2018 gives birth to a new type of action-thriller film

'Mission: Impossible Fallout', 'The Equalizer 2' and 'Sicario 2: Soldado' subverted tropes that have confined the genre for years, and audiences responded positively

Tom Cruise and Rebecca Ferguson in 'Mission: Impossible Fallout' (Paramount Pictures)

by Jack Linsdell

The action-thriller genre is one of the biggest in Hollywood's film industry, only subordinate to that of science-fiction (namely made up of superhero films) and animation (only genre that is specifically kid-targeted) in terms of global box office receipts. For 40 years, it was ruled by EON's James Bond franchise but with the 1980's came Mission Impossible, Die Hard and Lethal Weapon which evened out the playing-field a little. Mission movies were different as they were almost 'heist' films disguised as action (especially De Palma's original), Die Hard movies were unique as they were distinctly adult-rated for bloody violence and strong language and the Lethal Weapon films were modern (for their era) noir-comedy's, also with an adult rating. The point is, that the genre had a variety of different series co-existing on the basis that each were distinctively different from the others.

With Paul Greengrass's very successful transition from award-winning docu-dramas like 'Bloody Sunday' and 'Omagh' into feature films, the action-thriller genre changed considerably. Greengrass's 'The Bourne Supremacy', released in 2004, had a very different feel to anything in the genre before. Namely, what is amateurly referred to as 'Shaky Cam', was a new style in which Greengrass adopted hand-held cameras to follow Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) around European cities and then rapidly cut between these multiple angles at a rate faster than change falls out of a vending machine. 

Now, Greengrass is my favourite filmmaker, so I personally adore his style of filmmaking which has created such compelling fact-based dramas. However, there are many that don't like it - and this is largely down to how much it has been copied ever since. Indeed, after 'Supremacy' opened to $288 million worldwide and Greengrass returned for the sequel 'The Bourne Ultimatum' in 2007, every other series in the genre adopted his style including Daniel Craig's 'Casino Royale' and 'Quantum of Solace' (2006, 2008), Liam Neeson's 'Taken' series (2008-14) and Bruce Willis's 'Die Hard 4.0' and 'A Good Day to Die Hard' (2007, 2013). This descended the action-thriller genre into artistic chaos as suddenly every film looked and felt the same and now suffered from what can be called 'genre constriction'.  

However, with 2018 came a promising hope for a genre that has been so exhausted by a deluge of action-thrillers, both smaller-budget and franchise blockbusters, that have ripped off that 'Greengrass-style'. The three biggest action-thriller movies of the year, arguably, were Christopher McQuarrie's 'Mission: Impossible Fallout', Antoine Fuqua's 'The Equalizer 2' and Stefano Sollima's 'Sicario 2: Soldado'. Now, what makes these films unique is how their respective filmmakers have put them together in a way that subverts what audiences have come to expect for this genre. All three films have a focus on narrative, in which the story is told slowly, but with conviction, over a 120 minute-plus feature run time. The action scenes are few and far between, and instead the directors favour less frequent but more drawn-out sequences of suspense in which they build up, beat by beat, to a point, keeping the audience hooked until a plot twist is revealed. Even the way they all film their action is different - lengthy, continuous shots with camera movement prioritised, means the least amount of edits and camera angles are used. The effect here is that the films become stylish - as effective as Greengrass's-style is for a Bourne movie, not every action-thriller needs the audience to feel like they are on the run if the story isn't about that - with cinematic appeal. However, it also achieves the opposite effect - instead of the audience running away from everything, they are forced to be confined to locations and characters for long periods of time, and that stationary feel creates vulnerability and tension that have long been absent from the action-thriller.

Also, all three films have contributed to a 'mood' that stayed with me after seeing them all at the cinema - something that has been built through a slow but progressive narrative and enforced by dramatic scores that resemble something of Han's Zimmer's work on Christopher Nolan's 'Dunkirk' recently. It's apparent that the relatively unique approach (especially for a genre dominated by one filmmaking style over the last decade) adopted by these films was so refreshing to audience members and genre fans alike that it helped each one to become commercially successful in it's own right. McQuarrie's 'Fallout' became the highest-grossing Mission movie worldwide with (so far) $790 million, taking the franchise to new global levels. 'The Equalizer 2' (a far superior sequel to Fuqua's original in my opinion) equalled - pun very much intended - the first film in ways, many could argue it wasn't expected to achieve considering the competition and lack of IP to sell it with. The same is said for 'Soldado' which earned $77 million in comparison to 'Sicario's' $86 million - again a low-budget sequel to a one-off critical smash isn't expected to do the same business as its predecessor. (In my opinion the simplicity, grittier/darker tone and slower pace to 'Soldado' also made it a superior sequel to its original flick).

For the record, as a fan of Greengrass and movies that have ripped off his style, I still love to watch those on-the-run, fast-paced action spectacles. However, I think it's also important to have others in the genre that look and feel completely different, to allow variety and make each series unique in its own right. If the respective studios can offer a variety of action-thriller's per year then everyone will be a winner. Worth noting, Sony and Paramount won it this year with the three films mentioned, making a welcome change from the usual genre leaders of Universal/Comcast Corp. and Twentieth Century Fox.

Finally, I want to clarify about 'slower-paced' narratives for those males out there who refuse to see these type of films (especially action-thriller ones in this style) because they perceive them as too boring because they are too slow. Now, just because a narrative pace is slow doesn't mean it isn't progressive. Films that are genuinely boring (and critically suffer for it) have little narrative progression or quite often become distracted from the central plot of the film and become irrelevant. I urge any such opiniated film-goer to watch any of the above three movies and experience how if told right, slower-paced action-thrillers are not only better than expected but a breath of fresh air. 

If you like what you read, be sure to check the blog for regular reviews, updates and news stories regarding the film industry. For queries or requests, please do not hesitate to leave a comment or contact me at pastadude65@gmail.com and I will reply as quickly as I can.