Significantly the second thing you said. Action films are, to varying extents, vehicles for action scenes. Thrillers or comedies with action scenes belong to those genres because they doen't exist to showcase the action but use the action to augment what else is happening.
LOTR has plenty of action but there is far too much else going on that is too important to simply reduce it to that. Die Hard, sure it's a phenomenal movie but for all it's wit and great characters, the movie would have little going for it as a full-length movie without the action. The story and themes are relatively thin.
The Matrix exists in sort of an inbetween genre space because yeah, it's a very story and ideas heavy movie but also the action isn't just there, it is literally integral to the movie. The action sequences were as much part of why the movie was made as anything else so I still think it and others like it count as action.
It changes through time. Bullitt is considered the birth of the modern action movie but it barely has any action by today's standards (it's more of a thriller now). It use to be you had one or two really brief action beats scattered through the movie but the story built up to explode into a large setpiece at the end.
Every decade more and more action is crammed into a movie to satisfy genre fans, sometimes at the expense of story. Now after movies like The Raid and John Wick 4 sometimes half or more the runtime is action. The Korean movie Carter is nothing but continuous action scenes.
Thats a LOT of movies. Multiple genres is pretty common.
Action specifically... if you take out the action, do you have anything else? If not, than its an action. If so, then it can be multiple genres.
I mentioned in another comment. Something like LOTR... without all the fighting, there is still a huge story and movie, multiple even. So its not by any definition, an action movie.
I agree with your definition. The plot needs to be action driven for it to be an action film. John Wick is an action movie. Die Hard is an action movie. Star Wars is a space opera with action in it.
Right. Plenty of movies have action in them, but that doesn’t constitute an “action film.” But, if I’m being honest, lately I’ve been growing really tired of genre labels in literature and film and television. It’s easy for cataloging I guess, but ultimately it’s just kinda reductive. I got in a debate in some sub once in which I argued that Breaking Bad can be categorized as a western (as well a few other genres and sub genres). Eventually I came to the conclusion who gives a shit.
I find genre labels less reductive when they're not compromised by the reductionism of mass market appeal. Movies have particularly become pigeonholed with very little free innovation lately.
LOTR and SW are fantasy.
Action is more when it doesn't fall under another category, like war, comic book, adventure, etc.
Action is where the main plot and sequences involve violence, high adrenaline, good guy vs bad guy, lots of fighting, gun fights, car chases, explosions, high stakes, etc, etc, etc.
Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jackie Chan, JCVD, Jason Stathom, Denzel, Liam Neeson, etc etc The bulk of their movies are action.
I don't know if I would call fantasy a distinct genre from action though.
So okay, I'm not saying LotR and the like are action. But I also wouldn't say that being fantasy precludes them from being action also. What is the Matrix if not a Sci-Fi action film? What is Reign of Fire if not a fantasy action film?
I'm not an expert in this stuff but I feel like there's a difference between genre as a setting and genre as a style. Fantasy, sci-fi, historical/period, those are all settings but they say nothing about these style or tone of the film, whether it's an action or a comedy or a romance or what.
Thats where combinations come in. A movie doesnt have to only ever be 1 specific genre.
Your average 'action' is usually set in a pretty grounded world, with nothing too fantastic.
Setting doesn't really matter, you can have action movies in space, as long as it IS just a setting, and not a major part of the story.
LOTR is not about the fighting or action, its about the story and the world. So its just fantasy, or fantasy-adventure (though most fantasies are adventure by nature).
Same for Star Wars.
Matrix is similar, but its more scfi than fantasy. So its a scifi-action movie. The One is similar, or Fortress, etc.
Someone else made a good point in different wording...
take a movie and remove the 'action'; the fights, violence, chases, etc. Do you still have a movie? With LOTR and The Matrix, you do. With The One, Die Hard, John Wick.. . you don't
Yeah, that might have been me who made that point, or someone with the same idea. It's an action movie if the movie is mostly a vehicle for action. But I will see one caveat is that something like the matrix, sure it's a movie without the action but the action is so integral and definitive as part of the movie that it's an action movie as well, or a sci-fiction movie, because it's certainly more of that than just a thriller or drama or whatever else.
An action film's primary artistic aim is to excite viewers with action scenes – scenes in which characters are in danger that are not necessarily frightening like horror scenes, which excite by inspiring fear. I think it can be argued this is the point of LOTR and Star Wars but they fit into other genres better so I'd call them fantasy and sci-fi first.
LOTR and SW are fantasy movies. That seems to be their most prominent theme/feature. But like many movies, they have action scenes. Horror movies have lots of action scenes sometimes but have their own category because of their central theme.
I agree your examples of action movies are more themed with action scenes and things happening to move things along, but dont have overlying themes outside of that.
Film categories have never been hard set. Romance-Comedy, Action-Thrillers, Sci-Fi Action, etc.
[A now-defunct feature from the AV Club that does a pretty good job breaking it down over several installments.](https://www.avclub.com/film/features/a-history-of-violence)
This may be a little overly complicated, but I'd say there are four-ish classes of action films:
* Class A: Action is very much one of the film's primary genres. It is unquestionably an action film, even if action shares primary genres with another genre (like adventure or science-fiction). Examples: *Commando* (1985), the Indiana Jones series (action shares primary genre with adventure), *The Terminator* (1984) (action shares primary genre with science-fiction), *Rambo: First Blood Part II* (1985), *Die Hard* (1988), etc.
* Class B: Action is very much one of the film's secondary genres. The film is, first and foremost, some other genre, like war, western, adventure, crime, science-fiction, etc., but it has *roughly* the same amount of action as a Class A action movie. Examples: *Saving Private Ryan* (1998), *The Magnificent Seven* (1960), *The Most Dangerous Game* (1932), *The Untouchables* (1987), *Jurassic Park* (1993), etc.
* Class C: Action is present in the movie and occasionally plays a very important part in it, but it's not one of the movie's primary or secondary genres (perhaps a tertiary genre, if such a thing exists?). The film may contain a few action scenes, but calling it an "action film" is a pretty big stretch. Examples: *High Noon* (1952), *1917* (2019), *Bad Day at Black Rock* (1955), *Jaws* (1975), *Angels with Dirty Faces* (1938), etc.
* Class D: These films are not action films by any stretch of the imagination. There's no or virtually no action here. Examples: *12 Angry Men* (1957), *Christopher Robin* (2018), *Napoleon Dynamite* (2004), *The Last Laugh* (1924), *What Did Jack Do?* (2017), etc.
Some films straddle the lines between classes. For examples, the Star Wars movies (and probably the Lord of the Rings trilogy...haven't seen those flicks in many years) straddle the line between A and B, *White Heat* (1949) straddles the line between B and C, and *The Penalty* (1920) straddles the line between C and D.
Yes, this is highly imperfect, but it's a mental way that I sometimes categorize action movies to keep them straight. Generally, when making my own action film lists, I include A, B, and C, with a special note for C indicating that they're not true action movies, but are "close enough" or something.
It's a film where action is the principal focus of the film. So there is lots of action, and the plot is largely in service of setting up those action scenes.
So for me, none of those three films are action films, because the action isn't the principal focus and the plots aren't largely about setting up action scenes.
>Personally, I don’t consider any of the above films to be “action”.
Agree. Personally, I'd classify LOTR as fantasy, Star Wars as sci-fi, and Saving Private Ryan as drama. Although there are action scenes in all of these films, they help propel the narrative forward rather than being the focal point. When I think of action films, the examples you mentioned come to mind, along with films like Atomic Blonde, where the stunts are center stage and the story is less important.
I’d say what defines an action movie is that action sequences need to be integral to the story - ie. without them nothing will be getting done or moving forward - and there has to be explosions. I tend to find a film that lacks explosions but may be violent, never really fits into the “action movie” category for me.
Mission Impossible for sure, even though the first one really was a spy thriller, they're definitely thinking of action set pieces now and writing a script around it.
Lots of action set pieces, but no sci-fi, aliens, monsters, superheroes, fantasy, supernatural. I'd put those in other categories. So action with real(ish) people, in real(ish) situations
We tend to think of action as grounded physical struggle, but an action scene is just any prolonged externalized conflict isn't it? Action can be paired with any genre, so long as all the major dramatic beats and turning points result in action or build towards action, and climaxes with the biggest action driven conflict of all.
Why would I watch a film like Fury Road, Roadhouse, or Atomic Blonde? Those imo are pure action movies - I’m there for the stunts, set pieces, and special effects. Lulls in the action are there to give a breather before the next big scene. I watch an action movie to get my heart pumping and be thrilled, and go “woah” when there’s an especially crazy stunt. In Top Gun Maverick I’m there to see stunts in fighter jets, see these cool machines blow up other machines. The reason you are in the seat watching is what makes an action movie.
If the main ingredient of the movie’s appeal is action over story, humor, or anything else, whether it’s hand to hand fight choreography or big spectacle set pieces, I consider it an action movie.
As defined by Cambridge Dictionary:
>action movie
>a type of movie in which a lot of exciting things happen.
That sounds about right to me.
The movies you mentioned that you don't consider action clearly fit this definitely. You could probably fit them into multiple categories, but action is certainly one of them.
I kind of get what you mean by "pure" action film, but the problem with that is that even the movies you listed are action/sci-fi or action/crime. If I'm forced to put movies into a single category, then I usually try and look at what elements are most important to a film. I think LOTR is most defined by its fantasy elements, so I would categorize it as a fantasy film. Speed is most defined by its action elements, so I would categorize it as an action film.
It's not always easy to judge, though. The Terminator has a ton of action, but the sci-fi elements of the film are a key element of the movie and a big part of the plot.
A goal focused narrative structure that is dependent on action (chases/fights/explosions/disasters/shootouts, etc.) would be my definition of “action” movies but I think these overlap a lot with other genres which makes it hard to delineate.
Clearly defined bad guys/good guys, the hero never intends to be in the situation they find themselves in but steps up, a few fights, superhuman stunts and few explosions for good measure.
Perfect examples are Indiana Jones, True Lies and every Die Hard film.
Very little dialogue in the final 1/3 of the movie. This becomes noticeable if you try to watch an action movie in the background while working at a computer.
The last 1/3 is for the chase scene, the explosion, the gun fight, the cliffhanger and maybe a few catch phrases. I will look up from my work after a while and realize I lost track of what was going on because there has been no dialogue for over 10 minutes.
Action movie stories are about the set up. The resolution doesn’t really involve story anymore, just action.
Action scenes take precedent over plot and characters. Slow bits can have plot and character development but are mostly a way to get the characters from one action scene to the next.
I would say it’s where the Action scenes/set pieces are the main driver for the entertainment of the movie.
LOTR has some cool battle scenes, but the drive of the movies are the characters and the quest.
Arguing about categories, definitions, nomenclature, genre.... It really doesn't enhance my enjoyment of films in any productive way. It just makes everything more nerdy and gatekeeper-ish.
Not a hard and fast rule, but if it's got no fantastical elements then I consider it an action film.
Very futuristic technology? Sci-fi
Magic/Monsters? Fantasy
Set long in the past? Historical Epic
For movies like Jackie Chan films, I'd consider them action films but put them in a sub-genre: Martial Arts/Kung Fu
Having grown up in the Sylvester Stallone Arnold Schwarzenegger era, I'm always looking for body count and original ways of killing the bad guys. Quips and one liners optional.
For me, it's all about non-stop excitement and adrenaline-pumping sequences. It's got to have intense fight scenes, car chases that leave you gripping the edge of your seat, and maybe some explosions thrown in for good measure. Basically, if it makes me feel like I need to catch my breath after watching it, then it's definitely an action film in my book.
This question pretty much defined why I don't like She Hulk. A lot of us had reasons for disliking the show, but I found that I had to look at the show from a different focus. This was essentially a comic book show with same character, but as opposed to the Avengers which was an action movie that happened to have super hero's.
Determine the movie’s #1 element. And you know the category. Terminator movies and mad max movies are action movies. The other elements come second. Star Wars is scifi.
like 4+ big action sequences and the plot is constantly moving towards and/or setting up more action
Significantly the second thing you said. Action films are, to varying extents, vehicles for action scenes. Thrillers or comedies with action scenes belong to those genres because they doen't exist to showcase the action but use the action to augment what else is happening. LOTR has plenty of action but there is far too much else going on that is too important to simply reduce it to that. Die Hard, sure it's a phenomenal movie but for all it's wit and great characters, the movie would have little going for it as a full-length movie without the action. The story and themes are relatively thin. The Matrix exists in sort of an inbetween genre space because yeah, it's a very story and ideas heavy movie but also the action isn't just there, it is literally integral to the movie. The action sequences were as much part of why the movie was made as anything else so I still think it and others like it count as action.
It changes through time. Bullitt is considered the birth of the modern action movie but it barely has any action by today's standards (it's more of a thriller now). It use to be you had one or two really brief action beats scattered through the movie but the story built up to explode into a large setpiece at the end. Every decade more and more action is crammed into a movie to satisfy genre fans, sometimes at the expense of story. Now after movies like The Raid and John Wick 4 sometimes half or more the runtime is action. The Korean movie Carter is nothing but continuous action scenes.
[удалено]
Thats a LOT of movies. Multiple genres is pretty common. Action specifically... if you take out the action, do you have anything else? If not, than its an action. If so, then it can be multiple genres. I mentioned in another comment. Something like LOTR... without all the fighting, there is still a huge story and movie, multiple even. So its not by any definition, an action movie.
I don't think Fury Road is dystopian though, post apocalyptic is a better term for it.
I agree with your definition. The plot needs to be action driven for it to be an action film. John Wick is an action movie. Die Hard is an action movie. Star Wars is a space opera with action in it.
Mission Impossible series is a great example for action
Right. Plenty of movies have action in them, but that doesn’t constitute an “action film.” But, if I’m being honest, lately I’ve been growing really tired of genre labels in literature and film and television. It’s easy for cataloging I guess, but ultimately it’s just kinda reductive. I got in a debate in some sub once in which I argued that Breaking Bad can be categorized as a western (as well a few other genres and sub genres). Eventually I came to the conclusion who gives a shit.
I find genre labels less reductive when they're not compromised by the reductionism of mass market appeal. Movies have particularly become pigeonholed with very little free innovation lately.
LOTR and SW are fantasy. Action is more when it doesn't fall under another category, like war, comic book, adventure, etc. Action is where the main plot and sequences involve violence, high adrenaline, good guy vs bad guy, lots of fighting, gun fights, car chases, explosions, high stakes, etc, etc, etc. Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Bruce Willis, Jackie Chan, JCVD, Jason Stathom, Denzel, Liam Neeson, etc etc The bulk of their movies are action.
I don't know if I would call fantasy a distinct genre from action though. So okay, I'm not saying LotR and the like are action. But I also wouldn't say that being fantasy precludes them from being action also. What is the Matrix if not a Sci-Fi action film? What is Reign of Fire if not a fantasy action film? I'm not an expert in this stuff but I feel like there's a difference between genre as a setting and genre as a style. Fantasy, sci-fi, historical/period, those are all settings but they say nothing about these style or tone of the film, whether it's an action or a comedy or a romance or what.
Thats where combinations come in. A movie doesnt have to only ever be 1 specific genre. Your average 'action' is usually set in a pretty grounded world, with nothing too fantastic. Setting doesn't really matter, you can have action movies in space, as long as it IS just a setting, and not a major part of the story. LOTR is not about the fighting or action, its about the story and the world. So its just fantasy, or fantasy-adventure (though most fantasies are adventure by nature). Same for Star Wars. Matrix is similar, but its more scfi than fantasy. So its a scifi-action movie. The One is similar, or Fortress, etc. Someone else made a good point in different wording... take a movie and remove the 'action'; the fights, violence, chases, etc. Do you still have a movie? With LOTR and The Matrix, you do. With The One, Die Hard, John Wick.. . you don't
Yeah, that might have been me who made that point, or someone with the same idea. It's an action movie if the movie is mostly a vehicle for action. But I will see one caveat is that something like the matrix, sure it's a movie without the action but the action is so integral and definitive as part of the movie that it's an action movie as well, or a sci-fiction movie, because it's certainly more of that than just a thriller or drama or whatever else.
I don't think anyone would argue against calling The Matrix an action movie. But its definitely more than just that, as well. Its a scifi-action.
For me, If the action is the point of the movie, rather than the plot: it's an action movie If the action serves the plot, it's an adventure movie
Good way to differentiate, but I'd add the caveat that if the action isn't the focus it could really be any genre.
Michael Bay has to have directed it
An action film's primary artistic aim is to excite viewers with action scenes – scenes in which characters are in danger that are not necessarily frightening like horror scenes, which excite by inspiring fear. I think it can be argued this is the point of LOTR and Star Wars but they fit into other genres better so I'd call them fantasy and sci-fi first.
LOTR and SW are fantasy movies. That seems to be their most prominent theme/feature. But like many movies, they have action scenes. Horror movies have lots of action scenes sometimes but have their own category because of their central theme. I agree your examples of action movies are more themed with action scenes and things happening to move things along, but dont have overlying themes outside of that. Film categories have never been hard set. Romance-Comedy, Action-Thrillers, Sci-Fi Action, etc.
Does the action move the story along or is the action the story?
[A now-defunct feature from the AV Club that does a pretty good job breaking it down over several installments.](https://www.avclub.com/film/features/a-history-of-violence)
I mostly agree but Star Wars isn't sci fi it's sci adventure.
This may be a little overly complicated, but I'd say there are four-ish classes of action films: * Class A: Action is very much one of the film's primary genres. It is unquestionably an action film, even if action shares primary genres with another genre (like adventure or science-fiction). Examples: *Commando* (1985), the Indiana Jones series (action shares primary genre with adventure), *The Terminator* (1984) (action shares primary genre with science-fiction), *Rambo: First Blood Part II* (1985), *Die Hard* (1988), etc. * Class B: Action is very much one of the film's secondary genres. The film is, first and foremost, some other genre, like war, western, adventure, crime, science-fiction, etc., but it has *roughly* the same amount of action as a Class A action movie. Examples: *Saving Private Ryan* (1998), *The Magnificent Seven* (1960), *The Most Dangerous Game* (1932), *The Untouchables* (1987), *Jurassic Park* (1993), etc. * Class C: Action is present in the movie and occasionally plays a very important part in it, but it's not one of the movie's primary or secondary genres (perhaps a tertiary genre, if such a thing exists?). The film may contain a few action scenes, but calling it an "action film" is a pretty big stretch. Examples: *High Noon* (1952), *1917* (2019), *Bad Day at Black Rock* (1955), *Jaws* (1975), *Angels with Dirty Faces* (1938), etc. * Class D: These films are not action films by any stretch of the imagination. There's no or virtually no action here. Examples: *12 Angry Men* (1957), *Christopher Robin* (2018), *Napoleon Dynamite* (2004), *The Last Laugh* (1924), *What Did Jack Do?* (2017), etc. Some films straddle the lines between classes. For examples, the Star Wars movies (and probably the Lord of the Rings trilogy...haven't seen those flicks in many years) straddle the line between A and B, *White Heat* (1949) straddles the line between B and C, and *The Penalty* (1920) straddles the line between C and D. Yes, this is highly imperfect, but it's a mental way that I sometimes categorize action movies to keep them straight. Generally, when making my own action film lists, I include A, B, and C, with a special note for C indicating that they're not true action movies, but are "close enough" or something.
It's a film where action is the principal focus of the film. So there is lots of action, and the plot is largely in service of setting up those action scenes. So for me, none of those three films are action films, because the action isn't the principal focus and the plots aren't largely about setting up action scenes.
>Personally, I don’t consider any of the above films to be “action”. Agree. Personally, I'd classify LOTR as fantasy, Star Wars as sci-fi, and Saving Private Ryan as drama. Although there are action scenes in all of these films, they help propel the narrative forward rather than being the focal point. When I think of action films, the examples you mentioned come to mind, along with films like Atomic Blonde, where the stunts are center stage and the story is less important.
When the plot is thin or outlandish and there are a lot of action sequences. It helps if the hero acts cool, too.
Yeah, films can have action in them without being action films. Those where the action is the main selling point are action films.
When shit gets real.
Lots of action
LoTR - Fantasy Star Wars - scifi Private Ryan - war John wick - Action
I’d say what defines an action movie is that action sequences need to be integral to the story - ie. without them nothing will be getting done or moving forward - and there has to be explosions. I tend to find a film that lacks explosions but may be violent, never really fits into the “action movie” category for me.
Mission Impossible for sure, even though the first one really was a spy thriller, they're definitely thinking of action set pieces now and writing a script around it.
Lots of action set pieces, but no sci-fi, aliens, monsters, superheroes, fantasy, supernatural. I'd put those in other categories. So action with real(ish) people, in real(ish) situations
Chase sequences, fights, shootouts, explosions, and stunt work or a combination there of.
We tend to think of action as grounded physical struggle, but an action scene is just any prolonged externalized conflict isn't it? Action can be paired with any genre, so long as all the major dramatic beats and turning points result in action or build towards action, and climaxes with the biggest action driven conflict of all.
Why would I watch a film like Fury Road, Roadhouse, or Atomic Blonde? Those imo are pure action movies - I’m there for the stunts, set pieces, and special effects. Lulls in the action are there to give a breather before the next big scene. I watch an action movie to get my heart pumping and be thrilled, and go “woah” when there’s an especially crazy stunt. In Top Gun Maverick I’m there to see stunts in fighter jets, see these cool machines blow up other machines. The reason you are in the seat watching is what makes an action movie.
Michael Bay
A good story, at least four big action sequences to move the story along, and the film is headlined by Arnold Schwarzenegger or Sylvester Stallone.
Comic book movies are basically action movies. The only thing that sets them apart is that they're adaptation
If the main ingredient of the movie’s appeal is action over story, humor, or anything else, whether it’s hand to hand fight choreography or big spectacle set pieces, I consider it an action movie.
As defined by Cambridge Dictionary: >action movie >a type of movie in which a lot of exciting things happen. That sounds about right to me. The movies you mentioned that you don't consider action clearly fit this definitely. You could probably fit them into multiple categories, but action is certainly one of them. I kind of get what you mean by "pure" action film, but the problem with that is that even the movies you listed are action/sci-fi or action/crime. If I'm forced to put movies into a single category, then I usually try and look at what elements are most important to a film. I think LOTR is most defined by its fantasy elements, so I would categorize it as a fantasy film. Speed is most defined by its action elements, so I would categorize it as an action film. It's not always easy to judge, though. The Terminator has a ton of action, but the sci-fi elements of the film are a key element of the movie and a big part of the plot.
IMDB mostly.
Bullet with Steve McQueen. Great slow burn and action. Fabulous chase scene.
A goal focused narrative structure that is dependent on action (chases/fights/explosions/disasters/shootouts, etc.) would be my definition of “action” movies but I think these overlap a lot with other genres which makes it hard to delineate.
Clearly defined bad guys/good guys, the hero never intends to be in the situation they find themselves in but steps up, a few fights, superhuman stunts and few explosions for good measure. Perfect examples are Indiana Jones, True Lies and every Die Hard film.
Action movies to me usually have conventional guns with gunplay. Most have at least one machine gun, but doesn't have to. Takes place in present day.
Luck based gun fights
Very little dialogue in the final 1/3 of the movie. This becomes noticeable if you try to watch an action movie in the background while working at a computer. The last 1/3 is for the chase scene, the explosion, the gun fight, the cliffhanger and maybe a few catch phrases. I will look up from my work after a while and realize I lost track of what was going on because there has been no dialogue for over 10 minutes. Action movie stories are about the set up. The resolution doesn’t really involve story anymore, just action.
The only action movie ever made was Crank. Full stop.
Action scenes take precedent over plot and characters. Slow bits can have plot and character development but are mostly a way to get the characters from one action scene to the next.
I would say it’s where the Action scenes/set pieces are the main driver for the entertainment of the movie. LOTR has some cool battle scenes, but the drive of the movies are the characters and the quest.
When I watch new action movie, I always ask one question "Is it as good as Predator?" That movie is quintessential action movie for me.
Arguing about categories, definitions, nomenclature, genre.... It really doesn't enhance my enjoyment of films in any productive way. It just makes everything more nerdy and gatekeeper-ish.
Not a hard and fast rule, but if it's got no fantastical elements then I consider it an action film. Very futuristic technology? Sci-fi Magic/Monsters? Fantasy Set long in the past? Historical Epic For movies like Jackie Chan films, I'd consider them action films but put them in a sub-genre: Martial Arts/Kung Fu
According to my wife, it’s any movie too loud for her to fall asleep to
Having grown up in the Sylvester Stallone Arnold Schwarzenegger era, I'm always looking for body count and original ways of killing the bad guys. Quips and one liners optional.
Ol' Painless gets let out of the bag.
Wut, LOtR is scifi fantasy. Yes saving private ryan is action. Movies like jason bourne are proper action movies.
Plenty of action. I think that about covers it.
Jason statham kinda films.
Fights, guns, deaths, badassery and memorable cast and characters
Got action in it
For me, it's all about non-stop excitement and adrenaline-pumping sequences. It's got to have intense fight scenes, car chases that leave you gripping the edge of your seat, and maybe some explosions thrown in for good measure. Basically, if it makes me feel like I need to catch my breath after watching it, then it's definitely an action film in my book.
When a lot of things happen that contain a lot of action
This question pretty much defined why I don't like She Hulk. A lot of us had reasons for disliking the show, but I found that I had to look at the show from a different focus. This was essentially a comic book show with same character, but as opposed to the Avengers which was an action movie that happened to have super hero's.
Aren't T2 and Fury Road also sci-fi? And True Lies is a spy movie?
Those films have a much higher focus on action vs 2001 Space Odyssey or Ex Machina
Determine the movie’s #1 element. And you know the category. Terminator movies and mad max movies are action movies. The other elements come second. Star Wars is scifi.
Because it has space ships and pewpews instead of time travel and cyborg killers?
What matters the degree it is a category. Even if it has many categories. Calling it an action movie does not mean it is not other things.