Posts by briskhound2

The only real issue this movie has is Jack Black. Honestly, nothing else...

bluenomad2 said:Most of Ridley Scott's movies...

So, what’s actually missing from Alien?

I swear, I must have been born on a different planet. What an absolute snooze fest of a movie. The improvisations were just... nothing. Not a single funny moment to be found, and the "big" comeback they managed to scrape together was literally just saying ''fuck''. It doesn't even land as a parody or a comedy—it’s just stuck in limbo. The characters are irritating as hell, too. But honestly? That’s not even the worst part. This guy is actually trying to make a new Ghostbusters... seriously? Just... ugh...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82 said:I haven't actually sat down to read the Jason Bourne books yet.

He’s a likable enough guy—essentially an everyday American dude, much like Al Bundy if he were cast as an action hero. Look, I get it, and I certainly have nothing against Die Hard, but we all have our own specific preferences when it comes to these things.

Jason Bourne is the kind of character who executes every high-level maneuver with absolute precision—we’re talking about tactical moves we simply haven't seen anywhere else. Even when those sequences look absolutely mind-blowing to the average viewer, for me, they land perfectly. They aren't just flashy for the sake of being flashy; they are executed flawlessly.

Look, I’d much prefer the explanation that someone was engineered to be a human killing machine—you know, the kind of brainwashed operative whose existence was scrubbed by the CIA as dirty laundry, only to eventually "wake up" and tear their whole operation apart—rather than some story about an average cop who just happens to stumble into the wrong place at the wrong time and somehow manages to mow down a literal army of professional terrorists. We aren't talking about some small-time stick-up artists from a backwater town like Sinj or Dugopolj here; we are talking about seasoned, professional soldiers and terrorists.

So, this guy—Riggs—basically has a death wish. I honestly don't know why that scene feels like such a cliché to some people, but he’s quite literally looking to die, and he keeps doing it constantly until he meets his partner at the police department—who, by the way, becomes his family for the rest of the franchise. To be perfectly honest, I haven't seen an action hero portrayed with that much dramatic weight before, even if it does lean into certain tropes. Take that scene with the sniper: the man walks right into the line of fire. I mean, let's be real—some idiot firing a sniper rifle isn't going to hit a zombie reliably, let alone a living person; the odds were basically fifty-fifty. Of course, he isn't going to get killed because, well, it’s a movie—but if you look at it from a realistic standpoint, that kind of move only works if the character truly has zero fear. He just shows up, empties his entire magazine into the shooter, and then, like a total maniac, retreats back to his car without saying a single word.

Whether you call it a cliché or not, Riggs represents the absolute peak of that trope—he’s executed so perfectly that he transcends being just another stereotype, whereas everyone else follows the pattern 🙂

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you’re overstating the case regarding Bourne. There isn't nearly as much of that frantic camera movement as people claim, and even when it is used, it usually works in tandem with the cinematography rather than distracting the viewer. If it were truly bothersome, I’d be the first to complain—I hate it when they overdo it—but in those instances, it’s clearly meant to create a sense of three-dimensional immersion, following the character through the moment. When used in moderation, it works, like that sequence in Morocco or the building chases.

I never claimed Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by today's standards, but if we're labeling Riggs a cliché, then Willis's character is one too—just a gritty version of Harry designed specifically for the 80s and 90s audiences (before things shifted toward heavier action)—and he’ll never quite become the definitive Harry. 🍿

Just read it. Only then will you realize just how much of a waste of time these movies actually are...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

He’s just this likable, everyday American guy—kind of like Al Bundy if he actually stepped up as an action hero... look, I get it, I really do. I have nothing against Die Hard, but hey, we all have our own specific tastes...

Look, this guy deals with constant friction at home, faces daily headaches, and just vents through a bit of dry humor to blow off steam... he’s the type who’s willing to take a beating, someone who'll fight tooth and nail—literally—just to crawl out of the mess he's in. That’s exactly why McLean hits home for people... because he isn't some perfect Superman.

Jason Bourne is just one of those guys who knows all the fancy moves—you know, those high-level maneuvers we’ve never really seen before... honestly, no matter how unbelievable they might look to some people, if you ask me, they're executed perfectly...

Haven't seen you around... Ever since The Matrix dropped, it feels like every single character suddenly knows kung-fu out of nowhere. Even those flashy, stylized moves during a fight scene—we already saw that kind of stuff back in Lethal Weapon 4, where that whole Asian-inspired martial arts vibe finally made its way over to the West... It’s really nothing groundbreaking or original, honestly—just a bunch of stuff getting hyped up because someone else did it first...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, I’d much rather take the explanation where some guy is basically a walking experiment—you know, like he was engineered by the CIA to be this unstoppable killing machine, which the agency tried to sweep under the rug as dirty laundry, only for him to finally "wake up" and absolutely wreck everyone... that just makes more sense to me. It's way more believable than some random beat cop just happening to be in the wrong place at the right time and somehow taking out a whole squad of professional terrorists. I'm talking actual high-level operatives here, not just some small-time thugs robbing a convenience store in a suburb outside of Phoenix or something...

Where do you even get the idea that those guys are such high-level pros? They’re basically just mercenaries—and honestly, it's been pretty clear in certain spots that they aren't exactly the brightest bulbs in the box. I mean, Johnny boy really had to scrap for it while he was picking them off, taking some serious hits himself along the way... Look, I get it—it’s super cool when a character just breezes through everyone, pulling off these fancy moves without even breaking a sweat, all because "oh, he's a top-tier spy with some top-secret training." Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against those kinds of characters, but even someone like Bond takes a hit here and there... especially when you're dealing with a seasoned veteran of the spy game.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, this guy—Riggs—he’s basically looking to die... honestly, I don't even know why that scene feels like such a massive cliché, but there you have it...

It’s just a scene, really—but let's be honest, the way Riggs is handled there is so lackluster that it makes total sense why Donner cut it... He comes off as this massive poser, someone who's trying way too hard to look like a tough guy instead of actually looking like someone who has nothing left to lose. He doesn't look like he wants to die hard; he just looks like he wants to be cool... That bit in the trailer where he's biting the bullet? Now *that* was a much better moment. Much more visceral...

Look, I’m not a fan of shaky cam either, but I think you're going a bit overboard with the whole Bourne thing... there isn't actually *that* much shaky cam in those movies, and even when they use it, it flows right along with the rest of the film—it doesn't really bother the viewer. If it were actually annoying, I’d be the first one to say so, but I just don't like it when they overdo it. It feels like they were just trying too hard to get that sense of three-dimensional immersion while following the character in the moment—which is basically why people use shaky cam in the first place, when used in moderation—like that scene in Morocco or the building chases...

It doesn't bother YOU, but it bothers ME. It was so irritating that, honestly, I can barely remember anything from Ultimatum today, let alone any of the action scenes. Yeah, I get what he was aiming for, but it's just so exhausting that it's unreal. That specific kind of "realism" in action sequences was actually pioneered by Tony Scott in enemy of the state, but man, he knew how to keep it at a watchable level, which is why that movie actually sticks with you.

I never said Die Hard wasn't a cult classic by now, but if Riggs is a cliché, then so is Willis's character—just another version of a gritty Harry tailored for that 80s and 90s crowd (before things shifted into heavier action), and he's never going to be Harry. 🍿

Well, yeah, the last Harry came out the same year, if I recall correctly, so you're looking at a total passing of the torch. A pretty damn good one, if I do say so myself. And honestly, it's probably for the best that there'll never be another Harry, because that would just be stupid.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

wiredraven82 said:Bad directing in Bourne? Honestly, if you can't handle a film just because you aren't a fan of Matt Damon, then there's really no hope for anyone—but to make a claim like that about Bourne? Look, if we're talking about the first three films—and let’s be clear, I'm not even counting the fourth one since, unlike you, I actually adore Matt Damon—then we might as well just give up on cinema entirely.

What exactly are we talking about when we discuss Die Hard 1—specifically that "suicide unit" vibe? I’m not saying it isn't a cult classic, because obviously it is, but how can anyone argue that the direction is somehow superior to the Bourne series? It just doesn't track for me.

If you ask me, all three Bourne films are essentially the cinematic equivalent of the Die Hard unit—in terms of pure filmmaking value, that is. Every single technical and narrative aspect holds up to that standard. Personally, though? I’d argue they actually surpass them.

The sheer level of direction in Die Hard is absolutely staggering—honestly, you don't even see this kind of stuff when people talk about Jason Bourne. It’s just wild. You have this half-dead cop essentially saving an entire building from terrorists, limping around in nothing but a white undershirt while dropping badass one-liners every five minutes. And the grit? Those bloody footprints all over the glass—it’s constant. I truly don't know who could have conceptualized something this layered. Between the "killing" plot, the acting, Willis's performance, and that directing—my God.

What kind of background did Willis actually have in the Die Hard universe to justify taking out an entire terrorist cell single-handedly? (I won't even get into the other sequels here.) Was his brain somehow wired to turn him into a literal killing machine—something akin to Jason Bourne? Probably not. Did he lose everything meaningful in life, much like Gibson's character, Riggs—who, by the way, was part of an elite special unit before joining the police—leading him to walk straight into gunfire just to end it all? Unlikely. Or maybe he was dealing with PTSD from Vietnam after serving as the top man in a special forces unit before returning home to the USA, similar to Rambo? No...

Look, you basically need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of witty one-liners thrown around mid-scene, and a limp that affects every single muscle and limb in your body—just like Willis's character—and suddenly, all of that serves as some sort of qualification for what the guy actually pulls off. Now, I didn’t intend to write this about Die Hard—it's a personal favorite of mine, truly—but since I'm being dragged by my own linguistic nitpicking...

If you actually take a moment to look at the substance, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—specifically that whole "suicide unit" dynamic—are easily five times more complex than Die Hard. There’s a depth there that most pure action flicks just can't touch. Mel Gibson is nothing short of masterful in those roles; he brings something to the table that goes beyond mere adrenaline. His character isn't just some cardboard cutout designed to trigger explosions—you actually feel his weight, his trauma, and his humanity on a legitimate dramaturgical level. It’s not just mindless movement; it's character study disguised as an action movie. Anyone who has actually sat down and watched them will tell you the exact same thing.

Honestly, this one single scene from Lethal Weapon holds more weight than the rest of the movie combined. When you look at this through the lens of pure performance—specifically how an actor carries themselves within the framework of an action movie—you start to see why certain films stick while others just vanish. Take a film like Lethal Weapon, for example. It’s not just about the explosions or the stunts; it’s about the chemistry and the weight the actors bring to the roles. If you analyze the acting caliber in relation to the overall impact of the action saga, you realize that the grit isn't just scripted—it's lived. It's one thing to follow a beat, but it's another thing entirely to inhabit a character in a way that makes the high-stakes tension feel earned rather than manufactured. Looking at Lethal Weapon as a whole, the synergy between the leads elevates it from a standard genre flick to something much more substantial. It’s like half of the Lethal Weapon - suicide unit: The "Lethal Weapon - suicide" scene—if we’re talking about that specific moment where everything hits the fan—really sets the tone for the whole franchise. It isn't just some mindless explosion; it’s that gritty, high-stakes tension that defines the genre. You can see the groundwork being laid right there, showing how far these characters are willing to go before they hit the breaking point. It’s visceral, it's messy, and honestly, it’s exactly why the movie works so much better than your standard, polished Hollywood thriller.

Mel Gibson’s performance in this specific scene—especially that moment where he's grappling with suicidal ideation—is absolute peak. It’s just one standout moment from a movie that absolutely drips with that classic Lethal Weapon energy; it’s an action saga, sure, but it’s built on this incredibly dense, messy web of character drama. To me, the way they weave his internal agony—the raw, crushing weight of losing his wife—directly into the pacing of the action is masterfully done. It isn't just mindless explosions; the character's actual suffering drives the momentum.

Just imagine—just for a second—if you had Willis in this specific scene from Die Hard mother. Seriously, try to picture that.

Mel Gibson's portrayal of Riggs is an incredibly complex character—his entire presence within the unit and his sheer intensity, particularly during that specific sequence, almost brings a man to tears just watching him. That opening scene I posted? It’s masterfully executed, truly. Just one more standout moment from a massive collection:

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Honestly, all that other stuff doesn't mean a damn thing when you've got a total badass like Willis leading the charge—the kind of guy who steps up and saves an entire skyscraper!

Look, I don't have anything against Die Hard, really—but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard? I just don't follow the logic there.

The direction, the screenplay, the narrative, and the sheer performances in the Bourne trilogy—the first three films, specifically—are masterfully executed. Whether you personally enjoy them or not is irrelevant; both audiences and critics have acknowledged it. These films consistently pull in near-perfect scores—8s, 9s, 10s across the board—and Bourne Ultimatum was essentially the victory lap that tied everything together perfectly.

That’s my take on it. ☕

wiredraven82, you ever actually read Bourne?

Not strictly about the movies, but just a little side note—that character Richard Chamberlain played in that mini-series is actually way closer to Bourne than he is to Matt Damon. Like, he’s just an ordinary guy... no special skills, no crazy kung-fu moves or anything like that... just a normal dude. As for what you were asking, the answer is pretty straightforward—it's all about clarity. You want nice, smooth visibility where you can actually see the intention behind the action. Bourne is just mediocre at everything—from how they tweaked the character just to fit modern trends (because apparently, you aren't a top-tier spy if you don't have some "cool" tricks up your sleeve, right?) to the action itself, which is edited so poorly with that shaky cam nonsense that I honestly can't remember a single decent, iconic, or memorable scene from any of those movies... none at all.

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

So, basically, you need a tank top, a handgun, a shaved head, a constant stream of badass one-liners throughout the movie, and that signature limp where he’s nursing every single muscle and bone in his body just like Willis's character... and apparently, all that is what actually qualifies him for what he pulls off. Look, I didn't mean to write this about Die Hard—it's a great movie, seriously, I love it—but since the language was already bugging me...

Nah, honestly, you’ve gotta be a simple guy to really get it. Just a regular, relatable dude. But what’s actually "relatable" about a character like Jason Bourne? He’s this super spy who knows all the fancy moves, speaks a bunch of languages, and can handle basically any weapon thrown his way—so what’s the draw there? It's that whole vibe where he can just fix everything... like, nothing can touch him...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Look, if you ask me, Lethal Weapon and Lethal Weapon 2—especially that whole die hard unit : Lethal Weapon - suicide vibe—are easily five times more complex as action movies than Die Hard... honestly. Mel Gibson is just masterful in Lethal Weapon and the sequel; his character isn't some one-dimensional action trope you just watch blow stuff up, he's someone you actually feel on a deep, dramatic level. It’s one of those things where everyone here can probably back me up on that...

He’s basically a walking stereotype—just your classic burnt-out cop on the edge... honestly, it’s straight out of a cliché handbook. But look, that's just how it goes with Mel Gibson. His performance hits the spot because he plays that "charming psycho" vibe so well. Even though the unit itself has this slightly darker tone, a bit of an edge to his character, and a hint of unpredictability, the sequel just feels like the usual over-the-top nonsense...

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper

Quote : Lethal Weapon 1 - Mr. Sniper...

Wait, you’re actually messing with me right now, aren't you? You really think it's some deep, heavy drama—you know, where a guy who looks just like James Dean, cigarette tucked coolly into the corner of his mouth, strolls up to a sniper and just casually shouts at him? You want to know why that actually got cut from the original version? It's because the scene was just way too over the top and totally unrealistic... or so Richard Donner said. And that's coming from the guy who actually directed the movie...

I mean... look, I have absolutely nothing against Die Hard, but claiming the direction in Bourne is "bad" while simultaneously praising Die Hard... I just don't get where you're coming from.

That’s why Die Hard is going to be a cult classic forever—it was the absolute turning point for the action saga, a total innovator that basically birthed its own subgenre... whereas all Bourne leaves behind is shaky cam. Honestly, thanks for that, whoever came up with that mess.

Jessica Morris6 said:They might be lower in quality, I suppose, but I still hold all the entries in pretty high regard... personally, I didn't find Chris Rock quite that annoying in the fourth one, though Jet Li really rubbed me the wrong way since I've never been much of a fan of his. But at the end of the day, my favorite part about the series is definitely Joe Pesci, who is just fantastic.

In the fourth installment, he went from being this sharp, witty genius to just some pathetic, weeping caricature—that’s easily my biggest gripe with how they handled him. Jet Li is basically the face of the whole thing 😁

Jessica Morris6 said:I ended up voting for the action saga "Die Hard" because, honestly, it looked like the best option on the table at the time, though it hit me later that the fourth installment is just a mediocre flick, and the fifth one was such total garbage I actually turned it off after only 15 minutes.
If we’re talking about maintaining actual quality from the very first film all the way through to the end, I’d argue that "Deadly Weapon" is the superior choice. But even then, my heart still leans toward "Die Hard," despite how much they stumbled with those subpar sequels...

I mean, if we're just talking about the first two installments, sure. But by the third one, things really start to lag behind—mostly because the plot is paper-thin (I knew who the bad guy was, but honestly, I had no clue what his actual motive was)... then the fourth one just veers off into this messy, bloated territory where there are way too many characters running around. Plus, Chris Rock is so grating he almost ruins the whole movie just by being on screen.

wiredraven82 said:It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around why people claim Die Hard is leading the pack by such a wide margin—I mean, seriously... Don't get me wrong, I love the Die Hard saga; it’s practically woven into my childhood memories and all that—but saying it stands head and shoulders above everything else? It just isn't true.

The problem is judging an entire saga based on one single film. Let's be real here: if we're talking about pure quality, the only thing that can actually hold its own against the first three Bourne films is maybe one film from another franchise. If Die Hard fans could just set aside the nostalgia for a second, they might realize we need to be a bit more objective.

Besides, when you actually sit down and weigh the pros and cons, I don't think Die Hard even edges out Mission: Impossible in terms of overall value—but hey, I respect that everyone has their own take.🙂

Man, look—the first one is definitely up there with the best; the story holds up, the pyrotechnics are even more intense, and the gunfights feel way punchier... just pure, unadulterated action. The third installment gets a little messy toward the end—the editing is kind of all over the place—but it’s still a solid watch. Honestly, though, the fourth one blows the third out of the water in almost every way, mostly because it doesn't try so hard to copy the first movie like the third one did... though the action goes a bit overboard, getting pretty caricatured, which makes the whole thing feel a little goofy, like some over-the-top comic book nonsense. As for the fifth one? Total miss. We're talking four decent movies here, not just one...

Honestly, when you really break it all down and look at the math, Die Hard isn't even better than Mission: Impossible in my book... but hey, I truly respect everyone's take on it. 🙂

Let’s get one thing straight—Mission: Impossible isn't really an "action movie," it’s more like a techno-spy thriller... Duja is definitely action, sure, but at least there's a decent plot involved—it feels like it was inspired by that old Hitch vibe—but the action itself is so try-hard that the whole movie just ends up floating somewhere in limbo, neither great nor terrible. The third one is better, I guess, but it lacks any real class because it can't quite find the balance between being a thriller and an action flick. Then you've got the fourth installment, which is solid enough, though it kind of sits in that same tier as Live Free or Die Hard; you've got the humor, the stunts, and that totally cartoonish villain that feels like he was pulled straight out of some 80s vault... haven't checked out the fifth one yet. So, looking at the lineup: one excellent (but not strictly action), one good, one lost in the middle, and one just fun... When you add them all up, Die Hard still takes the crown for pure, unadulterated action flavor...

Grace Sanchez50 said:... so people just go around making threats.

For instance, I’ll be polite. These "threats" that seem to slide by so easily...

If I felt insulted by being labeled, then I was offended—and you don't get to tell me otherwise,

And calling others "haters" isn't a big deal? Well, if we aren't going to banish that label too, I don't see why this counts as an insult (not that either term means much—they're usually just things people throw out when they run out of actual arguments)—so, you decide. Either we penalize everything, or we penalize nothing.

Anyway, since you aren't complaining about the warning you got, I don't see any reason to drag this whole thing out...

Donna Thompson said:There’s massive potential here if the right crew actually gets their act together and takes it on.
Is that Nathan Fillion on the poster or am I just seeing things?

Nah, you aren't tripping. It’s just some fan-made poster—nothing to do with the actual movie...

Rebecca Peterson3 said:I should probably add a disclaimer here—I haven't actually read the book myself, but what I saw on screen was just pathetic (and honestly, I was looking forward to it so much because of such a talented cast...)

Look, at the end of the day, he isn't even a more compelling character in the book. Those murders mostly just serve as a backdrop to highlight how incompetent the police forces were back then—all that cover-ups and negligence—plus a bit of personal redemption for the protagonist near the end since he was part of the cover-up himself. He’s only interesting because of his connection to the Lion, but even that link—the whole thing about what the killer did to get his attention—feels way too over-the-top and kind of pointless. The movie makes it even worse, turning him into this mediocre killer who basically has no purpose... One of the best parts of the book is when the Lion realizes that professor is actually setting up and framing his colleagues, but in the film, they dumbed that scene down so much it's almost unbelievable.

Rebecca Peterson3 said:Casey Cox2, you've got a point there—'Citizen X' really is a perfect fit.

A serial killer, Russia, naked boys, train stations, locomotives... those references are certainly just "passing mentions," aren't they? 🍿

It’s a bit like having a protagonist who is an Iranian mobster and deciding to name him Khomeini... quite pathetic and rather low-brow, really.

I totally blanked on the fact that Ted Bundy used to hunt right by those railroad tracks—those endless lines... Anyway, look, there are plenty of nods to him, but the movie itself isn't actually about Ted Bundy. And honestly, Smith isn't the only one playing with that archetype; you see similar vibes from Donald James in *Monster* and *The Shoemaker* (though *The Shoemaker* definitely leans harder into it), and even Hannibal Lecter was partially inspired by his MO. So yeah, the references to Ted Bundy are legit, but the guy in this film is just some random, no-name killer... By stripping away all the specific details from the book, they turned him into such a bland, forgettable character that he’s almost irrelevant to the actual plot...

Look,
*Child 44* isn't actually a biography of Ted Bundy—it’s more like he was just used as a template, mostly to give the novel some weight. His connection to the book and the movie is really just that he was the most infamous serial killer from the old USSR, maybe one of the only ones who actually grabbed enough headlines to be recognizable. The movie itself doesn't really focus on him... it just sprinkles in a few nods to the whole "serial killer" vibe and the setting of America...

Bradley Ramos11 said:I suggest renaming this thread to "The Best Action Saga from the List," because there will always be people who aren't satisfied. 🙄

It’s not about being unhappy, it’s more about how the whole thing was put together... Polls usually have a specific goal or some kind of logic behind them—trust me, I've participated in plenty of them—but here, it feels like there isn't much purpose or originality since everyone else suggested the options. The poll itself isn't bad (I actually remember the rule about alternative titles), but if we're including >, then why wouldn't > be there too? And if we've got > on the list—which is a fantasy series, not an Action one—then why isn't > included? 🤷 It’s not me complaining, it's just a debate, though it ends up feeling like—well, whatever is most popular wins, and everything else doesn't matter.

wiredraven82 said:Look, if they wanted Harry Potter in there, they could have put him in. If they wanted Rambo, fine, throw him in. But there’s absolutely no need to include anyone else. 🙂

But I'm not doing this for my own sake, and it isn't about being subjective. Let's look at it from a different angle—I'll use a basketball analogy (since that's my favorite sport). If someone's favorite player of all time is Karl Malone, should I include him in a TOP 6 or 7 list just so that specific individual has someone to vote for? Especially when he has absolutely zero chance of standing next to names like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Wilt Chamberlain, Bill Russell, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, or Shaquille O'Neal?

It makes no sense to me...

To me, that kind of approach is just catering to someone's SUBJECTIVE whims rather than being objective. This isn't a poll for me to figure out what everyone likes; I don't work for some magazine and I don't run my own news site. I simply listed the franchises that are objectively the PEAK of this genre, which was my goal. So, yeah, cheers. 🙂

Wait, what?

Aren't Death Wish and Missing in Action basically legendary action saga staples?

But I'm not doing this for myself...

Then who are you doing it for? The crowd that wanted a poll featuring Harry Potter and Rambo? If that's the case, I might as well just lock this thread right now because it feels pretty pointless...

this isn't some survey where I'm trying to figure out everyone's personal favorites—I don't work for any magazine or run my own site or anything. I just put in the franchises that are objectively the absolute BEST of the genre, that's my goal, heh, peace out 🙂

So what's even the point of the poll then?

To spark a discussion? Hard to say when you haven't included everything worth mentioning, just a selective bunch based on what others suggested you throw in... "objectively the best" is subjective—for one person's peak is another's bottom tier—and honestly, if Clint Eastwood wasn't in the Harry Potter series, he'd be practically unwatchable... so you've already decided what counts and what doesn't before we even start. It just brings us back to that old issue where polls like "vote for what's on the list" end up being totally closed-off... There aren't actually *that* many action sagas out there, and since you left out stuff like Police Story by Jackie Chan—which I'm sure has its own cult following too—a more thorough list would have actually made this informative... at least it would give people a chance to remember something they might have missed...

wiredraven82 said:

I'm reopening this poll because—honestly—I can't believe I forgot to include Dirty Harry in the lineup. It’s one of those things where you fail to see the forest for the trees; some movies are so woven into the fabric of cinema culture that they just... slip your mind. Haha. For me, Clint Eastwood is practically synonymous with the genre.

So, cast your votes from the options below and let me know what you think. Personally, there isn't even a debate here:

Mission: Impossible and Jason Bourne (though, personally, I don't count the fourth Bourne installment) 🙂

Look, let's be clear—I love Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, but Mission: Impossible and Bourne are just part of my DNA. That's that.

The 1996 Mission: Impossible is my absolute favorite action saga of all time, right up there with the Bourne ultimatum.

It is genuinely difficult to articulate how much I love that first Mission: Impossible; it's hard to put into words. 🙂 Interestingly enough, a few years after seeing it, I visited Prague and it was... love at first sight. 😁 Everything just clicked—Prague, that specific movie, the plot, the whole vibe.

I'm a huge fan of Mission: Impossible 3 and 4, and I'm counting down the days until the fifth one, but the original remains the GOAT for me.

As for the Bourne series, they are all excellent, except for the fourth one—I don't really count it if Matt Damon isn't in it.

Bottom line for me, no contest: Mission: Impossible and Bourne.

The Dirty Harry films will always be a part of me, but again, Clint Eastwood is such a massive icon and his other work is legendary, so I'll stick to voting for Bourne and M.I. here.

I decided against including the Rambo franchise because, in my view, aside from the first film, the sequels are more war movies than pure action flicks. Including them would open a Pandora's box regarding movies that blend action with other genres, but since some people specifically asked for Rambo, fine, he's in.

Forgive me, folks, but I didn't want to clutter the poll with every other request. They wouldn't stand a chance against these heavy hitters anyway, and if I included everything, we'd be here arguing about edge cases until tomorrow. Just vote for the ones listed; they are likely your favorites, or at least close to it, even if your absolute number one isn't on the list.

PLEASE VOTE HEAVILY FOR THESE TWO SAGAS.

It’s a bummer Charles Bronson isn't in the running since we don't have the Death Wish series... and honestly, that’s more of a constructive critique than just a random comment. See, Harry Potter is more of a crime series with some occasional Action scenes thrown in, whereas Death Wish is a thriller that leans into Action—and it leans way harder into it once the plot starts getting a bit thin...

I didn't want to throw the Rambo franchise in there because, in my book, aside from the first one, the other movies are kind of a different breed of action films—more like war movies—which opens up a whole can of worms for any movie where Action is mixed with other genres... but hey, some people were asking for Rambo, so fine, whatever.

Well, you might as well have tossed Missing in Action into the mix then, if we're playing the genre-mashup game... 😉

I don't think they stand a chance against this lineup, so you guys can keep throwing accusations at me all day if you want. Just vote for the options provided—it's likely one of those is actually your favorite, or at least close to it, even if your absolute number one isn't on the list.

See, that’s the thing with these polls. They aren't really made for the person running them, they're for everyone else. You include everything relevant—even if those entries don't get a single vote—just to show you've actually done the homework and covered all the bases... then you just let the chaos unfold and enjoy the ride.

Jamie Turner80 said:The uncompromisingly anti-Russian, anti-Soviet, and anti-communist stance maintained by Child 44 stands as one of its few redeeming qualities, and arguably its most significant. The decision to set the narrative strictly in 1953—the year of Stalin's death—is both deliberate and wise. Naturally, the film uses the past to comment on the present, though it does so with zero subtlety; there is an excess of heavy-handedness here, including certain early references to the Ukrainian famine that feel somewhat forced by the time they pay off later in the story. However, no one forced Putin's censors to rise up and defend Stalin's legacy. The issue, much like with any direct and blunt demonstration of ideology, might be that Ridley and his creative team leaned into this approach specifically to stir the pot. They focused so heavily on making a statement that the film itself begins to unravel at the seams. Beyond its rigid political stance and a barrage of loaded references—the famine, World War II, Stalinist paranoia, aggressive communist propaganda, a repressive society, and, for good measure, the killer Chikatilo—the movie offers very little else of substance. Noise and fury, as a rule, serve only to mask poor material and structural flaws.

more at:
http://film-na-dan.blogspot.com/2015/06/child-44.html

Honestly, that specific year is huge in the book, but in the movie? It’s totally irrelevant. And that’s basically the whole issue here... all those subtle nuances from the novel that made it such a massive bestseller were just stripped away. You lose the impact of Stalin's death, the way those intelligence agencies actually functioned, the shift in power... they even tossed out the most important part of the hunt for the serial killer—the fact that he’s actually Lav Demidov’s brother. By simplifying everything like this, they turned it into this bland, textbook-perfect production that lacks any real soul. There’s no critique of the old Soviet system—it could have been set anywhere at this point—and it fails as a psychological thriller because the killer's motives and the actual chase are reduced to a few uninspiring scenes. It makes sense why the movie bombed. It doesn't offer anything fresh, and everything else about it is just... banal and monotonous.

Edward Price6 said:It feels like you’re acting all high and mighty—or just plain silly, honestly. It’s pretty obvious you weren't praising San Andreas because you actually liked the movie; you were just using it to trash another one. Basically, if I were paraphrasing your vibe: "That other movie is such garbage that even San Andreas looks like a masterpiece by comparison."

Nah, look, I actually thought San Andreas was a fun ride... definitely don't regret seeing it in theaters. These little insinuations you're throwing out are totally uncalled for; I've never done that, and I'm not about to start now. If something is total crap—like Avatar, for instance—I'll just say it's crap. If I actually dig something, I'll say that too. I'm not into being vague or a hypocrite...

Sure, how would I possibly know? Good to know, though... thanks for the info, assuming it's even right.

Well, just ask then. Don't go making assumptions about stuff you don't actually know.

Again, how am I supposed to know? From what I could tell, it didn't seem like any warnings were being handed out. I'm not hanging out on this forum every single second of the day.

But hey, the main thing is that you jumped to the conclusion that I'm playing favorites without even checking first. Now you know that isn't the case...

bluenomad2 said:But De Niro is a total genius in Taxi Driver

Hold up, based on what exactly? The acting? Honestly, Rocky and Travis are pretty much the same guy—kind of one-note characters without much gray area... except Rocky actually has a decent motivation, and regardless of how anyone feels about him, he's still Rocky. With De Niro, you can tell he's performing. As for how much Sly was actually acting versus just being himself... well, that’s a whole other debate for another day (and maybe a different thread)

bluenomad2 said:The film actually snagged an Oscar before Network even hit the scene, and... Taxi Driver 🤦

Can someone please explain to me—like I’m some wide-eyed freshman here—what all the hype is actually about regarding Taxi Driver? That Oscar keeps getting under my skin. It basically glorifies this total moron who’s incredibly unstable and obsessed with how filthy the world around him is... okay, fine, I get it. But what's the big deal? The guy grabs a gun, kills a few people at the end, and suddenly—poof—it's a Happy End, and he’s totally fine, functioning like a regular dude. I would've been much more on board if he'd just smoked a joint at the end too, but... whatever. The fact that Rocky won an Oscar over Taxi Driver is probably something a billion people have already pointed out. Yeah, sure, the movie is simple, yeah, the lead is a bit of a simpleton, and yeah, the "messages" are about as subtle as an elephant in a glass house... but damn, that movie hits way harder than Taxi Driver does. Or is it just that old cliché—you know, where you've got Stallone over there and Robert De Niro over here? Like, one has to be a hack just so the other can look like a genius?