are the John Wick films only praised because of how bad modern action movies are?
Seriously, what do those movies have to offer beyond some good action scenes and a slick visual aesthetic? The stories are nothing to brag about, the characters are largely one-note and forgettable, and even its lead is not that compelling of a protagonist. They are very basic, rudimentary action films at their core. Nothing about them really stands out aside from their action set pieces.
When I think of a great action film, I usually think of something that works both on the level of spectacle and story. Films like Mad Max 2/Fury Road, Die Hard, First Blood, Terminator 1 & 2, Total Recall, or even Drunken Master II are all perfect examples of this. Those films had much more to offer in virtually every other department aside from action than the fucking John Wick films. Can anyone even recall anything that happened in those flicks other than Keanu Reeves killing a bunch of dudes?
Great action scenes should be the bare minimum of what's to be expected in an action film, not what elevates them to classic status. If we judge action films solely on the quality of their action scenes, then why aren't we holding up the works of Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme as cinematic masterpieces? I feel like had if these movies came out in the 80's or 90's, they would have gotten fair reviews at best from critics and audiences alike. The only reason they're so beloved, is because of how bad modern action movies have become.
Who's with me?