I got done watching XXX a couple hours ago, and I still can't get over how much that movie sucked. And I wanted to like it, really! I heard so much good buzz about it, I wanted to like it, but it follows the same formula that every other action/James Bond movie has followed for the last 50 years. Not all action movies suck, just these special agent trying to save the world movies suck. They all revolve around some secret agent, a beautiful woman, and a diabolical mad man bent on destroying civilization as we know it, and in the end of every single one of them, the hero saves the day, gets the woman, and the diabolical mad man gets killed. And the same plot gets recycled over and over and over and over and over again. If you have seen one of these movies, it's like you've seen them all. As much as I wanted to like XXX, it sucked a hard one, it was no different than any James Bond or secret agent movie I've seen before, and it was not original, and it was predictable. And people keep on throwing their money at this crap when it comes to the theater and on home video. Of course, people still eat McDonald's for some reason even tho that has to be the worst food on the planet, so go figure.

Not sorry for the rant, by the way. I demand answers why these action movies cannot be any more original or better.

If you think xXx is bad, wait until you see Ballistic.

Not everyone likes change, I guess.

You heard good buzz about it? You must have been talking to the wrong folks then.

Action movies are just that. they really through the plot/story to the curb so that they could really focus on the action.

Action movies don't have to suck so badly, even though many of them do. Films as disparate as Bridge Over the River Kwai and Die Hard are excellent, so obviously this genre is capable of producing quality films.

The reasons why so many of them suck is two-fold:

1) Directors who make action films are very good at composing shots and filming explosions, fast moving objects, chases, etc. They may have no idea how to develop characters, maintain the pace of the story, direct actors, etc. Some of them gain these abilities with experience, but sadly, many don't.

2) Studios and producers realize that there is a segment of the film viewing audience that doesn't care about story, character, plot, setting (you know, all those things that create drama). It's easy to satisfy their cravings for explosions and fast-moving objects without having to spend time with the necessities of a good narrative. So crappy movies with nice special effects get made because it's easy to do so and they will continue to make money.

So, to answer your question, the main reasons are that good directors are hard to find, and studios see their product as just that, product, so quality isn't in the equation.

The question you really wanted to ask is "Why do Hollywood action films etc, etc?

Try HK action films to see what can be done in that genre.

As Alison Jobling wrote in an article at Heroic Cinema:
Hollywood: 15 minutes after the movies starts, you know exactly what’s going to happen.
HK: 15 minutes after the movie ends, you’re still amazed at what just happened.

For some reason, popular and best just never seem to go hand-in-hand. Look at the biggest selling CDs. Most of the top ten I wouldn't place in my player, but it sells...as does action flicks. Some folks just like to "know" what's gonna happen...like young kids watching a favorite video over and over and over again. Turn off their brain, and be mesmerized by the pretty effects. I'm sure the same people who bought Fast and the Furious will make XXX a big seller. Maybe even in Full Screen. (I thought it was funny that one of the major B&M retailers had a picture of the Full Screen DVD in their ad!) I'm sure a lot of folks JUST got a DVD player, and XXX is the first new release after Christmas.

However, that is only one opinion.. Why...someone (not on THIS forum of course) could say:


I got done watching [LOTR: TTT] a couple hours ago, and I still can't get over how much that movie sucked. And I wanted to like it, really! I heard so much good buzz about it, I wanted to like it, but it follows the same formula that every other [Fantasy] movie has followed for the last 50 years. Not all [Fantasy] movies suck, just these [wizard/midget/elf] trying to [protect some magical widget] movies suck. They all revolve around some [creature, an old magic guy, and an evil/dark dude bent on destroying civilization as we know it, and in the end of every single one of them, the hero saves the day, [order is restored to the universe/galaxy/world], and the [evil/dark dude] gets killed. And the same plot gets recycled over and over and over and over and over again. If you have seen one of these movies, it's like you've seen them all. As much as I wanted to like [LOTR: TTT], it sucked a hard one, it was no different than any [Harry Potter] or [Star Wars] movie I've seen before, and it was not original, and it was predictable. And people keep on throwing their money at this crap when it comes to the theater and on home video. Of course, people still eat [Burger King] for some reason even tho that has to be the worst food on the planet, so go figure.

Not my opinion, of course, just making a point...

You mean what could be done in the genre. HK action films have become just as formulaic as Hollywood action films.

I had a feeling this thread was started by someone who just finished watching XXX.

FWIW, that movie was way too over-the-top - as many action movies of today are. That is the main reason why I dislike the majority of them.

Action films are like pornos, you just watch them for the action.

Which brings up an interesting question. Should we hold action or so-called popcorn flicks to lower standard of filmmaking than more "serious" films? I think not. In fact, I believe that Hollywood has been successful in brainwashing people into accepting these lower standards as the norm. Shoudn't a film (any film) have at the very least decent acting, character development, a believable plot, etc. Of course! And yet, people come out of these films saying "The plot was full of holes, the acting sucked, but this movie rocked!". Yeah right. I'm now going to sell you a car with no brakes, no suspension, lousy handling, but with a Mark Levinson sound system...

I don't mind eating a Big Mac once in a while, but I expect to pay $2 for it, not $10.

Movies are both art and entertainment. There's a reason Smultronstället didn't make $360m domestic and Jurassic Park did.

I think a gridded scale is how movies should be reviewed. On one, how well they entertained us, one the other, how "artistic" it is. Movies (to me) like Zoolander and Dumb and Dumber and Die Hard with a Vengeance can score well in entertainment but don't necessarily redefine the art of film.

I would agree with this. Film is film. We can't make different criteria because we feel like it.

Based on who's criteria? Did you think Jurassic Park was entertaining? I sure as hell didn't. But I certainly have enjoyed Wild Strawberries every time I've watched it. Everybody should judge films using the exact same criteria every time. However, those criteria should be different for every individual. What I want from film is different than what you, or anyone else, wants,but it's the same "want" for every film I see. If my criteria are broad enough, then lots of films are enjoyable for me.

On the other hand, cinema is not a track and field event, even though we try to make it one so much of the time. Wild Strawberries is not competing with Jurassic Park, except in economic terms. Saying one is better than the other is like saying one tree is better than another. The whole concept veers into silliness. Granted that this is a silliness of which I most happily play a part at every chance!

My guess would be because it's an overused genre that has been played out. Nothing in action movies is all that original.

Personally I think it is because we don't have any real "tough" guys anymore like the old days. Eastwood, Bronson they didn't rely on CGI and the like. They had "personality" they didn't really have to rely on bad dialogue or corny one liners. Their presence was good enough... You just knew you should not mess with them.
I prefer the old day action movies(70-80's) to most of the newer ones. Die Hard was really good to take the action genre in another direction until everyone wanted to copy it. Can't really think of one that really stands out in the last 10 years or so except Face/Off.

My two cents many will disagree...

Just women who are in heat over Vin Diesel.

Change? What changed in XXX? It was the exact same formula as an average Bond film. EXACT. There wasn't a spark of originality in the whole damn movie.

And as for the poster who implied that you could interchange titles of movies/genres in my original post, I dare you to find a better fantasy movie than LOTR. Bad example, really bad. It does not follow a formula. XXX is a cookie cutter action movie. I understand there are good action movies, but most of the spy/secret agent type movies are always the same, or maybe just the ones I decide to get around watching are the same. And I have to wonder why?? Why can't they come up with different formulas to make these movies better? I know it's basically for the action and the muscels but wow, they pay these guys good money to come up with these movies and this is the best they can come up with?

Very few directors in North America now how to direct action..They all grew up on Starsky & Hutch so they have to fill in lack of plot points with car chases or explosions..

There are exceptions of course..

James Cameron IS the best IMO
John Mctiernan is also very good (Rollerball not withstanding)

Sigh...missed point.

Not my opinion...not yours... But I BET there is a guy out there who thinks XXX is a better film then either of the LOTRs. AND thinks it's the same old, D&D, clan of weirdos out ta save the world. They would have such lame arguments as "XXX is WAY different from Bond since Diesel's character (forgive me if I don't know his name) isn't British!" There are still people out there who make arguments for Pan and Scan over Widescreen. You and I know they are wrong, but they feel that way nonetheless. And could feel their favorite Genre of Action is NOT cookie cutter, but Fantasy, Romantic Comedy, or any other Genre THEY don't like, IS.

This same person could Double-Dog dare ya to find a better action movie than XXX! (Personally, I could names dozens!)

What? No triple dog dare? Bah.

I thought xXx was a decent film, definitely one worthy of a few viewings. Why? Because it was just plain fun, I wasn't going to the theatre expecting to be blown away by Diesel's performance, I just went to watch a decent action flick with stuff blowing up. In short, the film just entertains, that's all I expected, and that's all I got. For what the film set out to do, I'd say it was pretty damn succesful. I mean I just went to see Antwone Fisher, a wonderful film, the two are uncompareable, there is no competition. But xXx never wanted to be an Antwone Fisher, it's just alot of simple entertainment, and that, my friends, is why xXx is a very fun movie.
And IMO, the trailers made xXx look alot cheesier than it actually was, it wasn't nearly as bad as they made it look.

[12 year old punk]xXx was the suckiest suck-fest that ever sucked.[/12 year old punk]

With that out of the way, I would also like to comment that the entire movie was like one big episode of McBain from The Simpsons.

What, with "Welcome to the Xander Zone" as a heroic punchline? Why not "Ice to meet you?" or "Bye... book?"

Then again, it was what it was. If you like your action big, loud, and moronic, this is your film!