The Expendables (2010) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
752 Reviews
Sort by:
Sex and the city,.... for men!
lord sombody16 August 2010
I laugh at many of the hate comments as what the hell did they expect? a romantic comedy? award winning performances? deep dialogues? Freudian complex character study?

common give me a break!!! from the start you should know this is all about guns,explosives and one liners from start to finish and homage to silly 80's and 90's action flicks. and this is simply exactly what you get!!

while i will never understand what most woman think so great about sex and the city( fashion? shoes? what the hell?)

so this is for men/boys who will be thrilled to see their old heroes from back in the days once more on screen kicking everybody's ass! (and no, i can appreciate intellectual and deep movies, but it often simply comes down with having the right expectations)
830 out of 1,037 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Too much testosterone!
TheCinemassacre13 August 2010
Tough guys. Always going on suicidal missions. Threatened by bullets and blades. Running from explosions. Best friends waging wars. Nearly killing each other, then going to the bar later to laugh about it. Director and star, Sylvester Stallone, gets all his best men together to kick as much ass as humanly possible, allowing himself a severe beating from Steve Austin. Sly took a serious neck injury. Then he goes in front of a Comic Con audience and jokes about it. A man whose Double-"R" franchises, Rocky and Rambo have both been highly successful. But he keeps coming back for more pain and putting his body on the line for the sake of entertainment. There's nothing tougher than that!

The Expendables is a movie that lifts you up out of your seat, pats you on the head, gives you a lollipop then smashes you in the frickin' face! With a cast like Jason Stathum, Randy Couture, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke, Terry Crews, Dolph "I Must Break You" Lundgren, and cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger, you'd think it would be one crazy mess. Surprisingly, it's more focused then you may think. Just a straight-forward action movie with a reasonable run time that sustains itself and never has a chance to feel dull. It doesn't try to be anything more than what it is.

The only negative: Some of the blood and explosions looked digital. Wish it could have been just a bit more authentic. Sometimes, there was a tad too many closeups during the fight scenes. With so many people fighting at the same time, sometimes I couldn't tell who was punching who. It didn't happen very often, but how cool would it be just for one moment to see three simultaneous fights from a super wide master shot? Never, but I can't blame them. At least let the cameras pull back and allow the choreography to do the work.

It feels nice to get my ass kicked by something I haven't seen yet. It's not Rambo. It's not Rocky. Nor is it another Die Hard or Terminator sequel. It's something fresh, yet feels like it came out of the 80's. It has the perfect blend of humor, blood, sweat, smart-ass comebacks, witty one-liners, and an overabundance of testosterone! Don't expect anything more than action, exposition, action, exposition, all with a nice cherry on top… with sprinkles… and grenades. And some real tough guys. We all wish we could be tough guys. But no, let's just watch'em instead.
319 out of 477 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Bad, and not bad in a good way, just bad.
andrew-don15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Straight up, I am the biggest fan of the 80s action films ever. I loved Commando, Predator, Rambo, Rocky, Die Hard, Kickboxer etc etc etc.

What have they done? This film had all the potential to be huge, but they killed it with terrible writing. I can handle plot holes, in fact a movie like this almost needs them. But there is no excuse for such poor dialogue. Where are the cool lines? I expected to come out quoting a whole heap of new one liners, instead we get stupid jokes about 'wanting to be president'. The scene with Bruce Willis, Sly and Arnie should have been awesome, instead it felt like there was some in-joke between them that we didn't know about. It was like being at a party listening to 3 people you don't know talking about something you don't understand! Dolph Lundgren was the best part of the film, and they didn't give him enough to do. Why is this man not starring in A grade blockbusters? The big rapid fire shotgun offered some humorous moments, though I don't know if this was deliberate or not. Considering this was supposed to be about the action, it was very poorly shot. Ever since Gladiator it seems directors are intent on making us feel part of the fight. Screw that, I don't want to be in it, I want to see what's happening. Why bother having Jet Li, Randy Cotour and Stone Cold in a film if all you can see of them is arms and legs flailing at close range? Watch any old Jackie Chan flick, or even the old Stallone and Schwarzeneggar movies, the action shots are wide enough that you can actually see what they are doing.

Very disappointing
260 out of 406 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Big action balls!!!
Mash-the-stampede14 September 2010
So I guess with any film review - it's all about the answers to the important questions. So let's get them out of the way first shall we?

Q) Is the plot descent, with a substantial storyline including dramatic arcs, twists and/or turns?

A) Not particularly.

Q) Are there character arcs and meaningful character developments?

A) A little.

Q) Is there romance?

A) Next question, please.

Q) Is the overall film original?

A) Not at all.

Q) Is it a likely Oscar nomination contender?

A) Hell no!

Q) Is it still awesome?

A) HELL YES!!!!!

Critics should be banned from reviewing films such as these. Anyone with half a brain can tell exactly what kind of film this is and what they're in for purely by the film's trailer alone.

This is a film made for action movie fans and not just regular action movies - I mean REAL action films in the style of the classic 80's action movies where plot and substantial character developments and dialogue took a backseat to intense over-the-top violence, explosions, car chases, sex scenes and catchy, memorable one liners!

The 80's action hero (and villain) breed was a rare phenomenon which will likely die with those very actors who gave them life. No 90's or new millennium "action" movie star will ever come close to being anywhere near as genuinely tough and just plain bad-arse as their 80's predecessor's! Even now with the main 'Expendables' cast pushing 60 +, you know that they would snap Matt Damon's spine in 2 with one hand tied behind their backs!

The 'Expendables' cast consists of Sly Stallone as the fearless leader of the team, Jason (Basketball stabber) Statham as the trusty knife-throwing sidekick, Dolph Lundgren as the treacherous giant one, Jet-Li as the small one, Terry Chews as Wesley Snipes, Mickey Rourke as the tattoo/previous knife-throwing sidekick and Randy Couter as the "who the hell is this guy, oh he's a UFC fighter" guy.

I still can't believe the unbelievable shape these guys are in! They're giants (exception for Jet-li of course).

Still, despite it's 80's throw-back appeal - the film isn't all action. Believe it or not there are slow parts. Mostly unnecessary filler between the action scenes. However the third act of the film makes up for the lack of action and then some!

It's when this third act commences when the true action film we've been waiting to see kicks in and steps up several notches to become the manliest most testosterone-fueled film since the last 'Rambo'!

It's funny, it's loud, it's un-relentlessly violent, an action-packed no-brainer of a film! An 80's action movie fan's wet-dream!!!

Bring on the sequel/s and bring on Jean-Claude Van Damme so he can give Statham the butt-kicking he so desperately deserves!!!
148 out of 229 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
They don't get much more explosive than this!
yellowbuket1014 August 2010
The expectation for this film is obviously very high with one of the best action hero line ups (if not the best) in cinematic history. So I went into this film with a little trepidation and a lot of anticipation. I can honestly say that I was not disappointed. This was a high octane, unbelievably explosive, funny, blood thirsty, proper action movie! This film would not have been out of place in the 80s, but manages to fit into the market of today's cinematic action experience. It is easily much more graphic and gory than most modern day action films, but this adds to the film and creates a degree of realism. Let's face it; if you go around killing people it isn't going to be pretty! This film did what it needed to do, it wasn't afraid to contain blood, guts and violence for the sake of an age restriction but also wasn't overly ridiculous. After all most of the people who will watch this film grew up watching the classic action films of the 80s and 90s and are old enough for a bit of gore.

The plot is not that original, but it doesn't need to be, nor was it expected to be. The cast, goes without saying, was fantastic. What could have been a disaster of conflicting egos ended up being a believable team of mercenaries where banter is rife and keeping each other alive is their number one priority. Stallone can give himself a big pat on the back for getting so many iconic actors onto the screen together and actually making it work. Though the much hyped cameo of two particular people was short lived, it was hilarious and I think a great moment in cinema.

This was a great film that keeps you glued to your seat, constantly makes you gasp and laugh out loud and leaves you pumping with adrenaline. It was ridiculous and wonderful all at the same time, with more bullets and bombs than Rambo and more fighting than Rocky. This is a must see film for any movie buff or action hero wannabe. It is certainly not for the faint hearted, or for kids, but for any true action movie lover this is the ultimate manly film.

Sylvester Stallone, NICE JOB!
394 out of 648 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The title says it all
Nick Gascoigne19 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Bunch of sweaty blokes try to out-macho each other. The heroine is tortured, then dragged through bullets, raging fires and explosions as the whole set is blown up, yet emerges unscathed with perfect hairdo. Pointless appearance by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Missed all opportunities for some decent jokes, and had to repeat an average one just in case we missed it. Unlikeable one-dimensional characters, predictable plot, no twists and not an ounce of suspense. I found nothing to like about this film, and would have walked out if I had woken up. Expendable plot, expendable dialogue, expendable characters ... I could go on interminably, like the film does.
210 out of 338 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Just Garbage
tw1234520 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Really. Like many other reviewers, I had high hopes for this movie. I thought it would be in the tradition of Space Cowboys, the old pros come back for one more shot at the bad guys. But it quickly just degraded into typical shoot-em-up crap. Spoiler: The scene with Schwarzenegger is a complete rip-off - about a minute long, no action, has nothing to do with the rest of the movie.

About 65% of the movie is people fighting or shooting at each other or blowing things up, and it really did just get boring. The execution wasn't even that good - fight scenes had obviously sped-up footage that looked like those old dinosaur movies, sound effects were bad (every punch had the same fake thud), and the characters looked like they were in pain - not from the bullets which never touched them, but from the awful plot. Poor Jet Li complained the whole way through that he wasn't getting enough money - he was practically begging to be let out of his contract go so he could go work on something better - even a commercial.

Mickey Rourke was good but didn't have much of a part, or any purpose for being there. Also that 250-round per minute shotgun thing, going boom-boom-boom, was funny every time. But not worth the 9 bucks and two hours of sitting through another ridiculous re-hashing of the rogue-CIA-guy and "small band of mercenaries invades and overruns tiny central American dictatorship" story.

I was expecting a good poignant aging-action-hero movie, or maybe a comedy, but this was just laughably bad. It's baffling how this could be the number 1 movie, unless a lot of people were sucked in by the hype, like I was. Also the 7-point-something rating on IMDb has got to be inflated - rottentomatoes gives it a 42% which is more like it.

When I heard that Seagal and Van Damme turned down roles in this film, I thought it was because they were too full of themselves. But now I realize it's because they knew it was crap.
199 out of 327 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
the unflushables
robert moss19 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This is the worst mainstream big budget movie I've ever seen.

The claim that the film stars Schwarzenegger and Willis are totally dishonest. They appear for a minute in a very boring scene.

The script is pathetic, there isn't a single decent one liner,the editing is awful, the acting is so bad that Gary Daniels steals every scene he is in and how the hell Lundgren gets killed by Stallone early on when he's a baddie and reappears as a goodie at the end baffles AND bores me. The claims of wall to wall action are also lies: it's over half an hour till we get the first action scene- a routine car chase that is below par for the a-team- the 80's series not the recent movie.

The fight between Lundgren and Jet Li could have been a standout but its too dark and incoherently edited.

Pathetic. Avoid.
126 out of 205 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
i've seen better film on teeth
colinhawksby25 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I knew when watching the trailer that this movie would be bad but nothing prepared me for how bad it would be.

There are a lot of fake reviews on here that go on about funny one-liners ( the reviews never supply any examples because there are none ) and wall- to-wall action. The action doesn't even start for over half an hour and when it does its sporadic and mediocre.

There is no plot and as for characterization ???? to give you an example Dolph Lundgren's character is a goodie, gets fired and turns traitor, is shot through the chest by Stallone after trying to kill him and beating up Jet Li (yeah right) then at the end he's in the bar again as a goodie.

"what's it like to come back from the dead?" mumbles Stallone. Lundgren's reply is inaudible and incomprehensible but I get the feeling I'm not missing much.

No-one in the whole sorry effort makes any attempt to act, there is no reason for Charisma Carpenter to be in the movie and the General's daughter- another man who is incapable of speaking clearly- is badly written and acted.

The only impressive moment comes from Gary Daniels. Stallone looks ancient despite the facelift,toupee and dyed beard. Lundgren looks worn out. Don't believe the hype. Thank God I downloaded it.
65 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What Did I Just Watch?
stuart-wanta13 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When I purchased my $9 movie ticket this evening I thought I would be watching an action version of Ocean's 11. Instead, I was subjected to what can only be described as the sequel to "88 Minutes." This movie was god awful. I understand that value of this movie is derived from it's action sequences and not the storyline, but even those sucked. Can someone explain to me why 12 armed soldiers play quick feet around two unarmed men and just wait for them to beat them up instead of just pulling the trigger? Also, why does Stallone run like a marionette? Was there a reason Randy Couture felt the need to punch a burning Steve Austin? Lets be honest, the fire was getting the job done.

It's quite clear that Stallone is going through a mid-life crisis type deal and felt the need to get himself back on the screen. He and Statham were the only ones with more than 5 minutes of screen time.

I didn't expect Schindler's List, but I also didn't expect to leave the theater with the taste of urine in my mouth. If you haven't seen it yet, wait for the DVD.
147 out of 249 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
The Movie that Cannot be Unmade
michael-wolman20 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have to give fair warning, I didn't like this movie and I am officially sending up the flag of SPOILER ALERT. If anyone holds me responsible for giving away key elements to the movie plot I am legally not liable. On second thought, if you hold me responsible for ruining this film because I am giving away pieces of the plot have no fear, the movie would have ruined itself for you had you simply seen the movie with no idea of what to expect. Please trust me, the book is no better than the film.

I will start my more rant with Mickey Rourke. I like Mickey, truly I do. I think Barfly was great, and so was the Wrestler, and Sin City…and I respect his undefeated boxing record. I will argue that he was the only redeemable quality in Iron Man 2 and he was even good in this movie. I think that's why I wish he would have stayed out. Rourke's appearance was an exact duplication of his appearance in Iron Man 2. He had the unusual white streaks in his hair and gold teeth. It led me believe that he preformed his parts in between shooting on his other movie. Rourke played the steady hand and I got the feeling that he had to descend to the skill set of a much weaker cast. Just because he was dressed like a post apocalyptic cowboy doesn't mean he didn't carry every scene he was in.

My next victim is a Three Stooges style double slap to Steve Austin and Randy Couture. I am beginning to think that these two actors are kisses of death for any movie. Case in point, Scorpion King 2 and the Longest Yard. Perhaps I am giving these two individuals too much credit for breaking something that was never fixed. They were clearly added for one reason, to cross over in their main occupation's demographic. I know I am not being prophetic here, but there is something truly Rotten in Denmark when two stars of a movie have nicknames (the Natural and Stone Cold) in the movie moniker. Did they bring a level of intensity and action to the movie? Well perhaps to the trailer, but the movie suffered from their inability to articulate the strong emotional responses they were feeling. It would have been more reasonable to see them just replace all their lines with 'smash' and 'break'.

Couture was given the artistic liberty to have a scene where he explains his cauliflower ears. I have to say that this scene got chuckles from the audience and I had to look away as the thought of one hundred strangers laughing at a man is too ugly for me to bear. There were other scenes where the camera was perhaps a little too close to Couture and the bulbs and lumps covering his face and head were magnified. He is a hideous looking individual when not in the context of MMA.

Lundgren, at some point in this jigsaw puzzle of a plot, was to be believed to have a heroin problem. Or was it a heroine problem? If Hunter Thompson has taught me anything it's that you can trust a man but not a drug, especially if that drug is armed to the teeth. I have a very difficult time believing that the 6' 13'', 297-pound blonde was any sort of opiate junkie and that the drug would make him more violent. I am not a licensed drug councilor though so I will defer my judgment to those that know the ins and outs of addiction.

I knew the action and movement would be fast paced but I had no idea that the vertigo would be magnified due to the unusual camera movement thought any action scene. In any scene where there was violence, tension, speed or blinking the camera was shaking as if in a 7.2 magnitude earthquake. I have been told that it was to give the feeling of movement and chaos, but it only gave me the feeling that there was too much pressure in my brain and that I shouldn't take the floor for granted. Please be advised, if you are planning on taking anyone to this film with a medical condition that has symptoms of vertigo or nausea they may need to leave.

As the movie progressed I got he feeling more and more that the plot was revised along the way and that the glaring inconsistencies were simply swatted away by the director. Perhaps he thought that the Neanderthal that planned on seeing the film wouldn't notice or care to notice. Perhaps there is no such thing as the super charged testosterone driven question mark (?).

When my son comes and asks me who was great in the action film genre in the 20th century I'll explain that Stallone was a great goon, and Arnold was a Robot, and Statham was a transporter, and that Couture was this great Greco-Roman wrestler. I know my heart will absolutely bottom out when he informs me that, 'If all these action stars were so great, why were the all in such a bad movie?' I tear up when I think about how this film has tarnished the catalog of so many great action heroes. Will I ever be able to say 'Yippie-ki-yea mother f@#$er' again? Will I ever notice the great Wu Shu in Fearless? Will Old Spice no longer smell as sweet?

Van Dam turned this movie down. Yeah, Bloodsport didn't think it had any substance. Why was this so difficult to see by everyone else? This reminds me of the Jones/Hopkins fight from April of this year. It was a fight everyone was itching to see a decade ago. We all still watched the highly criticized bout, but it was well past it's prime. Unfortunately this film did not age well, and what has been made can't be unmade.
79 out of 129 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
The 'D-' Team
thesar-221 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Sure, Sylvester Stallone isn't the most bankable star. He's washed up and knows it. I appreciate that he knows, though writing and directing that theory into an incredibly shallow, talentless and pointless movie containing characters with zero depth or chemistry between each other and bringing other D-List stars down with him…is just plain wrong.

The Expendables didn't have much going for it, except for taking the Freddy Vs. Jason idea to a whole new level. Not a better level, but just expanding the cast of has-beens. So, I guess the only way for the film to go is up, upon viewing? NO. It started low and got worse.

The action was so few and far between that when you finally got to one of the few scenes, though they were decent, you're left so bored, it's hard to remember at that time this is, in fact, an action flick. It's a no-brainer that the cast basically has no brains left, so the expectations of them suddenly performing Hamlet was null. Yet, I really wanted to see something, anything out of them. Not only was each one, bypassing Jason Statham as Lee Christmas who stood far above EVERY other individual, so dull, boring, one-note, incredibly UNFUNNY with jokes and one-liners seen from a neighboring county, but not one had an ounce of chemistry with each other. It's as if Mr. Stallone asked them, not that they need a reason to get their first paycheck in years, and they signed on without so much as seeing the script.

And speaking of which, was there a script? We have the lesser of A-Team movies this summer where as an elite group of highly trained mercenaries who are hired for a job, but surprise! There's now more at stake as there's a completely thrown in (only for the sake of having the clichéd) love interest, one of their own that might be betraying them (oh, drat!) and the target might be harder than they anticipated: An Evil Drug Lord – oh, no! – who controls both his island's people and government.

Sure, this is a throwback to the same types of movies this 100+ actor group is used to back in the 1980s, and as much as most of those are corny, stereotypical, low-rent and shallow, at least they had heart. At least they didn't lie to what they were. You knew what you were getting yourself into.

Here, in The Expendables, Director Stallone yearns to make a serious movie about senior citizens kicking butt by adding male-bonding, a philosophical tattoo preacher and the importance of friendship and trust. Then he switches back to the Predator-days long gone with jungles, blood, guts, guns and not-so-snappy one-liners.

Don't get me started – too late – on the cameos. I understand the big Arnold Schwarzenegger had some forest fire business in his own country of California, but his, Bruce Willis's and Sly's scenes went as well together as their ownership of Planet Hollywood restaurants. Each one was all but a head shot where you couldn't even tell they were in the same room, not to mention it lasted all but 5 minutes. I had the same problem with the movie Heat; FINALLY they got Pacino and De Niro on the same screen for, what?, 5 minutes!?! And furthermore, I hate the post-Terminating Smiling-Jack Schwarzenegger and his cornball dumbass lines. Even the ones thrown at him were so foreseen, they weren't funny.

The rest of the walk-ons, including the washed-up-before-Wrestler-and-back-to-third-rate-following, Rourke, were just happy to be employed. I guess the recession runs deeper than they thought – back to the 80s! Despite my one star review, there were two good scenes, I'll admit: Christmas, wait – wow, really Stallone? That's the best you can come up with for an ACTION star's name? Hope you didn't take that from Dr. Christmas Jones from The World is Not Enough. Anyways, Tough Christmas takes on thugs on a basketball court due to one of the failed side plots involving his love interest. I always like seeing Statham fight, despite the poor quality of the film he's in. Also, the climax is quite unbelievable, of course, but you cant rate that down for the movie it is. I will say, though, before the 700 explosions in the finale, there was a little cave fight scene that ended with machine gun/human slicing excitement. Literally, I was dozing off until that happened – multiple and honestly well choreographed fighters took on the enemy.

Those two scenes by FAR could not save the rest of this crap. I'd say maaaaybe rent it for the aforementioned scenes and the testosterone finale – at least you can select those chapters and not be hopelessly stuck in the theater. Even when Stallone was bad in his career, he never stooped this low. SKIP!
77 out of 126 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
PLEASE DO NOT WATCH THE MOVIE " contains spoilers"
nirbhay pandey15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
When i heard about the star cast i thought that the movie will be wonderful. But when i saw it my expectations were badly shattered. Expendables is about group of 5 people who take money to do some daring work. They are handed over with a work by Mr, church(Bruce Willis). The work is to go to an island and kill the general over there. First Sylvester Stallone and Jason statham go there to look at the island. generals daughter helps them see over the place.There they are seen by some people and there is a fighting . We see good action there. and i really liked the action there. But after coming back the old Stallone starts dreaming about generals daughter. And goes back with his friends to rescue her.There after it is a rubbish movie.A person runs amidst thousand bullets , and none touches him. A hero is in trouble, and out of no where his friends come to rescue him. Ultimately the put afire the whole island, and no one gets a single bruise. Even the girl does not come with Stallone. Altogether a mind less action movie, whose action is of the lowest category, which you can only find in Stallone movies.
98 out of 165 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Stallone does it again!
cybopath15 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
After nearly a decade of disappointments Stallone shocked the movie world by making a 6th emotionally charged Rocky, he then went on to please fans by taking Rambo into a visceral brutally realistic war movie, now for his hat trick Stallone gave us something old and something new 'The Expendables' the type of movie kids dreamed about the early 90's, what if this guy & that guy and him where all in a film together. A little too late? Hell no! Never has this film been more needed. In a land of watered down PG-13 wire work action movies real action fans where desperate for some real old school action. (Cobra, Commando, Delta Force, Last Boy Scout..) The great thing about this film is even if it didn't have the cast it still would be a great action movie, the fact it has such a jaw dropping cast just makes it all the better. Stallone is growing as an action director, he brought some of his tense brutal techniques from Rambo but was smart enough to go a little old school for other scenes. Their are some very kinetic action sequences but not Parkinson's suffering cameraman techniques like the Bourn films.

The main focus of the team are Stallone & Statham, they really have a good Old Dog, New Dog friendship. Lundgren (My favourite character) gets a an interesting sub plot. Unfortunately Li, Couture & Crews get pushed to the background but they do get some great scenes to shine. (Hopefully they can get some more development in the sequel.

Roberts and his Henchman Stone Cold Steve Austin shine as the brutal villains. Gary Danials however was really underused I was expecting some Bennet style lines. At least he got one of the best fights of the movies.

Of coarse the scene everyone was talking about was the Stallone, Schwarzenegger & Willis scene. Which was one of the funniest parts of the movie. Their attempt to put each other down while out manning each other worked brilliantly and Willis threatening Stallone alone is worth the ticket price.

A slight nag about the film is at the very end some CGI did crop up, in the form of fire. After all the practical stunts throughout the movie including one great Truck chase I was a little disappointed not to see a stuntman in a fire suit.

If this had just been Stallone's baby with a few unknown actors I'd give this film 8/10 BUT the fact we get to see Stallone, Statham, Li, Lundgren, Couture, Crews, Roberts, Rourke, Danials with Willis & Schwarzenegger punch, kick, stab, mouth off and blow up each other cranks it up to a 9.5/10 for me.

Bring on Expendables II
197 out of 349 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
"Expendables" Reminds Us Why We Will Watch Sylvester Stallone
D_Burke9 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"The Expendables" is without question the most anticipated movie of the summer of 2010. Its cast is a who's who of established action film stars of the previous three decades. Even though the previews gave away the cameo by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, it still gave us just another reason to stand in line for this movie.

And who else leads the impressive roster of stars but the American dream himself, Sylvester Stallone, who also co-wrote and directed this movie himself. Stallone is one of those rare movie stars who, even in that period of time (circa 1998-2005) when he wasn't making many films, you never heard him referred to as a B-lister or a has-been. It could be because he has arguably had more career comebacks than any actor in history.

Don't call "The Expendables" a comeback, though. If anything, it's a further reminder that Stallone can still make engrossing films that defy target audience groups. Oh yeah, and he looks better than any 64-year-old I know of.

Although Stallone wears three heavy hats in this movie, he doesn't carry the weight of the movie on his own shoulders. You've already read the names of the action stars who support him here. Although the youngest of the Expendables (Jason Statham) is 37, they are far from a rag-tag crew. This movie shows that they can still kick more ass than "Kick- Ass" (2010).

The Expendables describes a team of what could be considered mercenaries, or bounty hunters. They go on high-risk missions, guns in hand, and pick up the money owed to them at the end of the day. Their main mission in this movie is initially to overthrow a South American dictator in the fictional nation of Vilena. Eventually, they find that the real enemy is ex-CIA agent James Munroe (Eric Roberts) aided by "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and a whole army of guerrilla soldiers.

This movie is full of action sequences, all of which are fun to watch. There are also some scenes involving knives (particularly ones thrown by Jason Statham) that even made me flinch. Although there are plenty of scenes involving knives and big guns, there are some great sequences involving hand-to-hand combat. You definitely don't want to take a bathroom break when 5'6 Jet Li takes on 6'4 Dolph Lundgren. There's also a fight scene between Steve Austin and Randy Couture that will satisfy both UFC and WWE fans.

These scenes were not without their confusion, though, especially those shot using what appeared to be a hand-held camera. There were a lot of close-up shots during these intense parts that didn't seem necessary, and the way the camera shook and almost too quickly cut to another scene was confusing. Ang Lee used similar camera tricks in his version of "Hulk", and they bewildered more than entranced.

A thinking man's movie it is not, that's for sure, but it is still a fun movie that needs to be seen on the big screen. Plus, with all the testosterone in it, it may have been difficult for a woman to stand out. Although she didn't have any weapons or fighting power, Giselle Itie was hardly a damsel in distress. In fact, one scene I won't give away has her making a decision that few, men or woman, would have made amidst all the explosions and gunfire. You'll know it when you see it.

"The Expendables" will not disappoint action fans. It also is not short of quotable lines, especially in Gov. Schwarzenegger's cameo. Expendable, by definition, means considered to be not worth keeping or maintaining, but the careers of everyone involved in this film remain quite the opposite.
173 out of 309 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Everything an Action Movie should be, times 2!
kezopster13 August 2010
Get ready to cheer. Be ready to laugh. Be ready to be amazed with wonderful, live action fighting scenes using everything from fists, to blades, to guns. I don't know how this movie avoided being cheesy, but darn it, it did! Mindless explosions? Not really. Excessive? Again, not really. I hate the sort of climax usually seen in an action movie where the pyrotechnics are the show. I want to see the actors/stunt-men doing their thing. I want to see people. I can see fireworks on the Fourth of July. (Though, trust me, there ARE fireworks in this movie, too.) The balancing of this many stars is incredible and pulled off remarkably well. When Sylvester Stallone made his final Rocky movie (Rocky Balboa), he said he did it as a "thank you" to the fans. Maybe that was the idea behind this one, too, though I heard a quote from somewhere that after seeing wimpy Tobey Maguire as "Spiderman" full of CGI and a stuffed/padded suit, he realized action heroes like himself were, well, expendable.

This is fantasy baseball and fantasy rock-n-roll camp for adults all rolled into a wonderful action flick with enough of a plot to give the characters motivation for their action. A deep plot? Heck no. A predictable plot? Certainly. But trust me, if you thought you've seen it all before, you have yet to see "The Expendables." Thank you Mr. Stallone!
216 out of 395 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
A Travesty of a Film
josh-langston20 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I must admit that when I first saw trailers for this film I was extremely optimistic. I felt that any movie with such an abundance of action star-power had all the makings of a home run popcorn flick. Although I'm not much a fan of watching the nearly seventy-year old Sylvester Stallone act on screen, I still remained hopeful because of the film being graced with the presence of the ever-talent Mickey Rourke, and extremely exciting fight sequences with Jason Statham. The movie open almost immediately with gun-a-blazing. These scenes were far from impressive and the worst part is that the opening scene defines the film as a whole. One could have simply put this scene on replay for 100 plus minutes and ended up with the same results. A huge criticism about this film that seems almost unanimous by those who have given it a negative review is that there is "too much testosterone". Although there is no doubt that testosterone flows through this film like the Nile river, it was not the problem for this film. After watching the film, I realized that it was the perfect equation for how to not make a movie. It was a mixture of bad dialog, bad special effects, and bad acting (except for Mickey Rourke and Jason Statham). The dialog is meaningless through out the entire film and really presents no way for the different characters to connect with the audience. The most disappointing part of the film however was the horrendous special effects, which climax at the end of the film after one of the villains is shot to pieces and then has an enormous, Rambo-esquire knife fly through his chest which really solidified this film as being an overpriced, straight-to-DVD movie.
63 out of 108 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Thank you Stallone, thank you
RockyBalboaV7 August 2010
Wow.. this movie was very good. I have been looking forward to this movie for over a year and it did not disappoint me. Yes the story is not the best. But that's OK because you don't need a 'very' good story line as long as the movie is entertaining as hell. The acting could have been better but its still good acting. This movie has action, funny moments,intense moments, insane violence just anything you want in an action movie! Most Critics are giving this film negative reviews on but this movie is mostly for the fans. Bottom line very good action packed action movie thats brings back the memories of the 80's. Stallone, Statham, Li, Couture, Crews, Lundgren, Austin, Willis, Schwarzenegger, Rourke, the gang is here!

Very nice work Stallone!
377 out of 726 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What did he say?
Sanj Dale5 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
You know when I decided to see this I wanted mindless action and to see how all these old timers cut it in an action Movie still... OK for the second part they cut it quite well, their age didn't really show apart from one ridiculous scene where Sly Stallone tries to run after a plane taking off! His running looked laboured and it didn't look like he would in anyway catch the plane but he did and it looked awful... the rest wasn't so bad most of the action they were involved in was in cars etc so they didn't have to labour too hard.

now for the mindless action... I couldn't understand the dialogue... Sly Stallone being the worst offender... He can barely string a sentence together in his prime and in this Movie he is totally unintelligible... with all this CGI they could make his speech clearer i think, or at least give him subtitles.. it totally ruined what should have been a mindless movie for me as i had to concentrate too hard on what he was saying to sit back and be mindless...
26 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Good actors, Lame story, Stupid movie
elpedras23 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The other night I saw The Expendables with great expectation. I saw in trailer that in this movie are playing big actors, big movie stars, and i sad to my self: "this has to be a good or a very good movie"!... Well it's not! I saw many lame movies a lot of them doesn't worth to be mentioned and commented, but this one is on the top of the list the lamest movie ever.

The bad part in this movie: - it has the stupidest story ever. - the same stupid director imagination - commando vs small army - some bad acting scenes - stupid friend story - stupid love story - old style commando/Rambo movie - disgusting fight scenes - lame special effects - no beginning, no end type of movie - not even close to real movie script

Good part of this movie: - it just has some big actor names on it and that's all

In conclusion although they put big actors with a great potential and very good movies on they're C.V. The Expendables is a big disappointment. The movie is so bad that I laugh very much although it's an action movie.

So, if you don't have what to do with your money, and you have some time that you don't know what to do with it, and you want to see a good movie - go and see another movie, not this one. If you want to see Stallone in some good movie watch some old movie. There are people who think that is a good movie, good for them, but if you have expectation from a movie, if you have expectation from the story of the movie, and some movie experience go and see another movie because this movie is for under knowledge type of movie watcher.
49 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
A Letdown!
namashi_120 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Sylvester Stallone is a legend, no two options on that! He is one of my favorite stars, I was crazy about him in his 'Rambo' days. As a fan, I expected a lot of entertainment from his latest flick 'The Expendables'. The film stars each and every Action Star, apart from Van Damme and Jackie Chan. It's obvious you'd except outstanding entertainment & bad-ass action from this one, right? Sadly, I got not even half of the entertainment I had expected.

About a team of mercenaries head to South America on a mission to overthrow a dictator. Sly the writer, brings down Sly the director as well. 'The Expendables' begins with a bang, but loses the grip 30-minutes into the film. In fact, the story just doesn't move. For example, Dolph Lundgren's track, it contributes nothing to film. But yet it is given a start, middle & end. Also, Jason Statham's romantic track is a yawn. It looks out of place! But, the climax is superb. It's explosive Action, and lives up to the genre of the film.

One expected much more from Sly. His writing is not sharp. His direction, due to a poor screenplay, is average. Even the scene between Sly-Arnie-Willis fails to make an impact. Jeffrey Kimball's Cinematography is fine. Editing by, Ken Blackwell & Paul Harb lacks fin-ace.

In the acting department, Sly, the actor, is surely in form. But the show-stealer, is undoubtedly, Mickey Rourke. The veteran is remarkable in a cameo appearance. The scene where he recalls his past, his expressions, his dialouge delivery, is simply awesome. In fact, it's the most effective scene in the entire film. Jason Statham is just right. Jet Li is fair. Dolph Lundgren doesn't work, mainly due to amateur characterization. Randy Couture is okay. Eric Roberts hams. Steve Austin is able. Charisma Carpenter, looks angelic in a small role.

On the whole, A must watch only for Sly's devotees. Otherwise, catch this directly on DVD!
49 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
"Makes Michael Bay look like Bergman"
reinbo14 August 2010
Awesome action picture in the line of Rambo 4. This movie is really loud!

If you are a fan of big macho action cinema as it was like in the '80s, you will not be disappointment. I liked all the characters, especially the ones played by Lundgren en Rouke. It also hods Stratham's finest performance, who plays the lead next to Sly.

I was a bit disappointed with the scene with the 'big three'. That scene was quite boring and Arnold looked really old. I guess they did not have time to make more out of it.

Back to the movie. It has some great action scenes. The one with the plane bombing the hell out of the village in the beginning is an instant classic. Last half an hour it goes completely insane when everybody is fighting everybody and the rest gets blown to pieces.

Greatest action movie so far. Stallone did it again 25 years after Rambo 2, he completely blew me out of my seat. 10/10
209 out of 405 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
People get shot with bullets, from guns, and die as a result.
matt-soulliere28 July 2010
If you aren't sure what to expect going into this think Rambo, only there are five Rambos instead of just one, and two of them know karate.

If you do have high expectations going in (as I did), you will start to wonder if perhaps this movie isn't going to be what you were expecting as you watch it. The first hour gives you the two 'big' cameos, which weren't worth the hype (or any hype for that matter), and an out of place Mickey Rourke emotional moment but not much else.

The real payoff comes in the last half hour or so of the movie which is a beautiful symphony of mindless violence, and more than makes up for the beginning.

Overall the movie seemed a little rushed as far as the story goes and I won't be surprised to see a extended cut when this comes out on DVD but it is a solid action movie and worth the watch. And hats off to Randy Couture who actually steals the movie a little bit during the big action scene at the end.
118 out of 224 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Waste of time!
highams28 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
What film did the other reviewers watch? The film was hardly worth saying it had a plot, disjointed (like the A Team) and the action was too much shooting...and simply not in the class of production that Rambo was just in. The lighting was bad at times, and seemed cheaply made, and wow did the actors not look young any more.

And don't get me started on the casting of Dexter's Angel Batista as the baddie.....oh dear.

Such a shame of a movie.

It was one of my worst films I have seen this year, and I love action movies (Lethal Weapon Die Hard and Transporter being the best franchises at the moment).

But if it made them money....

The best casting was Dolph, and he was under used. Get him in some higher budget movies, his whole career has been under used, and Hollyood have missed out! Jet Li's martial arts were under used, after his hard man performance in Lethal Weapon. Bruce had a few lines as did Arnold, and then who were the rest of the cast!!? Jason S was good as usual, but again looked like he was just so pleased to be among the cast - do Transporter 4 Jason, though 3 was weak true enough.

Avoid in my view. If only Arnold and Bruce had been more in it.
35 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Bad, bad, bad movie!
moumen-akel31 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
One of the worst films I've seen lately. It was actually painful to watch!

I didn't expect Oscar performance or plot of course. This is an action movie. But it's so ridiculous, it could have been easily made into an action movie spoof! The dialogue was so bad it would have been better to have all the clichés in the book instead of the dialogue. The performance was extremely bad. It's like they have been doing their best to overact! Bruce Willis managed to be quite awful in 4 lines of dialogue.

In short, the movie seems like Stalone's way of proving all the bad things critics said about him, and all of his friends.
25 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews