This forum post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore johnnya1935. Show Details
This forum post is hidden because you have submitted an abuse report against it. Show Details
I think there's a fundamental difference in what action movies try to do now, versus what they tried to do 30 years ago. Take Dirty Harry, or The French Connection, or even the early James Bond films--they spent a good deal of the film's time setting up the premise, creating suspense, and then the payoff would come with an awesome shootout, or an incredible car chase, or a huge explosion.
Action films today, like The Transformers films, or The Bourne movies, or the newer Bond flicks, drop us into the middle of the action almost immediately, as if to disorient us. With the swift camera movements and the frantic editing, it's as if the filmmakers are trying to simulate the experience of being in the action. That can lead to exciting filmmaking, but the downside is it leads to confusion on the part of the viewer. Half the time we don't really know what's happening; all we know is there's a heck of a lot of stuff going on.
I'm trying to think of a filmmaker who might have found the perfect balance, and the one I come up with is someone you've probably never heard of: James Mangold. But if you saw his movies 3:10 to Yuma (with Russell Crowe) and Copland (with Sly Stallone), you'd remember the way he masterfully builds up to his action sequences, then presents the gunfights, fist fights, chases, etc. in thrillingly logical fashion. Mangold doesn't make many movies---I wish he'd do more.
I must agree with you about being confused. I most certainly was when I saw The Transformers. I'm still trying to get the drift. The Bourne movies seem a little different. If you see them all in chronological order, you can piece them together, although I was confused until I saw the last one, Then I pieced things together.