The Action Film Genre and the Definition of a Good Action Film
Let’s not over-think this flick. TAKEN is a escapist fantasy, that’s all. Fact is, victims of human trafficking simply disappear without a trace or die along the way.
Here ya folks- the film in question-
SPOILER ALERT!
!!
@Night
Yup, but neither was James Bond, Jackie Chan or Matt Damon LOL!
Bond and Jackie Chan films are different because they are intentionally cartoonish. (Can’t remember if I have the same problems with the Bourne films.)
Let’s not over-think this flick. TAKEN is a escapist fantasy, that’s all.
But, see, this goes back to my earlier question about “intelligence” and “substance” in action films—"Do people believe that a good action film doesn’t need to be “smart” or “intelligence” or do they just define “smart” and “intelligent” in slightly different way (based on the context of the films)?
I understand that action films are often escapist fantasies, but that doesn’t mean I can’t expect intelligence and some substance (relative to the genre). In other words, an action film can be criticized for not helping viewers suspend disbelief; it can be criticized for stupid or unimaginative writing.
I know that some action fans don’t care about these things. If the film has plenty of action and the good guys win, that’s pretty much all they want. I understand this approach, but I definitely do not share it.
Fact is, victims of human trafficking simply disappear without a trace or die along the way.
FWIW, I don’t have a problem believing this. That’s not the source of my problem with the film.
I’ve been waiting to pounce on this thread, biding my time in the shadows, contemplating my strategy. Now the fuse it lit, and we only have seconds before the whole thing blows, so I’ll try to be brief. Keep your panty hose on.
For me, the great action films are about two things: character and set pieces. Without the former you get Roland Emmerich, Micheal Bay, and so on. There are many great action set pieces that are fun to watch but ultimately don’t resonate because the character, the human component, is missing. I love a good car chase, and while I think the chase in the middle of The Matrix: Reloaded is the best ever filmed, I don’t care enough about the characters involved to rank the film amongst the greatest action films. The script isn’t up to par, and so the actors don’t have enough to work with and the emotional resonance is lessened.
With that in mind I offer up what I consider to be the greatest of the great, a film that I don’t think has been mentioned in this thread yet, and by a director that most here (including me) don’t hold in high regard.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
“It’s not the years… it’s the mileage.”
Character:
Indiana Jones is a rouge, but an interesting one. He’s a respected professor at a prestigious university but he’s also a man of action—capable of reading between the ancient lines as much as engendering the love of his students. And (in what I consider to be the most important quality for a Great Action Hero) he’s vulnerable—he’s no superhuman, succeptable to fear and pain and most importantly for his character, the love of the leading lady. In this case, Marion Ravenwood, who arguably supplies his most painful physical injury (okay, one Nazi bullet wound aside) and also saves him as much as he saves himself. He has a rich backstory that is hinted at enough to give us an understanding of his motivations and his ultimate reason to live. He hurts, he winces, he is afraid, but he rises to the occasion, making him the ultimate audience surrogate even while he’s saving the day.
Set Pieces:
Wow. Lucas wrote the film as an homage to the serials he grew up on, and so nearly every scene has a cliffhanger. From the opening sequence, which is brilliant in that it sets up his character, vulnerabilities and skills, to the bar fight at Marion’s place, to the chase scene in Tanis, to the Well of the Souls, to the fight at the flying wing, to the car chase to save the ark (a landmark in action cinema), to the final confrontation with God Himself—name one other action film with a better lineup than this. The only one that comes close to my mind is The Empire Strikes Back, another transcendent action film (rising above because of it’s characters, again).
And I made my point without even mentioning Die Hard, which is probably the best action film made since those two, and still to this day (and for the same reasons).
Character and set pieces. Beat these examples, if you can, but the fuse has run out. There are only a scant few seconds left, and I don’t think I even have time to type my most important insight—that these films are really—
BOOOOOMMM!!!
@HoL
BOOOOOMMM!!!
Sorry, I’m pulling a Haneke-Funny-Games maneuver.
I love a good car chase, and while I think the chase in the middle of The Matrix: Reloaded is the best ever filmed, I don’t care enough about the characters involved to rank the film amongst the greatest action films.
To me, the bigger problem was the overuse or misuse of cgi. It looked too fake, and that killed the excitement. Compare that scene to the chase in Death Proof. I don’t think characters are better in the latter. Also, did the first Matrix work for you? The characters are basically the same. Neo or Morpheus are just OK, imo, but I think Matrix is a terrific action/sci-fi.
But I’m with you Raiders of the Lost Ark and Die Hard being two of the all-time best action films—for the same reasons you mention. (As an aside, I’d be curious if those under thirty agree with this.) Having said that, I don’t know if I agree with some particulars, namely—
And (in what I consider to be the most important quality for a Great Action Hero) he’s vulnerable—he’s no superhuman, succeptable to fear and pain and most importantly for his character, the love of the leading lady
Is vulnerability the most important quality? Is this what makes Indiana Jones such a great action hero? I’d mention Ford’s ability to play the cocky tough guy as the key quality. Consider if Tom Selleck played the part (as was originally intended, I believe). I think Selleck could do vulnerable, but not cocky and tough like Ford, and his Indy wouldn’t have nearly been as good (at least that’s my guess). That’s not to say that vulerability isn’t important quality, just that it’s not the most important attribute of a good action hero. (I think vulnerability is more crucial in thrillers and horror films.)
To me, there’s two action archetypes that I like, and I would say are the most common—the silent tough guy (e.g., The Man With No Name) or the cocky tough guy (e.g., Indy, Han Solo, John McClane, etc.) I guess there’s also the darker, crazier tough guy too (e.g., Riggs in Lethal Weapon). There’s a theme here and it’s “tough.” I think a good action lead has to be convincingly tough. The actor has to look good and be convincing when he/she is doing the action. (Question: has there ever been a great action film with a “weak” action lead?) I’m not sure this tough aspect is the most important attribute, but I do think it’s more important than vulnerability.
Now, you also mention the Indiana Jones’ backstory. That does make his character more interesting—although I would say the way the filmmakers incorporate these details into the story and action is really what makes the character work in the film. What I’m suggesting is that the characters, by themselves, aren’t that interesting. They’re not very complex or multidimensional. There might be certain quirks or details that make them interesting variations of archetypal characters, but I suspect they’re mostly not that interesting if we saw them outside the context of the film. Therefore, my sense is that what really makes the characters great is way the actor inhabits the character and brings him/her to life. In other words, it all depends on casting (versus the writing). I’m curious to hear what you think about that.
The only one that comes close to my mind is The Empire Strikes Back, another transcendent action film (rising above because of it’s characters, again).
Totally agree—about both Raiders and Empire!
And I made my point without even mentioning Die Hard, which is probably the best action film made since those two, and still to this day (and for the same reasons).
Again, I totally agree. I think Aliens is pretty great as an action film (although it works more on suspense, too). Have you seen Ninja Scroll? I doesn’t beat out Raiders or Empire, but it’s a really good action film (anime).
“I understand that action films are often escapist fantasies, but that doesn’t mean I can’t expect intelligence and some substance (relative to the genre). In other words, an action film can be criticized for not helping viewers suspend disbelief; it can be criticized for stupid or unimaginative writing”
So, requiring factual accuracy, realism and less stupidity only applies to action movies you don’t care about?
I mean, I totally agree about RAIDERS… and DIE HARD being among the top ten of the best action films ever made, enjoyed the whole series. But for fuck’s sake, RAIDERS’ historical inaccuracy was glaring even grade-school boys can spot them easily. Afrika Korps didn’t exist in the film’s setting (’36). Thailand appeared on the map when it was named Siam at that time. Indy carrying a Chinese-made Soviet RPG… in 1936- blah-blah just a few of many avoidable factual errors.
Suspended disbelief- how the fuck did Indiana Jones smuggled himself inside that submarine? How the fuck did Indiana Jones smuggled himself inside that submarine?
All these shit didn’t really matter, we can nitpick all we want but for entertainment value those goofs are not a bad trade-off.
@Night
So, requiring factual accuracy, realism and less stupidity only applies to action movies you don’t care about?
Honestly, yes. All action films have aspects that are silly or inaccurate, and in my experience they become significant when the character and stories aren’t satisfying or exceptional. Of course, sometimes too many inaccuracies or unbelievable situations can break one’s suspension of disbelief, but, as I mentioned, that point differs from person to person.
Suspended disbelief- how the fuck did Indiana Jones smuggled himself inside that submarine? How the fuck did Indiana Jones smuggled himself inside that submarine?
I don’t think he goes into the submarine. What he does is tie himself to the periscope. That’s not exactly believable, either, but it’s not as bad as you say. Still, the lead character, story and set pieces (not to mention pacing) is exceptional, so these type “problems” don’t matter so much.
Also, did the first Matrix work for you? The characters are basically the same. Neo or Morpheus are just OK, imo, but I think Matrix is a terrific action/sci-fi.
The first time I saw it I didn’t like it, but it really grew on me and now I own the blu ray. I’m also one of the few that really likes the second film. To respond to your point about the cgi in the car chase scene—if you’re referring to the digitally placed cars I can’t tell where the cgi is, so that scene completely hooked me.
But the scene in Death Proof is absolutely wonderful. A car chase with an actor strapped to the hood of the car—and no tricks there. Tremendous scene (okay movie).
RE: Vulnerability, I definitely disagree. While the cockiness is fun and endearing, the vulnerability is what places the spectator in the movie, wondering what he would do in that situation, how it would feel. You don’t get that in a Schwarzenegger film.
And I have not seen Ninja Scroll, but I will. Thanks for the rec ;)
I don’t know exactly how I know this, but there was a deleted scene (or a scene written but not filmed—I haven’t read the Making of Raiders book as I have the Making of Star Wars and Empire books, both of which are great) that showed how he ended up riding along with the sub, and yeah, I believe it was something like he attached himself to the periscope. How do I know this? No idea. That’s kind of like I have known since the early 80s that Darth Vader and Obi Wan fought each other and Vader fell into lava. I knew that as a grade-schooler, but the movie wasn’t made until a few years ago.
I can’t think of a better action sequence of the 2000s than the car scene in Death Proof. That sequence has got to be one of QT’s greatest achievements as a filmmaker (ironic that it would come from one of his most reviled films).
To respond to your point about the cgi in the car chase scene—if you’re referring to the digitally placed cars I can’t tell where the cgi is, so that scene completely hooked me.
Unfortunately, I don’t remember enough details at this point, so I can’t comment.
Tremendous scene (okay movie).
I’d go with scene.
You don’t get that in a Schwarzenegger film.
But Arnold isn’t, effective, because he’s goofy, not because he seem invulnerable. What about Eastwood? He seems pretty invulnerable in many of his action films, doesn’t he? He’s one of the best action leads of all time, too.
How do I know this? No idea.
I believe I saw it in a comic adaptation. (There might be a brief moment in the film that shows this, too.)
I don’t consider too many of Schwarzenneger’s action films to be great, nor Eastwood’s. They’re good, but I don’t go much beyond that. Conan is great, but he has a complicated backstory. Commando, not so much. Same with Fistfull of Dollars vs. Josey Wales.
“Interesting thread, and I’ll definitely participate later.
For now, check out some of this guy’s writing on his action film entries. There’s really some exceptional explorations of the questions you posed Jazz."
Thanks for the great link Jack. I wish he expanded on Piranha a little more than just a little picture though, I would have loved to read his thoughts.
I don’t like Arnold (I’m not spelling his last name ;), and I don’t like his films. (I thought Commando was silly, and I saw it in high school.) The exception is Terminator—and I suspect that’s because he rarely speakz. In terms of physique, he was perfect for Conan, but I didn’t care for that film—although perhaps he wasn’t the main problem. (I thought he might have been great to play Colossus from the X-Men, if they made the film twenty years ago.)
Perhaps, Eastwood’s Westerns and Cop films aren’t great action movies—in the way we’re describing—but I would argue that’s not because he wasn’t vulnerable. Indeed, I think he’s one of the great leading men of action-oriented films, and it’s his invulnerability that contributes to his mystique.
I haven’t seen too many of Eastwood’s early films, so I’m out there, but from the totality of his filmography I like Unforgiven the best, in which he is very vulnerable.
I love Conan for lots of reasons, and yes, it’s great that he doesn’t talk a lot—same with Terminator. Still, there is a funny kind of charisma about Arnold (I’m tired of spelling his name already), somewhat due to his goofy acting, that endears me to some of his films.
But maybe the worst kind of action film lead is the Van Damme or Stephan Segal kind, who both lack charisma and don’t get involved in very good films.
So who is the best action lead? We’ve talked somewhat about the qualities involved but we haven’t settled on one.
“So who is the best action lead?”
I’m not an expert on the genre but I think Kurt Russell would have to be in the discussion. I can’t think of many action stars that show more (natural) vulnerability than Russell (except maybe Harrison Ford).
And laugh all you want but Cage’s Face Off, Con Air, and The Rock also have to be considered when talking about the best action lead. And of course I’m tempted to mention Mel but with the recent news involving Ezterhas, I’m a bit hesitant to pay this guy any compliments.
Funny production pic from Conan.
@HoL
So who is the best action lead? We’ve talked somewhat about the qualities involved but we haven’t settled on one.
You mean, actor or character?
I don’t think there’s one character type that is the best, although I have my preferences. I like the silent and cocky tough guys. I also like the anti-hero, tough on outside, but soft on the inside (like Robert De Niro’s Jack Walsh in Midnight Run).
As for actor, that’s hard to say. Harrison Ford comes to mind as he has Han Solo and Indiana Jones to his credit. Eastwood is fantastic—the epitome of Badass (puts Van Damme and Segal to shame)…speaking of those two, what about Bruce Lee? I don’t think there’s anyone with the type of ferocity he had (maybe James Cagney, although that’s a bit different). He’d give Eastwood a fun for his money in the Badass race.
Never cared for Stallone except as John Rambo (silent tough guy). Arnold is too goofy. I like Mel Gibson (Lethal Weapon and Payback), and I really liked Daniel Craig in Casino Royale. Clive Owen has potential, too. (These last three have an edge to them, and I see them playing the crazy good guy role.)
Before I forget, how’d you like Phantom Menace? I think the set pieces were very good, imo (some cool light saber scenes, although the last battle with Darth Maul was disappointing; DM was cool, but they wasted his character).
@Santino
Funny you should mention Kurt Russell, because I was going to say (in relation to Arnold) that goofy almost never works for an action lead. Russell’s Jack Burton in Big Trouble in Little China is the exception, though, although that’s almost a spoof comedy. (Love that film.)
And laugh all you want but Cage’s Face Off, Con Air, and The Rock also have to be considered when talking about the best action lead.
Cage was interesting, but I just feel like he’s mailing it in now. I disliked Con Air and didn’t care for The Rock, but not because of Cage. Face/Off was pretty good, and I liked the concept.
I’ve always been a big fan of Dolph Lundgren, who’s uber-underrated. He didn’t get as many primo projects as his predecessors, but actually has a large array of skills, and is capable of real pathos. Also has tremendous presence, hearkening back to Jazz’s other thread on Old vs. New actors.
In fact, what I like so much about the classic action stars is that they fit more with the old way of thinking about stars, and personas. Sadly, CGI is running them out of the business in favor of the Shia LeBoufs of the world.
^In regards to Russell, I was thinking more of Breakdown, in which Kurt essentially does his best Harrison-Ford-in-The-Fugitive impression.
We judge elements on a scene by what’s actually on the movie, not by what was written on the script, or what’s deleted from it.
Okay, it’s impossible for Indy to get into the sub, but “Riding along” with the submarine tied up to a periscope wouldn’t make sense either for these reasons:
1- any submarine that cruises on the surface will always have sailors present on the turret
2- a periscope on the ‘up’ position would still be underwater when the sub dives or even if it’s just cruising in shallow water. Periscopes stay on ‘down’ position until it is needed.
3- a submarine or any naval vessel would be manned by sailors on top of the deck whenever it entered a port, pier or in Raiders… case, a U-Boat pen. There would be no place else for a straggler to hide.
That’s a big hole. But that’s the make-believe element- as stupid as that sequence demonstrated, eventually fans would simply fill up the hole on top of their heads to keep on enjoying the action.
@Jack
I’ve never been a big Lundgren fan, but I think I’ve seen him in only two films—Rocky IV and I Come in Peace (Michael Benben impressed me more in that). If you had one film of his to recommend, which would it be?
Sadly, CGI is running them out of the business in favor of the Shia LeBoufs of the world.
Hmm, you think CGI is the reason that Shia LeBouf types are now in action leads? I attribute it to other forces. In any event, I sort of like what I’ll call the nerd action lead. For example, somebody like Tobey Maguire or Joseph Gordon Leavitt. (I wouldn’t mind seeing Leavitt in a good action role.) Nicholas Cage sort of had the same nerdy/dorky quality as well, and I liked that element.
You mean, actor or character?
We could take them seperately but for now I’d go with Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones, at least as they exist in the first film of the trilogy (I don’t know why people keep insisting there was a fourth film made, stupid hoax).
Kudos for mentioning Midnight Run, the best buddy-comedy for my money (and screw Brett Ratner for even thinking about a sequel).
Bruce Lee is in his own category—actor, philosopher, nutritionist, literally the teacher of martial arts to the Western world. A Ressnaisance Man if ever there was one—he is under-appreciated by the masses.
And I hated Phantom Menace. I knew from the first line of dialog that it was going to be bad, and I can’t even watch it now. Yes—some good set pieces, but the characters are so abysmally bad (script and casting issues). Darth Maul was such a wasted villain! The reason Vader was so effective in Empire was his continual taunting of Luke—in PM Maul hardly speaks, so it’s all just visual throwaway (dynamic though it is).
Nightshift—yeah, it’s dumb. The overall movie more than makes up for it as far as I’m concerned.
I’m with Jazz on the good actors vs. cgi notion. It’s all about the bottom line. This is why Sam Worthington was in every damn blockbuster a few years ago—he’s a terrible actor but he was cheap.
Kurt Russel was incredible in The Thing, and I think he has great charisma, but I don’t think too many of his films have really taken advantage of that. Partly his choice of project, I suppose.
Daniel Craig seems like he’s taking a (nice) paycheck with the Bond films. I think he can do better (though I liked the first one—couldn’t make it through the second).
Matt Damon did a good job with the Bourne films, but he’s a decent actor in the right role.
It takes a special combination of natural charisma and film choices to make a Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis (for both of them I’m thinking of their early roles).
I also prefer Alec Baldwin’s take on Jack Ryan far above Ford’s, and Keaton’s take on Batman, but call me crazy.
“So who is the best action lead? We’ve talked somewhat about the qualities involved but we haven’t settled on one”
Which one, action standards or Mubi standards?
Here’s an example of popular action stars (male/ female) who starred in decent films, most have a fan base, but would still be considered unworthy at Mubi -
Jason Statham
Jet Li
Denzel Washington
Wesley Snipes
Maggie Q
Donnie Yen
Michelle Rodriguez
Vin Diesel
The Rock
Gina Carano (‘Haywire’)
Eric Bana
Liam Neeson
Christian Bale
Frankly, all these ‘nerd-action’ leads like Shia LeBouf are starting to get old.
“Bruce Lee is in his own category—actor, philosopher, nutritionist, literally the teacher of martial arts to the Western world. A Ressnaisance Man if ever there was one—he is under-appreciated by the masses.”
Hell, yeah!
Don’t forget Uma Thurman, who was, in total, great in Kill Bill.
Doubtlessly there are other cultural forces involved, but before CGI, not just anybody could be an action. Action stars were not necessarily believable, but their action held a sort of authenticity. They sustained real damage, and had to be in real peak condition, in order to film their work.
It’s hard to articulate what I’m arguing. I mean, I’m not saying they should be in danger again, but action stars felt more… special then.
It also felt like there was an emphasis on unique personalities, rather than cogs to be placed in Michael Bay machines.
As for Dolph: Well, like I said, often he got short changed on projects, but he himself is often very good even in the bad ones. Any of his 90s work will do, and from recent times, check out his short appearance in Universal Soldier: Regeneration, for a small, but honestly masterful piece of underplayed acting. The film itself is exceptional for contemporary action, but that’s a subject for another, future time…
@Night
But that’s the make-believe element- as stupid as that sequence demonstrated, eventually fans would simply fill up the hole on top of their heads to keep on enjoying the action.
And I would add that many viewers could do this quite easily because they don’t all have military backgrounds—especially the twelve years like myself (when I first saw the film). ;)
We could take them seperately but for now I’d go with Harrison Ford and Indiana Jones, at least as they exist in the first film of the trilogy.
Not too much argument from me.
(I don’t know why people keep insisting there was a fourth film made, stupid hoax).
What? Man, I never would want to see a fourth film. Ford is too old. Plus, Spielberg would probably try to force another cute family dimension like he did in Last Crusade—say, add a son that Indy never knew he had; maybe even bring back Karen Allen and make her the mother. Dang, that would be awlful. Whew, good things it’s only a hoax.
Yes—some good set pieces, but the characters are so abysmally bad (script and casting issues). Darth Maul was such a wasted villain! The reason Vader was so effective in Empire was his continual taunting of Luke—in PM Maul hardly speaks, so it’s all just visual throwaway (dynamic though it is).
Totally agree about Darth Maul. (I think they build Vader’s character. We see how menacing and evil he is, and then there’s the dramatic backstory involving Obi Wan and of course his relationship with Luke. There’s nothing at all like this for Maul, and so the final light saber scene has no real dramatic meaning or intensity. He was definitely a cool looking character, though.)
I actually thought the casting was pretty good. Loved Neeson as Qui Gong, and I thought he and McGregor had good chemistry—actually the whole cast had good chemistry. (Jar-jar is a much bigger problem.) Personally, I think the second and third films partly fail because of a lack of chemistry between the actors—specifically McGregor and Christensen. Well, that’s my opinion anyway.
Kurt Russel was incredible in The Thing, and I think he has great charisma, but I don’t think too many of his films have really taken advantage of that. Partly his choice of project, I suppose.
My memory is fuzzy of him in The Thing. I like Russell, but when he’s cast as a silent tough guy or as a more serious character, I think he’s not very effective. (Wyatt Earp in Tombstone—ugh or even Snake Pliskin.) I’d rather see him in a comedy than a straight action or dramatic role.
Daniel Craig seems like he’s taking a (nice) paycheck with the Bond films. I think he can do better (though I liked the first one—couldn’t make it through the second).
I was so disappointed in the second film. They just cancelled all the things I loved about the first and reverted back to a typical Bond film (actually, maybe it was even worse than a typical Bond film).
Matt Damon did a good job with the Bourne films, but he’s a decent actor in the right role.
Agreed. I like Damon.
It takes a special combination of natural charisma and film choices to make a Harrison Ford or Bruce Willis (for both of them I’m thinking of their early roles).
I agree, especially about Willis. At some point he gave up the wise-cracking tough guy and became the silent tough guy, and I never bought him in that role. (He was also great in the TV show Moonlighting.) To me, he seems like dried up recovering addict, and it’s sad to see.
I also prefer Alec Baldwin’s take on Jack Ryan far above Ford’s, and Keaton’s take on Batman, but call me crazy.
Hey, I with you on all these, although it’s sort of a toss up between Ford and Baldwin (I did like Hunt a lot better than the other two or three films? Or is the third one a hoax, too? :)
I like Keaton’s Batman, too. I haven’t seen Clooney’s, but I can’t imagine liking that one. I don’t like Bale in the role. He doesn’t have the “dark” and edgier part down; Keaton was surprisingly better at this.
I’m with Jazz on the good actors vs. cgi notion. It’s all about the bottom line
Oh, by Le Boeuf, did he mean bad actors? I don’t think Le Boeuf is a bad actor; I thought he meant whimpy leads. (I completely agree about Worthington, though. The guy is one of the worst, blandest leading men, ever.)
I don’t want to use wimpy either. I don’t want to emphasize masculinity (despite the genre’s ties with it), rather instead the seemingly fading idea of an “Action Star”. Now there seems to be “people who have starred in action films”.
@Night
Here’s an example of popular action stars (male/ female) who starred in decent films, most have a fan base, but would still be considered unworthy at Mubi -
Yeah but most people here don’t like action films. (Btw, did you ever check out the Action/Adventure thread?) Everyone you listed is solid, although I don’t know about Maggie Q as an action actor, but she’s easy on the eyes (a Hawai’i girl, too, so I gotta give her some aloha.) Not big on the Rock or Christian Bale, although they’re OK.
Really liked Bana in Black Hawk Down (How’d you like that film overall, Night?); Diesel was the best thing in Pitch Black (haven’t cared for him much after that); I really like Denzel and Liam (although I prefer Liam with a sword rather than a gun); Loved Snipes as Blade (although the films are meh). Blade is one of my favorite superhero film characters, and it’s mainly because of Snipes.
Frankly, all these ‘nerd-action’ leads like Shia LeBouf are starting to get old.
I think there’s some mileage left, with the right role. I’m also thinking of more “normal” looking people in action lead roles. Cage was like this or Walter Matthau in Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3. That wasn’t an action film, but you know what I mean, right?
@HoL
Don’t forget Uma Thurman, who was, in total, great in Kill Bill.
Didn’t care for her—mainly because she just looked awkward in those sword fights. It was hard to watch at times.
@Jack
Any of his 90s work will do, and from recent times, check out his short appearance in Universal Soldier: Regeneration, for a small, but honestly masterful piece of underplayed acting.
OK, I’ll keep that one in mind. Thanks.
NIGHTSHIFT
“I don’t think they care if he’s a Yankee dad, but I feel like they should have known he wasn’t a government official. (But again, I understand that this might not bother some people.)”
Exactly, that’s the last thing in their mind. Who else but a fool would fly across the continent to find a daughter who’s as good as gone. You obviously haven’t been around shady folks, have you? He’s got the badge, and knows people- the Albanians knew he’s not worth fussing with and must be satisfied to keep their business going.
“Right, but he might be retired CIA, but he’s not superman, too.”
Yup, but neither was James Bond, Jackie Chan or Matt Damon LOL!