucking brutally.

The execution part that goes dark, for example, was purely awesome in every sense.

There wasn't any part of the movie where I was confused in any of the action scenes about what was going on, who was where, etc.

Man of Steel? Complete opposite and a bit of an abomination.

I guess one culprit is PG-13. One of the failures of action movies is when they went PG-13. They need to be R.

The shit that happens to McCain in Die Hard? All of the blood that he spills when his foot is cut? You can't do that with PG-13. And yet those scenes show that he is actually human and can die and get hurt.

Edit -
Back to Kick-Ass. The only reason one "hero" dies and one lives was a 50/50 chance. That was it. The villains just quickly picked the one who dies.
 


The Killer / Hardboiled ruined every action movie for me. So good. (Click it!)

(yes modern action movies suck HARD)
 
"Shooter" was a sick ass action movie, as well.

I think the main problem is there's no brands we can trust anymore, outside of Statham. Statham is gonna pump out a movie every year where something bad happens to him at the beginning, and he spends the rest of the movie killing people until he finally gets revenge. It's a brand I can trust. I know what I'm getting, and I know I'm gonna like it.

We don't have anybody else like that right now, and it's sad. I aint asking for greatness.

I know what I want, and I want a lot of it.
 
I was just reading about this.

"The Wolverine" is many things—another piece of Marvel's big-screen superhero puzzle, a sturdy vehicle for Hugh Jackman's soulful ferocity, a moderately gripping fish-out-of-water story of self-discovery and redemption. Yet just as important, it's an action film helmed by a director who is, by any reasonable measure, not an action director. Although he's staged solid, classically conceived action in "3:10 to Yuma" and "Copland," he's better known as an actor's director, more at home with the intimacy of "Girl, Interrupted" and "Walk the Line."

Even for a tentpole summer release based on a prized comic-book property, this is not an uncommon phenomenon; on the contrary, it's become standard operating procedure for the studios.

And it's also become the central problem for modern action movies, which have fallen into disarray because of who's now making them—and, as a result, how they're being made.

By employing directors with backgrounds in drama, the studios hope action-heavy films will be infused with greater depth. The catch, however, is that drama directors are usually inexperienced at, and thus incapable of, properly handling their material that is the film's main selling point, or one of them.

The outcome isn't pretty: action that gets the point across but lacks coherence, as well as the unique personality that the director was supposedly hired to provide.

Not just drama directors being given action...

"The Wolverine" is the latest example of this burgeoning trend. To name just a few examples from the past couple of years, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (dir: Gavin Hood), "Quantum of Solace" (dir: Mark Forster), "Skyfall" (dir: Sam Mendes), "Iron Man" (dir: John Favreau), "Thor" (dir: Kenneth Branagh), "Red" (dir: Robert Schwentke), and "The Avengers" (dir: Joss Whedon) were all brought to the screen by filmmakers whose careers were predicated on dramas or comedies, not action. That fad remains in full effect this summer, with "Iron Man 3" (dir: Shane Black), "R.I.P.D." (dir: Schwentke), "Red 2" (dir: Dean Parisot), "World War Z" (dir: Forster), and "The Wolverine" all overseen by men whose qualifications for these combat-heavy assignments aren't their proven ability to choreograph and cut action, but in their successes in other corners of the filmmaking world.

While no studio exec would dare hand over an Oscar-hopeful drama to Michael Bay, the opposite model—Hey, Marc Forster directed "Finding Neverland," so he's obviously the ideal candidate for a Bond film!—now reigns supreme.

...but guys like Nolan falling prey to poor editing...


...a result of Chaos Cinema.
 
Plenty of good ones too though, Dredd and Skyfall for example.
Forgot Hanna, damn that was good. And the Bourne movies.
 
That list in the second quote actually makes a pretty strong argument for doing that sort of thing more often in my eyes. Skyfall, the first Iron Man, Thor, Red, and The Avengers all pretty much were as good as we could get for what they were. Skyfall is probably the only one you could make an argument for falling short of fully-realizing its potential, but that's only because there's such a spectrum of ways a director can handle Bond. As for the first two, QoS was hamstrung by the writer's strike (I remember reading that Craig said that he and another non-writer, maybe it was the director, ended up having to write a large part of the movie on their own due to it), and Gavin Hood doesn't have anything at all that impresses me. Granted, I never saw Tsotsi.
 
As for the first two, QoS was hamstrung by the writer's strike (I remember reading that Craig said that he and another non-writer, maybe it was the director, ended up having to write a large part of the movie on their own due to it)

Oh wow I never knew that. No wonder that movie sucked balls, although taking that into consideration, I guess it didn't fare too badly.
 
Action movies (actually pretty much all movies) have gotten to be pretty shitty in the past couple of decades.

PG-13-ing stuff and removing cussing and gore is ridiculous. No "yippe-kay-yay motherfucker" in Die Hard? WHAT THE FUCK?

Goddamn fucking Shaky-cam has been ruining films as well. "Hey, instead of hiring stuntmen, trainers, and putting effort into a choreographed fight scene, lets just get some up-close and blurry shots of some elbows instead!"

Michael Bay can die in a fire. Also, whoever shot the Bourne movies.

Theres a lack of real action hero stars. A few kind of stand out, but nobody the likes of Sly, Arnold, Lundgren, etc.

CGI ruining everything. When the CGI isn't laughably BAD its laughably UNBELEIVABLE. Back in the day if they wanted to blow up a car and have it spin end-over-end they broke out the C4, spring boards, and gasoline and set up the camera. Now they turn it over to the IT department.

Expendables has been a fun diversion, but its sad it takes 60-year old action stars to give me any sort of enjoyable gun battles on the big screen. And the Expendables movies still have some of the above taint running through them.
 
CGI ruining everything. When the CGI isn't laughably BAD its laughably UNBELEIVABLE. Back in the day if they wanted to blow up a car and have it spin end-over-end they broke out the C4, spring boards, and gasoline and set up the camera. Now they turn it over to the IT department.

That's why I like the action in Nolan's Batman films. Sure, they're often poorly edited scenes, but he generally does his best to make all stunts and effects practical and only resorts to CGI when it's something extreme or impossible to do otherwise.
 
CGI ruining everything. When the CGI isn't laughably BAD its laughably UNBELEIVABLE. Back in the day if they wanted to blow up a car and have it spin end-over-end they broke out the C4, spring boards, and gasoline and set up the camera. Now they turn it over to the IT department.

Everyone keeps mentioning this but the vast majority of car crashes I see are done forreal. Even in Bayformers he mostly crashed real cars.

That's why I like the action in Nolan's Batman films. Sure, they're often poorly edited scenes, but he generally does his best to make all stunts and effects practical and only resorts to CGI when it's something extreme or impossible to do otherwise.

I respect his lack of CG to a degree but unfortunately a lot of his scenes end up looking flat. He uses practical effects but he has no idea how to make that shit look interesting. That's why his action scenes are such a bore overall.
 
We need to stop giving cg such a bad rap. Some of it's bad yes but it often looks great and it's also giving us experiences we never would've had back then. And let's not pretend practical effects always looked great. It was a tool just like cg is today. Sometimes it was really done poorly and looked like wretched shit.

Obviously talking about poorly used CG, but in the same token yes CG is a tool that lets Hollywood do so much more. But that is also a problem in itself as it really has created so many awful looking stunts in movies as it often feels like the director goes too far with a stunt or a sequence and a scene goes into full cartoon mode. Practical effects while put limits on what could be done, often left things limited more in the real of realistic limitations. CG removes any such limits and you often get some ridiculous moments nowadays that are so blatantly fake looking that it elicits laughs instead of awe. So many trailers for newer action films love to highlight these eye rolling moments as if to impress with how they can top the previous film and such.

I respect his lack of CG to a degree but unfortunately a lot of his scenes end up looking flat. He uses practical effects but he has no idea how to make that shit look interesting. That's why his action scenes are such a bore overall.

Nolan can't direct action worth a damn.
 
Obviously talking about poorly used CG, but in the same token yes CG is a tool that lets Hollywood do so much more. But that is also a problem in itself as it really has created so many awful looking stunts in movies as it often feels like the director goes too far with a stunt or a sequence and a scene goes into full cartoon mode. Practical effects while put limits on what could be done, often left things limited more in the real of realistic limitations. CG removes any such limits and you often get some ridiculous moments nowadays that are so blatantly fake looking that it elicits laughs instead of awe. So many trailers for newer action films love to highlight these eye rolling moments as if to impress with how they can top the previous film and such.

Again, it's up to who is using these tools. It's a sword that needs to be wielded with care just like using practical effects. Sometimes the limitations of practical effects look like ass. It really all depends. There were plenty of moments done in the past within the limitations of practical effects that looked terrible. And I'm sure we felt the same way about those shots as we do today about poorly done CG.

I remember the shot of Agent Smith flying toward Neo when they created that crater during the final fight. They used practical effects and it looked like horrible. I could practically see the wires. On the other end of the spectrum, seeing Superman charge in the same way in the recent film looked fantastic.

It REALLY depends. There's no blanket solution to all of this. I think in all cases directors just need to do better. Use these tools correctly and they shine.

No it wasn't.

Yes it was.

opinions
 
I kinda of think this way about movies in general. I think ive watched 5 new release movies in a row i havent liked.

Same. I used to get so hyped up over blockbuster films. But I just watched The Avengers and found it totally boring. Don't even have any desire to watch The Hobbit, which is insane because I was a huge LOTR fan.

The only movie on the horizon that has piqued my interest is Interstellar.
 
Action movies (actually pretty much all movies) have gotten to be pretty shitty in the past couple of decades.

PG-13-ing stuff and removing cussing and gore is ridiculous. No "yippe-kay-yay motherfucker" in Die Hard? WHAT THE FUCK?

Goddamn fucking Shaky-cam has been ruining films as well. "Hey, instead of hiring stuntmen, trainers, and putting effort into a choreographed fight scene, lets just get some up-close and blurry shots of some elbows instead!"

Michael Bay can die in a fire. Also, whoever shot the Bourne movies.

Theres a lack of real action hero stars. A few kind of stand out, but nobody the likes of Sly, Arnold, Lundgren, etc.

CGI ruining everything. When the CGI isn't laughably BAD its laughably UNBELEIVABLE. Back in the day if they wanted to blow up a car and have it spin end-over-end they broke out the C4, spring boards, and gasoline and set up the camera. Now they turn it over to the IT department.

Expendables has been a fun diversion, but its sad it takes 60-year old action stars to give me any sort of enjoyable gun battles on the big screen. And the Expendables movies still have some of the above taint running through them.
Shaky cam is fine. Quick cuts are what is used to hide a lack of fight choreography.

Michael Bay is fucking awesome. You're here blowing a gasket over CGI and yet he's still one of the few directors who sticks to practical effects when they're possible.

I watch a lot of modern action movies. I can't think of any CG cars being blown up.
 
Shaky cam is fine. Quick cuts are what is used to hide a lack of fight choreography.

Michael Bay is fucking awesome. You're here blowing a gasket over CGI and yet he's still one of the few directors who sticks to practical effects when they're possible.

I watch a lot of modern action movies. I can't think of any CG cars being blown up.

Feel the same way about all of this. Especially Bay. Say what you want about the guy but he knows how to shoot action better than most. And yea I can't think of many cg car explosions. Not to the degree that he's pretending anyway.
 
Nothing has topped Matrix Reloaded as far as big budget action flicks go.

The Raid and Dredd are pretty fun movies , tho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom