Armed with every weapon they can get their hands on, the Expendables are the world's last line of defense and the team that gets called when all other options are off the table.Armed with every weapon they can get their hands on, the Expendables are the world's last line of defense and the team that gets called when all other options are off the table.Armed with every weapon they can get their hands on, the Expendables are the world's last line of defense and the team that gets called when all other options are off the table.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 7 nominations total
Lucy Newman-Williams
- Russo
- (as Lucy Newman Williams)
Kenny 'Cowboy' Bartram
- Anton
- (as Kenny "Cowboy" Bartram)
Summary
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.
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Expendables in its conception was all about paying homage to action blockbusters of the 1980s & 1990s. Boasting an ensemble cast of action stars of former decades, it was a delight for all the action aficionados out there and it worked with a simple premise & minimal setup. It worked for a couple films but considering its latest entry, this franchise is in desperate need to be put out of its misery.
The 4th entry in the series, Expend4bles is as lazy & lacklustre as any action film can get and is horrible from start to finish. I'm fairly convinced there isn't a single set piece in the film that was practically constructed, for nothing looks remotely convincing on the screen & the VFX is simply atrocious. The plot is not even barely serviceable, is downright predictable, and even the actors (both reprising & new) look tired.
The 4th entry in the series, Expend4bles is as lazy & lacklustre as any action film can get and is horrible from start to finish. I'm fairly convinced there isn't a single set piece in the film that was practically constructed, for nothing looks remotely convincing on the screen & the VFX is simply atrocious. The plot is not even barely serviceable, is downright predictable, and even the actors (both reprising & new) look tired.
Did you know
- TriviaJason 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."
- GoofsChristmas 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.
- Alternate versionsSeveral 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.
- ConnectionsFeatured in The Critical Drinker: Expend4bles Is An Embarrassing Wet Fart (2023)
- SoundtracksEvery Time
Written by Sertac Nidai
Courtesy of APM Music
- How long is The Expendables 4?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Los indestructibles 4
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $100,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $16,710,153
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $8,039,021
- Sep 24, 2023
- Gross worldwide
- $37,917,985
- Runtime1 hour 43 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content