Where do you draw the line?

[Posher778]

I'm posting this here to avoid stupid comments and bullcrap stuff, so-

In so called action films, in fact, maybe even the majority, there is a total lack of actual action. Has anyone else noticed this? What movies are like this that you know of? For example- V for Vendetta: Not action... at all, there's about 2 scenes that even qualify. Kill Bill 2- It's technically action, at least most of what i've heard, but there is virtually none. Really, the only action scene is when beatrix and elle fight in the trailer, but that's mostly it. The assassin hotel scene is kinda action, but it's brief. So, this might be kinda broad, but, where do you draw the line between ACTION films, and DRAMA films?

Give examples.

[Amphibious Wretch]

is this the line for free cheeze ?

Apparently, it's the line for completely inane, off topic posts to a genuinely interesting inquiry.

[Despare]

I don't know, maybe you're not looking at every type of action. V had explosions, fighting, running from the law... I'd say it could be lumped into the action genre if somebody wanted to. The problem is that the big genres themselves are so broad. It seems any movie that contains a couple of large actions scenes to either further the main plot or conclude the story is marked as an action movie.

[Posher778]

is this the line for free cheeze ?

Save it for your own lame threads. If that's all you've got... leave.

[Despare]

OMC... you haven't said one thing that was actually on topic YET. Go back and fuck up the general forum some more if you have nothing to say. Action movies can have plenty of gore, look at Robocop.

[Posher778]

300 had tons of gore but it was an action film .

That's not exactly what i'm on about. Gore doesn't change a film, action/ lack of action is what we're talking about. 300 is action... lame action... but action.

Action- The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Kill Bill v.1, Die hard, The Matrix.

Non action... by my standard- Reservoir Dogs, Collateral, The Punisher

[Despare]

Non action... by my standard- Reservoir Dogs, Collateral, The Punisher

Those films were all PACKED with action. Chases, gunfighting, lighting people on fire, witty verbal battles, people being thrown out of windows...

[Posher778]

Those films were all PACKED with action. Chases, gunfighting, lighting people on fire, witty verbal battles, people being thrown out of windows...

Reservoir dogs took place mainly in one room. It had a bit of action, not saying there was none, but it feels way more drama in my book.

Collateral was too boring to be action. Action isn't throwing a person out a window one time to me... Punisher had a few scenes, that is about 50/50 with me. The beach part, and the end part.

[Amphibious Wretch]

Reservoir dogs took place mainly in one room.

True, but the flashbacks to the robbery were action packed.

I'm not sure where I draw the line as far as action goes. Do we consider Way of the Gun action? What about Pulp Fiction or Lucky # Slevin? Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels?

I understand where you're coming from, though. I guess if you wanted to tout a flick as pure action, we might want to look towards something like Pierce Brosnan Bond flicks or early 90's Arnie types, like Eraser.

[Despare]

A movie doesn't need to be packed with non-stop action for it to be an action film. Collateral had a lot of scenes that constituted its status as an action film although that's not to say there wasn't some drama. As for Punisher, it was simply a poorly done action movie.

Whenever action is used as such a huge plot device, that movie can at least linger in the genre if somebody wants to classify it as such. Kill Bill Vol. 2 is simply the second half of a larger film and Kill Bill is an action movie.

[swiss tony]

reservoir dogs was a drama without doubt. my most disappointing movie that promised action and didn't deliver was alexander. boring shite! also, on the subject of movies that didn't deliver how about hostel?

[Herbert West]

I agree with Reservoir Dogs and Collateral, not really action movies. Punisher was certainly an action movie though, it just sucked. I did like the fight with the big Russian in the goofy sailor outfit.

On kind of a parallel to this is walking into a video store and seeing something like Boyz N the Hood in the action section(I've seen this in at least 2 large chain video stores). The movie was clearly supposed to draw attention to a growing problem in the US, I don't know how someone could classify it as action.

[_____V_____]

Very interesting inquiry, Posh. I ll try to show my picture of where the line is drawn.

An action movie is not necessarily a purely 100% endless sequence of explosions, gunfights, kickboxing etc. That would make it totally nonsensical and mindless. For every good action movie to prove its point, it should have at least a half-sensible story. Hence we have some sort of plot, establishment and development of characters...before we get in into the serious stuff.

A true action flick is one where the story starts off real quick and things start happening quite quickly. The changing of scenes happens swiftly and the characters keep moving quickly from one frame to another, before the violence starts...like in Die Hard or Commando etc...

For example, Aliens. It followed Alien and the audience were well-versed with who Ripley was, and what had happened to her. But still, to develop the character more and to throw in a bunch of new characters (each with their own unique personality, like Bill Paxton, Michael Biehn, Paul Reiser, Lance Henriksen etc.) we have story-driven character development for at least 15-20 mins before getting into the action...see, action needs to blend into the storyline, the action we see on screen should feel as a part of the proceedings which have been going on...

Take any action flick as an example. Arnie's flicks, like Commando, Raw Deal, Terminator 1 & 2, Die Hard series, Predator etc. all movies depend on establishment of plot and characters. Stallone's Cobra or First Blood series, Van Damme movies, Seagal movies, Lundgren movies etc. All have a healthy dose of violence in all of em, but for the action in those movies to look gullible, there is need of a plot and character development.

As regards V for Vendetta, the movie is categorised as action. Because it has lots of it, and the story development happens quite quickly as the characters move from one frame to another. It does not let you catch up (ala the Matrix movies) and you have to be quick in order to keep up with the pace of the story. That, imo, is an action movie.

[swiss tony]

i would categorise an action movie as a movie that uses all standard components of movie making as a vehicle to emphasise the 'action'. i suspect that some action movies are made in reverse ie. they work out the action first then think of a story to put it in context. the story almost always involves vigilanteism and revenge. also, i don't see how you can have an action section as its too loose a description. all genres have their action movies eg. you should never find alien, saving private ryan or bad boys on the same shelf. ps.good question posh!:)

[Mictlantechutli]

Why the deep need to categorize? Must a film fall into a neatly defined slot to be valid?

Reservoir Dogs seems to be popping up quite a bit in this discussion, and rightly so. It has action (guns, speeding cars, foot chases) but only intermittently. It has a ton of gabbing which would lead one to possibly call it a drama. The motivating factor in the film is a mystery - "who's the rat?"

But it leaves and breathes in the crime/caper sub-genre. Like La Circle Rouge or The Taking of Pelham 123. RD deals with the set-up and aftermath of a caper, but it never shows the caper (the action bit) because that's been done to death. But the implied action certainly bleeds all over the film.

I find a film that blurs the lines between genres to be the most exciting form of cinema. Strict categorization is for narrow minds.

[The Mothman]

if you want to see a damn good action movie, i suggest you get your hands on a copy of Wake Of Death.

Plently of gritty violence, revenge, emotion, well directed action sequences and gunfights, and what many say was Van Dammes best over all performance.

and just general badassness.

[Papillon Noir]

Action is most typically defined as: sequences, such as fighting, stunts, car chases or explosions, that take precedence over elements like characterization or complex plotting. The action typically involves individual efforts on the part of the hero in a "good" vs. "evil" (not to discount the anti-hero) battle.

For me, there is an easy way to distinguish between action and drama. It is an action movie if afterwards I feel like I went on a "fun ride" vs a drama which provokes thought about a topic.

V for Vendetta is an interesting example, though personally I would consider it an Action-Drama or just a Drama if you want to lump it into a broader category. I think that it has way too much character develpment and political satire to be considered action vs just "not enough action" in it. With new films being made every day, with new ideas and new topics, some of our "sub-genres" or "cross-genres" have become genres in themselves.