Best action film series of the last 20 years

[deganawida]

Which is why they don't get my vote. I don't like Craig as Bond (he is great as Blanc though). I much prefer Sean Connery, and think Timothy Dalton is underrated.

Dalton is my favorite Bond (though Lazenby has a spot for OHMSS).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not saying it's bad. I'm just saying it's not for me.

Eh, what do you define as "grit?"

For example, I would definitely say that John Wick is not grit. Hyper-stylized violence (here, derivative of Hong Kong gun-fu) is not at all gritty to me. It varies between exciting, artistic, and, at times, comedic. As in "so-over-the-top" it becomes funny.

Gritty, to me, is real violence. Eastern Promises. The Road. A History of Violence. You know, films with Viggo Mortensen.

Well, others too. But if you have movies like Wick, or Crank, or Ong Bak* or even the Raid ... I don't consider those gritty.


*I didn't consider Ong Bak because while I love Tony Jaa and the original, I think that the quality of the sequels was just not great.



ETA- Bourne is "gritty" and Craig-era bond are "gritty" in the sense that they are more grounded in realism than typical action movies.

 

[payn]

I saw The Grey Man yesterday. So, over the top ridiculous action film. It got me thinking of a no-less over the top Mad Max Fury Road but why one was so much better than the other? It occurred to me the more over the top, the simpler the story needs to be. A lot of these action flicks try to be clever with organized crime and clandestine agencies with double, triple, quadruple turncoats. Action films don't allow the time for a story to percolate properly.

Now, lets consider a series. The simple rule stands, however, with each repeat the allure subsides. I believe that sequels of movies like The Transporter, Crank, John Wick, etc.. actually dilute the value of the original. I mean, the original idea is a simple vehicle for action and you have already spent that idea. Series like Bond and Bourne try to split the difference between story and action, so as a series they tend to be a little stronger, but also suffer from the dilution. So, trying to picture a consistently good action series is difficult to do. YMMV

 

[Bedrockgames]

*I didn't consider Ong Bak because while I love Tony Jaa and the original, I think that the quality of the sequels was just not great.

Ong Bak 2 and 3 were not that enjoyable. They just didn't work for me. But the cast sequel (which I tend to think of as the real sequel to Ong Bak), Tom Yum Goong (the protector) was quite good in my opinion. The original Ong Bak definitely is the top film though.

With actors like Tony Jaa, I grade their movies differently too. Some actors don't have the same role options as others. A good enough action star can carry a not so great movie

 

[Bedrockgames]

Eh, what do you define as "grit?"

For example, I would definitely say that John Wick is not grit. Hyper-stylized violence (here, derivative of Hong Kong gun-fu) is not at all gritty to me. It varies between exciting, artistic, and, at times, comedic. As in "so-over-the-top" it becomes funny.

Gritty, to me, is real violence. Eastern Promises. The Road. A History of Violence. You know, films with Viggo Mortensen.

Well, others too. But if you have movies like Wick, or Crank, or Ong Bak* or even the Raid ... I don't consider those gritty.

I think grit is a word that people use somewhat expansively. I tend to associate it with 70s crime movies.

I agree History of Violence is a good example of a gritty film. I think people apply it to movies like Bourne and Taken not just because of the depiction but because it feels like the camera and editing style are trying to make the viewer feel like they are in the room and experiencing the confusion of the moment.

 

[el-remmen]

Roger Moore is the best Bond. Bond is such a goofy and absurd premise, his films leaned into that and did it all with a smirk.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Roger Moore is the best Bond. Bond is such a goofy and absurd premise, his films leaned into that and did it all with a smirk.

 

[Stalker0]

In terms of best action movie, I agree with Fury Road. But not mad max as a whole.

Bond is too uneven, even Daniel Craig's bond. There are some BAD movies in there, QoS is a snoozefest, hated Spectre, skyfall is ok.

IP Man is a solid middle.

F&F is a fun series, but its too generic to me. Its just action to have action.

MI is my number 2...again as a series. No individual MI movie truly stands out to me, but its been a long running franchise at this point that is still going stronger (and some argue is better than its ever been). You have to give any franchise that is still churning out that kind of quality after so many movies a high mark. I can absolutely respect some people making it their number 1.

Taken falls off too hard after the first movie.

Bourne, any franchise that loses its main actor just never feels quite right, I like Bourne, but it lost me after a few movies.

Which leaves my top choice....John Wick. Not only is the action amazing, the world is just super slick and interesting. The only thing against JW is the longevity, only 3 movies but each one is super solid and distinct in its own right. Now if JW4 is as good, I think it seals the deal, as longevity is the only mark where I would put some other series above it.

 

[MarkB]

I voted for Mission: Impossible, because I think most of them are very well-done movies overall. But almost all of them do share one element which I'd really love to see done less in espionage movies - the bad guy being a current or former member of the same agency as the protagonists.

I get why it's done, Hollywood these days doesn't want to paint any nation as bad guys since that would make it harder to sell movies to them, and they love to do the "bad guy is the good guy's dark reflection" thing. But it winds up feeling like these agencies' existence is basically counterproductive - they're producing more threats than they're preventing.

 

[Eyes of Nine]

The right answer is Red (1&2)