Two Good Action Movies

[Ed from OC]

Collateral stands out for a few reasons, including giving Tom Cruise material outside his usual Hollywood hero type and showing Jamie Foxx is a legitamate dramatic actor. Best of all, though, is the direction from Michael Mann.

Most action films these days are frenetic messes, rock-video blurs of fight scenes and explosions strung together by sorry excuses for plots. Cases in point: any movie with "The Rock"; or most recently, The Bourne Supremacy. In the latter, I think they borrowed the cameraman from NYPD Blue and gave him as much crack as he could consume. The camera never stops moving, to the point where I literally could not tell what was happening on screen. And I don't mean that in the usual sense, which is that the conceptual level of the film has problems (that is, the story and characters); rather, the problem is at the perceptual level. I first became aware of this in a couple scenes in Armageddon, in which I actually got mild motion sickness in the theater.

With very rare exceptions (such as the incredible Kill Bill volumes) modern action movies have abandoned plot and character. Perhaps the clearest measure of this is the James Bond series, from the romanticism of Dr. No down through the camp of Moonraker to the mindlessness of Die Another Day. Even First Blood, the first Rambo movie, focused on plot and character, using action as a part of the film, rather than as the focus of the film.

Collateral actually takes the time to tell a story, to which the action sequences are dramatic flourishes adjunct to the main story. They are integral to the story, given the nature of Cruise's character, but do not overshadow it. In that regard it is particularly noteworthy, perhaps as much for what it indicates other movies lack as it is for its own high overall quality. It is a good action flick with an interesting tale and characters. The contrast in character between Cruise's and Foxx's characters is worth watching.

If you can find it playing near you, Zatoichi is the other action movie currently playing that stands apart from the pack. It is in Japanese with English subtitles. Perhaps because it is not a Hollywood movie, it doesn't suffer from the usual Hollywood problems. It is very creative, though not to the extent of a Tarantino flick. The movie starts off as a samurai feature, but doesn't stop there. If you like novelty in film, this one is worth a look. I'd like to discuss it more, but I would hate to spoil it. This is not your typical samurai movie. Very well made. Probably the best action movie of the summer, and I'd recommend it over Collateral. It is interesting to see the level of integration in the movie: action, plot, character, mystery, drama, comedy, music, dancing...

Happy movie watching!

[stephen_speicher]

Collateral stands out for a few reasons, including giving Tom Cruise material outside his usual Hollywood hero type and showing Jamie Foxx is a legitamate dramatic actor.  Best of all, though, is the direction from Michael Mann....

I agree. I enjoyed Collateral on several different levels.

... If you can find it playing near you, Zatoichi is the other action movie currently playing that stands apart from the pack.  It is in Japanese with English subtitles.  Perhaps because it is not a Hollywood

Thanks for noting this movie. Based on your other recommendations, I will give this a try.

[AwakeAndFree]

The Bourne Supremacy is actually quite good.

I've managed to catch two movies in my trip to the US - I, Robot, and The Bourne Supremacy. The second is better by far - plotwise, actorswise, and otherwise.

I tend to agree, however, that it wasn't superbly directed.

[argive99]

The Bourne Supremacy is actually quite good.

I've managed to catch two movies in my trip to the US - I, Robot, and The Bourne Supremacy. The second is better by far - plotwise, actorswise, and otherwise.

I tend to agree, however, that it wasn't superbly directed.

I agree. In the Bourne Supremacy, the camera was constantly moving, like it was a kind of home movie. I realize the intent was to make you feel in the middle of the action, but the result was that it gave me a headache. But it was still a great movie nevertheless. Matt Damon is coming into his own.

[Inspector]

Kill Bill was NOT a good movie. It was a brutal, shocking-for-the-sake-of-shocking style tantrum. It was Tarantino smearing his metaphorical feces on the wall and quivering with glee as he gets people to like it. Everything that could be construed as "good" about it is simple rip-offs from older, better films. Do not sanction that lunatic.

[Ursus]

Kill Bill was NOT a good movie. It was a brutal, shocking-for-the-sake-of-shocking style tantrum. It was Tarantino smearing his metaphorical feces on the wall and quivering with glee as he gets people to like it. Everything that could be construed as "good" about it is simple rip-offs from older, better films. Do not sanction that lunatic.

Its also the temple he goes into to worship violence for violence's sake. Remember this guy is a true brute.

[argive99]

Kill Bill was NOT a good movie. It was a brutal, shocking-for-the-sake-of-shocking style tantrum. It was Tarantino smearing his metaphorical feces on the wall and quivering with glee as he gets people to like it. Everything that could be construed as "good" about it is simple rip-offs from older, better films. Do not sanction that lunatic.

I agree with you but if you go through the thread below, you will see that an overwhelming number of O'ists loved that movie; some even calling it one of the best ever made. Interesting arguments were made that despite its brutality, it was beautiful art. I myself don't agree but the arguments made were interesting.

http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...6&hl=kill++bill

[Zeus]

I do not consider "Kill Bill" art at all. I see its anti-integration character as one of the symptoms of the dysfunction of our modern age.

Tarantino is no genius - he's not even really clever. He's just quite good at exploiting the mediocrity of the 20th century.

[AspiringObjectivist]

Tarantino is no genius - he's not even really clever.  He's just quite good at exploiting the mediocrity of the 20th century.

Ouch. That might be the most scything criticism of an entertainer that I've ever seen, heh.

[Areactor]

I actually loved Kill Bill, but I honestly believe it's best to watch both Vol 1 and 2 to get a complete feel of the story. I loved the story. A woman who tries to get out of the life of crime, then is killed by the people she used to work with. She wakes up and swears revenge.

[Ursus]

A woman who tries to get out of the life of crime, then is killed by the people she used to work with. She wakes up and swears revenge.

I suppose if I tried I could think of something less inspirational, though it would be difficult.

The first part sounds like justice the second sounds tedious. Why should I care that someone who has led the life of a criminal is killed?

[RationalBiker]

Why should I care that someone who has led the life of a criminal is killed?

Nobody can make you care in that instance, nor answer why you should. However, I certainly would rather see a person realize that crime is wrong, have the will power to change their ways and actually follow through with that change RATHER than just continue that life of crime. They should still be held accountable for their actions by those with the appropriate authority to do so, but I do believe people can "redeem" themselves, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

VES

[stephen_speicher]

I suppose if I tried I could think of something less inspirational, though it would be difficult. 

The first part sounds like justice the second sounds tedious.  Why should I care that someone who has led the life of a criminal is killed?

Perhaps because, in good romantic art, a conflict of values is essential to the plot-theme.

"Now observe that stories about criminals usually form good plot structures.... The reason is that a criminal by definition has a conflict of values.... Therefore, the moment you introduce a crime into a story, you have a rudimentary, but proper, conflict of serious values." (Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction, p. 32.)

[Ursus]

Perhaps because, in good romantic art, a conflict of values is essential to the plot-theme.

"Now observe that stories about criminals usually form good plot structures.... The reason is that a criminal by definition has a conflict of values.... Therefore, the moment you introduce a crime into a story, you have a rudimentary, but proper, conflict of serious values." (Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction, p. 32.)

Good plot structure does not equal a good plot. It is simply an attribute. If those values are contemptable the story is meaninless. So again, if the criminal is conflicted over shades of grey, what should I care?

[Ursus]

Nobody can make you care in that instance, nor answer why you should.  However, I certainly would rather see a person realize that crime is wrong, have the will power to change their ways and actually follow through with that change RATHER than just continue that life of crime.  They should still be held accountable for their actions by those with the appropriate authority to do so, but I do believe people can "redeem" themselves, and I don't see that as a bad thing.

VES

I agree. But in the context of this film, I don't find the specific conflict an inspirational subject.

The director's focus on violence for violence's sake is also at best highly dubious.

[stephen_speicher]

Good plot structure does not equal a good plot.

Huh? Recall, as I stated above, I am talking about romantic art. Ayn Rand identified good plot structure as a distinguishing feature of romantic art.

"The Romantic school of literature approaches life on the premise that man has free will, the capacity of choice. The distinguishing mark of this school is a good plot structure." (Ayn Rand, The Art of Fiction, p. 19.)

If those values are contemptable the story is meaninless.

Thankfully, romantic art is not confined to those values that you prefer. Some of the greatest works of art reflect values that are antithetical to Objectivism, as well as some projecting a malevolent sense of life. It seems as if you conflate 'art' with values you admire and agree with. That is wrong. Art, according to Ayn Rand, is "a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments." Art is not limited to those value-judgments that are consonant with Objectivism. You need to learn to distinguish the wider category of 'art' from that art which reflects the particular values that matter to you. Personally you may prefer to experience art works which express values and a sense of life that that reflects your own, but you cannot disenfranchise those with other values from belonging to the realm of art. So, you cannot validly claim that "the story is meaninless[sic]" simply because you do not like the values that are expressed.

So again, if the criminal is conflicted over shades of grey, what should I care?

I do not know, since you seem to have made this up out of the blue, unrelated to the discussion and not tied to anything that you said before. Where did this "shades of grey" arise from?

[stephen_speicher]

But in the context of this film, I don't find the specific conflict an inspirational subject. 

What you do or do not find "inspirational" is not the criteria by which we judge art. It may be the your personal criteria for what you yourself like to experience, but that fact is irrelevant to artistic merit.

[Ursus]

You need to learn to distinguish the wider category of 'art' from that art which reflects the particular values that matter to you.

About the only thing I can say is that you are correct.

Some of the greatest works of art reflect values that are antithetical to Objectivism, as well as some projecting a malevolent sense of life.

Again correct.

Both things which I know to be true. For some reason I have yet to identify, it is not something I have completely internalized.

You are right, and I am wrong. Pardon my ignorance, though it is doubtless something I have no right to expect.

[jfortun]

Contrary to the (often cartoonish) violence and the depraved situations in Tatarantino's films, they seem to have a joyous sense of life. Whether this is because of the technical mastery or the implied wink in every moment I am not sure but I am left feeling giddy after a Tarantino film. I can only conclude it is because of the joyous energy that comes off the screen.

As for Kill Bill 1 & 2, I quite enjoyed both and for different reasons and I can't wait to seem them back to back.

The Bourne Supremecy was a lot of fun, if only for the supreme competence of its protagonist. The camera work can be forgiven becuase of the amazing car chase through Berlin (which my wife described as a "fist fight with cars").

[stephen_speicher]

Pardon my ignorance, though it is doubtless something I have no right to expect.

Well, as my signature line says, ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge, so as long as you have replaced the former with the latter, not too much else matters.

However, I think it is sound advice to be very cautious, or, at least, very sure of yourself, when critiquing artistic works, especially movies. Personally, I have pretty much stopped arguing or debating others publicly about movies that I value, precisely because my values so often are attacked or demeaned out of ignorance by others. Sometimes people have condemned a magnificent movie because of how they felt about a single line of dialog. Others miss the entire sense of life of a film, and still others are just ignorant of the technical and artistic merits of the medium of film.

Years ago we had some interesting discussions on HBL as to why so many Objectivists evaluate certain movies in such disparate ways. It is an interesting subject -- and, I do not mean to resurrect it here -- but the fact remains that movies can be a very contentious subject among Objectivists. So, it is always a good idea to give careful thought before making pronouncements.

[Inspector]

There's nothing wrong with the PLOT of Kill Bill. It's the focus of the movie on crudeness, profanity, and violence-worship that is the problem. It does borrow heavily from earlier, better films and does a good job of doing so, but it is not original, nor does this compensate for the overall sickness of the production.

I did admire the positive sense-of-life hidden in earlier Tarantino films, but Kill Bill vol 1 had none of that. It was pure malevolance and in my opinion it was the true colors of Tarantino shining through his earlier attempts to hide them.

[AshRyan]

Contrary to the (often cartoonish) violence and the depraved situations in Tatarantino's films, they seem to have a joyous sense of life. Whether this is because of the technical mastery or the implied wink in every moment I am not sure but I am left feeling giddy after a Tarantino film.  I can only conclude it is because of the joyous energy that comes off the screen.

Based on the above, I would just say: If you are left somewhat uncertain about the "joyous" energy or sense of life of the film, shouldn't you then ask in what that joy is being taken?

[jfortun]

Based on the above, I would just say: If you are left somewhat uncertain about the "joyous" energy or sense of life of the film, shouldn't you then ask in what that joy is being taken?

It is the energy and enthusiasim of cinematic and stylistic excess.

The violence is obviously satirical, beautifully shot and choreographed. In a different context I could call such violence depraved. Compare Olive Stone's film Natural Born Killers to Kill Bill for an example of the how violence on film can portray a sense of life. Both have about the same level of violence, but I would only call one of them depraved.

Roger Ebert has a great line about what makes a great film: It is not what a film is about, but how it is about it.

(as a side note: Tarantino had some part in the early development of NBK the film is definately the vision of Oliver Stone)

[Neeky]

All The Bourne Movies Are Amazing And Matt Damon Is So Hot Its Unreal And All The Plots Are Really Amazing I Mean He Made Them All Himself And I Was Nearly Crying When Marie Died and Jason Bourne Was Crying In The Second One!

Edited September 2, 2007 by Neeky

[TheEgoist]

I smell a troll...