The 2010s are a golden age for action movies. Do you agree?

We are almost to the last quarter of this decade and so far. There have been some aspects that hasn't been as good as other decades—one thing I feel that it has excelled at however, is action films. I do believe this has been the best time for action films since the 80s. There are so many quality action films from 2010 to now, and we still have 2 and a half years to go!

The most recent one I've seen is Free Fire, which was an action-comedy that was a blast to watch. Then we have the 2 Raid movies which are pretty much the epitome of crazy fight sequences. Mad Max: Fury Road won 6 academy awards, which makes it one of the most accomplished action films ever. Then you have the John Wick series, which I personally thought was gonna be just a mediocre film series but is actually a really strong action series. You also have some innovation with Hardcore Henry, which I know isn't really the first "film with first person view" but there definitely is no film like it.

I can really go on but I think I'll stop there for now. We haven't even gotten into some of the comic films like Logan that can be considered an excellent action film.

So anyone else agree with me?

The genre I feel has flourished the most in recent years is horror, especially horror-comedy. Also retro 80's throwback films

I do feel that both action and horror have gotten better this decade, even if we're not back to 80s levels yet.
Modern comedy, however, is the absolute pits.

Nah, 80s action will always be the best.


The 2010s have certainly gotten better, as in, they're better than 1990s and 2000s... but the 80s were the pinnacle of Action like they were with Sci-Fi.


The 1990s weren't bad for action, but was certainly badly affected by over-the-top CGI and the learning experience of CGI as well.

__________________

Yeah I feel like horror has gotten better as well. It Comes at Night looks like it'll be good.

Yeah 80s is still probably the best as of right now, but if there's a few more really good films to come out (like sequels to Raid, John Wick, and/or Mad Max along with a few more original/boundary breaking entries) then I would say this decade might just be the best ever imo.

I don't consider Free Fire to be a good example of a straight action movie, though. In trying to depict the chaos of a protracted shoot-out, it ends up being a visually disorienting mess in terms of camerawork/editing. I'm not sure how much of that is by design in order to reflect the characters' own confusion about what's going on in the situation, but I don't think that means you can compare it against the more deliberate approaches of the other films you mentioned.

In any case, I don't know if I can quite consider the 2010s a golden age just yet. It does beg the question of how many "classics" a decade needs to have in order to be considered golden, though - the '80s undoubtedly had its fair share of stinkers, too.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I agree that Free Fire isn't a straight-up action movie, it's almost a parody of action films. The reason for the disorienting camerawork is exactly what you said, to showcase the characters' confusion in the situation. There's even one point in the movie where one of them even shouts out "I don't even remember which side I'm on!"

I mentioned Free Fire because it offers a rather unique approach to action-films. And to me that's what a golden age needs, a few films that deliver a different (and successful) take on the genre.

I strongly disagree. Action movies nowadays are running out of ideas.

__________________
You talkin' to me?

Care to elaborate?

Out of the few Hollywood movies you mentioned in your OP, only Mad Max and Logan are decent.

The superhero movies made by Marvel are not that great, I feel bad for kids nowadays.

I both disagree very strongly AND also agree to a slight extent.

Disagree because I find that special FX are overused to the point of movies becoming videogames with no solid story/plot/depth. And frankly, that makes me wanna ask the director, "Are you trying to insult my intelligence ?" I'm a computer engineer, so FX don't impress me. A good storyline does.

Agree because, in conjunction with a good story, it is possible for FX to result in a stunning action movie.

I won't say it is a Golden Age. The 80's and early 90's had a consistent wave of high quality kick ass action flicks with a host of high caliber action stars. The 2010's have had some EXCELLENT action flicks. But the only actors that really pass for action stars these days are Jason Statham. The Rock, and Vin Diesel. Which is a huge step down from Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Lundgren, Van Damme, Willis, Segal, Keanu Reeves, Swayze, and Kurt Russell. Hell it is a huge step down from the 60's and 70's with regards to Norris, Eastwood, Bronson, and McQueen.

And I think the biggest thing holding back for another age of action is were are still riding the Golden Age of the Comic Book movie.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

With the exception of John Wick—Mad Max and Logan are the only "Hollywood" movies I mentioned. The 2 Raid films are Indonesian, Free Fire is British, and Hardcore Henry is Russian. Heck, even Mad Max: Fury Road is technically an Australian film, but I guess it's big enough to be considered Hollywood.

Watch the Raid movies and Mad Max, both of them have a little bit of touch-up VFX, but the majority of their stunts are practical effects.

I think the age of the "action star" is pretty much over. That is something that I believe hasn't been carried over from the previous decades. Even the films of the stars you mentioned (Statham, Rock, and Diesel) are mostly mediocre. However, quality action films are definitely going strong today imo.

It would be cool to see a star that had a run like Schwarzenegger and Chow-Yun Fat had (being in QUALITY action films) but until then I agree that in terms of "action stars" this decade isn't nearly as strong.

Oh yeah, we still get great action movies. Fury Road is one of my top 25 favorite films, the Raid and Dredd were awesome, and I am loving the John Wick movies. But I am not going to call it a Golden Age.

I will accept a New Wave of Action Movies.

I've seen it get compared to 2007's Smokin' Aces, which has a similar premise in that many different assassins converge on a hotel and spend most of the movie fighting one another in order to claim a lucrative bounty. Free Fire's premise is solid in theory, but the actual execution has more in common with bad action movies, especially when it comes to the dull colour scheme and erratic editing. Even if this visual confusion is a deliberate choice (and knowing Ben Wheatley's tendency to mess with genre conventions, it might well be), it's one that can (and does) wear very thin over the course of a full hour. It's enough to bring to mind the infamous fence-jump from Taken 3...



That's pretty much the stereotypical bad 2010s action scene right there - clumsily staged and barely coherent. Free Fire isn't that bad, but it's not all that far off either. Most of the other films you named feature much more visual clarity and that is what makes their action so strong and distinctive.

Oh come on!
If you don't limit yourself to america, then the action cinema is doing great!

The Raid
Man of Tai Chi
Ip Man 2 and 3
SPL 2: A Time for Consequences
Ging chaat goo si
Headshot
and a lot more.


Now, if you don't limit yourself to america mainstream super hero ********, then again, the action cinema is doing ok!
John Wick
Universal Soldier Day of Reckoning
Undisputed films
And some others

Now CGI action... well at least Mad Max and Logan don't use the damn shaky cam...

I try not to take myself too seriously and tend to think I do a nice job of showing it here. This question shakes me to my core though.

I have yet to develop my analytical powers enough to distinguish things from my childhood and current day. Were the 80'$-90's movies better, or was it because I was younger and of a different mindset.

An analogy that came up today was Jordan and LeBron. A young person said no way Michael could be better. It made me realize that regardless of Michael being the greatest, I watched his career through the eyes of a babe and a young person today may have that experience with LeBron. Maybe that's why I got so attached to GotG, it was a time machine.

To answer the question, no.

I agree with you to an extent, but I think it's just a matter of whether you enjoyed the movie or not. It seems like a film that works for some people but doesn't for others, but I myself enjoyed Free Fire and all its incoherent craziness. I'll admit that it isn't quite as good as some of the other movies mentioned, but I do consider it worth mentioning. I saw Smokin Aces once and remember it not being very good, so I don't consider it on the level of Free Fire.

I've never seen the Taken trilogy, but yeah, that looks like a bad scene. It seems like the editor was trying too hard to hide the fact that it was a stunt double.

Well I grew up in the 2000s and personally think it was the worst decade for action films.

The Raid - GOOD
Man of Tai Chi - BAD
Ip Man 2 and 3 - BAD and BAD
SPL 2: A Time for Consequences - BAD
Ging chaat goo si - BAD
Headshot - BAD
and a lot more.


Now, if you don't limit yourself to america mainstream super hero ********, then again, the action cinema is doing ok!
John Wick - OK
Universal Soldier Day of Reckoning - SO BAD
Undisputed films
And some others

Why do you share so many bad action movies to prove the thread topic?

Wheatley's films are like that - you can't quite pin them down as one thing or the other, which is at once a strength and a weakness. I do think that, if he's going to go to the trouble of creating an elaborate Minecraft map in order to plan out the entire shoot-out piece by piece, then that kind of precision should be reflected in the film proper. The fact that it isn't does make me wonder exactly why he went through all that effort,

I'll co-sign that.

In fairness, what else is he supposed to do? You contend that the decade's action movies are bad, so he (and others) rattle off the ones that they consider exceptionally good only for you to insist that most of them are bad anyway. Can you really put them under the burden of proof if you're still going to find their proof unacceptable?