Raiders isnt a action movie.
The people who voted Mad Max are probably the same that got Inception to the top of the imdb
Also, is The Good, The Bad, and The Weird really that good? It always looked kinda interesting to me but never enough to warrant a wathch.
Bobby, don't my action movie need violence?
The people who voted Mad Max are probably the same that got Inception to the top of the imdb
The people who voted Mad Max are probably the same that got Inception to the top of the imdb
No need to respond to this in particular ((.but I always thought rap was pop Hip hop. While HIP hop is some story, most of the time without a chorus. )) Action (crazy) adventure (somber) hm....lotr .fantasy adventure. Aliens sci Fi action?There's tons of fucking violence in the Indy Jones movies.
Raiders features a guy getting chopped up by a plane at the end of a fistfight, to point at one of the less-memorable examples.
Again: I really do think, having lived through the weird splitting of the genre, and the relative (gleeful, willful) devaluing of the "action" term when it comes to film, that the idea there's a solid difference between what an "action" and an "action/adventure" movie is? Is not much more than the kind of hair-splitting that causes people to argue that there's a difference between "Rap" and "Hip-Hop."
There isn't. But people have their reasons for wanting there to be, and they choose to push that even if they don't really catch what they're doing and why they're doing it.
I'm really surprised that I was the only one that voted for Escape From New York especially considering Big Trouble in Little China managed to get 25 points. Assault on Precinct 13 also only got 2 points. Do people really prefer Big Trouble to Assault and Escape?
Inception is among my favorite movies of the decade but I didn't vote for it. Didn't really seem like it was in the same vein as the full-on action movies being voted in. Same with Star Wars and basically every western.What makes this post hilarious is that (going off of the voting list) Inception didn't even place
I mean, James Cameron and Arnie in his prime vs. no Cameron and an aged Arnie.I honestly didn't know my opinion on Terminator 3 was considered odd. Wasn't trying to be edgy I really enjoyed the movie, but that may be in part that I remembered it more than Terminator 2 due to seeing it more recently.
There's tons of fucking violence in the Indy Jones movies.
Raiders features a guy getting chopped up by a plane at the end of a fistfight, to point at one of the less-memorable examples.
Again: I really do think, having lived through the weird splitting of the genre, and the relative (gleeful, willful) devaluing of the "action" term when it comes to film, that the idea there's a solid difference between what an "action" and an "action/adventure" movie is? Is not much more than the kind of hair-splitting that causes people to argue that there's a difference between "Rap" and "Hip-Hop."
There isn't. But people have their reasons for wanting there to be, and they choose to push that even if they don't really catch what they're doing and why they're doing it.
An action movie , to me , is a film centered in its action spectacle. In its action sets , events , etc. It's not one where the narrative interweaves with some action set-pieces.
can you explain why something like star wars would not qualify as an action movie? i am only asking because i assume you would vote for one of the star wars movies if you considered them action movies.
I don't like that Fury Road is up there. It's too soon.
Yeah, it's definitely splitting hairs. I think I've talked about it before (because lord fuckin' knows I love a semantics debate) but a lot of people don't really realize that "Action Movie" is really just short for "Action/Adventure" movie. Before the late 80s, there wasn't really a separate conception of "action" and "Adventure" within the genre. Action/Adventure was just what it was called. And then after a glut of Schwarzenegger and Schwarzenegger knockoffs started hitting shelves, people began to segregate the two much more cleanly, when they didn't really need to. And at some point in the late 90s, it was pretty much done: There was now a big wall between "Action" and "Adventure"
If anything, it's the film equivalent of people who try to say "rap" is differen't than "hip-hop."
I'm really surprised that I was the only one that voted for Escape From New York especially considering Big Trouble in Little China managed to get 25 points. Assault on Precinct 13 also only got 2 points. Do people really prefer Big Trouble to Assault and Escape?
Also no votes for The Warriors or any other film by Walter Hill (Southern Comfort, Long Riders, 48 Hrs., The Driver...).
Huh? What does age have to do with quality?
To clarify - I'm not saying genres need to be rigidly separated, and there can't be crossovers. You can absolutely have fantasy/action, sci-fi/action, action/comedy, so on and so forth. I'm just arguing against the idea that "Action/Adventure" is somehow a blending of two separate genres after-the-fact, when it's actually the origin genre here.
Need some time to back off the hype, see how it holds up, and where it fits with the rest of movies you're not still excited about.
But almost the entirety of that top ten are films where the narrative absolutely is forwarded and weaved into the action set pieces. They're not just boss-fights - characters are developed through the action itself in all those movies. It's likely part of the reason they're considered to be top 10.
Hell, look at Robocop. It's not like the set-pieces in that film are particularly good, or even memorable. The most memorable action sequences in that film include a stationary robot shooting a stationary man for 30 seconds, and a stationary gang shooting a stationary cop for another 15. But it's the way the story is told through Murphy's action that I think elevates it for a lot of people.
(That and the satire, of course)
Interesting to note that Hard Boiled is the only film in the top 10 that isn't part of a franchise (unless you count the Stranglehold video game).
Huh? What does age have to do with quality?
Yeah, I think Cameron is a bit overrated myself. He does great work of course, but he also usually has a lot of budget to work with. Just compare Die Hard to Terminator 2: 28 million vs. 100 million. McTiernan is THE Hollywood action director in my opinion. I also prefer Alien over Aliens, but that's another story.Eh, Jackie Chan movies getting relegated to the 11-20 spot is awful as far as I'm concerned, and I've never been a huge fan of James Cameron's movies, but I know that's just me and I can't say it's a bad list in spite of that.
The Mad Max whiners are out in full force today. This is why we can't have nice things.
In a decade it'll still be considered a classic. Anyone can quote me on that.
I have never even heard of Hard Boiled.
Oh, right. I loved Taken. Liam Neeson is a goddamn badass for someone who's 56. Shame they've driven the franchise into the ground. Although I guess the same happened with most of the franchises in the top ten.And where's Taken?!