The Rebirth of the Action Genre

The action genre has seen a promising rebirth over the last two years, showing that it's the artistic capabilities and choices of any given filmmaker that can make or break an action flick

Gerard Butler in 'Angel Has Fallen' (CREDIT: Lionsgate/Millennium Films) 

by Jack Linsdell

Over the last few years, the action genre (much like the horror one too) has become tired, giving us a series of movies every year that are all variations of the same movie. The genre has become something riddled with cliche, tropes and a preference for visuals over substance (story, character and themes), with irrelevant action scenes which have become over-edited and bland to make action movies boring and often confusing. Gone are the 1970's-style action-thrillers with complex (not complicated) narratives, character before action and a distinct visual style that makes one stand out from the next. However, last year and this year has shown us that maybe, this period of stagnation for the action genre is coming to a close. 

Last year, the three biggest (arguably) pure action movies that were released were all sequels to existing franchises. The biggest was Christopher McQuarrie's $178 million-budgeted sixth instalment to Tom Cruise's long-running franchise with Mission: Impossible - Fallout. We then had Denzel Washington's first ever pure sequel with Antoine Fuqua's The Equalizer 2, with a budget of $62 million. Lastly, we had the second instalment to the Sicario series with Stefano Sollima's Sicario 2: Day of the Soldado, which was the cheapest of them all with a "mere" $35 million budget. This year, we had Chad Stahelski's (popular but pretty bland) John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (who in god's name chose that long title!) coming in with a hefty $75 million production budget, and another three-quel to an action trilogy with Ric Roman Waugh's Angel Has Fallen starring Gerard Butler as Mike Banning in this $40 million budgeted flick. So, as you can see, all our biggest action movies have been sequels to existing series, but all (except for John Wick 3) have been some of the genre's best movies from the last decade, as well as being superior sequels to their predecessors. 

But, what makes these action movie sequels so brilliant and refreshing for the genre? It's (largely) down to the filmmaker at the helm. If that sounds silly then bare with me. Yes, every movie, no matter the genre, is dependent on how any given filmmaker chooses to make that movie (from script to editing), however it appears that the recent rebirth of the action genre shows how much this genre relies on a filmmaker's choices and style in determining an eventual movie's quality. It's clear that when a filmmaker decides to make an action movie "done right", using style, form and principals founded in the genre during the '70's, then that movie turns out well. When a filmmaker doesn't, it falls apart. 

Why is it that Martin Campbell's Casino Royale and Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace are gritty, exciting and visceral action films with great character work and political relevance, whilst Sam Mendes' Skyfall and Spectre are overly-long, boring, cliched and bland Bond flicks? It's down to the filmmaker. So, that's why we hold our breath as to No Time To Die's quality, as it's largely going to be down to whether director and co-writer (fun fact, he's the first director on the Bond franchise to be credited with any other role besides director, although Forster was an uncredited writer on Quantum so is technically the first) Cary Joji Fukunaga can make a good action movie or not. 

So, what makes a good action movie? As we've learnt, it's the filmmaker. But, what principals are adopted by one filmmaker that makes a good action flick as opposed to ones that are used by another to make a poor one? Firstly, character over action. One of the biggest strengths to McQuarrie's Fallout last year was that it elevated Ethan Hunt from being a pure action hero, to someone whose loved, lost and gets hurt. He goes through his own emotional arc (namely his struggle to uphold his value for one life over millions), as well as dealing with the emergence of his former wife and issues with his friends and new love interest, alongside discovering the villain's plot and saving the world. When the action comes, it's used to convey character alongside entertainment. We see him think on his feet during the helicopter chase and even struggle to learn the controls as he flies. He doesn't know everything and he has vulnerabilities too, which makes the movie more than just a big-budget escapist action blockbuster. The same has happened this year with Roman Waugh's Angel Has Fallen. Butler's Banning had good movie (Olympus Has Fallen) and one crap one (London Has Fallen), yet here, we see more of his character with the whole "getting too old for all this running and fighting" arc, alongside a lack of a paternal father figure and struggles around keeping health issues from his friends and family. Like Fallout, Angel Has Fallen is as much a character-drama about a struggling hero as it is an action romp. During the action, our heroes get hurt, and it's always used as a way to move character and/or story forward, not just a needless sequence. 

We've also seen a tendency since Paul Greengrass revolutionised the genre with 2004's The Bourne Supremacy to needlessly overcut the action in this genre to become confusing and basically bland. As regular readers know, I'm Greengrass's biggest fan and he does his (so named) shaky-cam style so well, that no one can really rip it off successfully. His films and the stories he brings to life suit the confusing, on-the-run, fast-cut style nicely, which is why all three of his Bourne flicks, alongside delights like Green Zone and Captain Phillips are such excellent action movies. However, the rest of the genre's rip-offs (think Taken 2) have become so boring and cliched now that the filmmakers of the past two years action sequels have made better movies by going back to the more stylish, slower form of the 70's action-thrillers. Fallout, The Equalizer 2 and Sicario 2 were not filmed quick cut with confusing camera work. Instead, their respective filmmakers decided to elongate their action scenes and build up tension with longer edits, more fluid camera movement and gorgeous visuals, which helped hark back to the stylishness of genre's movies from the 1970s. This made each and every one standout as being something "different" in the genre, and actually showed the industry that action movies are deserved Oscar contenders when made as well as these ones are. Angel Has Fallen has successfully managed to combine Greengrass with McQuarrie/Sollima/Fuqua styles showing that you can benefit from the best of both world's too. And, the other most notable factors about all these films is that they are considerably darker, grittier and more realistic than their predecessors, which maybe another reason why they all clicked so well with audiences. I'm of the long-standing belief that if you want pure fantasy escapism go and see the latest superhero movie. The action genre works best when it's a grounded character-drama first, entertaining action romp second. 

So, to bring this to a close, what have we learnt? Well, we know that this new style that these given filmmakers have brought to these respective franchises/series has harkened back to the action movies of the 1970's, which made the genre stand out as being full of well-made, stylish and entertaining movies for all to enjoy. When each action movie is different, it stands out as being worth seeing, and therefore gets success. But, overall, what it shows is that if a filmmaker takes on an action movie (whether that be another instalment to an existing series or an original flick) with a style that puts character before action, realism over fantasy and a simple yet complex narrative filled with emotional subtext and political relevance, then that movie will be both entertaining and fulfilling to any given audience. Why do you think that Taylor Sheridan (writer of Sicario 2) is working with Stefano Sollima again on their next action movie, or that Gerard Butler hired Ric Roman Waugh to helm his new disaster-action movie Greenland? Obviously, when a filmmaker (often a writer/director like McQuarrie and Roman Waugh) comes onto an action series with a style that harks back to when action movies were exciting and well-made flicks then actors or writers want to continue making movies with them because they realise how refreshing and sublime their artistic choices are. 

So, look out for all future work from any one of these filmmakers mentioned in this article, and it'll be interesting to see if original action flicks like Sheridan/Sollima's new action movie Without Remorse (although based on a Tom Clancy novel) and Butler/Roman Waugh's Greenland can continue the commercial success of these sequels by being well-made action flicks. And, above all, this tells us that, perhaps more so than any other genre of movies, action movies' quality depends on the filmmaker at the helm. 

Do you like what you're reading? Follow us on Twitter @TheFilmCritic19 or email us at jackthefilmcritic@gmail.com with any questions or requests. Don't forget to subscribe to our email list to receive the latest articles straight to your inbox.