Why Can't Action Movies Be More Like Previews?

I was probably the only person I know who was really disappointed by "300." I have friends who hated it and friends who thought it was just okay, but they were all mostly expecting that - they went in expecting a stupid beefcake action movie, and that, immaculate digital gore and monochrome painted backdrops besides, was basically what they got. There were some big action scenes, most of the cool moments having been given away by the preview: kicking the guy into the pit, crushing the bad guys with corpses, arrows blocking out the sun. Then there were the things the preview didn't show us: the drama.

And such drama! A hunchback scorned! A senate torn asunder by lies! A cherished son decapitated!

Beyond snooze. "300" didn't disappoint me because there was too much action and not enough plot - it disappointed because there was any plot at all. I had a handshake agreement with the "300" preview, which I watched three times daily for months before the movie came out: I would pay 10 dollars, and in return I would get the action movie to end all action movies. The Holiest of Holy Grails: a movie that is actually all action, no stupid dialogue, no boring subplots, just action, action, more action.

Deep down, that's what we're all hoping for when we go see a brainless action movie. It's what I hope for every summer there's a new Michael Bay movie. We all tend to think of Michael Bay movies as being wall-to-wall ridiculous action, but the truth is, its bits and pieces of action punctuated by exposition and kindergarten-crush love dialogue. I would be so happy if studio executives just said, "Listen, Michael, don't bother with talking in your next movie. Just blow shit up in interesting ways, and we'll bankroll it."

The reason why no one has been able to make a good video game movie yet is because video games, by their very nature, are action all the time. It's not necessarily explosions and gunblasting - sometimes its just walking, or, in more recent espionage games, sneaking - but the story of the game is always defined by active behavior. Technically, this makes for relatively good narratives - any basic writing course can tell you that each little thing that happens should move the story forward, however slightly, in tiny baby footsteps towards the ultimate finale. The problem with video game movies, then, isn't that they're too similar to their inspiration; it's that they try to tack on awkward "real" storylines.

Any gamer will tell you that the most annoying thing in video games today are cinemas - animated segments that come between levels and take you out of the game. "Metal Gear Solid 2" ended with some 40 minutes of cinema and only 4 minutes of actual gameplay. All the urgency seeps out of the game, and out of the story. Video Game movies are basically those inter-level cinemas with a real-game sequences phoned in for dramatic effect.

The only movie of the last decade to really get at what a video game feels like - the atmospherics, the confusion, the nonstop action motivating towards the end of the level - is the D-Day sequence from "Saving Private Ryan." Directly imitated by games like "Call of Duty," that sequence nevertheless gets at the central aesthetic of videogames far more profoundly than "Doom," "Mortal Kombat," or any part of the "Resident Evil" series.