Expendables a Good Old Action Movie

I was afraid this movie would be a pieace of crap

But for the name of Old good times i went and saw it .

I was amazed from the fact that 64 Age Stallone could still be an Action Figure playing better than others like that guy in Avatar and etc.

The movie had some nice scenes that reminded a bit scenes from other stallones movies the fight with Jet Li and Dorf Lugren was quite impressive or the Battle in the Dungeon was quite cool also
Not cool was the major fight in the ending reminded a lot 80s
and the trick with the Plane is great.


The movie also has some nice funny moments and even some usual dramatic scenes that Stallone knows how to make.



For me the movie is better than Transformers 3 Iroman 2 or GI Joe .


It seems Stallone knows to how to make an Action movie with few money but can not avoid some 80s and 90s stereotypes regarding action scenes.


Do nt see salt see Sly

I didnt like it.

Originally Posted by MathiasOfAthens

I didnt like it.

did you like Iroman 2 and etc

It was alright, not great. I was expecting more. The only real part that was really cool was the plane gun attack.

Also the fights were hard to follow because it was so close up.

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

I was expecting more.

First mistake: expecting more from a movie that's a throwback to 80's action.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

First mistake: expecting more from a movie that's a throwback to 80's action.

rep for that

Originally Posted by Gaidin

First mistake: expecting more from a movie that's a throwback to 80's action.

How? I went in expecting a lot more action, violence, and gore and that's not too much to ask considering the cast. They should have cut parts like Jason Stathom's ex sidestory which was totally pointless.

Wasn't violent enough, wasn't bloody enough, and overall too boring. I wanted more mayhem instead of a few good action scenes.

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

How? I went in expecting a lot more action, violence, and gore and that's not too much to ask considering the cast. They should have cut parts like Jason Stathom's ex sidestory which was totally pointless.

Wasn't violent enough, wasn't bloody enough, and overall too boring. I wanted more mayhem instead of a few good action scenes.

how about sly having heart attack

Originally Posted by D.B. Cooper

How? I went in expecting a lot more action, violence, and gore and that's not too much to ask considering the cast. They should have cut parts like Jason Stathom's ex sidestory which was totally pointless.

Wasn't violent enough, wasn't bloody enough, and overall too boring. I wanted more mayhem instead of a few good action scenes.

Yea because in spite of(or because of) First Blood's action, it lacked a story amiright?

Originally Posted by Gaidin

First mistake: expecting more from a movie that's a throwback to 80's action.

Because modern quick cut fight scenes and CGI blood are so 80's.

I wouldn't blame people for having high expectations (for an action movie) when it boldly announces a cast full of well known action movie characters. The thing is that just because they call it a throwback to the 80's doesn't mean you're not allowed to expect more or point out things you didn't like.

That said, the movie was certainly entertaining, the action scenes mostly fun and no complaining about the cast. I can see where D.B. Cooper is coming from though. The story was thin and a lot of the non-action scenes were just really obvious filler, like nobody was really sure what to do between action scenes. That includes Charisma Carpenter's 5-minute role as Statham's girlfriend that was like completely irrelevant to everything else. Then also scenes like Randy Couture talking about his cauliflower ear which felt like Stallone just said "hey Randy, your ear looks weird, why don't we just fill 5 minutes of the movie with you talking about it". That's just the feeling I got. The story of the movie also felt like "Kill this guy for 5 million dollars - No, that's a suicide mission....oh wait, I can't forget this woman, so I'll just do it for free".
I mean sure, maybe Stallone called up "Church" and said the mission was back on but the movie didn't really make that clear. Also felt more like he wanted to do this as a "good deed" and not for the money. Was anyone else bothered by Lundgren's character arc of "argh, I'll try to kill you for kicking me out! Oh you shot me just above the heart, let's be friends again" ?

As I said at the beginning, the way the action scenes were shot were really anything but 80's to be honest. A lot of quick cuts and close ups. It was still entertaining but at some points, like at the end, I would have wished for more of a "showcased" fight rather than the constant cutting around between several guys fighting someone. I mean, you have so many guys who really know their stuff, like Jet Li, Couture, Statham, Steve Austin, Gary Daniels etc. so why waste that with quick editing? And with Couture vs. Austin at the end, why did that have to devolve into a bunch of stupid wrestling throws? Why not have a really well choreographed fight between two real heavyweights that we can enjoy?

Another thing is, when you have so many "big names" in one movie, there's just gonna be the problem that most of them will remain afterthoughts, unable to really shine in an ensemble so full, especially when it mainly focuses on Stallone and Statham. I felt like a few of the "buddy scenes" were kind of awkward, like one guy got to say his piece and the others reacting to it, trying to seem like good old buds but not really succeeding.

Oh well, it was entertaining but let's not overdo it just because Terry Crews took out the 2010 equivalent of Old Painless. What makes me cringe is Stallone considering a sequel.



PS: Anyone else see the irony that in a movie about a group of mercenaries called "the expendables" absolutely no one dies in the "suicide mission" at the end? Oh and uh, Spoiler Alert I guess.

Originally Posted by Rapax

Because modern quick cut fight scenes and CGI blood are so 80's.

That would be why I called it a throwback to the 80's. As opposed to an 80's movie made in 2010.

It kicked ass.

It was awesome.

If it only had Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme.....

I got pretty much what I expected out of it, so I was very happy.

yes it reminded me being little
in some years
we will miss arnies and sly action jokes

I thought it was epic.

I thought it was exceptionally bad.

Originally Posted by Carl von Döbeln

I thought it was exceptionally bad.

I guess my complaint is that the movie felt like it was directed by someone who has worked in the action industry for a long time, but has no real grasp on how to direct a movie.

Originally Posted by The Dude

I went and saw both the Expendables and then Salt and ended up preferring Salt. Simply because, well, I think Angelina's a great actress and the story was better than in Expendables, obviously. The action scenes in Salt obviously weren't as extreme as the ones in Expendables but as far as quality goes its definitely the superior movie.

The Expendables was alright. The action was fun, but I didn't really care for most of what happened outside of the scenes were stuff got blown up. Which weren't even as frequent as I had expected.

Well I personally do not think Angelina is a very good actress. I think she is a pretty face who cashes in on her bad girl persona. That being said I have several of her movies and a few posters of her

However I went into Salt expecting a blah movie again from her and was pleasantly surprised, I think this is probably her best film that I have seen.

I didn't expect any great drama or good plot. I expected a balls of steel action movie and it delivered. Needed more Ahnuld but I enjoyed it.