The Expendables 2

Objectively, with a runtime of under two hours, you just can't give all the characters the space they undoubtedly deserve. Beyond that, it’s a pure action spectacle that works exactly as I wanted it to because it doesn’t underestimate fan intelligence - this is the only way to get the action going, which is secondary because the primary thing is to ride the wave of catchphrases that beat into the mummified icons of most of the people involved. (13/09/2012)

A bad joke. I didn’t expect to like Expendables II very much, I’m not the target audience of the genre of soulless, old-fashioned action films after all, but that I wouldn’t like it even as a well made, undemanding pop-corn flick, was a surprise, especially after the very positive responses. The biggest problem is in the action. To begin with, there’s very little of it, and it’s not even good. Many people praise the fact that this time the camera is not epileptic and the editing is not like a video clip, but instead of that we have long clear shots, when the whole lot is actually not clear at all. West works clumsily with the space, it’s not clear who is escaping whence and whither, who is following whom and where they are shooting at… All the action (with the exception of the opening scene, where this doesn’t fully apply) is basically a tiring montage of someone running and shooting, without any dynamics that would pull the viewer into the plot. And the script, if we can call it that, it’s awful. I know that only an idiot could expect sophistication from a film like this, but this is already too much! The characters move without any concept somewhere in the huge expanses of the former Soviet Union, they amusingly run into each other, and when the heroes are in deep trouble, SOMEONE comes, saves everyone, and then leaves. And they frame it with crap like “Jeez, thanks for stopping by”. Like, what the fuck? There are only about six good jokes and one-liners, and half of them are directed at Lundgren. Expendables II is a product with a short shelf-life (this certainly won’t be a cult movie) that gets good reviews from the fanboys thanks to the same model that makes teenage girls wet with Twilight and Potter-fans love the last Potter films – they can watch their favourite stars doing something on the screen, regardless of what, how and why it’s done. But that’s not enough to make a good film, quite the opposite, actually. Two stars, and I don’t even know what for, maybe for the professional look and the nice dose of light-heartedness here and there. Otherwise, crap. (08/09/2012)

Much more polished than the rather dull first instalment, mainly because the script relies more on lightness and instead of conforming to standard action tropes, it turns them into a big joke. Although most of the credit goes to the protagonists themselves, who embody their career alter egos with admirable verve and insight (Norris's crazy cameo reigns supreme), and the story is downright slapdash when it comes to some dialogue and personal levels, the action is so good and well-paced and the villains, led by the cold-blooded JCVD, are so hilarious that you simply won't be bored. This time, satisfaction. (05/08/2018)

With the passing of a few weeks, I cooled off and took a star off. I really liked the first film better, I expected more room for Arnold Schwarzenegger, some of the lines felt forced, the plot slowed down unexpectedly after the bombastic beginning and Chuck Norris appeared in The Expendables 2 probably mainly to prove to the non-believers that he is real and not imaginary... But the stunning finale gave me absolutely everything I wanted. (12/10/2012)

I understand the general enthusiasm because seeing all those legends together has a unique feeling. Unfortunately, when I take into account that a film has qualities and attributes other than the cast and the chemistry between the actors (which would exist even if they just looked at each other), it is a failure overall. Simon West seems to have forgotten what a quality action film should be like. I'll overlook the terrible television picture quality (retro and all) and the locations somewhere between Romania and Bulgaria (hello Van Damme and Seagal). If The Expendables had action as good as Con Air had 15 years ago, I would be thrilled, but unfortunately, it’s not even half as good. The editing very confusing, nobody knows who is shooting whom, there are several repeated shots within a few minutes, and woefully confusing fights, except for the last one. I wouldn't expect a purely action film to have its biggest weakness precisely in the action. Stallone is still a cool and the lines and jokes are fine, but I would rather watch three of each guy's best films and not have to look at such a mess. (17/09/2012)