So I was watching Die Hard on Channel 4 the other night...

Adamantium

Films from the 80's, much earlier 50's 60's 70's, early 90's (i could go on) just feel so magic in their atmosphere

I'm not talking about just practical effects vs CGI, either all though it does play a part. Everything feels so crunchy and impactful, the flaws make it real. The soundstage like quality makes it more like theatre, then film.

There's something about the film grain, the not perfect sound, the staging that feels less flashy, but more "like here are a group of actors acting", yet if feels more real somehow, the overblown musical cues that is suspensful. Its all more of an experience. The **** that could be put into scripts without the internet blowing a cylinder over, after cross triple analysing it

Does anyone get this?

Granted I was watching a damn fine action movie, but I'd rather watch a bad movie from the 60's-80's one today. Its like they came out more unfiltered "back in the day" ( a term I use loosely)

TiGeR KiNgS

Adamantium wrote: »

Films from the 80's, much earlier 50's 60's 70's, early 90's (i could go on) just feel so magic in their atmosphere

I'm not talking about just practical effects vs CGI, either all though it does play a part. Everything feels so crunchy and impactful, the flaws make it real. The soundstage like quality makes it more like theatre, then film.

There's something about the film grain, the not perfect sound, the staging that feels less flashy, but more "like here are a group of actors acting", yet if feels more real somehow, the overblown musical cues that is suspensful. Its all more of an experience. The **** that could be put into scripts without the internet blowing a cylinder over after cross triple analysing it

Does anyone get this?

Granted I was watching a damn fine action movie, but I'd rather watch a bad movie from the 60's-80's one today

You mean the shaky cam doesn't do it for you in todays cinema ?

Mickeroo

Die Hard was brilliant an all but there's still plenty of brilliant films being made today too.

Riesen_Meal

Mickeroo wrote: »

Die Hard was brilliant an all but there's still plenty of brilliant films being made today too.

The Raid was the best action flick I have seen in a long time IMO.....

Mickeroo

Fieldog wrote: »

The Raid was the best action flick I have seen in a long time IMO.....

Exactly.

Adamantium

TiGeR KiNgS wrote: »

You mean the shaky cam doesn't do it for you in todays cinema ?

Shaky cam doesn't bother me at all, my favourite tv show of all time is Battlestar Galactica after all, so there's your answer!

I suppose what I'm trying to say is that maybe its the film grain and the not perfect lighting (which makes it perfect)
causing everything to look more dank/greasier, which is what I noticed the other night while watching. Its the little things for me! LA felt more alive somehow!

The bit where McClane came through glass after jumping from the rooftop, only to be pulled back out by the hose, back out to the window was wonderfully vertigo inducing, the physics of it felt so plausible! I believed it.

pixelburp

Something that was pointed out a while ago in comparing action films from the 80s/90s and those springing up today, and I tend to agree with it, is that modern action movies have forgotten the importance of simple geography & orientation in their scenes.

There's nothing wrong with 'shaky-cam' if it's done right, but a fundamental flaw in its use these days is that the audience is frequently left baffled not only as to what is happening, but where. Establishing the battleground's geography is important to make events coherent and exciting. What Die Hard does well is that even when the guns are blazing and things are exploding, the direction is focused so the the audience is always with the action, is clear where it's happening and how it evolves. It helps the action's confined to a specific location of course, such as the Nakatomi Plaza...

It sounds incredibly obvious and simple, but it's only when you see it done badly that you realise it's importance: compare Die Hard with a visual mess like Transformers 2, where the literal geography itself changes from scene to scene, mid-action, leaving an audience utterly baffled as to what's happening.

Plus in fairness, Die Hard has a lot more than solid action going for it to make it memorable. Its plot is genuinely involving and pretty rich for what it is; the 'rocky marriage' template for the workaday hero is a well-trod trope by now, but Die Hard gets the formula & chemistry just right; Willis is pretty sympathetic in the role and gets a lot of quiet moments to add texture. It also has an incredibly strong list of secondary characters - nearly everyone has their own small set of defining moments and quotable lines; they're all mostly 2D sure - Ellis, bubby, for instance - but they're all fleshed out none the less. That's some doing for a simple action film, and one thing The Raid definitely lacked.

dr gonzo

Fieldog wrote: »

The Raid was the best action flick I have seen in a long time IMO.....

As was Dredd and 13 Assassins for me. Both very different, and both brilliant.

FlashD

pixelburp wrote: »

compare Die Hard with a visual mess like Transformers 2, where the literal geography itself changes from scene to scene, mid-action, leaving an audience utterly baffled as to what's happening.
.

........and the fact that everything (background, foreground, every ground) is in high resolution focus not allowing my eye to rest anywhere...... gives me a headache!

krudler

pixelburp wrote: »

Something that was pointed out a while ago in comparing action films from the 80s/90s and those springing up today, and I tend to agree with it, is that modern action movies have forgotten the importance of simple geography & orientation in their scenes.

There's nothing wrong with 'shaky-cam' if it's done right, but a fundamental flaw in its use these days is that the audience is frequently left baffled not only as to what is happening, but where. Establishing the battleground's geography is important to make events coherent and exciting. What Die Hard does well is that even when the guns are blazing and things are exploding, the direction is focused so the the audience is always with the action, is clear where it's happening and how it evolves. It helps the action's confined to a specific location of course, such as the Nakatomi Plaza...

It sounds incredibly obvious and simple, but it's only when you see it done badly that you realise it's importance: compare Die Hard with a visual mess like Transformers 2, where the literal geography itself changes from scene to scene, mid-action, leaving an audience utterly baffled as to what's happening.

Plus in fairness, Die Hard has a lot more than solid action going for it to make it memorable. Its plot is genuinely involving and pretty rich for what it is; the 'rocky marriage' template for the workaday hero is a well-trod trope by now, but Die Hard gets the formula & chemistry just right; Willis is pretty sympathetic in the role and gets a lot of quiet moments to add texture. It also has an incredibly strong list of secondary characters - nearly everyone has their own small set of defining moments and quotable lines; they're all mostly 2D sure - Ellis, bubby, for instance - but they're all fleshed out none the less. That's some doing for a simple action film, and one thing The Raid definitely lacked.

Revenge of the Fallen was on tv the other night and me and the housemate were talking about this exact thing. The scene where Optimus fights the Decepticons in the forest. It goes from Sam in a city, to an industrial plant to them driving all of two minutes and then being slap in he middle of a big forest, to back to the city again in the space of one scene. Where is this place?! Bay picks locations that look cool but have absolutely zero geographical sense or logic.

A great example is Con Air, the big climactic chase is through the Vegas strip, goes through a tunnel (there's no tunnel in Vegas) and ends with John Malkovich being flung off a fire truck and landing on a conveyor belt in a breakers yard, wtf? how far was he thrown?! was this conveyor belt literally at the roadside?

The Dark Knight is another one, the SWAT chase with the Joker's truck through the tunnels is an editing disaster. There's no sense of direction to most of the shots, you have have vehicles shot going left to right one minute then right to left the next, which is basic filming technique to keep it consistent and give the viewer a sense of motion. And interior shots that make no sense with the direction the chase is going, there was a great youtube vid breaking it all down once but I can't find it.

An example of how to do it properly is the truck chase in Raiders, the big truck and action beats are almost always shot doing through the frame right to left. You hardly ever see it from the left side so there's a constant direction to the chase and it works all the better for it. It's simple things like that which add to a scene and make it easier to follow instead of the camera being all over the place and baffling the audience geography wise.

Sad Professor

There’s nothing in itself wrong with the freneticism favoured by today's action directors. Like anything, it’s how well they do it. Bay used to be good at it but then he got sloppy. I can point to plenty of action films with perfect continuity and spatial geography that are bland and boring to watch.

The language of cinema is always changing. If you had shown Die Hard to cinemgoers in the 1940s, I bet they wouldn’t have had a clue what was going on during the action scenes. The current frenetic style of action grew out of the fact that audiences have watched so many action films that they can predict every shot. Therefore they don’t need perfect clarity to understand what’s going on.

I actually think the most important thing in action isn’t editing or composition but choreography. All the best action scenes, regardless of how clear or chaotically they are shot, are brilliantly choreographed. I’m thinking particularly of Mann, who probably spends months planning every single movement and making sure it looks authentic.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

There’s nothing in itself wrong with the freneticism favoured by today's action directors. Like anything, it’s how well they do it. Bay used to be good at it but then he got sloppy. I can point to plenty of action films with perfect continuity and spatial geography that are bland and boring to watch.

The language of cinema is always changing. If you had shown Die Hard to cinemgoers in the 1940s, I bet they wouldn’t have had a clue what was going on during the action scenes. The current frenetic style of action grew out of the fact that audiences have watched so many action films that they can predict every shot. Therefore they don’t need perfect clarity to understand what’s going on.

I actually think the most important thing in action isn’t editing or composition but choreography. All the best action scenes, regardless of how clear or chaotically they are shot, are brilliantly choreographed. I’m thinking particularly of Mann, who probably spends months planning every single movement and making sure it looks authentic.

Good choice ,the shootout in Heat and the nightclub sequence in Collateral being two perfect examples. He made De Niro and the rest count their shots and get the reload actions down pat for Heat and if they couldn't do it properly they redid the take. There's a shot where Val Kilmer reloads his weapon in a split second and it was shown to a bunch of soldiers who were told if an actor could to a textbook reload then they should be able to do it too.

Bay does get a lot of flack for how confusing his sequences are, but then he does something like the rotating shootout in Bad Boys 2 and makes it look spectacular. He can frame an action scene brilliantly when he wants to he just over relies on frenetic camerawork and quick editing.

mike65

pixelburp wrote: »

Something that was pointed out a while ago in comparing action films from the 80s/90s and those springing up today, and I tend to agree with it, is that modern action movies have forgotten the importance of simple geography & orientation in their scenes.

There's nothing wrong with 'shaky-cam' if it's done right, but a fundamental flaw in its use these days is that the audience is frequently left baffled not only as to what is happening, but where. Establishing the battleground's geography is important to make events coherent and exciting. What Die Hard does well is that even when the guns are blazing and things are exploding, the direction is focused so the the audience is always with the action, is clear where it's happening and how it evolves. It helps the action's confined to a specific location of course, such as the Nakatomi Plaza...

It sounds incredibly obvious and simple, but it's only when you see it done badly that you realise it's importance: compare Die Hard with a visual mess like Transformers 2, where the literal geography itself changes from scene to scene, mid-action, leaving an audience utterly baffled as to what's happening.

Plus in fairness, Die Hard has a lot more than solid action going for it to make it memorable. Its plot is genuinely involving and pretty rich for what it is; the 'rocky marriage' template for the workaday hero is a well-trod trope by now, but Die Hard gets the formula & chemistry just right; Willis is pretty sympathetic in the role and gets a lot of quiet moments to add texture. It also has an incredibly strong list of secondary characters - nearly everyone has their own small set of defining moments and quotable lines; they're all mostly 2D sure - Ellis, bubby, for instance - but they're all fleshed out none the less. That's some doing for a simple action film, and one thing The Raid definitely lacked.

Indeed - the whole rapid edit/restless camera thing has worn out its welcome long since for this viewer, but they'll keep at it as it does serve a handy purpose for the director - (and this brings me to your point) you no longer need to "stage" action in a coherent fashion, I'll guess the current generation of action hacks has hardly seen a story board never mind designed crisp, clear sequences with one.

The mainstream grammar of action cinema is now to throw everything into a pot, shake it up and sluice it across the screen like Jackson Pollack on Es

nyarlothothep

I mostly agree with the OP, however one action film I saw recently, White House Down had plenty of charm and was quite a good action flick, of course it was directed by a 90s guy, Roland Emmerich, so in that sense it's something from the 90s made now. I haven't seen it but the Total Recall remake is meant to be monotonally serious, bland, just crap in general. Films overall are pretty sh1t now due to so called audience sophistication so that when a director is brave enough to make a serious film with humour/cheese, these audiences dont get it and say it was rubbish when they're not able to read between the lines in the first place! But that's what makes such films so appealing, the implicit cheese, not spelt out as in this is a cheesy movie which seems to be a requirement these days, in other words the cheese doesn't overshadow the film. That's why Die Hard was so much fun yet had a serious element to it, ditto for Total Recall (1990) and Robocop. I find in these days of hyper aware post ironic critical consciousness, that the "magic" as you put it is being diminished in films. Moreover I blame the rising costs of making films which incur creative limitations and the ubiquity of standardised CG. Blame it on corporatism. Oh yeah, I saw Red Heat for the first time yesterday, not great, very average in fact but it had some comedic moments. I would rate White House Down far above it so gems are still being produced.

MJ23

Just like Predator, and Predators.
The original is truly a masterpiece, big guns, cheesy lines, fantastic action sequences, superb cast, great music, set deep in the jungle.
Predator 2 isn't worth mentioning.
Predators was a very poor attempt at another sequel. It had Adrian Brody, who looks like an Ironing board as lead role. What the hell were they thinking?

"If it bleeds, we can kill it"
"Get to da Choppaw"
"He couldn't see me"

krudler

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I mostly agree with the OP, however one action film I saw recently, White House Down had plenty of charm and was quite a good action flick, of course it was directed by a 90s guy, Roland Emmerich, so in that sense it's something from the 90s made now. I haven't seen it but the Total Recall remake is meant to be monotonally serious, bland, just crap in general. Films overall are pretty sh1t now due to so called audience sophistication so that when a director is brave enough to make a serious film with humour/cheese, these audiences dont get it and say it was rubbish when they're not able to read between the lines in the first place! But that's what makes such films so appealing, the implicit cheese, not spelt out as in this is a cheesy movie which seems to be a requirement these days, in other words the cheese doesn't overshadow the film. That's why Die Hard was so much fun yet had a serious element to it, ditto for Total Recall (1990) and Robocop. I find in these days of hyper aware post ironic critical consciousness, that the "magic" as you put it is being diminished in films. Moreover I blame the rising costs of making films which incur creative limitations and the ubiquity of standardised CG. Blame it on corporatism. Oh yeah, I saw Red Heat for the first time yesterday, not great, very average in fact but it had some comedic moments. I would rate White House Down far above it so gems are still being produced.

the 90's were a cracking time for good action flicks. The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, Die Hard With A Vengeange, Speed, Point Break etc.

nyarlothothep

krudler wrote: »

the 90's were a cracking time for good action flicks. The Rock, Con Air, Face/Off, Die Hard With A Vengeange, Speed, Point Break etc.

What's great about Face/Off is that the stunt doubles are clearly not Nicholas Cage and John Travolta.

krudler

nyarlothothep wrote: »

What's great about Face/Off is that the stunt doubles are clearly not Nicholas Cage and John Travolta.

Yes! must be a contender for worst stunt doubles ever. They don't look remotely like either of them, completely different features and hair and there's loads of close shots of them in the speedboat chase at the end.

Adamantium

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Films overall are pretty sh1t now due to so called audience sophistication so that when a director is brave enough to make a serious film with humour/cheese, these audiences dont get it and say it was rubbish when they're not able to read between the lines in the first place! But that's what makes such films so appealing, the implicit cheese, not spelt out as in this is a cheesy movie which seems to be a requirement these days, in other words the cheese doesn't overshadow the film. That's why Die Hard was so much fun yet had a serious element to it, ditto for Total Recall (1990) and Robocop. I find in these days of hyper aware post ironic critical consciousness, that the "magic" as you put it is being diminished in films.

nailed it!

Mickeroo

I also miss how the hero used to actually get hurt, mclane could barely walk at the end of the first die hard, Same with declkard in blade runner. You very rarely see the hero actually look and behave like he's just been through hell anymore.

krudler

Mickeroo wrote: »

I also miss how the hero used to actually get hurt, mclane could barely walk at the end of the first die hard, Same with declkard in blade runner. You very rarely see the hero actually look and behave like he's just been through hell anymore.

and McClane cries and breaks down when his feet are ripped to shreds when he's talking to Al. Even the side characters are memorable in Die Hard, the black dude who hacks the system, the two agent Johnsons (no relation) the Asian dude who got killed in everything in the 80's, Karl, Ellis etc.

Adamantium

Mickeroo wrote: »

I also miss how the hero used to actually get hurt, mclane could barely walk at the end of the first die hard, Same with declkard in blade runner. You very rarely see the hero actually look and behave like he's just been through hell anymore.

I just remembered that District 9 is one of the very few in recent years that put the main character through hell,

my brother and I really felt for Wickus, what happens is horrible

Actually that whole film is very vivid and intense, and seeing for the first time it was I'm sure was liking seeing Robocop and The Terminator for the first time in the 80's. It had that sensibility, it also managed humour too which made the outlandish scenario it feel more real, then if it had gone completely po faced serious (a la Total Recall).

The "villians" in District 9 were truly inhumane/terrifying, if you seen it you THAT weapon scene

I hadn't seen any trailer for the film, knew nothing either, so this moment was so good, yet its hardly ever mentioned:

By far the best is when he collapses is brought to hospital and they cut the cast open, the way his grotesque arm came out/slunked out and the look of the surgeons was so chilling, i literally recoiled saying "jeeesuss!" One of finest horror moment I've ever seen in sci fi and completely unexpected, at that point i was like "I'M IN"!

Its an honest to god classic, and was a real wow moment, a pity that Avatar that got all the attention, when they made D9 for 30 million

D9 felt like the return to sci-fi from Cameron you'd would expect of him after 12 years, not AVATAR

God, Elysium was bad

nyarlothothep

Adamantium wrote: »

I just remembered that District 9 is one of the very few in recent years that put the main character through hell,

my brother and I really felt for Wickus, what happens is horrible

Actually that whole film is very vivid and intense, and seeing for the first time it was I'm sure was liking seeing Robocop and The Terminator for the first time in the 80's. It had that sensibility, it also managed humour too which made the outlandish scenario it feel more real, then if it had gone completely po faced serious (a la Total Recall).

The "villians" in District 9 were truly inhumane/terrifying, if you seen it you THAT weapon scene

I hadn't seen any trailer for the film, knew nothing either, so this moment was so good, yet its hardly ever mentioned:

By far the best is when he collapses is brought to hospital and they cut the cast open, the way his grotesque arm came out/slunked out and the look of the surgeons was so chilling, i literally recoiled saying "jeeesuss!" One of finest horror moment I've ever seen in sci fi and completely unexpected, at that point i was like "I'M IN"!

Its an honest to god classic, and was a real wow moment, a pity that Avatar that got all the attention, when they made D9 for 30 million

D9 felt like the return to sci fi film Cameron you would expect after 12 years, not AVATAR

God, Elysium was bad

Yup excellent points made about putting the hero through hell. Elysium was bad because Bloomkamp is a visual arts guy and while he excels at that he doesn't excel with scriptwriting. He worked with Terri Tatchell on District 9 and she made the script good.

To elaborate on heroes in films, I think nowadays it's way too easy (I bet this will be the problem with the new Robocop). The protagonist goes from point A to point B and while there may be some mishaps he doesn't have too much difficulty in achieving his victory. It's mostly plot centred as opposed to character centred as this is what audiences want apparently, according to executives although I'd be of the opinion that a great film is made by it's characters, how else am I meant to get interested in the plot if I dont care for the people in it? In the original Robocop Murphy's death scene is meant to be a symbolic cruxifiction. He gets ressurected as Robocop and begins to remember his past life which is traumatic. When he goes face to face with Clarence Boddicker at the end he nearly gets killed again because Boddicker and Nash are very cunning. Then Boddicker stabs him but Murphy gets him with the data spike. The point being, Murphy goes to hell and back and just about takes out Boddicker which shows us that Boddicker is a very hard to beat boss character. At the end when he goes into the boardroom you know he's the boss and he's earned it. When he gets asked his name it just ties up the whole quest for identity theme and the sh1t he's been through. He's reclaimed his identity against tough odds and triumphed over the bad guys, but with great effort, which makes the ending all the more rewarding!

This also happens in Conan, Conan goes to hell and back, he sees his village decimated, spends 30 years pushing a wheel of pain, his girlfriend is killed by Thulsa Doom. But when you see him fight Rexor in the Mountain of Power, and Rexor says "you" in awe it's really cool, because Conan has survived against all the odds and he's gone from zero to hero and can now match people like Rexor who wiped out his people. Then in the second fight scene Rexor almost kills him but he's saved by fate/his gf. So he just about wins and when he takes out Thulsa Doom he becomes not merely a vengeance seeker but a hero because he burns down the temple. In other words the bad guys are really hard to beat in Conan and Robocop, they're not just plot points, they're the top villains ie religious sect overlord/druglord/corporate overlord for a reason. So these kind of incredibly deep personal odysseys are missing in films nowadays because it's all plot, a-b-c-d. That's the problem with the Lone Ranger, I would have cared for the plot except the bad guys were bland. We need more actors like Ronnie Cox, Kurtwood Smith and James Earl Jones to play villians like Dick Jones, Vilos Coohagen, Clarence Boddicker, Thulsa Doom and Darth Vader. Moreover we need more characters like that in film!

krudler

I agree about the protagonist not going through enough in modern actions films, hell even Predator, how does it end? (Predator spoilers but ffs if you haven't seen it go watch it now). with Arnie beaten and bloodied, having lost all his men, and staring dead eyed out of a choppa carrying him out of the jungle, no one liners, no cheese.

Sad Professor

Putting the protagonist through hell was part of the whole re-fighting Vietnam thing in '80s action movies. It's obviously a lot harder to do when the film is PG-13.

Duggy747

Die Hard was a breath of fresh air at the time where the whole post-Vietnam revenge in action movies had the action stars as unstoppable, killing machines who were always the best at something military. (Rambo II & III, Commando, Missing In Action, Delta Force, Invasion USA :pac:, etc)

John McClane was a "standard" character by comparison, he wasn't some hardened Navy Seal or combat operative but just a guy (albeit, a cop) in the wrong place at the wrong time. who got visibly worn down and physically worse throughout the film, which made him a lot more human, increased tension, and added a lot more weight to the threat that he found himself in.

Been aching to watch it again, it's a proper spectacle of an action move choc-full of memorable secondary characters (even Han's goons were memorable) and a very quotable villain.

"I wanted this to be professional, efficient, adult, cooperative. Not a lot to ask. Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life."

:pac:

krudler

Indiana Jones is one of the other "goes through hell" characters, he's a wreck by the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark. I love that scene where Marion is cleaning him up on the ship after the big chase and he's in bits and sore all over. It's something you rarely see in action movies anymore.

Sad Professor

That was one of my biggest issues with Indy 4. Indy comes out pretty much unscathed. Which is a shame because Ford is so good at playing beaten, bloodied and bruised.

Oh and if you want to see a recent film that puts its protagonist through hell, check out Headhunters.

OU812

This popped up on my Facebook feed tonight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlDw3gHoSGM

Looking at it. That was all you knew about the movie. Maybe there were a couple of newspaper articled the week it opened, but pretty much, you saw the trailer & then wanted to see the movie.

Now you've got spoilers, script leaks, on set photos, MTV specials & by the time it comes out you've probably seen most of the movie.

The internet is not good for the movie industry.

krudler

OU812 wrote: »

Looking at it. That was all you knew about the movie. Maybe there were a couple of newspaper articled the week it opened, but pretty much, you saw the trailer & then wanted to see the movie.

Now you've got spoilers, script leaks, on set photos, MTV specials & by the time it comes out you've probably seen most of the movie.

The internet is not good for the movie industry.

Indeed, movie studios seem hellbent on ruining their own films before they've even hit cinemas. You'd wonder why more directors don't fight for creative control of the marketing aspect of their films. Done well trailers can be excellent, or a great teaser that shows you the absolute basics of the film, but all too often you get a 3 minute summary of the entire movie, money shots and all.

This is a great teaser, now whether you like the movie or not is another thing but this is how to set up intrigue about a film without giving away anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF6g0-IkKCk

Or teasers with specially shot footage, I like this unused Green Mile trailer,there's an extra about it on the dvd, they didn't use it because someone thought the cute mouse looked like a giant rat and nobody would go to see it :rolleyes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMNZKVTEP_I