I have been informed that Woody in Toy Story doesn't even have a gun - his holster is empty. So does it count if Andy makes him pretend to shoot Mr. Potato Head?

Oh, and he shoots the little zombie boy who attacks him when he went wandering in the gas station begging trouble.

I only remember this because I saw it again recently but he bludgeoned the zombie boy with a baseball bat.

Oh, oops. I saw it recently too. I have no excuses.

Love The Hidden!! It is up there with the rest of the great '80s action flicks.

Why did that decade produce so many good action flicks? Is it because of the reliance on CGI that followed it, and (IMO) reduced the "that's so cool!" aspect of good action?

Why did that decade produce so many good action flicks? Is it because of the reliance on CGI that followed it, and (IMO) reduced the "that's so cool!" aspect of good action?

I don't know, but there's certainly a Wow factor in the stunt work on the Indiana Jones movies and the Mad Max movies that wasn't topped until the entirely different Wow of The Matrix.

I take it back - there was also the Wow of John Woo. The Wow of Woo. Much better than the Tao of Pooh.

What do you consider important for a good action flick, Kathy? Explosions? Fight scenes? Characterisation? Car chases? Gadgetry?

All the above. Done with lots of energy, wit, finesse with the camera, and in the right proportions (which is what went wrong with the 1990s action flicks--Bruckheimer took it right over the top in most cases).

Good action flicks were ruined by people running away from fireballs. That's the whole story.

Not just running away - In Raq's All Movie Drinking Game, anytime stunt people fling themselves off of springboards towards the camera during an explosion, everyone must drink.

Good action flicks were ruined by people running away from fireballs.

Well, there are only so many times you can run away from a big stone sphere in a tunnel, you know?

What ruins an action movie for me: sacrificing charisma and/or acting for any of the characteristics I listed above. I don't care how big Arnie's guns are. T1 succeeded for me (I know it's sci-fi--I also think it's action) because he was a bad guy. T2 worked because he was a good guy with limited range ON PURPOSE.

One liner puns. They are rarely good enough to make it worth it for me, and too much seems to be bent towards their creation.

Random love stories. He doesn't have to get laid. Seriously.

Bad fight choreography and weapons errors that I can detect. Maybe those should be two different points. In an straight up action movie without a martial arts bent, shit better look like it works. For MA movies, I can entertain stylistic shorthand and conventions. That goes out the window for most Western stuff. As for the weapons: I can buy (although it's shoddy) a set with no good fight guy there. But there has to be a weaponmaster in charge of the guns. So whyfor the fuckups? He knows what gun he gave that character in the first take...in an action movie, I'm digging the weapons. I'll let fashion continuity slide over this. Because fashion's not the point.

Stock characters. You know, you have to really work the cigar-chomping police supervisor who's trying to rein in his renegade hot shot cops. Especially when you cast a black guy. That's not the sort of shorthand that I can accept and move beyond.

There's other stuff, but it escapes me right now.