It's been a while I wanted to write something about the loss of meaning in action cinema. Over the last ten years, I think only one action movie has truly seduced me and it's the first CRANK, featuring Jason Statham. Apart from this little gem, shaky camera and lengthy, pointless confrontation has turned me away from the genre in general. But thanks to Matthias Stork, I don't have to bust my balls trying to explain it. In fact, if I decide to write something about it, it's going to be better, thanks to Stork's video essay (which I found out about because Roger Ebert Tweeted about it). He points out exactly where things have went wrong and why awesome action movies like in the seventies or eighties are not getting made anymore.
I don't know about you, but I talked cinema with quite a few people over the years (what? it's easier to talk cinema than to talk literature) and a common complain I've heard about movies I liked is "too slow". So I found myself saying often: "Oh, but I like slow. Give me the slowest movie and I'll find a way to like it"*. Maybe it's not that I'm into slow film-making as much as I'm into good, structured movies. If I have learned anything lately, it's that I'm into well-structured stories and into understanding what the fuck is going on rather than only sensing it. Watch this if you have a few minutes to yourself today. Very informative little piece.
* I liked Antonioni's RED DESERT. Do you know anything slower? I don't.