I’ll start right away with the verdict: in my opinion, the third part of the team’s adventures “Expendables" came out the worst in the entire franchise. If, compared to the first part, the sequel could boast of some improvements (a stunning opening action scene, a lot of humor, better camera work, more scale, Arnie and Bruce increased screen time, the cast was replenished by people like Van Damme, Adkins and ... Chuck Norris ;) , then the third part is not only unable to boast of such things, but on the contrary – it collected all the disadvantages and shortcomings of the first two parts (which, to be honest, were plenty), and added its own. As a result, if before watching the second part I had the hope that “The Expendables” would eventually turn into a high-quality action film (something like “Rambo 4”, but on a larger scale), now I understand that how much If they hadn't made films about the Expendables yet, this wouldn't happen.
Of the advantages, only caste can be mentioned. Bruce and Chuck left the franchise, but were replaced by Snipes, Banderas, Ford and Gibson (+ Robert Davi). What's the point of this advantage? NO. It’s the same with action, there’s a lot of it...what’s the point? Yes, there are a lot of stars here that I would love to go to the movies with, yes, there is a lot of action, and I love a lot of action, but I want the action to be of high quality and interesting, and for the actors to PLAY charismatic and memorable characters... but there is no trace of this! The creators are so chasing quantity that they have completely forgotten about quality.
Now let's move on to the cons (old and new):
Graphics
There is a lot of it, and it is of very poor quality (although I’m lying, tanks have begun to shoot more realistically). I am amused when the actors say that this film is old school, they contrast it with modern CGI action about superheroes, where nothing is real, etc. SERIOUSLY? Yes, there are more green backgrounds and painted explosions here than in “Guardians of the Galaxy” with a talking raccoon and a miracle tree. Add to this the shaky camera and the invulnerability of the main characters, and you get a typical comic book movie... only of lower quality.
Imbalance of power
In the first part there were 6 villains for 4 Expendables (+ Dolph), in the sequel there were 11 villains for 2 Expendables, and in the threequel 14 Expendables only Mel Gibson was opposed. What the hell is this? At the same time, the good guys kill enemies in batches, and the villains kill a maximum of a couple of people throughout the entire film. By the way, Gibson’s character made a great joke about the invulnerability of the main characters.
Plot
Or to be more precise, the unreasonableness of the characters’ actions. Why did they have to yell “Stonebanks” to Barney instead of quietly shooting him? Why, when the tragedy happened in the second part, the Neuds got together and killed everyone, and then Barney dissolved his whining: “we are old, our time is in the past,” disbanded the team and went to recruit young people? Why did you turn off the lights before attacking the arms dealers? Why did he recruit all these young people, when in the end they were of no use, and the old guard saved everyone anyway? And finally, Stonebanks, who in every scene makes the most banal mistake of the villains of the past... instead of just killing the good guys, he starts making speeches, and, of course, the good guys take advantage of the situation and run away.
Fading characters
If you look closely, you will notice that all the characters are too much the same (with the exception of Galgo, Doc and Stonebanks, but more on them later). They occasionally smile when they joke, and walk with absolutely serious faces when they shoot or fight. This is especially noticeable if you watch Dolph. Gunnar was the most charismatic Neud, but now he simply has nothing to play, the character has completely degraded.
Greed and hack
New Image saves every penny on the production of the film. Again they are filming a bunch of countries in one Bulgaria. Poor locations and pavilions that you have seen many times in different films, and Bulgarian stuntmen who wander from film to film. Bloodless rated PG-13. The dirty font in the trailers of Fast and the Furious and the fight scene in the mud from Hercules. The staging and filming of some scenes is simply “wall-to-face.” All this looks so pathetic that it becomes sad.
Young Expendables
This is the main disadvantage of the entire film. Why are they here? If they were bad and fought with the Expendables, this could still be understood, but they played good. Is it really Stallone and co. They don’t understand that people go to “The Expendables” to see the mammoths of the action genre, but they don’t care about any youth. Especially for one like this: a boxing champion, an MMA champion, an actor from “Twilight” and who knows who. Moreover, this “it’s unclear who” was more interesting than all his more eminent colleagues, but he was leaked because... the plot constantly “pulled the blanket” on the Twilight actor and MMA champion. Well, why couldn’t you take people like Gina Carano (if you really needed a girl), Darren Shahlavi, Michael Jai White, Iko Yuwais or Mark Dacascos (if you remember the old guys) and let these people develop. They play better, are more charismatic, more experienced, they would give the viewer much more than these incomprehensible youth. What nonsense? Although, against the backdrop of such youth, Tol Road and Caesar look like super-interesting characters, and you generally begin to root for Christmas. Hmmm...
Action
As I said above, there is a lot of it, but the constant flickering of doubles, poor-quality graphics, crappy camera work, and torn editing do their vile work. I only liked the scene where Stallone killed everyone with a revolver. Fights...there are practically none here, it is clear that JJ Loco Pere tried to make something useful out of the fight between Rousey and Banderas against the soldiers at the end and in Statham’s final fight, but he was not allowed to realize what he planned at the pre-production stage and during filming, and what he did was ruined during post-production. The fight between Stallone and Gibson is frankly a blur, one sweep during the entire fight, and the rest of the time - sweeping and untechnical swings.
And finally, a little positive:
Stallone – it benefited him that he shaved his mustache and goatee, he immediately began to look younger + gained a little muscle mass. Sometimes you get the feeling that you are watching a movie...at least from 96. This made me happy.
snipes – looks great, although the stretch marks have gotten worse, but the shape is good. The beginning was stolen, Doc turned out to be a little crazy, funny and cool. However, by the end he became like everyone else, there were fewer jokes and a completely serious face during the action + young people’s screen time was greatly reduced. By the way, at the end, sometimes I looked like a transvestite, they powdered my face too much and put on a cap, as if for a wig (I just remember “Wong Fu”).
Gibson – he would make a great villain. Simply awesome!!! When he interacted with Barney and with the “students”, I realized that this is what a mercenary leader should be like. Stallone turned a group of MERCENARY into heroes who save the world for free (seriously, have the Losers ever been paid in films?), and I would like to see an action movie about real “soldiers of fortune” who do dirty work, kill people FOR MONEY and who are called good extremely problematic. Such a movie could have been much more interesting and complex. So this is exactly how Stonebanks turned out...if he hadn’t been leaked (and he does a lot of stupid things, and there could have been more screen time, and the fight with Stallone was almost one-sided). Uh...
Banderas - this is the only actor against whom there are no complaints (neither the actor nor his character). Galgo - “steal the show”. He joked well (or to be more precise, he annoyed everyone with his chatter), he was offended that they didn’t want to cover for him, he looked okay in the action scenes, and the small dramatic scene with him was well implemented (since the conversation between Rourke and Stallone in the first part - best drama scene).
I apologize for such a sweeping and emotional review. =) I’m just a big fan of these actors, I respect them immensely and I think the very idea of The Expendables is brilliant. But instead of an excellent action franchise, we got outright hackwork for one time, and this is clearly not what we expected from the collaboration of such actors.
Author: Pavel Belba
Home » Reviews » Author's reviews »
Tags: The Expendables 3, Antonio Banderas, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Victor Ortiz, Glenn Powell, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Kellan Lutz, Mel Gibson, Ronda Rousey, Randy Couture, Sylvester Stallone, Terry Crews, Wesley Snipes, Harrison Ford
Tags: The Expendables 3, Antonio Banderas, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Victor Ortiz, Glenn Powell, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Kellan Lutz, Mel Gibson, Ronda Rousey, Randy Couture, Sylvester Stallone, Terry Crews, Wesley Snipes, Harrison Ford
Special effects in Unfortunate 3:
youtube.com/watch?v=lAaC_8lPSeU
And after this, the creators boast that they are “old school” and that today’s comic-movies completely suck, where there are no real heroes, everything is graphics and blah blah blah. Oh well.
By the way, apparently Undami 3 will still manage to collect 200+ million and after Rambo 5, they will launch the 4th part of The Expendables, which of course “will take into account all the disadvantages of the previous parts and will be the best!!!”
Wesley Snipes Tribute
youtube.com/watch?v=5wfTVBcZbJw
Also, do not forget that the leak of the film to the Internet brought very, very large losses - the negligence of the studio and the creators.
This is the biggest problem of the film, because of which “The Misfits” does not even come close to the glory of the best films of Arnie, Sly, Bruce and others. And it is for this reason that Failures 3 is now failing both in terms of box office (in 2 weeks in the US they collected less than the second part in one weekend) and in terms of criticism (the lowest ratings in the entire franchise).
About references. What do we call "normal ideas"? For the series of films "The Expendables" there is only one main and basic idea, for the sake of which it was actually created - this is the collection of all the outstanding action stars in one film. The plot in THIS QUESTION is essentially not important, since the viewer mostly wants to see action scenes... for God's sake, don't deny it)).
And it is considered quite normal to make references to past roles, achievements, failures of the main and secondary characters - a kind of peculiar humor and a technique for saving expensive screen time.
As for "Hercules" ... a completely normal film, slightly below average, a new hypostasis for Scott, I watched it with interest)
I can’t call it a “naive and stereotyped bull” because in the third part there are a lot of scenes of conflict between the newcomers and the old guard, which it would be stupid and inexperienced not to notice: the scene at the airport and Christmas’s accented phrase “YOU’RE YOUNG AND STUPID”, the dialogue between Bonaparte and Barney about the reasons the gathering of a new team and the dissolution of the old one, Stonebanks's reasoning "about Barney's new students"....to be more convincing, I advise you to watch the film again.
There is no confrontation here, here is the usual, painfully naive and cliched bull between members of a team that has recently assembled.
Speaking of time: previously one of the main disadvantages of Neud was that the timing was too short for such a large team and they could not fully reveal the characters. Here the timing was increased, BUT at the same time it was used absolutely stupidly, spending most of the time on assembling a new team, on an incomprehensible action scene to capture Gibson’s character and on a drawn-out introduction before the final mochilov (they dragged out walking through the forest from EX2 and in the ruins)
This is not called “referral”, but “lack of normal ideas.” Hercules with Lutz is not a film that makes sense to refer to (since no one has seen it, and whoever has seen it... wants to unsee it =)
From the VanDamme forum:
"When reports visited the set of EX3 he showed them pre-viz of Statham fight, said that by now he know exactly what Statham wants and designed a fight(s) for Wesley that he "Blade-d up" giving it his touch.
So what happened to those fights? Were they planned and not filmed? Or worse were they shot but were left on the editing floor?"
As I understand it, Loco had interesting ideas for the fight between Snipes and Jason, but something went wrong.
this was mentioned in early versions of the script... and in addition to the hunt for Stonebanks, the plot of the film clearly shows the director’s desire to show the viewer the confrontation between the old and the young
which, in my opinion, was leaked.
I cannot completely agree with Mr. Belba's review. There is no need to look for “pros or cons” of the film, so that it is not a battery. I also cannot agree with the thesis about the “young school”, so that if in the first film the plot was about duty and choice (the conversation between Barney and Sandra), in the second the desire for revenge (the murder of Billy), then in the third part the main feature is the opposition of young and old veterans.
Mr. Belba also mentioned screen time. It should be noted here that director Hughes and Sly spent time very wisely for each character, because try to reveal the character and essence of each character in a film of two hours - it is very difficult. So Ford's pilot character is an allusion to Han Solo, Kellan Lutts fights in the mud - a reference to the film "Hercules", where Lutts first played the main role and where there is a similar scene. In my opinion, this is a really clever move by the creators.
The ONLY thing Belba is right about is Gibson's character. Oh son of a bitch Mel! A very charismatic hero and a very bright performance in the dialogue sequence with Barney inside the van. I liked the movie! It’s just a pity that Karisma Carpenter was excluded - a beautiful woman.....
Of the colorful villains, Ron Perlman asks to be in The Expendables 4: “I'm hoping Stallone taps me on the shoulder one day and says: Okay Ron, you're 65, why don't you be in one of these?” - See more at: http://www.cityonfire.com/van-damme-says-hes-interested-in-expendables-4/#sthash.uGOdc1LZ.dpuf
By the way, if we talk about Seagal and music, then Stephen should pay attention to Steve'n'Seagulls
youtu.be/e4Ao-iNPPUc
youtube.com/watch?v=4tJIe-OazUc
Thank you, guest123, otherwise of. They don't let me watch the video on YouTube.
guest123 the video turned out better than his last films
Please repost the link to YouTube if possible.
With all due respect, but with this hairstyle, 53-year-old Jean Claude looks like a grandmother)
But the physical form is decent.
new advertising with JCVD - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=666237463459661
My only question is WHY isn't this Hard Target 2 or the new Kickboxer??!!! ((
So much has been said that my comment will not bring anything new to the topic..... let me say this, the film is bullshit! Stallone pulled the whole blanket over himself. And in such a way that even Statham and others from the team are not visible...
What about our newcomers? Ronda Rousey certainly stood out, and Ortiz jumped more or less coolly at the end, but the other 2 - who are they?? I still didn’t understand what they were doing and what they were doing in the film... I’m generally silent about their names) Biba and Bob are two ********!
Ford and Jet Li are laughable, and that’s all... the first one no longer meets the bar of an action man, the second one can’t even lift a machine gun.
Schwartz is on his own level.
Gibson - so-so...
Okay, I’ll say what I liked, or rather who - Banderas, Snipes and Rousey, as well as a little bit of Dolph and Ortiz.
Absolutely agree 100%!!! In addition, there is also such a thing - physiology + creative potential. I’m actually amazed how Jackie himself lasted 20 years!!! On their cool films. After all, in fact, this period can be counted from THE DRUNKEN MASTER (1978) to WHO AM I (1998). And then things started to sort of...well, you know everything yourself...
And Indonesia and everything else is now trying its hand. And even my “FAVORITE” RAID still puts its own stone into the Battle Cinematography.
In general, to be honest, Russia has good potential! I am sure that very soon we will start making good films with BI!!! Everything in the world always stands on the scales for balance.
It always has been.
Jaidev I have long had the feeling that they are sick of even thinking about this kind of filming. Burnt out, or got too drunk. Perhaps when dreams and goals are achieved there and the creative approach ends, the burning eyes. Now I see that another part of Asia has that desire to create, to work, to prove. I'm talking about Indonesia, Thailand. All hope lies with them.
Celpaso gorgeous photo
Cool photo!!!! These guys are sorely missed in the film!!! Like many others!!! I would invite Clint without looking (and a dozen more guys from the “old school” =)
Wow, cool photo!!!
Stallone will take someone from China in the 4th part so that it will pay off in Chinese cinemas.
Off-Top: Benny, Richard and Chuck =)
[img]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvaGUkYIEAA9QfX.jpg[/img]
Now I remember one moment from Jackie’s book:
- “If everything goes well, then I would like to make many more films in Hollywood. I really want to work with James Cameron, with Steven Spielberg. With Stallone, Bruce Willis and Robert de Niro. Now here in Hollywood there are a lot Chinese stars and, perhaps, we could do a joint project - my old friend John Woo would be the director, my partner Michelle Ye, and the main team would be me, Zhou Yunfat and Jet Li. It is possible that in modern Hollywood this will remain impossible. : Studios don’t yet know how to advertise films starring a lot of Chinese, but I can’t even imagine how much income a film like this would bring in in Asia!”
- So why? Instead of Spielberg, Cameron, or at least Reitman, Jackie is starring in who knows???!!! He wants to work with good actors, but he takes Brody into his film! Sly knows that Jackie's good participation will bring profit to the film, but instead he shoves small roles into him. Why? Because whatever one may say, if Jackie appeared in a prominent role in the film, all viewers would look at him! Sly wants to take on newbies? Please! Why not take Tony Jaa?! Where is the brilliant tactical business move??? Why not give free rein to the directors who once made good action? Involving camera operators and editors.
In general, to be honest, if I were Jackie, I would send ... all this Hollywood fraternity and film my EXPENDABLES. Gathering everyone who can still fight, as they did in the 80s and 90s. What is the problem? Only in desire!
The opinion of a woman who is not particularly a fan of action films, but loves the old guard like Schwarzenegger: the film is about nothing.
It's funny, pidgey 13 was just made for making good, green dough from the pocket money of American schoolboys. But these 50-60 year old guys are of little interest to school kids; they didn’t go there. Who is this rating for? What were you thinking? Mystery. Seriously, put yourself in the shoes of a teenager. "Dachshund, oh turtles, oh a movie based on a comic book, cool! Um, a movie about a bunch of old people I don’t know (oh, no - one of them was a governor, why did he become an actor? Probably a rare mediocrity) and a dude who voiced the cat in Shrek. Hmm, no, what did I forget there?
A little off topic, he appeared with the voice acting of “A Good Man”, Webster (as well as Seagal) is a pleasure to watch! Baliki also pleased me, he still doesn’t shine with his roles...
+ raccoon
+ competitors in shells.
Sylvester and co. have themselves to blame. A leak to the network has nothing to do with it. If the film was sound, we would watch the pirate movie and go to the cinema.
It is advisable to watch "Waterfall of Angels" in the original with subs.
This is a no brainer. =) I’ll take note of Clean Skin and Falls of Angels. Thank you!
Let's return to The Expendables 3:
Weekend box office in the USA was 16 million (H2 had 28, H1 had 34) and this was with a budget of $90 million. Rating on IMDB - 6.3/10 (H2 - 6.8/10, H1 - 6.5/10) IFil is a terrible failure (even China can’t save it).
)))
Did you watch the movie "Clear Skin" with him? If not, take a look.
Regarding Neeson, of course it’s a matter of taste. But the option of replacing him with a motivated Van Damme is overkill, IMHO) I, as I already said, am not a rabid Neeson fan, I haven’t specifically studied his filmography and in general I don’t think how many Oscars he has while watching, but his professionalism is unambiguous. Exactly, as they say, everything is in order with his craft. There is such a film as Angels Falls, where he plays together with Pierce Brosnan. This is an indicative film regarding their acting skills. If you haven't seen it, I recommend it. Brosnan is generally just space, although before watching this film I couldn’t stand him. So, there is no way to replace the two of them, for example, with Sly and Arnie)) Because then there will be some kind of parody, not a film.
More separately about the mood and obviously good game. There is such a moment, but not for me))
I don’t see this either in Neeson in Hostages or in Cruise in Missions. Yes, they are professionals, but in action films they (as actors) relax a lot, although this is enough so that there are no complaints against them in this regard.
Another thing that plays an even bigger role here is the mood of the ordinary viewer. For them, Nisson is a good actor, an Oscar winner, etc. etc., therefore (he obviously) plays well in any film, and this is Van Damme - he is a dumb leg-swinger and a B-category star of the 90s, and he will be exactly like that in any film (for the average viewer).
As for being on the screen, movements, etc. - I absolutely agree. Jean, at 53, has catastrophically little experience to look normal in the image of an ordinary person. Moreover, he has little experience even within the action genre, because... he always starred in action films of the same plan/format.
For example: “In Search of Adventure,” where he wanted to show Muay Thai, but in the end he slipped into his usual signature style, which, well, you can’t call Muay Thai. Or "Nowhere to Run", where they tried to make his fighting style more realistic, but ended up with a cut-off and uninteresting version of his usual style. By the way, Jackie has absolutely the same problems.
I’m just rewatching early John Woo, I completely agree. Chow Yun Fat is amazing! As for Sean Bean, don’t push him into action. After all, we all know how this will end :D
I love Van Damme and appreciate his dramatic abilities within the genre, but seriously comparing him to Neeson is like comparing a Chinese Gibson Les Paul to the original American)
Well, it's not serious. In addition to the staff and the accompanying conditions, Neeson has the craft of acting with all the accumulated skills, tricks, and ability to exist on the screen. He is a pro, a PROFESSIONAL, who can bring non-genre acting to genre films. Pay attention to how naturally and precisely he behaves on the screen, it’s not even a matter of good acting or close-ups, but the fact that he simply sits in space like a jewel. And Van Damme, even at 53, is still a self-taught amateur. Yes, with excellent potential, and alas, little used, but in space he doesn’t sit quite right, he can’t get out of the genre, he even moves a little unnaturally for the situation. He speaks a monologue, and his shoulders move back and forth. In close-ups it’s good, but in everything else.... there are some ambiguous moments.
And one more thing - it’s difficult for Van Damme to change the physics of his movements, his manner. When you need to kick or punch like a non-professional, he still does it like in Bloodsport)) Teaching a professional actor how to punch, editing it and presenting it on screen is easier than teaching a professional fighter to fight competently on screen, if the director needs it.
Neeson is not my favorite actor, he's just a very good example. And so you can cite others: Sean Bean, Swayze, Chow Yang Fat, who can equally brilliantly crush bandits on the screen and play Shakespeare.
One of the reasons for the success of the Raids. =)
Seriously, this is not a bad idea. Let's say in The Expendables 4 we leave 3 people - Sly, Arnie and Jackie + villains (let's say Bruce is brought back), dedicate the ENTIRE film to them, and all sorts of Crews, Dolph, Jason and Randy with Wesley will appear in the film only at the beginning of the final mochilov.
I am 100% sure that the grosses will be no less than those of the previous parts, because... in fact, the viewer is most interested in Arnie, Sly, Bruce, if they add Jackie and give him the main role + filming in China, then China will completely sweep away this film for its sweet soul. (if any of the creators of Neudov are reading, I demand 10% of the fees for the idea;)
On the one hand...I completely agree with you. On the other hand, I don’t see any cool acting performed by Neeson in Taken or in Non-Stop (about an airplane) that, say, a MOTIVATED Van Damme couldn’t repeat. Just unlike Jean, Neeson has excellent filming conditions, a competent cast & crew (supporting actors, director, producer, screenwriter, composer, etc., etc.) and a reputation as a good actor (+ he is now a brand in action genre, no matter how you look at it =) So we get...a well-made movie, good box office and positive criticism.
Because in the audience (in the sense, on the screen) I appear on “Oh” and leave.
Kind of like Jet in this part. Something like this.
As for being a little fat, I don’t know, maybe he doesn’t mean that ONLY you and me, but like the same amount of attention as Statham. I can’t make out this nuance just from the words without the rest of the outline.
So the fact of the matter is that in today's Hollywood realities, it is blood and meat that are the most terrible shortage. And through connections you can’t get it like sausage in the USSR ;)
This part is understandable, but "Sly, can't we just do you and me?"... Isn't it a bit bold? ;)
I don’t understand the meaning of this: “Because then the audience is, 'Oh!' And then I'm gone."
Because then the audience would be upset [about the cameo], and that's why he turned it down? :)
Not surprising. The film leaked online two weeks before the premiere and a ton of people downloaded it on the first day.
That Sly invited him to the fourth part and invited him to the second and third, where he refused because he wanted a normal role, and not a five-minute cameo.
He said okay about the fourth part, but we’ll see, it’s not official yet?
He will draw conclusions, yeah, of course. I think he will answer something like: who are you to tell me? First achieve what I have achieved, and then advise me on how to make films.
- What a good idea!!! THEN, for the company of Donnie and Jackie, they will completely destroy them. So as not to relax.
Now, if Sly looked here and made conclusions. Or, he would convene a fan conference and ask the guys what you want to see in the film? And so the good old scheme of “chasing the green dollar” and don’t care about everything else =( Maybe we’ll write to him a letter with comments on the film and wishes, m-arts readers =)?
The old guys look kind of ridiculous, to be honest, the second Raid gave me great pleasure, no composition of the Expendables will come close to it.
Because Citizen Sylvester is not that caliber of actor. Why did I write about Pacino?
Let's replace Neeson with Seagal - and "Hostage" will come out - a standard one-sided revenge... or Neeson with Schwarzenegger and here you have "Commando"? What if Willis is like Schwarzenegger? Or Stallone? And what kind of “Nut” will it be? And Sasha Mitchell straight into the first “Bloodsport”? And not Urquidez, but Don Wilson into the diner, in the final fight with Jackie?
According to Senka and the hat. However, the first Rambaud is an excellent movie even without Pacino.
Slightly off topic: Stallone is a great guy, hard-working, persistent, productive, punchy, he’s done so much in Rocky. The first part is an obvious hit, a classic, strong movie. But there is no need to endow Sylvester with non-existent talents. And he will always be number 2. Schwarzenegger’s laurels still haunt him.
This weekend's box office numbers hint that there may not be an Expendables 4!
I liked the fourth part precisely because of the meat, I just didn’t expect this. MB, that's why.
PS Here Jackie said such a thing about “The Expendables” that I don’t understand anything. :D
To be honest, this is already too much, so remove 3-5 scenes or some interesting moves from any great film and it will become standard. =)
And I liked Rambo 4, although I don’t like a lot of blood. After the 1st part, I consider it the best in the franchise (although this is not hard, given the quality of the 2nd and especially the 3rd =).
But I agree with this, although I think that out of the entire action fraternity he is one of the most talented as an actor and the best as a filmmaker.
As for the other parts, the matter is already clear - banal exploitation of the hero in the image of Superman. The first film is compelling for what it is - an independent story that essentially did not need a continuation of the plot. True, the movie was overpraised... because such a frequent phenomenon as “INTRODUCTION TO THE CULT” is more suitable here than in the literal sense of the word MASTERPIECE cinema. Yes, the film is good - it keeps you in suspense, the actors are convincing, you empathize with the hero, the film is clearly not for the first time, but... Let's paraphrase our respected admin above: Remove from the film the cool scene with Rambo falling on the thorny branches, a few more memorable moments - and That’s it, we’ll have a standard story about a wanderer running from the cops, seasoned with dramatic sauce ala “A crippled child of war who couldn’t find himself in life.”
Rambo 4 is a weak film even with blood and meat. I didn’t even consider it as a subject of discussion at all. The best Rambo is the first film. If it weren’t for Sly, and for example, even trite Pacino in the title role, it would have been a world classic. A pearl. But, in general, he is a classic with Stallone. Because the idea of the film is the strongest. You understand and feel the character. A person cannot find himself in the new world. A broken, tortured and crippled child of war. A war machine that has no place in the new civilian world.
And the remaining parts are cranberries.
If you remove the blood and meat from Rambo 4, you will be left with an unremarkable action movie.
Celpaso, my attitude towards Stallone as a person has nothing to do with it. And who cares about my attitude towards him))) It’s just that Sylvester is no longer a relevant dude in action cinema. As an “artist” he cannot look at himself from an unexpected side. And in general from the outside. All of his latest works are monotonous and pretentious creations that exploit his categorical invincibility and uncompromising coolness. On the screen it is as flat as 5 rubles in profile.
2 minutes of screen time, 10 words and not a single punch.
I wanted to write about it in PS, but somehow forgot later. In any case, the loss is small, because he is absolutely not memorable and his role in every sense is purely for show.
I don’t agree with you in terms of assessing Sly as a person (I don’t think he achieved so much with an empty head), but if we evaluate him as a director, then after the excellent FINISHING (their franchise) films Rocky 6 and Rambo 4, I’m on The Expendables had very high hopes.
PS If Sly continues Rambo and/or Rocky (in any form), it will be such a drain on money from scratch that even censored words are not enough.
What about Jet? Did Jet say more than two words in the third part or at least get into a fight?
Such a sweeping review, but not a word about such a significant figure in BI cinema as Jet Li (even in an episode)...
In those films where one really had to rely on Sly, he fully justified himself, to say the least...
Rambo 4 and Rocky 6 not only produced worthy continuations of the cult series in every sense, but also made it possible to quickly film the fifth part of Rambo and the Rocky spin-off.
The first part of The Expendables is not without its flaws (the same eye-opening cameraman, for example), but overall it’s a good start for a real old-school franchise. However, the greed of the fraters ruined... and now we are seeing, I don’t understand what, with a children’s rating and snotty no-names instead of legends. But thanks for the first film too.
John Woo in his golden period, not now. Or McTiernan in his golden period... And you need a script. The most important thing is that the script is sane, not a set of scenes.
After the disappointment of the second part and the incomprehensible first part, I somehow don’t even want to go to the cinema. On the other hand, my conscience torments me not to support our old people, realizing back that I won’t see anything good. Now, if John Woo had directed it, he would not have been fooled by trends, names, collections, but would have shot it from the heart. Well these are dreams...
p.s. On the poster, Jet was put in the background, sadly.
You all somehow relied too much on Stallone. No offense, but where does such naivety come from))? This is not a genius, comrade.
There were also words before the third ones. I remember reading on Kinopoisk: “We are making the best film in the franchise, you will be amazed, blah blah blah.” Words are the main thing in the film industry now. Everyone is talking and talking. Only a few do. There are no more good sequels, there are successful money grabbers, in which, at best, they try not to screw up. The resentment gnaws at me, I’ll leave here.
My breakdown of the second part was not published due to spoilers, but I did not edit it and upload it again, because without spoilers it would lose its meaning)
I remember his words before the first Expendables that in today’s action films there is poor editing/camera work, you can’t see anything, but he himself had absolutely the same thing.
I can't give a clear verdict on the second part. When I wanted to write a review for it, I realized that I could write as many as 2 reviews - one positive, and the second... complete criticism.
Not for fame, but for Sly)
I regretted watching it. The first part looked more serious, there was a storyline with Lundgren, Jet had fun, again my favorite Austin. Somehow everything is in place, and there is a place to shed a few tears, and there is something to look at. Well, that same effect: “Wow, he said this phrase, I’ve been waiting for it... for eleven years”! By the second film, many of the tricks no longer worked automatically, but here the novelty pulled out. Both in terms of the actors (Vanka Dam and Yurka Boyko :D), and in terms of the same quotes, references, more screen time for some and other little things. Actually, these little things created the entire atmosphere of the film; it was for them that I went. And here everything is empty, sterile, faceless. Some kind of compulsory program for Portuguese synchronized swimmers, literally. They twirled their legs, clasped their arms, climbed out, shook themselves off, and silently left. The whole film was waiting for a reference to "Destroyer" - after all, Sly and Snipes, well. Come on! Well, director, what are you doing? But screw you. But don’t worry, THE FOURTH WILL BE GOOD, WE’LL SHOW YOU THERE...
As if part of the cast to the fourth is not this and that, they threaten there. Well, you understand. That's it, they are cutting money brazenly and unceremoniously. A good sequel? Not guys, we already lured people to the cinemas once, now we are cutting cabbage on the concept. On an idea. After all, you will still go to the fourth, right? Especially if we say, GRAND FINALE! And let’s add another fifty veteran actors (we won’t reveal them in any way in the film, we’ll give out a ridiculous script for three phrases and one scene drawn on a computer) and three kopecks of the budget (to the editors for coffee, what were you thinking? Spiders and Twilight are getting more money now, sorry . The shop is closed). And the film is also kind of chaotic. Just like my comment :( Everything flashes before my eyes, cracks, breaks. I tried to remember the plot - I forgot. I remember the snot about “we are no longer a cake”, then vice versa “we are back”, then bang-bang and that’s it. Curtain. Finita, Damn, it's a comedy.
I agree.
I also wanted to write a review of “Neudov 3” and post it on the KP called “Neudov,” but this time I was too lazy to set myself up and start writing a review of such empty, superficial bullshit. It will turn out to be simply handicraft graphomania, and this is usually done to order.
Therefore, thanks to the author - he concentrated and produced a sincere thing.
The only thing I don’t agree with is that the third part is even worse than the second. The second is the same g..but, perhaps, even the worst of all. I consider the second to be a terrible failure, and the third - simply inertia.
And what I agree with 200% (we have already discussed this) is the epic wines from Banderas. He is the best. This was noted by everyone who watched the film.
And about Dacascos... I once wrote a short synopsis of my version of “The Expendables 3” a long time ago, Dacascos appeared there)
Excellent and detailed review! And I’ll add - If Sly always insists that he’s a fan of Jackie Chan, then why didn’t he get a good role in the film? If Dacascos really played a big role in old movies, then why wasn’t he cast? Sly talks a lot about how it should be done, but doesn't do it. As well as the fact that the film was really not shot according to OLD SCHOOL. And the editing... where are the emotional shots of faces during fighting games? Yes, we are definitely interested in action, but not just legs, arms, heads. Views are also important. Where are they? This is not old school!
It seems that the film looks dynamic, but it feels like it was made for show. And who needs this tick? Except for film distributors...
...by the way, a little off topic, but still - for those who haven’t watched PODDUBNY - I recommend it. Great movie!!!