Columns, Opinion

LAUNGJESSADAKUN: Time to take action on action

My relationship with the action genre in film has always been one that I had to put a lot of effort into maintaining. Recently, I feel like I have had to put in more effort than usual as I begin to realize that this relationship is rather one-sided and even abusive at times.

Even though action films are not particularly my forte, I still appreciate a good one when I see one. When I was younger, one of my favorites were the “Bourne” trilogy and then “The Dark Knight Trilogy” and the more recent “John Wick,” even though I was dismissive of it at first, as I have an explicit bias against the genre, instinctively assuming that all action films are a terrible waste of time.

Despite my tendencies to overreact, I must say that in this case it is not unfounded. There have been a lot of, in my opinion, terrible action movies recently, and what bothers me most is not the odd atrocities that pop up here and there, but the persistence of the directors and production crew to continue to make films that rely on convoluted, nonsensical plots and whacky camera movements that just leave you feeling more confused and dizzy.

Other times the movie becomes so reliant on the exploding and shooting parts of action that they forget that action can be something much more than that. Take movies like “London Has Fallen,” for example, in which there is so much emphasis on explosions and destruction of the environment that it takes away any substance from the film whatsoever. A.V. Club called it out appropriately, saying that Babak Najafi is a “truly bad director” who “doesn’t need shaky handheld or rapid cuts to make incoherent action.” This attempt of trying to make the movie more immersive and intense by blowing up famous landmarks is a common trope among action movies that really needs re-evaluation.

Another one of my pet peeves is when action films make references to the sciences, politics and philosophy in an already convoluted plot in an attempt to add gravitas to an empty script. This was the case in “Now You See Me” and its nonsensical magic-science, and in “Lucy,” for which I have a personal vendetta after seeing the trailer, where she changes the color of her hair at will, due to higher brain function. The attempt to appear science-y by alluding to the Hollywood myth that humans use only 10 percent of the brain, which we’ve already seen on “Limitless,” is completely beyond me.

These two are not the only perpetrators, but are probably some of the more extreme ones. They are, however, not necessarily bad movies, but these previously mentioned let-downs could certainly put someone, who may not be such an avid fan of action, off.

Ultimately these films have one fundamental role, which is to entertain. Along with that, there will, of course, be parts where the films may appear ludicrous and just over the top. A blatant disregard for logic is an essential part to making a good action film. However, I do not find it entertaining to sacrifice plot points and substance, which is what I have been noticing a lot of, for cheap action, regardless of whether or not it makes the box office.

Films like “John Wick,” which I had a strong aversion towards initially because of the unreliable nature of action films, is a testament to the absurdity of the genre. Directors of such films need to understand that it can’t just be glazed over with pseudoscience, pseudo-politics, action itself or Morgan Freeman.

More Articles

Comments are closed.