MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > are the John Wick films only praised bec...

are the John Wick films only praised because of how bad modern action movies are?

posted 4 years ago by filmgeek99 (618)
20 replies | jump to latest

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?

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

I disagree.

I wouldn't call First Blood an action movie. Total Recall is a textbook scifi movie. Terminator is a scifi thriller. Die Hard? maybe we could call it an action movie, but we could call it a thriller too. And I haven't seen Drunken Master II, but I've seen the first one and that was a martial arts comedy.

Steven Seagals' ones, ok, those were action movies.

In general, during the 80s/90s you had good thrillers, good scifi movies, good comedies... and bad action movies that worked as straight-to-VHS guilty pleasures. So pure action movies haven't gone worse. Quite the opposite.

Fast forward to now, you have the John Wick franchise, which are action movies well done. What you don't have is... good scifi movies anymore, or good thrillers, or good comedies. You don't have good movie in genres that require a story. John Wick is some worldbuilding (brilliantly done, btw), and a sequence of set pieces and action scenes. Story is reduced to a minimum that threads the action scenes. And that's one of the peaks of modern cinema. Food for thoughts.

Conclusion: you asked "are the John Wick films only praised because of how bad modern action movies are?. And the answer is: no. They're praised because of how bad scifi movies are, how bad thrillers are, how bad comedies are. They're praise because of how bad modern movies are in general.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

Do you think all movies adhere to a single genre? A sci fi movie can also be an action movie

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

Sure it can, I didn't say otherwise. I said that Terminator or Total Recall weren't scifi action movies. That's actually quite an uncommon combination, right now I can only think of Dredd. Scifi usually combines with horror or thriller.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Terminator 2 is scifi action.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

How the hell are those two not action movies? Seems like you just got a warped definition of what constitutes as one

[–] kukuxu (5409) 4 years ago

You could take the fights out of Total Recall and you still have an amazing scifi thriller. You could take the fights out of Terminator and you still have an amazing scifi slasher.

On the contrary, you take the fights out of Dredd, and all you have is a couple of cops going up some stairs and arresting a chick. You take the fights out of John Wick, and all you have is the final credits.

Of course, it's a matter of how you define the genre. In my opinion, though, fight scenes should be essential in an action movie. If you can take them out and the movie holds itself, it can't be labeled as an action movie.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 4 years ago

Well, at least your definition is consistent, eve though I don't agree with it at all

[–] filmgeek99 (618) 4 years ago

bump

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

You bumped your own thread but never actually addressed anyone that replied. What do you want? Everyone's nodding in unison?

[–] filmgeek99 (618) 4 years ago

I want to hear different voices and opinions. I hope the fact that I haven't bowed down and changed my opinion hasn't hurt your anus too much.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Thanks for thinking about my anus.

[–] AndyKing1967 (35092) 4 years ago

A bit harsh.

[–] blue1981 (6983) 4 years ago

There was a time when Hollywood didn't hate men and masculinity. I love the John Wick movies because they are honest and unapologetically masculine movies made for men. The rest of the garbage are laced with radical feminism. Movies and parts made for men are given to women and only to make a point. A 5'3" women beating up on a 6ft man and 100 pounds heavier is dangerous and unrealistic. I'll stick to the classics and ignore most action movies laced with that garbage.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

But Bruce Lee, a tiny little slim Asian, beating the hell out of Chuck Norris and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is manly and realistic.

[–] blue1981 (6983) 4 years ago

Maybe so but it feels like a miracle that John Wick got made due to the blatant Misandry we face right now.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

> blatant Misandry we face right now

That makes about as much sense as capitalizing misandry.

[–] johnmarti59 (2356) 4 years ago

You said it all and more. My head went up and down.

[–] brux (14666) 4 years ago

John Wick is BS.

Actions movie are sometimes fun, and JW can be fun to laugh at, but basically the whole genre of action movies, means a movie for action's sake. It used to be that a story could contain action, and that was OK, but now whole movies are planned around special effects with the plot dreamed up around the action. I like real movies.

[–] AndyKing1967 (35092) 4 years ago

No, they’re praised because people like them, but not everyone.

[–] [deleted] 4 years ago

i'm not with you, really. though i'm not a great john wick fan myself. i've never seen the 2nd one, & i think the other 2 are fine, but they're nothing i think about much and i'd happily never see the again.

i think spectacle & intense action can be enough. the perfect example of that is the first raid film, imo. that film basically has no story, barely even has characters really, but i've watched it a billion times and will watch it a billion more. i might watch it again right now.

i'm not the final authority on anything, but i don't think there's a set formula where you can say 'if a film doesn't have this and this and this, then it's not as good as this other film.'

movies aren't equations where you enter data and get an answer saying 'because this movie had x elements, it's an 8.6.'

if a movie is only one thing - intense action, sad atmosphere, whatever - and nothing else, but it does that one thing perfectly, then it's great at that, and maybe it will be a great movie to you.