Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy "Raiders", "Robin Hood", and "Empire" are just a few that don't belong here. Indiana Jones and Robin Hood films are not action. They are adventure. (same with Pirates, though none of them are listed) And Star Wars is in a league of its own with the whole science fiction-fantasy-adventure thing goin' on.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy "Action" to me is big cities at night and guns and violence and car chases, "adventure" is exotic escapades (I don't see "Romancing the Stone" on EW's list, so I wouldn't expect to see Indy films, either). Like this guy says, "My friend and Bond scholar Mike Monahan says there's a difference between the action and the adventure film. Action films are Stallone, Willis and so on, accompanied by their "eye-popping" explosions, "kinetic" gunfights and "roller-coaster ride" chases." <a href="http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/06.01.00/bond-0022.html" target="_blank">http://www.metroactive.com/pap ers/metro/06.01.00/bond-0022.html</a> I've always felt there was a big difference. "Die Hard" and "Raiders" sure don't seem like the same type of film to me (I enjoy the adventure of the exotic Indy films, whereas I have no interest in the explosion/gun action Willis/Stallone type of films. "ZZZZzzzzz")
Originally Posted By ToonKirby Ah, I see your point. By that definition, the now mostly unused genre term "swashbuckler" would be today's "adventure" film. As a side note, I've been doing a personal project on movies lately and when it comes to typing them as genres it all gets a little grey over all ... Take "Gone With the Wind". It's a drama, sure, an epic yes, but it is also a romance and a period film definitely, yet it has some funny moments so does that make it a comedy ... and its set during the Civil War with some bits of action like the burning of Atlanta, so is it a war movie or an action movie or maybe a thriller ... ??? It can all be a bit befuddling when you start paring it down.
Originally Posted By hightp Not to sidetrack this thread, but to answer Kirby's question as to why I didn't like Crouching Tiger, it was because it didn't hold my interest. I had no expectations before watching it, and had no idea what the plot was about, only that it was an Oscar nominated movie. When it started and they had the 1st fight scene, I thought 'OK, it's a Kung Fu movie', then mid way through a fight, people start running up trees and flying. "Gee, I must have missed something, this is some kind of fantasy movie", which would have been fine, if the rest of the story was about trying to find the stolen sword. But, no, suddenly the movie takes a left turn and the next 20 minutes is about a girl who chases a bandit across the desert to reclaim a stolen comb. About midway through that I lost interest. I sat through the rest of it but it never regained my attention. I like Michelle Yoah (sp) and Chow Yung Fat, but I don't think I'll go back and watch this movie again.
Originally Posted By jmoore1966 I didn't not care for Crouching Tiger either. I think it would have been much better without he "flying" parts. I'm willing to suspend a little belief, but when a movie asks too much I get a little distracted and wonder "why'd they have to do that? It could have been so good without that -- maybe they got lazy or something." Exactly what discipline can I learn that teaches flying, anyways?
Originally Posted By ToonKirby EW.com posted today "the 25 films that would have been included if the magazine had listed the top 50" And look, more Keanu! 26 THE PROFESSIONAL 27 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID 28 KUNG FU HUSTLE 29 THE TERMINATOR 30 GUNGA DIN 31 MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE III 32 TRUE LIES 33 THE FUGITIVE 34 TOP GUN 35 RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II 36 TWISTER 37 THE ROCK 38 X2: X-MEN UNITED 39 THE CRIMSON PIRATE 40 INDEPENDENCE DAY 41 DESPERADO 42 LA FEMME NIKITA 43 TOTAL RECALL 44 ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK 45 APOCALYPTO 46 PITCH BLACK 47 ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 48 UNDER SIEGE 49 POINT BREAK 50 BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I'm pleased to see Pitch Black in the top 50, but I'm baffled how Rambo: First Blood Part II can be on the list but not First Blood.
Originally Posted By TheTexasKid Interesting enough list. It looks like three of the films have some association with the Walt Disney Company. 25. The Incredibles 37. The Rock 45. Apocalypto The one film on the list that I would replace would be "Gladiator." Which I would replace with "The Fall of the Roman Empire." Which is basically the same story. But, the action sequences in "The Fall of the Roman Empire" are better lit. Better shot. And far more spectacular than anything in "Gladiator."
Originally Posted By twirlnhurl 36 TWISTER? I did not really think the movie was that great. It had some good parts, but the overall film just seemed so slight. Even the part where the entire town was destroyed. Are there actually people who really love that film that much? Also, for some reason, I didn't get KUNG FU HUSTLE. I liked Shaolin Soccer, it was a fun, over the top comedy, but Hustle seemed less developed and the resolution didn't do much for me. (I do know that I am in the minority in that opinion, though. Maybe it is because I am not familiar with martial arts films to know what was being parodied).
