Expendables 4

Here I thought Meg 2 was the worst movie of the year; then comes Expend4ables 4, a geriatric actioner whose digital work alone is so pedestrian as to instill disbelief rather than fear. Major players Jason Statham and Sylvester Stallone head a loose crew engaged to stop very bad guys from getting nuclear weapons.

If you were able to hear all the dialogue over the din of rapidly firing guns, you would know that there's not a speck of dialogue worth remembering. Of course, there's macho male joking often relating to sex, no better than locker room raunch from a presidential hopeful.

The rest of the conversation is not so much about how the arsenal could destroy the world as it is about getting revenge on rivals.

Stallone and Statham have a few minutes of banter that make you wish for much more. They are better than a film that was PG-13 until it ramped up the violence to the current R, a strategy with no distinction because John Wick does it with style and Equalizer with class.

For Expend4bles, violence is a money grab with no aesthetic value. Gone is the talented writer Stallone credited in the first three and director in the first. For that matter, not even the energy and creative contributions of Norris, Ford, Willis, and Li. The franchise is going to Statham, an always charismatic presence lost in his flat hat, scowl, and innumerable easy targets, who apparently haven't yet figured out how the guns work because Christmas (Statham) delivers his presents much before they have figured out how to shoot.

With a sometimes-promising new cast that includes a randy Megan Fox as a CIA operative, little time is given for character development with time-consuming bullets. Even more outrageous is the cheesy CGI with backgrounds that look to be from the silent era. The giant airline transport plane looks like a toy in a cloud background fashioned by Pee Wee Herman. The $100 million cost of this lost labor is hidden, and the hidden CGI is lost in chaotic closeups where you can barely tell, for instance, if it's Megan Fox, and believe me I looked for her.

I have a nostalgic spot for Stallone's remarkable career and respect for Statham's tough exterior/warm interior characters, but Expend4bles is no advance for either. Here is a comic thriller that embarrasses an industry with a history of getting better all the time. Not this time.

After this discussion, I have decided Expend4bles is the worst movie of the year.

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.

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.

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.

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.