The Expendables 2

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. (07/09/2012)

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. (16/09/2012)

It's not less that a good old classic. A group of retirees travel to digitally modified Bulgaria, alternating game maps that reflect the nostalgic-archetypal touch of the genre, and here and there we have deus ex machina, greeted by a volley of insider jokes. The banality of the plot as well as the parody touch of space and characters add post-modern qualities to it, while Simon West also adds clear personal qualities and a solid tempo. Fortunately, Stallone already understood that some seriousness or "realistic" motivation had no place here - nostalgics wanted their messages and more winks. Blunt warrior macho sentiment still abounds, but this time it's filler between great comedic performances and cutting action with much better timing than in the first film. Although it is again "only" an action encyclopedia, this time it is richly illustrated and has even more bloated references to the mythology of the wheezy grandfathers. I had a great time. (27/08/2012)

Finally someone understands that nostalgia for action movie style from the eighties with their wall-poster heroes can today function only as tongue in cheek. And precisely because it doesn’t take itself seriously at all, unlike part one, gives this some real oomph. On top of that, the action is easy to follow, not that modern, epileptic style of editing, like in part one. So this time I would definitely consider buying an old, second hand VHS of this with its consecutive monotonous Czech dubbing. (24/12/2012)

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. (12/09/2012)