I was talking to a friend yesterday about an old debate I continue to wage with several of my best friends. They have this unfortunate tendency to critique summer/winter blockbuster action films with the same eye as more “serious” film. While I agree that it is always nice to have a compelling story and well-developed characters, I also know that I don’t go to action films expecting any of this. I find the total lack of expectations extremely liberating. I also love it when a film packaged in the usual blockbuster-with-toys-in-a-happy-meal-and-enough-other-cross-promo-hype-to-completely-saturate-our-reality turns out to be quality cinema. That is a very nice surprise.

However, in order to apply some semblance of standards to a film genre bereft of anything but CGI, hot stars and starlets, and explosions a plenty, I developed what I used to call my 50/50 rule: an action film needs to take up 50% or more of the screen time with action–explosions, chases, fisticuffs, gunfights, etc.–and 50% or less dialogue, plot development, character development, and, well, anything that is not action. I came up with this system after watching “Independence Day” and wondering, “Why was that movie much lamer than I expected? Oh, right, the hours (literally) of conversation and plot. Don’t they know that I am here to see aliens vs. humans dogfights, the implosion of famous monuments, and exciting battle scenes inside alien spacecraft?” You see, “Independence Day” failed the 50/50 rule.

It was in Tim Burton’s 2001 remake of “Planet of the Apes” that I found my litmus test. I found myself several times during the film thinking, “I am getting tired of this conversation between… oh look! Fighting monkeys! Awesome!” While I have yet to sit through the film with stopwatch to see just how closely “Planet of the Apes” adheres to the 50/50 rule, I know that the film went far enough toward pulling me back from the edge of boredom by having just enough simian/simian or simian/human confrontation.

This is in no way implying that “Planet of the Apes” was a great film. In fact, the very fact that it just qualified as a “good action film” by having exactly (or slightly more) action than plot development, means it barely makes the grade. This is also not to imply action films that make up for a nonexistent and/or entirely implausible script with an orgy of action are great films either. Take the Transformers films: sadly, there is not actually “more than meets the eye” in those films. Well, I saw the first one and took a pass on the second. I didn’t even see G.I. Joe but I heard that the effects of the writers’ strike where tattooed all over the film. Look at the demise of the Matrix trilogy or the X-Men films as other good examples. Want to talk about the original run of Batman movies? Me neither.

At the end of my conversation yesterday, he suggested that I encourage people to actually time action films to see if they pass or fail “The Planet of the Apes Rule”. I don’t know if I know anyone “interesting” enough (or interested enough) to actually do this but I like the idea. If you are that “unique”, please let me know what you find out.