Has anyone heard about this film?
The casting is awesome! :thumbup:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1320253/
It's been discussed before. A long, long time before.
I demand Van Damme damn it!
The Expendables: Bruce Willis signs up, new footage, teaser trailer coming (http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/304711/the_expendables_bruce_willis_signs_up_new_footage_teaser_trailer_coming.html)
Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EE2FCsZJEA)
Squeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!
I think my head just exploded.
I didn't think this thing could get any cooler.... Its gonna suck of course, but in the most glorious ways possible!
This sounds vaguely like Jagged Alliance. That is a good thing. Color me interested.
THE EXPENDABLES bootleg Teaser Venice 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGh_RhtTS2Q)
Dunno how long its going to last.
Official trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhHL3lhBn5A)
Wow. Ain't that anti climatic. They should have called it "Generic Action Movie". I'm deeply disapointed, let's hope that just the trailer sucks.
I would say that it looks exactly like what I would expect... hard boiled and cheap 80's action. The only person who looks way out of place is Statham... he is a bad actor but he is incredibly animated and charismatic, especially compared to the people he is in the movie with.
Quote from: lugaru on October 14, 2009, 10:45:01 AM
I would say that it looks exactly like what I would expect... hard boiled and cheap 80's action. The only person who looks way out of place is Statham... he is a bad actor but he is incredibly animated and charismatic, especially compared to the people he is in the movie with.
Statham isn't that "bad" of an actor. He's just rather limited as an actor. His role in the movie might make sense in the long run. It didn't seem any different though than other roles he has played.
that link is dead, by the way. http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29057 (http://www.joblo.com/index.php?id=29057) might work
either way, it's apparently a leaked trailer. so its not the final version. :)
Official Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6RU5y2fU6s)
Now that's a real man's movie. :o
I am totally in.
They'll be getting a share of my money! :D And I'll be home during the Summer!
I'm there. :thumbup:
While I'm still stoked about this film on multiple levels, Im actually looking forward to The Losers more i think.
It's funny if you think about it, between, those two and the A-Team remake, this is turning into the summer of 80's action "guy" flicks.
I miss those....
just watched it. loved it. 80's action all the way. i'd see it again! :thumbup:
It is an old 80's action movie with all the good and bad that go with it. The action is big dumb and ridiculous. The bad guys cant hit the side of a barn, the good guys hit every target with every bullet. In between the ridiculous action, there is bad writing, bad acting, and cheesy forced "emotion". So basically if you go in expecting old B-Grade action movies like Commando and Red Heat, thats what you'll get. Expect anything more, and not so much. Be warned though, that it really is a Stallone/Statham movie (not that that is bad -- Statham really should be a bigger action star). Everyone else for all intents are either sidelined or cameo characters.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on August 18, 2010, 04:13:26 PM
It is an old 80's action movie with all the good and bad that go with it. The action is big dumb and ridiculous. The bad guys cant hit the side of a barn, the good guys hit every target with every bullet. In between the ridiculous action, there is bad writing, bad acting, and cheesy forced "emotion". So basically if you go in expecting old B-Grade action movies like Commando and Red Heat, thats what you'll get. Expect anything more, and not so much. Be warned though, that it really is a Stallone/Statham movie (not that that is bad -- Statham really should be a bigger action star). Everyone else for all intents are either sidelined or cameo characters.
Gotta disagree about the bad acting. mickey Roarke was pretty briliant. Look at his face and hear his voice when he's talking about the girl of the bridge. The interactions of thecharacters were great and while nobody but roarke was brilliant he acting was sincere and beleivable.
I thought everyone got their moment considering how large a cast there was. Then again I find modern stuff to have just as much or more bad writing and bad acting and this seemed a cut above. I got more than I expected and I was expecting pretty much what you perceived. Obviously I ( and the wife) really enjoyed it.
Quote from: GogglesPizanno on April 05, 2010, 03:37:06 PM
While I'm still stoked about this film on multiple levels, Im actually looking forward to The Losers more i think.
It's funny if you think about it, between, those two and the A-Team remake, this is turning into the summer of 80's action "guy" flicks.
I miss those....
The best of the bunch I think personally.
So basically this is a leave your brain at the door-lots of gun havin -big explosion making -tough guy all in your face - 80's type MAN MOVIE!
I'm looking forward to it.
yep, that sums it up. didnt notice until half way through the movie but the main baddies two henchmen, the smaller guy with the stash...isnt he the guy that played toad/darth maul? anyway, this isnt making money on its acting its making it on star power and action. just like 80's movies use to do. thats why those movies also made 3-4 times more money also. its a fun movie so everyone go have fun with it. :lol:
hmm... Cool! I guess I'll just have to watch it later. :)
Mickey Rourke was brilliant? I don't think I'd say that, although really how could you be with this script? His super emotional scene was pretty eyerolly though. He's also quite disturbing to look at, but that's just his thing.
Actually Sly was looking pretty gross in this movie too. Like somebody made a clay sculpture of him then smushed in the face and put eyeliner on it for some reason.
Sorry, these harsh personal criticisms don't belong in a movie review. But really all of that wouldn't matter if it was full of hilarious one liners and had better shot action scenes. As with the recent Batman flicks and... actually lots of recent action movies, people seem to being going for kinetic, can't tell what the heck is going on action sequences these days, and that's really a shame. At least this movie was full of wrestling moves for no reason. I'll give it props for that.
So what I'm saying is, I'm glad I saw it for free and wouldn't watch it again, but now have a huge urge to rewatch Commando or First Blood or something.
And, my favourite character? Dolph Lundgren. I've had a soft spot for that guy since I saw him in Johnny Neumonic.
I think Unkoman hit the nail on the head... especially about Dolph.
You cant help but love the guy (and respect that he is smarter in real life than I could ever hope to be)
But to truly experience the magic of the Dolph Lundgren, one must really watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHW9nwk4ujo
Quote from: UnkoMan on August 18, 2010, 09:21:13 PM
Sorry, these harsh personal criticisms don't belong in a movie review. But really all of that wouldn't matter if it was full of hilarious one liners and had better shot action scenes. As with the recent Batman flicks and... actually lots of recent action movies, people seem to being going for kinetic, can't tell what the heck is going on action sequences these days, and that's really a shame. At least this movie was full of wrestling moves for no reason. I'll give it props for that.
I HATE this. I can't wait until they finally get this type of 'all elbows' film making out of their systems.
Quote from: UnkoMan on August 18, 2010, 09:21:13 PM
. But really all of that wouldn't matter if it was full of hilarious one liners and had better shot action scenes.
Wow! We've been quoting the one liners for days. that's one the the best thing about. lots of new one liners for our pen and paper role playing games. The action scenes seemed fine to me. Cerainly not like the shakey cam nonsense. I think I saw a different version.
Quote from: UnkoMan on August 18, 2010, 09:21:13 PM
Mickey Rourke was brilliant? I don't think I'd say that, although really how could you be with this script? His super emotional scene was pretty eyerolly though. He's also quite disturbing to look at, but that's just his thing..
OK maybe brilliant was overstating it but bad acting and eyerolly? Well I liked but then I always try to appreciate things on their oqn level. I have to admit I fail with most heavy dramas though ,which I often perceive the way you do this.
I can read the 'Manly Men of Action' storyline in Twisted Toyfare Theater any day I want. I don't need to plunk down money on this movie.
Btw, it takes both Bruce Willis and Dolph to equal either Stalone or the Governator.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on August 19, 2010, 08:05:43 PM
Btw, it takes both Bruce Willis and Dolph to equal either Stalone or the Governator.
BITE YOUR TONGUE!!
Them's fighting words.
And for the record, thanks to the latest expendables poster, we can now see that in terms of Action movie body count, Dolph actually IS the big winner.... that's just science!
http://chud.com/articles/content_images/17/ExpendablesBodyCount.jpg
Actually I'm gonna totally derail this thread slightly to give some love (and apparently it needs it) to the OTHER movie that came out that weekend, and is superior to the Expendables in every way. Scott Pilgrim. The nerd in me was blown away by it, and I saw it with a very non-nerd friend who loved it as well...
We can now go back to debating whether why Dolph is better than the others action stars...Continue.
I think the point of the movie was every guy favorite action hero team up. You know, like a Marvel team up kind of thing.
Me and my friend laughed at lines, but probably not lines we were suppose to be laughing at. I also had never even heard of Randy Couture and only vaguely knew of Terry Crews. And judging by their body count, with good reason. Did they even need to be in this?
Also there's a difference between shakey cam and confusing cam. I mean, to each their own, but I like fight scenes to make some sort of sense. Not just here's a shot of a guy punching another guy, here's one of a guy flipping some guy, there's a neck break.
Granted, Expendables is trying to follow more than one main character and there have been movies that did this far worst (hi Dark Knight!) but it still wasn't good.
I was going to mention Scott Pilgrim though, actually. Now that's a movie with great fight scenes, save one poorly conceived CGI sound battle. Even at its most frenetic you can still always tell what is going on. Granted, though, they only had to follow a couple people.
Anyhow, that's just my take. If you like it then you like it. That's how these movies work, pretty much.
PS: I can't believe Stallone only killed seven people in Death Race 2000. That seems so wrong. Definitely one of his best rolls though.
Couture and crews are just there to pad the roster. they're too new to the action movie genre... their actual careers are in MMA IIRC.
Goggles, I am merely repeating TTT established fact. It takes Dolph and Bruce Willis to equal either Sly or Arnie. They had their hands full with Keanu Reeves while Stallone took care of Wesley Snipes and the Governator took care of VanDamme.
Quote from: yell0w_lantern on August 20, 2010, 04:38:41 PM
Goggles, I am merely repeating TTT established fact. It takes Dolph and Bruce Willis to equal either Sly or Arnie. They had their hands full with Keanu Reeves while Stallone took care of Wesley Snipes and the Governator took care of VanDamme.
Whatever.
None of them compare to Johnny Utah of the F..... B...... I......
haven't seen this yet but was surprised at the RT score 35%
seriously i've heard good things, yet critics seem to be tearing it apart
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on August 22, 2010, 09:28:39 PM
haven't seen this yet but was surprised at the RT score 35%
seriously i've heard good things, yet critics seem to be tearing it apart
Because its a bad movie that sparks warm nostalgic feelings. Its those feelings of missing seeing guys you like doing the big dumb action guy things they used to that people are responding to... not the quality of the movie. From a quality standpoint this is really no different than those John Cena movies from a few years ago (The Marine, 12 Rounds etc...). The difference is that those movies didn't star Stallone, Lundgren, Roarke and Willis. You pull those guys out of it, and the Expendables would not be near the success that it is. More like a bigger budget straight to video action flick.
Quote from: the_ultimate_evil on August 22, 2010, 09:28:39 PM
haven't seen this yet but was surprised at the RT score 35%
seriously i've heard good things, yet critics seem to be tearing it apart
Its a big action movie with no state of the art FX or deeper meaning or politically correct message. Ctitics tearing it apart is expected and validates its worthiness in the genre. Yes, I'm really disadainful and harsh to critics on this score. For this sort of thing , the only thing most professional critics are good for is by reading what they dislike you can often tell what they're saying is so aweful is really thegood stuff. Strngely enough more female critics seem to give action films a fair shake than the male ones IMO.
if you look at moviephone and the user reviews as opposed to the critcs reviews there's a big difference on rating. Even the critics there are nice than rotton tomatoes though?
ahh, the male critics are jealous and wished they were more like the guys they are knocking. the female critics like what they see. i might not like feely chic flicks but i'm not gonna knock them because thats not my cup of tea. i wish i had a show where i critised the critics. be like the guys from In Living Color. "hated it"...."loved it"! :lol:
"Worst...Critics...Ever..."