FACEBOOK: / chrisstuckmann TWITTER: / chris_stuckmann OFFICIAL SITE: www.chrisstuckmann.com Chris Stuckmann describes some of his problems with action movie filmmaking today, and provides some possible solutions to fixing them.
Amen to that. I thought I was the only one getting really ticked off by that but am finding alot of people everywhere including women getting completely bored of that shit.
And I'm tired of seeing men get slaughtered throughout the whole movie, but females don't get as much as a single punch to the face. Wanna bet not a single woman get killed the entire movie?
roger Rumble Yes, I'm a woman and it pisses me off. There is no way a tiny chick would beat a super tough guy, unless she had some really spectacular martial art training/super human sense. Black widow is a great example. Isn't she like a normal human?! And she's small! So stupid! The Alien films are a great example of how female caricatures should be done.
It's not just feminists, people in general hate to see women in pain. Ironically this is why feminism is successful, people will do anything to protect women from real or perceived threats and so feminism is successful precisely because it's wrong. There generally only really two reasons you see women getting badly hurt in films. To make you hate the bad guy more or to make you feel greater empathy for the woman getting hurt.
Yes and it makes us more connected to him and actually feel sorry for him and it set up the prequels very well because if he was some monster looking person he might have not been made like how Anakin was
I think it's getting better tho. Mission impossible series, john wick series, daredevil, star wars, Kingsman are the evidences that action movie is getting better. At least the day of shaky cam is coming to an end.
100% and Bourne ultimatum sucked, I do not agree with him on that at all. The shaky camera made me so nauseous I had to leave the theater get some air and I never went back to finish the movie.
Cronyism plays a part in that too. Sheltered offspring born into the business lack real-life experiences and more often than not, lack the passion for the art yet can't live without the money they've always had. Moviegoers advocate this by not boycotting the trash they produce and instead help them to rake in millions from said trash. Why change a winning formula eh?
Isn’t rebooting bad movies better than good ones? Nobody wanted a Lion King remake because we didnt need it, but I could see people actually wanting a Black Cauldron remake. Hollywood only reboots and remakes movies that were already successful because that is what gets them money.
Jackie Chan said in an interview that "when the camera moves that means the actors they don't know how to fight" and he also said that "I always do wide angle to let the audience see that I do the flips kicks and punches" which I strongly believe cause if the audience is there to see a fight scene but instead gets the camera bouncing around like a basketball instead of holding the shot long enough for us to see the bad guy vs good guy
John Wick movie never dissapoints me when it comes to fight scenes: there is no shaky cam and no multiple angles and most importantly the actors are trained by real Kung Fu master.
He also stated that he hates how many movies right now are using so much cutting and editing in between fights and it takes away from the fluidity of the scene.
@Happy Jew Capitals are used after a full stop. It seems you're quite handicapped yourself? No matter, English is my fourth language and I'm more than happy to correct it for you.
Yeah, I usually give up after about 30 seconds of shaky cam, I can't follow the fight, I can't see any emotion in the fight and it's just not worth any more of my concentration to keep trying to understand what's going on. It really amazes me any director can think that looks good.
He does bad guys better than heroes. Some of his best roles are hard badasses. So much more potential there. Not being the "bad guy" per se in Tropic Thunder (but plainly a rude motherf...er) He killed it in that role.
Shaky cam worked in the Bourne movies because they gave scenes a sense of heightened anxiety that fit the narrative which itself was imbued with a sense of urgency and anxiety
I am fed up with retreads of old ideas, like reinventing Batman/Superman/ etc every few years. Arguably adding nothing new to the mix except better special effects.
Adamast I am talking in general, not specifics. There are a few good films each year, subject to personal tastes of course, but there is a lot of dross. It's alright if you're young and everything is "new", but I've been watching film and television for over 50 years.
***** I am always surprised how young people are able to see horrible repetitive (Disney, ...) series episode after episode. Being older I have my favor of dross. I even watch Top Gear twice a year.
I know, right. It went from an innovative artistic choice to a simple trope used by mediocre filmmakers to mask terrible storytelling or fight choreography.
In regards to stunt, I have to say the Keanu Reeves absolutely is top-tier, if you've watched the John Wick films, no matter how over-the-top the action is it's always believable. Be at the fight scenes, with realistic movements, acting that can display the pain of strenuous physical combat or the gun play where every bullet is accounted for, and the character is forced to carry every bit of Hardware they're using. Top notch.
Except for the fact that a guy who punches as slow and roundabout as Keanu would be dead before the end of the first fight scene. They really have to go out of their way to sort of kind of make him seem like a bad-ass. He's athletic, but he has zero quick-twitch.
Just more ballet. Another guy that would be dead, dead, dead, fifty million times over. The first movie wasn't too bad, because it was a little bit different. But after that, it's just more repetitive nonsense.
Keanu Reeves didn't do all the stunts himself. He even says it in an interview. Some stunts that are way too dangerous he leaves them to the pros, also because he said it is their job and it is what they are good at. We need people like them. And he is right. This is why I respect him, because most stunts he does himself, but very risky business he prefers handing it over. Also it is done in way it doesn't interfere with the directors creativity.
I do want to add one thing to your “Stunts” section, and it’s that not enough actors are trained in stage combat (the illusion of violence) and not having that training not only makes the actor not want to do the stunts (like you mentioned in the video), but also makes those in the movie hesitant to use that actor. By having the training, you not only are more comfortable with stunts, but you also know how to do fights safely. Without that training, and actor might be willing to do stunts, but they will not be allowed do to safety regulations. Just wanted to add as well.
Guns that fire more bullets than they can hold. Bad guys that couldn't hit the side of a barn at 10 feet. People dying instantly from one gun shot or from being stabbed. These are a few of the things that drive me mad with bad action films.
It only really bothers me when people instantly die from a single gun shot to the chest in certain movies. If the movie has the main character get shot and survive or has a side character get shot and slowly die for 5 minutes then it really bothers me. Especially in "realistic" war movies. They should be screaming their heads off if not crying for mommy.
Nearly all action films have that stuff, not just bad ones. I don’t mind it, unless they aim to be realistic. Hard Boiled is one of the best action movies ever made, and pistols can hold around 100 rounds.
The day Keanu Reeves and Tom Cruise retire from the industry, will be the day I will probably stop seeing new action movies..... I'll still watch older movies religiously though!
@@DustinBarlow8P resect. Just don't throw the towel in on them just yet. I'm from the era where .Arnold stallone, Segal and van dam were the action heroes .
@@Wickedthtz Ok I forgot about a shit load of great action stars. I'm 32 so I am also from that era. I wrote that comment cause I was sad about the direction of action movies in general.
@@DustinBarlow8P ok. Me too as well. Looks like they are running out of concepts and trying to do remake of action blockbuster movies. God forbid they do a "Running man " remake.
I always hated that film “a good day to die hard” I could never work out why it brought up such a vile response from me. Now that you have put it in to words why it was so bad, I get why I hated it so much.
That's what I love about #4. Although it has many problems, the hero is nowhere near on top of things as he's an old fart who doesn't know how to use a computer, let alone fight cyber terrorism. I hate to use meme terms, but ''ok boomer'' perfectly summarizes Live Free or Die Hard. Well except from the CCR scene, where I stand with him.
the previous *Die Hard/s* literally have the good guy *SCREAM* the catch phrase to the bad guy. In the *Good Day* the good guy just mouths the catch phrase off to no one in particular. SAD FACE :/ I do wish I saw the fourth DIE HARD. I missed out. :/
There's been plenty of people who think so. Stop strawmanning yourself! Yes, it's an overused technique, but he's not outright bashing it in this video. If you think you agree with him just because you thought he only criticized shaky cam without analyzing it done right, then you really missed a lot of his arguments. I'm sorry...
I am guessing Hollywood would say people don't have the attention spans these days to develop an interesting story. Which is ironic, given that they are probably largely responsible for that dumbing down in the first place.
People like good stories just as much as always, but our standards have been pulled down pretty low by much of what comes out of Hollywood these days. People have learned to accept mediocrity. That’s not to say there aren’t good movies being made in this era of American film, but I think most of the recent hits will be forgotten as the decades progress.
i don't think you need much of a attention span to enjoy a interesting story, being interesting means it grabs the attention, it's actually the definition of the word: arousing curiosity or interest; holding or catching the attention.
They tried to emulate Call of Duty, except that you can't take something that was designed for mouse and keyboard, and then try to apply that to a movie. It always degrades the film, if not turns it into complete failure. The best games and the best movies don't even have that much action in them. Most of the time in games, I'm either building up to the action, or I'm travelling to it. Very little time is spent on the actual fight. Examples: Rimworld, From The Depths, Kenshi, Total War, etc. Even in Total War, in the actual battle, I spend most of the time moving troops into good positions, or waiting for the enemy to come into range. The fight itself takes a fraction of that time. And that's how it happened, IRL. Lots of time posturing, faking and sizing up the enemy before going full on. (Also, it annoys me that Hollywood doesn't seem to want to ever recreate an actual formation battle. I just want to see one film where they get that right.)
I just think the audiences split, as we have more genres and there are just more movies in general. I think there are some gems today too. For example - Now you see me - where would you put it? Is it action, comedy? I love nowodays movies too you just need to find the good ones. Grand Budapest hotel is a gem for me. Bridge of Spies was a gem too. The Avatar with its amaizing CGI was just the new way to see where sci-fi, fantasy is mixing with action. Some CGI movies can be good too even today. John Wick... I dunno. To me it was not that good to be honest. But it was better than the rest.
I studied cinematography in college in the mid 70's. Here's what I know about "shakey cam". The hand held, un-stabilized camera was a rarely seen filming technique at that point, and mostly avoided. In fact as soon as it began to be used, technology was invented to stabilize a hand or shoulder mounted camera. But the 60's audience had been inundated with news clips from reporters in the heart of battle in Vietnam. These were "shakey cam" by necessity. It was discovered that it had a deep psychological effect on the viewer, making them feel as though they were personally in that location witnessing what ever was being filmed. The average Granddad with his super 8mm movie camera took similar, shakey clips around the backyard swimming pool, and the audience could personally relate to the effect. In the night club scene it works because it makes the audience feel as if they are part of the crowd ... *as long as* the camera man is positioned as one of the crowd and the cuts have the continuity of the view of someone in the crowd. It DOESN'T work in the fight scenes because a bystander would do just that, stand near-by, well out of the way of flying fists. The idea is to make the viewer feel the hero's peril, but it's more uncomfortable for the viewer who wants simply to get up and move away from the danger. The further confusion caused by incongruous camera angles just heightens the viewers desire to flee. I was taught this was a technique that could have a powerful impact on the audience, but it was one that needed to be used with *extreme prejudice* and only if the situation made sense that the operator filming it would legitimately be in the scene. My instructor predicted it would become a filming cliche just like the "fast zoom" did in the 60s. As far as I'm concerned it reached that status by the mid 80s
the parkinsons cameraman is now the director, that and the bullshit tough waif woman beating the shit outta men 3 times her size and not even hurting her hand with the incorrect round house style punching, awful stuff
One other thing that made the Character of John McClane even more relatable and believable was the fact Bruce Willis did his own stunts. Especially in the first one, because they were working on such a small budget that they couldn't afford to pay a stunt double for Willis. So Bruce Willis volunteered to the stunts himself
well, the first transformers is brilliant. shia laboeufs acting is great, hes all natural and innocent (he even improvised a lot of his lines on set), you can relate yourself to his wish for a first own car, and the girl of course... this works just fine. and you can say what you want about michael bay, but he knows how to make great CGI action. it doesnt look cheap or misplaced for one minute. its very well produced. it was just too hard for the sequels to tell an equally good story... but they still look awesome.
I agree with you. The first Transformers movie from Michael Bay was exceptional. The sequels, I have a problem with. Michael Bay is a good commercial and action sequence director no doubt (Pearl Harbor comes in mind), but these can't be the only things that drive the movies, at least for me.
LittleMopeHead Age of Extinction especially, and very unbelievable at that. I was in disbelief as to how the girl chick was the daughter or whatever of a 30 year old looking guy. I only went through the first half hour and I was like theyre trying too hard to be dumb af
+LittleMopeHead Pearl Harbor was a boring movie they ruined it by making it a love story we needed to wait more than 90minutes for the fight scene that was laughable how bad it was Michael Bay even used old footage from the original movie Tora Tora Tora which is thousand better because there were better actors that acted much better than that sh*t movie pearl harbor . With Transformers the only problem that ruined the movie was the patriotism again showing us how great America is .... In the eighties cartoon there wasn't even talked about america this america that....Thats why i love the cartoon better.
defiraphi Just Michael Bay being Michael Bay is laughable when in the Transformers world, your 25 year old sister is essentially your mother somehow.... Bad characters or nah?
Yeah. I would like if they went back to their roots with the first one which had action but also the suspense. Something like ghost protocol meets mi 1 .
Not always... In "Gladiator," the hero (Maximus) and the villain (Commodus) want completely different (almost opposite) things. Although it should perhaps be noted that in the film that Maximus already has already achieved a few of Commodus's "goals" already. I do not know any-one who claimed that Gladiator (the film) had a bad villain. In reflection, the hero and villain both have the goal of killing the other (as well) but that is to be expected in these films. (Perhaps that is wanting the same thing but from a different perspective)
blindlobster well I am talking about a true opponent, most often people mistakenly think of the opponent as someone who looks evil, sounds evil or does evil things a true opponent wants to prevent the hero from achieving his desire but also compete with the hero for the same goal. This way you link the opponent to your hero that way they come into a direct conflict at some point. I have some conflict about Gladiator about that, Maximus is fighting to expose the tyranny of Commodus and hopefully get his (revenge,freedom) the moment they killed the wife and kid I was like oh oh cause they give the role of the woman in rescue to the Commodus‘ sister (maybe to illustrate how common it was to have incest back then in Rome) but it lost purpose. It would have been nicer if Maximus’s wife was also Commodus lifetime person he was in love. So maybe now they have a common conflict they both fighting for the same goal. One has strength and muscles the other one power and wisdom and position. I don’t know is hard but I still liked it. But I don’t see Commodus as a strong opponent. The Roman Empire was definitively though. Some good opponents I consider as example in The Godfather Michael first opponent Sollozo or Barzini they both compete over survival of the Corleone family and who will control crime in NY. Star Wars Luke and Vader each one competing over the control of the universe Vader represents evil forces and tyrannical empire while Luke represents forces of good bla bla bla Chinatown a tricky opponent who remains hidden until the end the rich and powerful Noah Cross he wants to control the future of Los Angeles with his water scheme. Although in reality they are both competing over whose version of the truth will be believed.
@@sorartificial You are of course welcome to your opinion but I disagree. Maximus wants Rome to become a Republic and Commodus opposes this. Commodus wants to be loved (and respected) and Maximus consistently prevents this from happening, Commodus wanting to be loved is the reason for the duel at the end of the film. Of course, Maximus also wants vengeance for his family and the Emperor and one could argue that Commodus want vengeance (against Maximus) for himself and the Emperor. If Maximus didn't steal the Emperor's love away from Commodus then the Emperor wouldn't of "needed" to die. We have an ideal Maximus whom the people fall in love with without any effort on Maximus's part and we have Commodus who wants love but is too unlikable to acquire any love despite his best efforts. Everybody who knows the pair prefers Maximus, even Commodus's own family. The only goal they share is killing their opposite. With a minor script alteration, we could probably make a film where Commodus is the hero and Maximus is the villain. (Yes, that might sound mad.) I see Commodus as a strong opponent. He has the power, the plotting and the combat ability. He isn't to Maximus's fighting ability but he can use a sword (but perhaps not a knife). However Commodus is not a superhero villain. I believe Maximus represents altruism while Commodus represents egoism. You do not need to like him but Commodus might be my favourite villain (might).
Venom NBK 1. Yeah, I prefer when the guy and girl are just two people trying to survive, not just become,"Yep, I save you, we get the sex on." 2. Now that's just a subjective matter since it's kinda revolves upon other genres as well. You'll have the usual scary, tough black man and the "Black Best Friend" 3. Yep, and one to point out is Judge Dredd's (Stallone) comedic side kick, Rob Shneider. Again, subjective matter.
Venom NBK A lot of the time, people like the energy that a black actor brings. But as Sony leaked emails say, they don't believe people will go see a movie based on him. So they add him in a certain way. Curiosity get me, however... What's the difference between having an mandatory minority role and having a mandatory majority role? And the comedic side kick has fell out of favor in recent years, I think. Just like Chris said in the video, what makes Matt Damon great in Bourne is that he's not spitting out One-liners all the time. Most heroes nowadays come from the RDJ/Iron Man cloth of constantly joking and making his own quips. I feel that's phased out the need for side kicks. As for the the romantic subplot? Mainly I think it's because the lead female is hot and people want to see her more sexually. Like how she'd look kissing and whatever. In short, people are lame.
I wholeheartedly agree. It was more "back to basics" of what makes a good action movie actually good... Sometimes you do not have to change the formula to make something good. You just make sure what comes out at the end is solid. IMO It was. I also enjoyed John Wick, and yes. It did have some really great stunt and action scenes. You can't have a good action film without em' :)
The thing is, he was already on the edge because of his wife's death. Moreover, that dog was her last gift to him and it held an emotional importance to him. I think it is reasonable for a man to go nuts over someone killing the last thing that reminds him of his wife.
Joe Black He's a retired professional assassin. That's a pretty psycho job in the first place. The option to just go an kill people who fuck with you probably doesn't have such a high threshold as it does for regular people. I don't Think John Wick is even supposed to be that relatable of a character. He's a hyped up extremely efficient killer and you know you came to watch the movie to see him to kill people in awesome manner. They throw away all pretense and just go for it. I think it's a fun approach.
Joe Black are you kidding? I bet you don't even have a dog. if someone killed the dog that my recently deceased wife just left me, I'd go John wick on them too.
More then that, after killing his dog, Iosef's father (don't remind his name at this point) sent 12 killer to take care of John Wick BEFORE he even attempt something. That's a good motivation too...
I still love the revenge of the sith final fight, yes it's not a gritty down to earth fight , I always felt they both were confident in their skills which is why they don't look worried, they look more angry 🤷🏼♂️
One thing you didn't touch upon is time. Jackie Chan has always lamented the fact that he's given very limited schedules by Hollywood studios to shoot fight sequences. Quentin Tarantino knew the importance of giving enough freedom to action directors to showcase their craft. Hence, you'll notice that Yuen Woo-ping's choreography in the Kill Bill movies is closer to the quality of his work in Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon as opposed to the Rush Hour series failing to match the action of JC's Hong Kong flicks. As a result, most casual American moviegoers merely recognize Jackie as that funny martial artist rather than being as badass as Beatrix Kiddo. While elsewhere, he's known as the only non-Hollywood action star to ever really compete w/ the likes of Schwarzenegger & Stallone.
When he said, "A great villain is the polar opposite of the hero, but with one thing that connects them," I imagined Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, and the chemistry between them that made Silence of the Lambs twice as good as most thrillers.
I also heard in another video about die hard, that they changed the story quite a bit ,compared to the book ( where McLaine is an older guy former played by Frank Sinatra) . So basically for the Director back then, McLaine didn’t had much depth and they rewrote the story as if his opponent, Hans Gruber was the main Protagonist. He is still on of my favorite bad guys. Great writing and acting by the Villain is something I miss these days. ( sry 4 bad englando)
lol i just made a comment about oldboy 1min ago when people were talking about how fake fight scenes were, i told them to check out the old oldboy film.
In defense, it is a superhero movie. They had to make her (or any superhero) "super" in some way. The point is to be not human, something more. You get????
I think one of the most brilliant action-packed scenes in Star Wars is when Luke cuts off Vader's hand. The music is powerful but also very sad. You can clearly see the emotion on Luke's face, Vader's weakness, and the sinister look on the Emperor's face.
To me the shaky cam is the element that kills an action movie entirely, I dont get what is the point of making so hard to see the biggest selling point of your movie, the action, that only proves that your movie has nothing to offer and the one having more action then the characters in the movie is the camera man.
Shaky cam is about as annoying as that person asking a million questions during the movie. You just can't concentrate and figure out what's happening in the movie.
Shaky cam to me I see it nowadays as a very lazy attempt by most producers to A) cover up people who cannot physically do action and B) to just copy and paste what everyone else did. The Bourne movies make sense because the shaky cam is used as a story means to showcase just how competent Jason Bourne is. Now, for granted outside Bourne, I do think there were movies that used this very well. Some CBMs, like WS, did this surprisingly well. And I forget the film, but the one staring Denzel Washington that was an action movie was good too. Overall, I agree with you.
All through this I was thinking "Vulnerability of the hero!" and so glad you put it as the most important thing. Many modern heroes act as if they *know* they're invincible. e.g. they can walk into the bad guy's lair, with henchmen completely surrounding them, and don't even need a plan. They know they can't be shot in the back of the head because they're the protagonist.
This is the best video you've made, Chris, and I hope action filmmakers watch this. I agree with all your points; for the last one, I'd add that the hero's behavior should be plausible enough for the audience to maintain their suspension of disbelief. The Bourne trilogy is so efficient in that regard because the hero doesn't laugh or throw a one-liner during a life-threatening situation, and he has to face realistic consequences for each of his decisions.
Antony Cube I think Interstellar is underrated. The one negative was casting Anne Hathaway. The soundtrack is brilliant, IMHO. Kind of Philip Glass-like.
Five years late but this just showed up on my recommended feed. I agree with everything you've said in this video except for when it comes to the Anakin-Kenobi battle. To me, the entire point of that fight was the fact that these two were brothers in war, fighters and soldiers who had not only trained excessively with each other throughout a major conflict but had put their very lives in each other's hands more times than either could count. It's a dance because they know each other too well. Even the cringy lightsaber twirling scene is actually a reflection of this as you can consider the two warriors to both be blocking strikes they would normally expect to come at them and instinctively moving to block what their muscle memories are treating as feints. The dance is essentially them acting on nothing but instinct with the fight only sometimes breaking out of this pattern into an actual attempt to defeat/kill the other. In a similar way, it's like how two close friends have a such a bond that they can spend hours slagging each other off as a means of showing their love for each other only for the friendship to shatter and then they get into a shouting match for real. They'd naturally fall into their old habits because of how much they're running on emotions and instincts. Don't get me wrong, that fight isn't flawless and I understand why some might not like it. But taking its choreography as is without actually looking at its context is, in my opinion, a massive disservice to the second greatest lightsaber duel in the entire franchise.
Still pretty boring to watch with no dialogue in between, and they could’ve made it seem like they were highly trained but still have made it exciting. They literally twirl around quietly for minutes on end
What about Rambo? In "First blood" he was a homeless Vietnam Veteran just trying to make it, and then he gets arrested by a dickhead cop. This is something that a lot of people can relate to (I never been arrested but I feel for this guy) He then breaks out with no casualties. And then in Rambo 2 and 3 he's killing stereotypical Russian Bad guys by the masses. He went through the dramatic "Person to invincible mass killing robot", like John McLane
I could just imagine if they make a sequel to The Revenant and Leo could cut through every Bear without a scratch on him. How unrealistic would that have been?
That is what made Rambo 2 work though. Plus it was during the time of the Cold War decline. Plus the narrative of R2 was Vets still in captivity, and a protagonist that could provide hope. So there is still a story, and the movie was a success. It's a formula that can work in certain situations and some sequels did it very well. Like Aliens and Rambo while others flop like Predator 2 and so on. I thought Rambo should have died in R2 and just leave at that there wasn't a need to carry on.
In my opinion, besides the movies plot, nowadays the actors are just cutie faces, nothing else. They just prefer to take pretty actors (terrible in acting) than good stories. A shame
It never worked in Bourne either, and idk why people keep saying it does. The effect, in addition to being functionally useless and f#$%ing obnoxious, still makes a movie painful and nigh impossible to watch. Now the "hand camera" technique does work. To quote Mr. Plinket "You might not know you're seeing it, but your brain does." It's subtle and it's brilliant and it works. Shaky cam you *know* is there because it's all up in your face till you can't physically look at it anymore.
Coming back to this video after all these years... I still find your statements more true than ever, and maybe even more than 7 years ago. Especially when it comes to hideous, shaky cameras. Thank you very much for putting this into this worthwhile video and all this good wording.
For me, unrealistic and heavily choreographic fight scenes are what ruined action movies for me. It's more like watching a damn ballet than a action movie.
As a fan of chinese marterial arts movies imo there lies a deep beauty in choreographic fight scenes, for instance if you don't know it yet you should check out the fight between Ziyi Zhang and Michelle Yeoh from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, imo one of the very best fighting scenes in cinema history but Hollywood just doesn't get it right most of the time.
I think this is actually what people love about action movies. To see someone act like a character so skilled in combat is the beauty that people want to see. Isn't this why people unconsciously love competition? to feed the primal side of us that sees beauty in pushing the human body to limits most can not achieve? isn't that the very reason Bruce Lee continues to be relevant today?
I know...I want to hate him, but his skill/dedication demands respect. he literally took over as executive producer of one of the Mission Impossible movies because they wouldn't let him do his stunts, and they can't say no if he's paying for it lol
@@Shiek200 respecting and liking someone have nothing to do with one another. I don't like Alberto Pujols as a person but what he's done in baseball you have to respect if your a fan of the game
+LoN3wOlF5tudi0s kingsman, john wick, Edge of tomorrow, rogue nation, spectre, winter soldier, and of course mad max. and even some that arent masterpieces but are still pretty fun like man from uncle and american ultra. it looks like we're starting to get some great action movies again.
I feel like action movies nowadays have accepted the label of being most mindless genre for people who want to see some explosions and gunfights, that producers don't even bother with doing anything more ambitious than that.
Mad Max: Fury Road, John Wick, Edge Of Tomorrow and Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation are all great recent action movies. Especially John Wick and Mad Max, they're fucking awesome movies.
+Serpico's Beard Yeah, a guy getting revenge because some stereotypical schmuck stole his car - and I'm not joking here - killed his dog, is the best excuse ever to go out on a murder spree. Mad Max:Fury Road currently has 10 Oscar nominations. John Wick was just stupid, mindless action we've seen a shitzillion times before with the likes of Steven Seagal.
+Serpico's Beard Stupid mindless action isn't excellent, and that's the whole point. Besides, I'm pretty sure there's few that agree that it's the best, even though it was somewhat good. I don't know, I haven't watched it, but Predator seems to have better reception. I didn't watch any of them to know.
+HorseriderXX Devon The dog symbolized the memory of his wife; she gave the dog to him as her final dying gift. I would go on a killing spree of someone killed my dog, even if it wasn't given to me in such dramatic circumstance.
I don't understand how the shakey cam routine is meant to resemble the viewer's p.o.v. as if you are in that room during the scene. In reality when you are watching people talk or action happening, you don't shake violently. Unless you have a serious neurological disorder, your eyes stay perfectly still!
John Wick is such as great action movie. It has enough world building and story to keep you wondering about the world after the film is over. For example, I want to know more about secret society of assassins who uses their special currency, have their own local spot where all assassins hang out, and such. However the world building never gets in the way of the initial story, unlike Jupiter Ascending, I like how it tells a complete story while giving clues about world.
John Wick honestly renewed my faith in the action genre. It introduced world building in such a matter to where it never felt forced or shoehorned in. It was a natural part of the narrative and in many ways made sense. The Hotel Continental was such a cool place, that I'd want to see more of that Hotel and the world of Assassin's. Also, the action was amazing. Keanu Reeves, I forget how well he could do action and this was easily one of his best performances. Overall, to me JW is a classic. While I am hesitant about the sequel, I do want to see more and I hope it does well.
steven shar Damn, that movie sucked. ok yeah, great coreography and camera work, but story, hero and villain were just terrible. They killed his puppy, how dare they kill his puppy, ROAR, its just so silly it feels like a parody to me. besides how did he get his ass handed to him by the weak ass son in the beginning if hes such a, so called, bad ass, it dont add up.
tskwared667 bullshit, if it was the point it would have been a full on parody. just face it the writers didnt actually have a strong unique idea to begin with and just went out of their way to create a different story just for the sake of being different, doesnt matter if its cringeworthy to the max. if it was the point they missed the mark and didnt create an action movie or a parody, just an action movie with a ridiculous plot for the sole purpose of just being unique, without the comedy and over exageration to justify the silly plot. its fucken stupid, it doesnt work as an action movie cause the plot ruins it and it doesnt work as a comedy, because of lack of comedy.
I'm not going to say that John Wick is a bad movie. The first 40 minutes of build up were amazing and captivating, but once the action scenes started, it bored me more and more. In fact, I almost fell asleep while watching. But hey, still a great movie, just not my cup of tea.
Holy cow, the camera work is probably the most important part of action sequences. I notice stuff like that, and the editing, when watching an action movie. The Road Warrior is an example of good camera work at times. For instance, when the guy uses the pole to vault over over the compound wall and then the next shot is his feet landing close up to the camera. A good action sequence flows.
Fury Road's "breaking point" moment: Max hanging upside down on the side of the War Rig as Furiosa struggles to keep hold of his foot after getting stabbed on the ribs. Immortan Joe passes by with one of the wives already captured, and leads his biggest trucks to trap the rig on all four sides. The music dramatically swells up to reflect this hopeless situation. Meanwhile, Slit sneaks inside the trap with the Interceptor and speeds up to ram Max. With the sudden change of music, the turning point comes when Furiosa rams the Interceptor into the Gas Town leader's truck, killing Slit. Nux, after fixing one of the engines, then emerges from underneath the rig and pushes Max towards said truck. Max grabs onto the vehicle, hijacks it, then speeds up to free the rig from the trap. With two gigantic vehicles in our heroes' possession, the battle rages on.
That movie was basically a feature length trailer for itself. Literally, it was cut by a trailerhouse. DC has been more concerned with making amazing trailers (and they are good trailers) than making good movies.
Prana Khan It was a good soundtrack but it wasn't used well. It'll just drop two seconds of a song inappropriately. Like when Harley is fighting the black man (I'm not racist, what would you call those things?) in the elevator. The song they played didn't fit at all. Or when the Joker and Harley are in the vat of chemicals, music was completely out of place. Just because it was a good soundtrack, doesn't mean it was appropriate or well used.
Here's some advice: Use guns properly. Quit leaving stocks folded. Quit leaving folding sights folded. Quit leaving removable sights off. Quit shooting from the hip. Quit using a cross-thumb grip technique with any handgun that isn't a single-action revolver. And don't forget to do the "HK slap" properly. 3:09 Those MP-40s are anachronistic. The story takes place in 1936, two years before the MP-38 was issued (which was the MP-40s predecessor). 3:20 Why do movie people think D-rings are meant for slinging hand grenades? That's such a sloppy and negligent way to stow hand grenades! Hand grenades, like 40-mils, should be stashed in pouches. 40-mils can also be slung in a bandoleer, but no one uses bandoleers anymore. 3:26 That's not the correct procedure right there. Grenades are only used that way in movies. 3:50 He has a lot in common with Kyle Reese. 4:43 That's not what bipods are for. I haven't seen that one, but I'm going to hazard and educated guess that he never makes use of the bipod. Probably never shoots from the shoulder either. Probably always shoots from the hip. 11:08 Check out that lame Steven Seagal-style "bent elbows" pistol stance. 14:12 They're always striking each others lightsabers instead of trying to strike each other (until the plot calls for a strike to actually land). 15:08 What was the purpose for both of them doing interlocking flourishes like that? That's an example of style over substance.
Shaky cam was used in the Hunger Games to show what it was like for the protagonist to be in the arena; it was terrifying, confusing, suffocating, overwhelming, anxiety inducing, violent and fast paced... it was meant to confuse the audience because that’s what the protagonist felt in that moment.
I think John Wick had something other action films can learn from. The world in which John Wick takes place feels so unique which is even better explored in the sequel
Don't forget District 9. The portrayal of an absolutely defeated and scared man deciding he's going to fight back with the tools at his immediate disposal (Way OP alien exosuit, but still. His frustration, pain, and panic were tangible.) That kind of character development has been almost completely forgotten by hollywood.
So you caught on then. points for thinking. Next their is so much action to keep you from noticing that the writing and concept development is bad too.
and when is someone going to tell Hollywood that Tasers do not sedate people! Neither does thonk! To the back of the head. I mean if it has enough force, but not when some 90lb girl in black latex barely swings her arm.
@@thetayterminator1436 Also if you're unconscious for more than a few moments or a few minutes you probably have some serious brain damage or are in a straight up coma. Maybe a coma + brain damage
Predator ending was shot in the dark but yet we could see what was going on ,why do all new movies look so dark and miserable looking. Bring back 35mm movies.
Yeah, instead of them getting their ass kicked, then kidnapped, having to be rescued or given an edge so that they can try again. I like this method, but anime, cinema and video games use it as well.
The main draw is in how they win, what is their demon and/or challenge and how are they going to over come it. Also there are plenty of movies where the protaginist does not win, their victory is incomplete, or they have been the badguy without relizeing it and their victory is wrong. Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid = They do not win but they go out in style. Conspirecy Theroy = Jerry finally breaks free from the demons of his past but dies in the process leaving behind the woman he loves, who only just reciently relized that she loves him too. Fight Club = the prothanist ends up starting a terrorist group.
Exactly, so it's when a movie makes you doubt if the hero will actually win, then it becomes great. That's how I felt in The Dark Knight. It begins and I obviously KNOW for a FACT Batman will win. He's freakin Batman! And then the plot starts going, there's some mafia bosses planning shit, thinking they can out manoeuvre Batman, BOOM Batman kicks their ass! Just as I knew he would. Then this other character comes in. He's not as organised, not seemingly as smart or powerful as these mafia bosses, Batman isn't worried. "One man? Or the whole mafia?" Batman arrogantly asks Commissioner Gorden. Then this guy starts freaking Batman out. He is just completely the apposite of what Batman expects and knows from bad guys (and thus feels in control over them). "Some people just wants to see the world burn" Alfred tells Bruce, as he tries to study this guy. And you can see Batman still doesn't get it. He's still arrogant and overconfident in his abilities. So he hatches a scheme, to catch the Joker. It works! "Finally we got you, you son of a bitch!" Every body celebrates! Yes the Joker put up a good run, he had some good moves, but Batman is ultimately the best! The movie is done, that was good I enjoyed that", I say to myself, getting ready to get up and go home. But then I realise the credits haven't started rolling yet (I'm getting emotional just typing this). "What? It's still going? But why? Batman won. He caught the Joker!" And it turns out Joker was in control all the time. He played Batman. Batman get's called back from chilling after a job well done: "they never made it home" Batman is angry! How dare this guy!? He's Batman! He'll just apply more muscle to the problem!" It doesn't work, Joker laughs at him. And it all starts falling apart for Batman. Joker plays a low blow, he doesn't play by Batman's rules. He kills Batman's child hood friend and love. Now the scales have shifted. Joker is in control (shown by the scene where he sticks his head out the cop car like an excited puppy and swerves the car, Gotham in the back ground blurs chaotically). Anarchy has won. While Batman is sitting in self doubt and pity at home. Not even in his "Batcave" planning his next move. And things keeps unravelling for the Hero. Suddenly -in my eyes- the invincible "cartoon/comic" Cape Crusader image is broken. I see Batman sitting in an every day normal looking room, with his mask in his hands, his face, his humanity revealed. Feeling insecure and scared and "out of control", just like I do sometimes. Just like we all do. I think I'll come back some other time and finish this, it's getting a bit too emotional for me now. But it's an insanely good movie that reflects so much of life.
few action movies have any sort of tension anymore, we just have some SEAL Team 6 level super soldier fighting some mildly retarded criminals without breaking a sweat, saving the child/woman/sandwhich they've decided to rescue before walking off into the sunset. It's like watching the Harlem Globetrotters compete against a little league team, you know your in for a decent show, the Globetrotters may even pretend to lose for awhile, but you know that no matter what happens the little league team doesnt stand a chance.
Great video. What you spoke about minus the shaky camera can be transferred to writing stories and novels as well. You made some extremely interesting points.
Oh yeah, they were. Not really realistic, but the choreography was amazing and the story (fantasized, sure) was awesome :D For an action movie, Ip Man was just pure entertainment. I even liked the second and third and can't wait for the fourth... just hope it's not "woke" like most movies are :O
Hi Chris, I was reminded of this video after watching Frame Voyager's analysis of John Wick 4's cinematography. The part that stands out to me about this video and the other on Voyager's channel is the explanation of effective vs ineffective camerawork in action movies. "The Problem with Action Movies Today" specifically is one of the videos that helped to deepen my own analysis on films and film making. Thank you.
