The Action/Adventure Thread
More love for MAD MAX 2: THE ROAD WARRIOR. There can never be enough love for it. It’s too perfect. POINT BREAK rules too, unexpectedly.
true lies is my guilty pleasure…
Big Trouble Little China makes me laugh so hard!!!! SO HARD!! Love it
A really good villain — lot of actions fail here.
What would Die Hard have been without Alan Rickman?
Jazzaloha: Here is a thread I created a couple months ago touching on action films. This new thread is different obviously but you might enjoy what I said here (I know I did – haha!):
I think action and adventure films (which I classify as being different sub-genres, although they can overlap) can hold huge merit in the cinematic world and I think it’s a fool’s position to disregard movies that have action as somehow inferior to deep, character dramas.
You forgot Gunga Din!
Ben, I don’t think I’ve seen all of the Road Warrior. I did see the first Mad Max film and the third one. I’ve heard they’re making another.
Rock-Bull,
I should really watch all of True Lies as I think James Cameron may be the best action director of all-time. Arnold is a turn-off (although Tom Arnold provided surprisingly effective comic relief). Re: Big Trouble. I love Kurt Russell as Jack Burton. (Now, that’s a character I’d like to see again in film.)
Doinel,
You’re absolutely right. There aren’t many great villains. I think Heath Ledger’s Joker is the best that I’ve seen. (Yes, beating out Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader and Antone Chigurr).
Fredo,
Went to the thread and Breakdown at your number 2 spot stopped me. Love JT Walsh, but I just thought Russell was not well-cast in this. I think you needed someone who has a “whimpier” vibe (think of Dennis Weaver in Duel). I liked the premise though, but then I thought there were some silly things that happened in the film. (I recall a scene where Russell is climbing on a roof of building.)
For some strange reason I didn’t like T2 as much I should. Maybe it’s because Arnold as a good guy seemed cheesy. The “liquid” terminator (and the actor who played him) was terrific (top 10 great villains perhaps).
Blake,
I have yet to see Gunga Din.
The Naked Prey
Quest for Fire
The Warriors.
3 adventure films that immediately come to mind.
Each one is a nightmarish odyssey, a journey through a world of horrors and wonder, a violent scary fairytale with a happy ending.
True Lies is actually one of my favorite movies. Artistic merits aside, it was one of my childhood movies, and in many ways there is nothing which can compete with that. I feel like Marcel Proust every time I see it, except the whole world emerges from Schwarzenegger’s guns instead of a cup of tea. Anything Indiana Jones falls in the same category, except the last. And anything Die Hard falls in the same category, except the last.
Basically Ford, Willis, and Schwarzenegger are the triumvirate of my childhood.
i recommend predator if u haven’t seen it
I hate to rain on the parade here but the action-adventure genre is usually full of ideologically abysmal ideas and subtexts. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981) is a prime example. Here you have an American, recruited by the U.S. Army, who works in all the hot spots of the world (circa 1981): South America, the Middle East, basically stealing native cultural artifacts for the U.S. The film comes out in the first year of the Reagan administration and postulates the “U.S.A.! U.S.A.!” mentality of that regime: (1) backpedaling on women’s rights (Marian Ravenwood is in captivity for most of the film, her spunky, pants-wearing persona is quickly reduced to wearing a dress and high heels — using a frying pan (!) to subdue an attacker); (2) stereotyping Arabs in the age of gas shortages, OPEC, American hostage-taking, and the Iranian Revolution (the famous scene where Indy shoots his scimitar-waving attacker is a re-presentation of Jimmy Carter’s failed “rescue mission” — only this time it succeeds (in the movies). (And yes I know what they say in “The Making of …” publicity film about Harrison Ford’s dysentery. I’ve got an answer for that, so don’t bother.); (3) the race to obtain the Lost Ark of the Covenant between the Nazis and America in the 1930s is analogous to the race for nuclear superiority between the USSR and Reagan’s administration during the 1980s (the Ark goes off at the end, creating a mushroom cloud, Besides, Abner Ravenwood teaches at the University of Chicago, where the Manhattan Project to build the first A-bomb took place.); (4) my best point can be made with a photo, but I still haven’t been able to figure out how to download pictures onto this site (Don’t try to help. I’m hopeless.) The picture is one of Ronald Reagan as an actor in a film called Hong Kong (1953) wearing the EXACT same costume as Indiana Jones — felt hat, leather bomber jacket, open shirt, baggy pants. Reagan’s mission: to go into Red China and steal a gold fertility idol. (sound familiar?) Incidentally, Hong Kong was a Paramount Pictures release, as was Raiders.
I could go on and on about Raiders, including the storyboards which show the original conception of the medallion that would show the way to God: it contained the image of a pyramid with an eye on top radiating light — the Great Seal of the United States, a Masonic symbol on the one dollar bill. It’s “America First” in this film, and most action-adventure movies. (For those who are interested, I could send my published article on the subject to you, but it wouldn’t have the photos. You MIGHT be able to find it on the Internet under Quarterly Review of Film Studies Volume 7 (Fall 1982). The title is “Mr. Jones Goes to Washington.” Catchy, eh?)
The action-adventure genre hit its stride in the 1980s and its covert message was that American heroes could and should conquer U.S. adversaries with superior force, superior morals, and superior ingenuity. Chauvinism galore! That aspect seemed to have been neglected on this thread.
Mymosh,
I’ve always been intrigued by Quest for Fire.
Nate,
That’s the second time Point Break was mentioned. I can’t remember if I watched the whole thing, but I remember thinking it was pretty bad. (I don’t recall the chase on foot you spoke of. But speaking of foot chases, the best I’ve seen comes from the recent Casino Royale.) Point Break is on netflix instant viewing, so maybe I’ll check it out again.
Btw, Keanu Reeves has to be one of the most improbably successful action-leads of all-time. I don’t think he can act, and he’s a total goof. And yet, I find him strangely compelling. What the heck?
Frank,
I have to admit that I don’t really analyze the subtext of action/adventure films and my love and enjoyment of the good action/adventure films is mainly superficial. On the other hand, I don’t think films like Raiders has a hidden agenda or even intends to be anything other than an entertaining movie. Did the film reflect a pro-American view? Absolutely. But I didn’t think Speilberg and Lucas intended to support Reagan and his politics with this movie. During the 80s, there as an idealization of the 50s (“Happy Days” TV show; Back to the Future, even music like the Stray Cats), and I tend to see Raiders as part of that phenomenon, more than some filmmaker advocating a particular socio-political view point.
Frank – Everything you say about Raiders of the Lost Ark is true, and well-documented. None of it, however, diminishes the sheer amount of fun that I have while watching Indiana Jones movies. The fact that they are so absurd and silly sort of takes away the ideological sting for me. No matter how much I read that type of analysis, I can’t help but enjoy myself.
Frank: I’m going to have to side with Jazzaloha. I’ve loved the film since I was a little kid and I’ve honestly never felt like it was giving off a sexist or racist message. Maybe I’m just being naive, but I just see it as an amazing adventure film. Yes, it’s pro-U.S., but that doesn’t automatically mean it qualifies as Reagan administration propaganda.
Laika, and to a lesser extent, Nathan: I hear this all the time, that the film is just SO exciting and so much sheer FUN that one doesn’t notice any ideological messages. I’m not questioning your ENJOYMENT of a movie; that’s your business. For me, I find it hard to “get with” a film, even a thrill-a-minute one, that promotes a right-wing agenda.
In my previous post, I only scratched the surface in detailing the Reagan-era policies found in Raiders (that’s why I offered to send my full article to interested parties). I’ve also done the same sort of analysis of E.T. (a being comes down from the heavens, is found in a little “manger” in the back of the main house, spreads a gospel of love to his disciples, is hunted down by the ruling authorities, and is killed by them. He is resurrected from the dead and returns to his heavenly home. Does that sound like a familiar story? The mother’s name is MARY and the movie poster showed E.T.’s finger touching a human finger in an exact replica of God giving life to Adam on the Sistine Chapel ceiling! Plus, the screenwriter, Melissa Matheson, had a Catholic school education in Hollywood and ADMITTED to the “Christ symbolism.” All this at a time when Reagan was courting the Moral Majority and relying on Christian iconography for political purposes. I have more evidence on this one too!) and Saving Private Ryan (where the U.S. forces kill SURRENDERING German forces in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions. What effect that movie had on U.S. policy regarding those international “laws of war” when they were violated during the Iraq War remains to be seen until they are fully investigated.)
The political beauty of Raiders is that it conceals its basic message behind all the quick cutting, snappy dialogue, smart-ass humor, and a rousing John Williams musical score. It took MONTHS of research for me to uncover all the covert ideological innuendo in the film, including obtaining the original storyboards and quotations from George Lukas to the effect that he borrowed the basic plot line from Joseph Campbell’s book The Hero with a Thousand Faces. My point is NOT that the film is not crowd-pleasing. I’ll concede that point, especially given its huge box-office success and gigantic VHS and DVD sales figures. My argument IS that it may unconsciously have an effect on society and attitudes, including that “God is on OUR (the U.S.) side” as proven when the Ark is opened up and it zaps all the commies (err, Nazis). And that it tapped into an anti-Arab bias that was highly prevalent in the U.S. in 1981, shortly after the hostages were released from the Tehran embassy.
Just as important, the box-office success of Raiders, which was rather subtle in its ideological “Stripes,” led other filmmakers to make even more overtly right-wing action-adventure movies in the 1980s, such as Rambo: First Blood (“This time we win” [the Vietnam War] singlehandedly); Red Dawn (in which the college students defeat the Soviet Union); Top Gun (highest-grossing film of its year); Rocky IV (where the American defeats the Soviet boxer and Mikhail Gorbachev applauds the result); An Officer and a Gentleman; The Empire Strikes Back; The Great Santini; Star Trek II; Return of the Jedi; Uncommon Valor; all those Chuck Norris films and even Superman II (1981), in which the Man of Steel (Reagan) must defend the White House from invaders (the Soviets, the Arabs, the Women) and supplant the weak-kneed president who literally bowed down to them (Jimmy Carter).
In that era, the “liberal” American films won the critical acclaim and Oscar nominations — Reds (1981), Gandhi (1982), Missing (1982), Tootsie (1982), The Verdict (1982), The Big Chill (1983), The Killing Fields (1984), The Color Purple (1985), Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985), Platoon (1986), etc. etc. — but the box office was dominated by “hard-body” American heroes who pushed law-and-order agendas at home and militaristic solutions abroad, as did Ronald Reagan.
raiders of the lost ark is probably more personal 4 steven spielberg as it’s fantasy nature mixed with nazi elements were intended as a b movie
Frank said, “For me, I find it hard to “get with” a film, even a thrill-a-minute one, that promotes a right-wing agenda.”
I just think “promotes” and “right-wing agenda” are too strong. Again, I can see the film reflecting the interest in romanticizing the 50s—which could be part of the zeitgeist of that time more than some concerted effort of Reagan supporters. (Was Speilberg a big supporter of Reagan?) I’m tempted to counter some of the arguments Frank made in Raiders, but I’m pretty sure he has analyzed and reflected on the film waaay more than I have. I will say that I think action/adventure films—particularly those involving the U.S. military—will almost always reflect more conservative values—regardless of who the president is. Sometimes that can veer closely to propaganda and other times it may just reflect values in a more benign way. My guess is that political persuasion of these who like action/adventure films tend to be more conservative/Republican, too. I’d also guess that the more critically acclaimed films tend to appeal to those whose political persuasion is on the liberal/Democratic side. This is true no matter who the president is.
(Off topic: I’m not sure what you’re saying about ET. Yes, it’s a variation on the Christ story. No doubt about it. But are you saying that Spielberg was working in cahoots with Reagan to win the Moral Majority? That can’t be. So what are you saying? Could it be that the Christ story and Christ figure is a theme that resonates with human beings and that this was an interesting variation on that theme?)
Jazzaloha: Spielberg’s personal beliefs and political convictions are not at issue. From what I hear, he’s a big liberal in real life. He first supported Hilary Clinton and then switched to Barak Obama and has given major donations to liberal causes.
What IS at issue is what’s on the screen in many of his films.and the effect it has on an audience. The success of Raiders and E.T. can in part be explained by the fact that they fit the emerging right-wing Zeitgeist in the U.S. in that era. A similar box-office strategy seemed to be behind one of Spielberg’s only failures, 1941. The idea seemed to be to appeal to an American audience in 1979 that was not worried by a Japanese miltary invasion of California (as it was in 1941) but the Japanese ECONOMIC invasion of the homeland in 1979. Why didn’t the film do well? Well, it wasn’t very good or very funny, but I contend that it didn’t do well because its anti-Japanese premise did not strike a responsive chord with the American public. After all, they bought the Japanese cars, electronics, and other consumer goods.
And, yes, the Christ story has some universal appeal but many of those retellings have failed at the box office. I think that part of the reason E.T. succeeded was that climate of the times was ripe for a Christ figure, given the re-emergence of a Christian right-wing in U.S. politics. And, BTW, I see Indiana Jones as a “born-again” believer because in Raiders he initially denies the power of God’s icons (“a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus”) but later comes to accept the Ark’s power from God.
Frank said, “What IS at issue is what’s on the screen in many of his films.and the effect it has on an audience.”
But your 1941 example seems to suggest that the films aren’t influencing the audience so much as the audience (society, Zeitgeist,etc.) “influencing” the films—that is the audience determining whether the film succeeds or not. Same with the E.T. example, although I don’t agree with your explanation of its success. I think E.T. succeeded because it was well-made—at least for mainstream audiences—not because of its link to the emergence of the Christian Right. You don’t think non-Christians and people with negative perceptions of Christianity could have liked the film? (Actually, I knew a Christian who hated that film precisely because he thought it secularized the Gospel story, which it did.)
That was sort of my feeling on Raiders. The film doesn’t seem to be advocating a particular set of socio-political values—let alone a right-wing agenda—but it probably does contain certain values and sensibilities that we associate with the 1950s (which are more conservative—and again, this was a romanticized perspective of that time). This may be a reason the film resonated with so many people—rather than “promoting” Reagan’s political agenda. But I mainly believe that it’s just a really well-done action/adventure film and that’s the main reason I think so many people like that movie.
Frank said, “And, BTW, I see Indiana Jones as a “born-again” believer because in Raiders he initially denies the power of God’s icons (“a bunch of mumbo-jumbo and hocus-pocus”) but later comes to accept the Ark’s power from God.”
But you’re not saying that this supports the idea that the Indiana Jones’ movies are advocating right-wing Christianity, right? Indy’s not a born-again believer in God and Jesus—so much as a born again believer in the supernatural. It’s the old trope of the skeptic (usually an intellectual) who finally believes in the supernatural. And remember that the Temple of Doom suggests that Indy starts believing in the Hindu gods. (The scene where Indy and the head priest are fighting over the stones while climbing the rope bridge.) Most right-wing Christians aren’t into pantheism, so…(Ironically, the same sort of thing happens to another Harrison Ford character—Han Solo—with regard to the Force. And the Force is not something Christians would be keen on either. Taoists maybe; but not Christians.)
Jazzaloha: This is a complicated issue, perhaps not that well suited to an on-line chat. Simply put, it’s a dialectic between filmmaker and potential audience. It’s not that the filmmaker makes a movie that influences the public, or that the filmmaker gauges what the audience will respond to (the Zeitgeist) and then makes the film. It all happens at once, so to speak. Some filmmakers (mainly the mainstream ones like Spielberg) focus on audience taste to a great degree (or else they have internalized a feel for the public pulse so much that they can trust their artistic instincts); nowadays many actually run “focus groups” to test possible plot lines and characters: "Would you be interested in an an all-American hero named Jones who goes around the world killing foreigners in order to steal a cultural treasure from the Holy Land and return it to its “rightful” home, Washington, D.C.?" (I made up that hypothetical example.)
Yes, E.T. was well made, but so are hundreds of other movies that do not gross $300 million on their initial release. From that era, Starman was another well-made retelling of the Christ story but it was not a box-office smash.And, of course, you don’t have to be a Christian to appreciate E.T. You don’t even have to notice the Christomorphic parallels to the Gospels. But that story, “the greatest story ever told,” is part of our Western collective unconscious and people respond. What I’m indicating is that in the 1980s, with the rise of the Moral Majority and the religious right (epitomized by the election of Reagan), the antenna of the public and filmmakers were attuned to such stories.There are even MORE “really well-done action/adventure films” made every year, but they do not all gross $300 million either. Their narratives and characters must strike a responsive chord with a large audience, and usually that means providing imaginary solutions to society’s problems. The Arabs are stealing America’s treasures (e.g., kidnapping Marion Ravenwood)? Call in Indiana Jones! Women are getting uppity and want an Equal Rights Amendment? Tie them up in a tent and give them a frying pan to beat off their attackers (in short, put them back in the kitchen). The Commies (Nazis in the film) are competing with the U.S. for better nuclear weapons? Have Indiana Jones get the biggest, baddest weapon known to man, the Ark of the Covenant (which “can lay waste to entire regions”).
My ideas were a “hard sell” when the film first came out in 1981, but after a few years, as more and more American films took on the form of “Reaganite entertainments,” it became much easier to convince people that “popcorn” action-adventure movies had right-wing political themes. In the Bush era, it again became a harder sell.
As far as Indy’s conversion to Christianity, I was speaking metaphorically. If you want to call it the supernatural or spirituality or the Force, you’re free to do so. Individual viewers can consciously or (more often than not) UNconsciously see Indy’s new-found belief in a “Higher Power” in religious terms. These movies are not Sunday morning sermons or theological exegeses; so, sure, if one thought about it, “the Force” sounds kind of primitive or Eastern (not to equate the two) and Christians who recognize it as such would abjure it, but these films do not provoke nuanced spiritual thought. It’s enough that a reliance on some external being or force will help to save the day. After all, these filmmakers know that they have to be vague about all this. If Indy or Hans Solo was a Mormon, for instance, those movies might not have the same mass appeal.
Frank said, “What I’m indicating is that in the 1980s, with the rise of the Moral Majority and the religious right (epitomized by the election of Reagan), the antenna of the public and filmmakers were attuned to such stories.”
OK, I’m with you. Where I lose you is when you say these films advocate for a specific political agenda—which is a big leap, imo, from the quote above.
Also, I disagree with the conclusions you draw from the specific examples you’ve used, but I don’t want to argue each one. But let me address the Indiana Jones becoming a believer. Your seemed to argue Indy’s new found belief indicates confluence with the resurgence of right-wing Christianity. I disagreed with that because I don’t think right-wing Christians—particularly the fundamentalists—would agree with that connection. Indy’s new belief is supernatural is probably closer to emergence of New Age-ism during the 80s.
John Woo… THE KILLER, BULLET IN THE HEAD
john woo… last hurrah 4 chivalry
Fascinating discussions. Sorry for the extremely long response, but you guys have reached into very complex critical territory.
So the public consciousness was receptive to these films because there was a right-wing streak in the country at the time. Thus, the making of “popular” films with a right-wing agenda was more likely to be rewarded with fame and box-office returns. Thus, significant popular filmmakers — even “liberal” ones like Spielberg — tended to imbue their films with conservative messages, especially about masculinity, foreign cultures, and violence as a way to solve personal and political problems.
As fully political beings, it can be argued that we have the responsibility to 1) recognize these themes, and 2) avoid and decry the films that are built on them. Number 1 is to ensure that we don’t fall into placid, subconscious acceptance of the juvenile premises these films are built on. Number 2 is to ensure that money doesn’t keep flowing into studios in a way that keeps these kinds of themes and subconscious politics totally dominant in Hollywood. We may have these responsibilities DESPITE our initial enjoyment of these films as entertainment, because it’s the entertainment value… the suspense, the one-liners, the rapid cutting, the cathartic violence, the global exploration etc… that makes it smoother for the ideological pill to go down.
I can buy this argument, and it makes me think twice about my mindless love for some of these juvenile films.
However, I think my moral culpability is mitigated somewhat. Some of these themes, like identification with a collective and depersonalization of the “other”, and the appeal of violence as a means for survival, dominance, and validation… they’re just instinctual drives that everybody, including enlightened liberals, have to find way to deal with. It happens that the conservative movement has found ways to mobilize these desires, using patriotism and ego-boosting to sell us politics of wealth and war. Naturally, you’ll find a lot of parallels between self-indulgent action/adventure films like Indiana Jones, and the PR and political messages of the right wing. The right wing has learned a lot from Hollywood, and they know the appeal of the hero mentality… it’s not that Hollywood is selling it on behalf of the right wing; rather, both the right wing and popular Hollywood are selling us stories that go back as far as Beowulf, and probably infinitely farther.
General things like chauvanism, patriotism, and violence (and especially religious faith, a la ET) will always be undercurrents in culture. Sometimes we just have to find ways to sublimate them and engage them on a fantasy level, so we can keep them out of our more serious decision-making processes.
On a side-note, I fully accept that a lot of this stuff… especially the sexism… is rooted in a messed up cultural complex, and it’s unfortunate that filmmaker after filmmaker still has to draw from these stereotypes for their stock characters. I love characters that break stereotypes (Sarah Connor and Ripley being good examples), and I’m prepared to reward them. However, if we held films culpable for drawing on unfair stereotypes, we’d be condemning literally 99% of films. In cases like that of Marion Black, it has to be enough that we recognize the stereotypes, critique them, and praise and reward any movie that effectively breaks them. Stereotypes and recognizable character roles are a pretty essential part of storytelling, including filmmaking, so we have to be a little flexible with these filmmakers’ creative lapses.
“Point Break”, “The Matrix” and “Machine Girl” are some of my personal favorite action movies. And I agree, there’s nothing wrong with action as long as it’s done right!
Another vote for Point Break, huh?
Re: John Woo
I think I’ve only seen The Killer and Hard-Boiled and I never really had any interest to see any more. I liked the two-gun-jumping-in-the-air technique, but his stuff is a bit over-the-top for me. Oh, I did see Broken Arrow and Face/Off which were OK. FO could have been more interesting.
Speaking of over-the-top, I generally don’t like action/adventure films with a glut of action. Pacing—i.e. “slower” sequences that build to action—is important. Raiders had almost perfect balance between action and non-action scenes ( while Temple of Doom did not). Also, unless the action is meaningfully integrated to the dramatic elements of the story. Also the best action scenes often involve cleverness on the part of the hero and villain.
Jesse said, “As fully political beings, it can be argued that we have the responsibility to 1) recognize these themes, and 2) avoid and decry the films that are built on them. Number 1 is to ensure that we don’t fall into placid, subconscious acceptance of the juvenile premises these films are built on. Number 2 is to ensure that money doesn’t keep flowing into studios in a way that keeps these kinds of themes and subconscious politics totally dominant in Hollywood.”
I see a difference between broad social values contained in a film from promoting a specific political ideology/agenda. I don’t think the films Frank mentions does the latter. Moreover, these “political” elements are not clear cut. Frank and I went back and forth whether Indy’s belief in the supernatural and it’s relationship to the rise of the Christian right. Frank’s wrong (I kid), but I think the issue is pretty ambiguous. The notion that Raiders endorses a sexist view of woman is disputable as well. Marion dons a dress, but it’s also forced on her by the villianous French prof. (the Old World versus the New?) Marion hits someone on the head with a pan, but she also grabs a knife to escape. Later, she also fires a machine gun to help Indy. All in all, I think the characterization of Marion is definitely closer to a feminist viewpoint than a traditional one.
Btw, I still think that most Hollywood action/adventure films have a pro-American viewpoint and generally are more conservative—even outside of the 80s.
Finally, I think the thing that bothers me—or should bother me more—is not the political agenda “promulgated” by these films, but the glorification of violence. I think that’s something I wrestle with—or should wrestle with—more seriously.
My favourite action film is definitely John Woo’s The Killer. The Killer is in many ways excess taken to the extreme. Bodies, blood, and bullets fly left, right and centre with characters using everything around them to get an advantage whilst scenary is eaten up by hails of lead. In between we have boat chases and assasinations, car chases and one particularly awesome scene where our main character tries with all his skill and luck to stop a cop at close range from shooting him whilst both he and the cop have to pretend to a woman with very bad sight that nothing bad is happening. It is excess done brilliantly – all those lame Hollywood action films that just throw in some explosions and gunfire and think they’ve done it right wish they could pull it all off with the precision, skill, style, humour, variety and unapologetic true exorbitance that this movie does it with.
I’ve always loved “Rambo:First Blood”. I enjoy a story in which a “normal” character gets pushed too far. Great job by the sherriff Brian Dennehey, I wanted a piece of him myself. Also “The Rock” and “Master and Commander” are pretty good action flicks(maybe The Rock is considered more of an action thriller). Jazzaloha, I loved “Midnight Run” also.
“Samurai Trilogy” (1954), starring a young Toshiro Mifune, is a great foreign action and adventure film with a formidable villian. “Apocalypto” and “Mongol” are other notable foreign flicks.
I loved Aliens and T2 but considered them Sci-fi.
Boston,
I couldn’t get into the Samurai Triology. I lost interest after the second film.
But I did like Rambo: First Blood. Dennehey has the gift of being despicable. I also enjoyed Master and Commander. I loved the chemistry between Paul Bettany and Russell Crowe. I also liked the naval tactics employed in the film.
Never liked The Rock. One of the big problems is that the villain is somewhat sympathetic in this case.
Jazzaloha
I really love a good action film. For some people, a good action film mainly needs to have big explosions, great effects or exciting scenes. But that’s not me. I’ve also noticed comments about action films at this site that annoy me a little. I’m talking about the idea that if a film is a “popcorn movie” it doesn’t really have to have a well-developed story. To me that really just sounds like an excuse for making a bad film. As much as I like good action films, I really dislike bad ones. With that said, here is my list of criteria that make up a great action/adventure film—at least for me:
1. Likable protagonists. I always welcome complex and original heroes, but I can live with formulaic leads, if they are well-done. For example, I really liked Bruce Willis’ John McClain, the rebel, wise-cracking cop. Another favorite is the anti-hero a la Bogart in Casablanca. I can see those type of characters over and over again, as long as they’re done well.
2. A really great villian. To me, this means some one that is formidable, especially in terms of intelligence and cunning. Audiences should be disdain and—even a little afraid of the villain, too.
3. A good story. The characters and action have to take place within a story that is interesting and compelling. Resolutions in the story must be believable and satisfying. Part of a satisfying resolution involves freshness versus cliches. For example, I’m totally uninterested in a chase scene at the end of an action film that takes place in a dark building where the hero and villain shoot it out only to end up no some precipice where the villain falls off. However in terms of the overall story, I don’t mind if a film stays close to a tried-and-true formula as long as they execute the formula well. Raiders of the Lost Ark is a good example.
4. Great action sequences. This includes everything from the way the sequences are shot (One important part shooting an action scene is to allow the audience to clearly see and follow the action.) to the set-up of the sequence and the way the scene fits in with the characters and the overall story. The other part of a great action sequence involves the first three criteria. They’re often more important than good effects or spectacular stunts. Meeting the first three criteria can make or break the scene. One example that comes to mind is Darth Maul in the first Star Wars pre-quel. He was a cool character, but the filmmaker fails to develop his character—what makes him evil and formidable is not established at all (which is very different from the filmmaker’s establish Vader’s character in Star Wars). An interesting back-story that somehow linked Qui Gon to Maul would have made the final fight scene more dramatic as well.
5. Challenging predicaments for the hero and satisfying solutions to those predicaments—which don’t always have to contain physical action. For example, in Die Hard the scene where John McClain meets Hans on the roof is exciting without much physical action. In general Die Hard has many good examples of interesting predicaments with satisfying resolutions (This is related to the criterion above, but I thought I would list it separately.)
Here is my list of all-time favorite action/adventure films that have these qualities:
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Star Wars
The Lord of the Rings Triology
Die Hard
The Matrix
The Empire Strikes Back
Aliens
Ninja Scroll
The Incredibles
Midnight Run (borderline action film, but maybe adventure?)
The Abyss (probably more of a sci-fi suspense, but what the heck)
Other films: Leon: the Professional, Terminator, Big Trouble in Little China, Tremors, Speed, Lethal Weapon (lame villain), Midnight Run, The Avenging Eagles, Die Hard 2, Rob Roy, Duel, Jaws, The African Queen, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Titan A.E., Castle of Cagliostro and Willow.
Of some of the more recent films, I really liked The Italian Job and 300.
Btw, I’m sure we’ll wrangle over the definition of the genre, but I’m using it fairly broadly. I can understand if people don’t consider The Abyss or Duel as action-adventure, but I really like those films, so…I also consider many police films—like The Dirty Harry films—as action films.