Armés de toutes les armes sur lesquelles ils peuvent mettre la main, les Expendables constituent la dernière ligne de défense du monde et l'équipe qui est appelée lorsque toutes les autres o... Tout lireArmés de toutes les armes sur lesquelles ils peuvent mettre la main, les Expendables constituent la dernière ligne de défense du monde et l'équipe qui est appelée lorsque toutes les autres options sont écartées.Armés de toutes les armes sur lesquelles ils peuvent mettre la main, les Expendables constituent la dernière ligne de défense du monde et l'équipe qui est appelée lorsque toutes les autres options sont écartées.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 victoires et 7 nominations au total
Lucy Newman-Williams
- Russo
- (as Lucy Newman Williams)
Kenny 'Cowboy' Bartram
- Anton
- (as Kenny "Cowboy" Bartram)
Résumé
Reviewers say 'Expend4bles' garners mixed reactions, with praise for its action scenes, star-studded cast, and nostalgic charm. Positive reviews highlight the fun, over-the-top action and the return to an R-rating. However, critics note significant flaws, including poor CGI, a weak plot, and lackluster performances, especially from Megan Fox and Sylvester Stallone. Many deem it the weakest installment, though some enjoy its straightforward action and cast chemistry.
Avis à la une
An awful film, one that actually makes a mockery of The Cinema, anyone that watches trash like this, isn't going to rush back, for fear of having to sit through junk like this again.
An estimated budget of $100 million, if I waste money at work, I'd be sacked, you can only imagine the fallout od this movie for those st the top.
Excruciating viewing, I watched it because of an admiration for the first film, but this, I'm embarrassed for them, this is the worst film I've seen so far this year, it made Strays seem like a classic.
The only plus I can highlight, Jason Statham did at least try, he adds a few moments of humour, and does at least have some degree of sincerity. Now I know that both Sylvester Stallone and Dolph Lundgren have their fans, but their acting here, I'm not sure if wooden or diabolical spring to mind, my heart sinks to think what this turkey has done to both careers.
The script was woeful, and some of the dialogue had me cringing in my seat. Worst of all, The CGI, what on Earth were they thinking, it looks abysmal, where did the budget go, I'm assuming it's on the salaries.
Atrocious.
3/10.
An estimated budget of $100 million, if I waste money at work, I'd be sacked, you can only imagine the fallout od this movie for those st the top.
Excruciating viewing, I watched it because of an admiration for the first film, but this, I'm embarrassed for them, this is the worst film I've seen so far this year, it made Strays seem like a classic.
The only plus I can highlight, Jason Statham did at least try, he adds a few moments of humour, and does at least have some degree of sincerity. Now I know that both Sylvester Stallone and Dolph Lundgren have their fans, but their acting here, I'm not sure if wooden or diabolical spring to mind, my heart sinks to think what this turkey has done to both careers.
The script was woeful, and some of the dialogue had me cringing in my seat. Worst of all, The CGI, what on Earth were they thinking, it looks abysmal, where did the budget go, I'm assuming it's on the salaries.
Atrocious.
3/10.
I am a big fan of Stallone's movies and Statham too. So, consequently I love the first two Expendables. Great action masterpieces. Third one was bland because a great mistake: PG-13. Then we got this abomination that has nothing to do with the spirit of the Expendables movies. I don't know how to start but I'll try.
First, the Fx's are horrible. Why? The movie has the graphics of my PC from 1996. I mean VGA level. How is it possible to approve an action movie that looks so cheap?... Stallone's action movies are always great in action, Fx's and choreographies. What happened here?...
Second, the cast looks more tired than my grandmother, she is 92. Dolph Lundgren is excusable because his illness, but what about the others?... Anyway, I can keep going but it is not necessary. If you love the first two Expendables just watch it again. Avoid this cr@p. The franchise is absolutely destroyed.
First, the Fx's are horrible. Why? The movie has the graphics of my PC from 1996. I mean VGA level. How is it possible to approve an action movie that looks so cheap?... Stallone's action movies are always great in action, Fx's and choreographies. What happened here?...
Second, the cast looks more tired than my grandmother, she is 92. Dolph Lundgren is excusable because his illness, but what about the others?... Anyway, I can keep going but it is not necessary. If you love the first two Expendables just watch it again. Avoid this cr@p. The franchise is absolutely destroyed.
This sequel nearly a decade in the making clearly isn't made for long-suffering fans of this franchise, as most of the iconic cast barely has any screen time. The title should've been "Jason Statham and some of the Expendables."
And this also isn't made for people who like dumb cheesy action movies, as this movie plays it completely straight most of the time, rarely allowing campiness to show.
It also isn't made for people who like slick, cool action movies, as director Scott Waugh continues this series' streak of having directors who can barely string a coherent series of shots together to tell a story. Nearly every shot looks cheap and the progression of events is clunky as hell.
Woeful incompetence is how I'd describe most of what's seen in this film. It truly has some of the worst special effects I've ever seen put to screen. And it still cost $100 million.
So, I ask again, who is this for? Whose idea was it to make an action sequel that will appeal to absolutely NONE of its potential audiences?
If it weren't for the fact that this movie does have a half-decent third act and one impressive fight scene, I'd be saying that this is easily the worst of these movies.
But it's a contender for that title, and even so, I can still say this is one of the worst action movies I've ever seen in theatres.
And this also isn't made for people who like dumb cheesy action movies, as this movie plays it completely straight most of the time, rarely allowing campiness to show.
It also isn't made for people who like slick, cool action movies, as director Scott Waugh continues this series' streak of having directors who can barely string a coherent series of shots together to tell a story. Nearly every shot looks cheap and the progression of events is clunky as hell.
Woeful incompetence is how I'd describe most of what's seen in this film. It truly has some of the worst special effects I've ever seen put to screen. And it still cost $100 million.
So, I ask again, who is this for? Whose idea was it to make an action sequel that will appeal to absolutely NONE of its potential audiences?
If it weren't for the fact that this movie does have a half-decent third act and one impressive fight scene, I'd be saying that this is easily the worst of these movies.
But it's a contender for that title, and even so, I can still say this is one of the worst action movies I've ever seen in theatres.
The rug has finally been pulled out from under the expendables, a film that cost close to a hundred million has hardly made a third of it back. A franchise that should have stopped after the first and is rumoured to continue for another trilogy should, for its own good, be put to rest. The original expendables was good fun and full of outrageous quotes and enjoyment but each passing sequel has suffered from declining plot and acting performance. I would have more tolerance for the movie if it didn't see to treat the audience as if they were brain dead at every turn. There's no creativity or thrill with the expendables anymore, if they never make another we will all be better off.
A film that should have been better, but unfortunately had a mediocre director.
Not everything in the movie is bad, but overall this could have been a great movie.
Well, let's start with the good stuff:
Jason Statham works well in an action movie as usual. Stallone is in his element, although it would be better if he was a little more in the film. Iko Uwais is not bad at all as a villain and he is a good addition to the film. Andy Garcia is also a good choice for this movie. The rest of the team is mostly good, with a few exceptions, some should have maybe gotten a little more time in the movie.
And now, the bad part:
The biggest problem with this movie is the mediocre director. If they had a better director, this film could have been great, it turned out to be just tolerable, and that's because most of today's film production is garbage.
There is too much "shaky camera" that makes every movie look worse than it really is. Such scenes simply look cheap.
The CGI looks pretty bad, which is odd considering this isn't a cheap movie, but a bad director made it look cheap.
The film lacks that real cinematic look, I don't know if it's because of the type of camera, so everything looks too artificial, it doesn't have the look that older films had, where everything looked monumental. This looks like a documentary, with ultra-sharp resolution, and yet it looks cheap, as if we're looking through a window.
Basically, the director is the worst thing about this movie, everything else is not nearly as bad, not even some really hilarious casting choices.
In the end, the film could have been great, it turned out to be just another mediocre film, and it's sad that even as such it is better than most of what "modern film production" offers us today.
Not everything in the movie is bad, but overall this could have been a great movie.
Well, let's start with the good stuff:
Jason Statham works well in an action movie as usual. Stallone is in his element, although it would be better if he was a little more in the film. Iko Uwais is not bad at all as a villain and he is a good addition to the film. Andy Garcia is also a good choice for this movie. The rest of the team is mostly good, with a few exceptions, some should have maybe gotten a little more time in the movie.
And now, the bad part:
The biggest problem with this movie is the mediocre director. If they had a better director, this film could have been great, it turned out to be just tolerable, and that's because most of today's film production is garbage.
There is too much "shaky camera" that makes every movie look worse than it really is. Such scenes simply look cheap.
The CGI looks pretty bad, which is odd considering this isn't a cheap movie, but a bad director made it look cheap.
The film lacks that real cinematic look, I don't know if it's because of the type of camera, so everything looks too artificial, it doesn't have the look that older films had, where everything looked monumental. This looks like a documentary, with ultra-sharp resolution, and yet it looks cheap, as if we're looking through a window.
Basically, the director is the worst thing about this movie, everything else is not nearly as bad, not even some really hilarious casting choices.
In the end, the film could have been great, it turned out to be just another mediocre film, and it's sad that even as such it is better than most of what "modern film production" offers us today.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJason Statham has expressed his love for The Expendables. On co-star Sylvester Stallone, he said "Working with Sylvester Stallone is beyond a pinch yourself moment. I remember growing up watching his films, and to be directed by him, and to be in a movie that he's produced, and to be shoulder to shoulder with Sly is a privilege any man who loves action movies would never turn their nose up at. I mean, it's terrific. I'll do as many as he wants."
- GaffesChristmas turns a big container ship 180 degrees by dragging it around an anchor hooked to a big rock on the sea floor. Not only is that not how anchors hold a ship in place, the chain would've snapped instantly.
- Versions alternativesSeveral versions were released in German, a "Not under 18" uncut version and an edited (approx. 3 minutes) "Not under 16" version. There is also "Not under 12" version which lacks approx. 20 minutes of footage.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The Critical Drinker: Expend4bles Is An Embarrassing Wet Fart (2023)
- Bandes originalesEvery Time
Written by Sertac Nidai
Courtesy of APM Music
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Expendables 4?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Los indestructibles 4
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 100 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 16 710 153 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 8 039 021 $US
- 24 sept. 2023
- Montant brut mondial
- 37 917 985 $US
- Durée1 heure 43 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant