Where do you draw the line?

[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.