Movie Review: The Expendables

Ξ August 30th, 2010 | → 0 Comments | ∇ reviews |

* Just to start, want to let you know my reviews here on out will contain spoilers, so by all means stop reading, but only because of the spoilers, not because you dislike me. That’s just mean. *

So I just got through watching ‘The Expendables.’ I had a free moment and saw it had decent ratings on IMDB so I thought I’d give it a shot. As a whole I’d say this is 90% older men kicking people’s asses and 10% mindless drama. Here is a synopsis:

The setting of the film is there are old badass mercenaries that are given a ‘job’ to take out a ruling dictator on some no name island in the middle of nowhere. This rag-tag group of individuals is led by Stallone and barks orders in some nonsensical manner.

Speaking of which, half the time in this movie I couldn’t understand what anyone was saying. When this gets to DVD I need to watch it again with subtitles. Between Stallone’s mumbling, Lundgren’s accent, and Jet Li’s engrish I was left wondering what the hell was going on for a good part of the movie.

We have a subplot with Statham where he feels heartbroken because of getting dumped, but the girl comes back to him because she got knocked around a little so he gets to play the gallant knight and rough up some basketball players.

So queue the assault on the island. We have a major character, a woman with daddy issues, introduced to us when she shows Stallone and Statham around the island. Turns out there is a third party that was funding a cocaine producing operation. Who knew?! Queue the dictator, Sgt. Batiste from Dexter and his kind hearted attitude. Stallone and Statham end up escaping and taking out a bunch of extras dressed up as soldiers in the process.

I just want to mention that there is a clear correlation between knives and how big the character’s e-peen is in this movie. That is all.

So the characters are wishy washy, Lundgren is kicked out of the group and is sad about it. We end up getting the group back to the island where the “rescue operation” commences for this one girl. We have some cocky british guy who you knew when he was introduced he was going to die in the film. Then we have Steve Austin giving his same tough guy routine that he can’t seem stray from because he isn’t an actor (hint: he plays a bad guy and he dies by getting lit on fire in the end).

I just have one question for Stallone: Why did he have the bad guy take the hostage girl with daddy issues? The guy clearly stopped in his tracks and grabbed the girl. WHY?!?! He could have gotten away easily with time to spare if he’d done that. Why be so cliché and attempt to take the girl that the good guys are clearly here to get. Maybe he needed a cleaning lady or liked her pretty paintings and wanted a mural or some shit. It’s almost like he’s never seen a single action flick, ever.

In conclusion, nobody could “get to da choppa” because it was blowed up, the bad guy dies, and Stallone gets to have his girl that is 30 years younger than him, but he decides he’s better off alone and takes the gallant routine and flies away, not getting any that night.

It wasn’t the “worst” film ever made. It is what it is: an action flick. I couldn’t expect anything else. I still can’t decide if the movie was brilliant or retarded. I guess I’ll let you decide.

Original post by mooch

 

  • Rumours and Lies