Expend4bles

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 was a little excited in this; after all I'd spent my teenage years watching The Expendables, especially since the first three movies had come out during high school for me. So, it was somewhat surprising to hear about its revival a decade later, although not entirely unexpected given the trend of remakes and sequels these days.

The humor in the movie isn't the greatest, but it becomes a central theme after the action scenes. It's not its strongest quality, but I didn't watch it for that; I was in it for the action. Sylvester Stallone seemed like a bored retiree, Iko Uwais as Rahmat acted overly tough and full of himself. And then there's 50 Cent, who displayed Herculean strength (which, I must admit, I kinda liked). The highlight was definitely when they played 50 Cent's song "Pimp"; I wish they had played it longer. It felt like a throwback to the old Expendables, where the movie paid homage to all the actors' previous iconic works.

The film came across as a B-list action movie with big-name actors, rather than a big studio blockbuster. However, in comparison to the first three films, the cast was a huge downgrade. Could've been better with more of the original cast, or even the younger actors from the previous 3rd installment. Despite it tanking at box office, I still enjoyed expendables 3. I had believed that the introduction of the young cast was setting the stage for the franchise's future, so it was a shock to see some of the old familiar faces return again, along with a few new additions. Megan fox and 50 Cent made it feel even more like a B-list movie, and the returning members from the original cast seemed past their prime. What was once a star-studded ensemble now appeared to be filled with well-known B-list actors at best. Remembering that this franchise has seen Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mel Gibson, Harrison Ford, Antonio Banderas, Wesley Snipes, Scott Adkins and Steve Austin.

Action scenes were good but not spectacular, which felt mediocre in today's standards. This was made worse because some of the CGI wasn't great, causing the big action sequences to pale in comparison to the hand-to-hand combat scenes that required fewer effects. They clearly didn't have an unlimited budget, some CGI scenes looked okay, while most seemed rushed.

I think the first half of the film tried too hard, overemphasizing building connections between the characters. We already loved for these characters from three previous movies, so this additional attempt in the first 30 minutes somewhat undermined the preexisting chemistry, which sucked, especially considering the significant plot twist that followed.

The story wasn't great, at best tolerable, and it didn't offer any remarkable moments, progressing rather generically. It could have been paced a bit quicker. And for dumb action movies like this, it doesn't even need a complex story; just good old dumb action done right. I also wished the deceased character had stayed dead, as it would have made the emotions the movie tried and failed to invoke in the first act seem even more pointless. The accents felt forced, and I think some of the conversations, especially among the henchmen, should've been in their native languages. Could've been more believable that way.

I was excited for this, but not surprised it was a disappointment. Most recent sequels, like Shazam, Transformers, Fast X, and Indiana Jones, haven't impressed much. The early Expendables films were so good because they brought together legendary action stars, and I believe that if they had stuck with that formula, featuring the new action stars of our time, along with a solid plot and budget, this movie could have had a fighting chance.

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.

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.

..... I was underwhelmed. I wasn't expecting much and it delivered on that. Tony Jaa was one of the best parts of the film. As a character.

The action is what you'd expect. Fists, feet, guns, knives and explosions it was however more visceral than the previous three and whereas I like action, I don't care for violence. When it feels like it's more about shock and less about adrenaline, I check out mentally.

The humor was more juvenile than I care for also. Not all of it. But a few key moments was like "Who wrote this, Judd Apatow?" (the answer is no. Actually very decent writers including ones who wrote Equilibrium.) The cast was all over the place. I get adding Iwo Kuwais and Tony Jaa. But 50 cent, some random Spanish kid, some odd Asian chick and some second random bad guy just don't fit into who this series was for and about. And it's GLARING what they should've done different.

They added Andy Garcia which is a nice old blood touch but come on. He's not Mel Gibson, JCVD, Bruce Willis, etc level .

Megan Fox ... I really like her. I've liked her in many things. But... Not this. Her intro is so shrill it's difficult to care about her later. And she's under about 15lbs of makeup. And you still wonder about more established female action heroes that could've been used. Charlize Theron? Scarlett Johanson? Kim Basinger? Uma Thurman. IDK.

I kinda don't care if they make a part 5 and as hard as this bombed, I'm sure they probably won't.