lol...they are really bad....at least the first one. Only reason I saw it is that my little sister (she was about 12 when it came out) made me take her to it..... I think I fell into a waking coma. I don't remember Anna in it but there has been a lot of suppression lol
I feel like a lot of movie & television directors don't know how to direct an action scene, whether that's a fist-fight, a gun-fight, a car chase, a dance scene, a sex scene, a horror scene, a sports scene, or physical comedy. I suppose writers may not know how to write them, either, but I guess I assume these scenes are mostly on the director's shoulders. There are probably some dramas, romances, thrillers, and comedies - any movie that focuses on character, plot, and dialogue - that would have been really livened up by well-directed action scenes, but you just don't notice, because you're not really focused on the physical action, or lack thereof, in those kinds of films. I also suspect there are directors, writers and actors who are dismissive of action scenes, consciously or unconsciously, perhaps thinking they're easy to do or unimportant. And some of those people are in the business of making movies that feature a lot of action. One of the 'cardinal sins' in my book is not letting the audience see the action, and action scenes that are hard to follow, whether because of quick cuts, poor use of "shaky cam", bad lighting, or bad editing.
I feel like a lot of movie & television directors don't know how to direct an action scene, whether that's a fist-fight, a gun-fight, a car chase, a dance scene, a sex scene, a horror scene, a sports scene, or physical comedy. I suppose writers may not know how to write them, either, but I guess I assume these scenes are mostly on the director's shoulders. There are probably some dramas, romances, thrillers, and comedies - any movie that focuses on character, plot, and dialogue - that would have been really livened up by well-directed action scenes, but you just don't notice, because you're not really focused on the physical action, or lack thereof, in those kinds of films. I also suspect there are directors, writers and actors who are dismissive of action scenes, consciously or unconsciously, perhaps thinking they're easy to do or unimportant. And some of those people are in the business of making movies that feature a lot of action. One of the 'cardinal sins' in my book is not letting the audience see the action, and action scenes that are hard to follow, whether because of quick cuts, poor use of "shaky cam", bad lighting, or bad editing.
Another 'cardinal sin' of action scenes is when they're just boring. It's difficult for me to put my finger on why an action scene isn't compelling, probably because it's in something that isn't there or wasn't done. An example I can think of was X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009), which I tried to watch a few weeks ago. It was almost non-stop action, and I couldn't keep my eyes open. I think I shut it off halfway through, and I have no interest in going back to finish it. Total snoozer. The director, Gavin Hood, doesn't seem to have a track record of doing movies that rely on the action scenes. I remember like his Official Secrets (2019) well enough, and I guess I do remember as not having a lot of kinetic movement. At the time, I assumed that was a choice - and it was acceptable in that sort of movie - but maybe he's just bad at shooting those kinds of scenes. Who knows, maybe he tried to give Official Secrets some kind of visual momentum and I didn't even notice.
Anyway, George Miller is one of the best action scene directors of all time. Even in the scenes where he uses some of the things I mentioned above, he uses them effectively: The short chase-scene in the beginning of Fury Road where Max is running from the War Boys through their labyrinthine headquarters uses rapid cuts, weird and unsteady camera angles, and that kind of 'stuttering' editing, all to disorient the viewer, because the pov character - Max - is disoriented and lost and panicking a little. I haven't seen many of Miller's non-action movies (the Babe movies; the Happy Feet movies; and Lorenzo's Oil) but I'd bet $1 that the physical action scenes in those movies really carry the audience along, even though those movies may not need the physical action scenes to carry the audience along (although, I think Happy Feet is a dance movie, albeit an animated one). I actually did see The Witches of Eastwick (1987) when it came out, and I remember liking it, but I can't say that I remember how the action was filmed, such as there was any.
). Both movies were great fun.
Right, the stakes of any conflict in any movie relies on the audience being 'with' the characters. If a movie hasn't established the characters in such a way that you give a [turd], then the conflict is meaningless. This is what writers, directors and actors who come from dramas are good at (so you can sort of see, for example, what Marvel might have been thinking when they brought Chloe Zhao aboard Eternals). And then if the action is filmed in a listless way on top of that, it's a complete waste of everyone's time *cough*Black Adam*cough*. With X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I was already familiar with the character, so it could have relied somewhat on that pre-existing familiarity (although there was one character beat in that movie that made me roll me eyes all the way back in my head, when Lynn Collins' character was 'fridged'). Compare Origins with the next 2 Wolverine movies, especially Logan, and the character development is night and day. I can imagine the director of Origins wanting to put a paper-bag over his head after he saw what other people were able to do with that character in a film centered on him.
I remember it getting a lot of attention when it came out, mainly because of Sarandon, who was right in the middle of the Hot Zone in her career (Bull Durham in '88 to Dead Man Walking in '95, and of course Thelma & Louise had come out just the year before Lorenzo). I think Nolte was a pretty big star at the time too.
They're great if you know what you're getting and you're actively seeking that out. They're terrible if you're expecting high theatre.
variety.com
9/10.
Eastern Promises (2007) is very good, too. I just rewatched it last Fall, and I liked it a lot.
