... But most usually don't. If there's anything movie nerds love, it's complaining about why movies (especially those in genres we love) suck now compared to the ones from "back when they were good" (read: whatever said nerd grew up on). Now, there's a kernel of truth to the claim that blockbuster film-making isn't as auteur-driven, inventive, and boldly exciting as it was at one point in time, maybe we could explore a few reasons what tentpoles could do to avoid sucking. There are two examples we'll lean on for these "rules" - one from the Golden Age of the studio era of Hollywood, and one during the heyday of the burgeoning popcorn movie model. So back in 1938, Warner Bros. released what was at the time one of the most expensive movies they'd ever produced, a lavish production of the Robin Hood legends shot in full-color photography (a rarity for non-musicals at the time) and staring the up-and-coming Errol Flynn. In doing so, the film-makers cemented the blueprint for a perfect action movie with The Adventures of Robin Hood. Then 50 years later, John McTiernan (Predator) got the director's chair for an adaptation of Roderick Thorpe's Nothing Lasts Forever with a TV star and a British stage actor starring as the hero and villain of the piece. The result? Die Hard, arguably the best "pure" Hollywood actioner ever made. These movies don't seem to have much in common at first glance, but both adhere rigidly to the action film-making rules that made them - and many other movies of their ilk - seminal classics of the genre. One wrote the book, the other damn near perfected it. Many mistake these successes as being grounded in a single character or aesthetic or setup, but the truth is a bit less obvious. So here are some Cliff's Notes as to what you need for a great action film...