The Expendables

The script was so stupid and leaky that even 80 of them couldn't carry it. The church scene was great though, no question about it. But afterwards? I'll quote Subjective: “shot, ‘pow’, shot, ‘bang’, shot, ‘smack’, shot, ‘left hook’, shot, ‘right hook’, shot, ‘tie’, shot ‘crane’. By the time I understood where the action was happening, I was already watching it from somewhere else." Most of the time I didn't care who was doing the shooting, or why (because the reasons were either nonexistent or stupid and pathetic), and because the shooting went on for most of the movie... I'll watch the second one, it's supposedly better; but I guess since I was looking forward to it so much, it ended up being very, very disappointing. A weak 2 stars. (24/05/2013)

I hope someday they publish a collector’s edition on an over-played VHS videotape with the special Czech “speed-dubbing" and normal editing. Then and only then can these be considered to be the real McCoy action movies “like out of the eighties". But as it is half way between a pleasant movie playing at being nostalgic and real, unadulterated nostalgia (the church, the church!). But it has three main problems. Too much “Bournesque" editing, too little work with the personality cults of various testosterone legends (this happens only in scenes with Jet vs. Dolph and in the church) and of course the must fundamental problem - no Asia Argento, but instead (no) Charisma. (20/08/2010)

Paradoxically, it should have been even duller and more straightforward. The film is particularly damaging by the pursuit of a sophisticated motivation for a lifelong killer who wants to save at least a piece of his empty soul. In Rambo IV, Stallone drowned it in blood and bulldog focus, here the film struggles with it and has trouble explaining to the viewer why the characters are where they are and why they do what they do. Regardless, The Expendables looks like disparate testosterone action sketches and a spelling-book of "meta-movie" catchphrases (the more you know the map of the 80s, the more you enjoy them). The event is solidly physical, but confusing in places for my taste – those attempts at "Greengrass kinetics" – and rushed. The film is also lacking the 80’s drive in the style of "you killed my uncle, so I’m going to hurt you now". I had a good time, but I couldn't shake the feeling that Stallone didn't cross the magic line and fall into that retro river completely. Sometimes he seems to try to "talk" his way into it unnecessarily when the door needs to be kicked in. That's why I'm hesitating about giving it a fourth star. (11/08/2010)

Stallone is such an experienced hard worker and intelligent person that he basically confirmed what was expected, and he doesn't disappoint in The Expendables. He made exactly what was expected of him, paying homage to classic action movies of the past decade. There is a clear and distinctive directorial style (gore, action), which is a good thing, of course. But on the other hand, considering that the last Rambo was made by the same director, I would have expected a more coherent action. Overall, it is watchable, so mission accomplished. (18/09/2010)

Films of this kind can never excite me, already from their very basic nature – heroes that only rely on their muscles can never be heroes to me (and they aren’t). The Expendables are a celebration of dumb brute force – and a pretty expendable film as far as I’m concerned. Long live modern action films that rely on something other than how long and how often a hero on ‘roids can drop “funny” wisecracks. Back in the 80s, that may have had its charm (which I can feel even today when I watch those old films), but I don’t see any reason to go back to that. PS: The church scene was incredibly artificial and forced, like the rest of the film. PS2: The inferno at the end is pretty cool in the details but utterly confusing as a whole. (29/08/2010)