The action film, like the horror film, has lost its finesse. While the genre has no shortage of successes, such as “Die Hard,” today’s action movies are not as good as they could be. The action film genre has had its fair share of weak entries within the past five years and further, such as “Taken 2” or January’s “Sleepless.” If you don’t believe me, hop online and count how many times you see a sour action film review that brings up terms like “snooze-fest” or “boring.”

But how is it that people could find a car chase, a shootout, or an alien invasion boring? Are action films doomed to be dumb and not worth anyone’s time? I think the answer lies in how lifeless or meaningless action films can be sometimes. In such films, there isn’t a whole lot of reason to care or a logical progression to what happens; as a result, things come off as boring an uninspired.

So, how can filmmakers who make action films improve on these two things? Let’s start with the story and characters.

The narrative of an action film is more important than one might think, and by no means is it ever simple. The story of “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” focuses on a cyborg sent to the past to protect a young boy, John Connor, from another cyborg sent to kill John. Simple--but only on the surface.

The story also brings into play John’s mother, Sarah, who is distrustful of John’s cyborg protector given her traumatic experience fighting off a similar cyborg sent to kill her. Thus, the film brings a “man versus machine” theme into the picture, encouraging audiences to determine for themselves whether or not machines can understand or connect with humans.

One should also consider the stakes the characters are up against--a critical facet of a good action film. The main characters struggle to keep John alive in order to ensure that he will in the future lead mankind to victory in its war against a deadly AI army. Much bigger stakes than trying to get into class three minutes before the bell, if you ask me. The story is also made interesting by the way it takes the audience through many diverse locations: suburban California, a mental institute, the deserts of Mexico, a laboratory, and finally, the heart of a sweltering steel mill.

Like the cyborg characters of “Terminator 2,” the narrative of an action film is somewhat like a machine: it’s got many moving parts that all must work together to create something robust, engaging, and above all mobile. To draw in audiences, the action film’s story must have characters with identifiable arcs and believable traits, stakes that push those characters to their limits, and a story that moves either literally or figuratively from one point to the next.

Too often, we see action films that only do some of these and not all of them, thus giving people the impression that action films can’t truly impress audiences, especially on the story level. The one that to me is most often violated is the second one, which I feel is the most defining factor that means the difference between a “snooze-fest” and a great action film. If we never believe that our heroes are in danger of dying, losing something, or failing, if we are never really rooting for them, then there’s no reason to care about them, the story, or the action.

Speaking of action, the action sequences or set pieces are equally as important to the action film as the story and characters. The action sequence should be considered as a bridge: a connecting point between important character-building scenes and introspective scenes. It also must have a beginning and end so as to let the story breathe from time to time. Finally, it has to have a point and a clear direction, pushing the story forward and giving the audience the details on what our hero or heroes need to do next to get closer to their goal.

It’s hard to visualize how a fight scene or a chase scene can advance the story, but allow me to provide another example for context. In the Oscar-nominated “Mad Max: Fury Road,” the titular Max must help rebellious warrior woman Furiosa usher to safety the wives of tyrant Immortan Joe. Furiosa reveals to Max that their destination is the “Green Place,” a safe haven where the wives can take refuge.

Before they can get there, however, they must contend with a quagmire that slows their vehicle down--as well as a full contingent of Joe’s foot soldiers. The resulting fight scene, as a result, is a bridge between two things: the talk between Max and Furiosa about the destination of this road trip from hell, and the actual arrival at the Green Place. Additionally, the appearance of the soldiers serves as a worthy challenge for our battle-ready pair; the film engages us in the action by putting an unavoidable obstacle practically right in front of the goal, making us wonder whether success or failure is in the cards for the protagonists.

My problem with the way a lot of action films today handle action sequences is that they don’t seem organic enough. Where there should be a quieter moment to get to know the characters more, there’s another action sequence. Contrary to popular belief, the main essence of an action film is surprisingly not the action. It’s all about how the action contributes to the story, what it does for the stakes presented in the narrative. Just as actions speak louder than words, what action sequences do speaks louder than what action sequences look like.

I get that action films are actually a lot harder to make than people think, but I think that many action filmmakers overlook the things I’ve noted--basic things that should be the foundation for every action taken or not taken in the filmmaking process. You can’t run without walking, after all, and in the world of action films, truer words couldn’t be spoken.