A number of years ago, at Wrestlemania 17, fans of the performance art of sweaty men pushing and pummelling each other (and indeed I was at the time a great fan) were treated to the ‘Gimmick Battle Royal,’ which was a blast from the past exhibit. Wrestlers of old, all of whom were bathed in complete, unabashed gimmick. It was a spectacle, because this was a concept that had become a bit of a laugh and shame inducing aspect when looking back at the history of wrestling. However, seeing a light-hearted remembrance to it at Wrestlemania 17 brought out the nostalgia and made it ever so joyous to behold. We had Duke ‘The Dumpster’ Droese (a garbage man), The Repo Man (no explanation required), Doink the Clown (once again, I need not explain), and the pinacle of hopeless gimmicks, The Gobbeldy Gooker (a dancing and unbelievable excited Thanksgiving Turkey).
It was enjoyable for the moment. The wrestling was awful, but that had nothing to do with the enjoyment which was based on smiling and remembering how silly all of this was. If they did it a second and third time, the novelty would be long gone and it would need to be actually entertaining for it to work. Such is the case with The Expendables, which came out in 2010 and is now on its third instalment. I fondly remember seeing it with a good friend, and getting giddy about all of these names from the past being thrown onto the screen in one action packed adventure. To be honest, the action, script, and directing were not that great. It was the un-measurable power of nostalgia that left me walking away giving it a delightful three stars.
And onward does time march, four years the further and one sequel come and gone. Novelty and nostalgia have now vanished. It happened the first time, and it is no longer just fun in of itself to see these names on the screen at the same time. The film’s shoulders must carry the weight of projecting a passable product. What amazes me with this movie is that fact that it seems completely unaware that perhaps the ‘if we build it, they will come’ philosophy will not always work. Just because it is crammed to capacity with well recognizable names does not mean it will be worthy of the masses.
The film itself is built on unsparing dialogue and characters, a barely serviceable script, and action sequences that are patched together with little cohesion, making it hard to really follow the part of the movie that should be the most fun. As well as packing lots of weaponry, Sylvester Stallone and his crew march their way into battle wielding unforgivably poor blue screen effects, as well as digitally created aircraft and explosions that are just only one level above The Asylum (the studio who brought us Sharknado). The rumoured budget is $90 million, and one has to believe that the majority went to pay the large cast instead of creating a movie that felt like it was produced by a major Hollywood studio.
In the film, Stallone’s team of elder gents of arms (including Jason Statham - who is really not that old, Dolf Lungren, Randy Couture, Wesley Snipes, and Terry Crews) run into a roadblock in an attempt to accomplish a poorly planned mission. I did learn from this movie that if you are ever going to break into a heavily guarded area, you just need to proceed in the open with guns drawn at a pace slightly quicker than a meandering skulking. I was also taught that to avoid being seen by passing vehicles, all one needs to do is stand with their back flat against a wall that faces directly towards the threat.
Not being able to accomplish the mission, which they never really seemed intent on doing if we are basing it off of their actions when the stuff goes down, Stallone sends the members of his team on their way. His reasoning is that this is a young man’s game, a realization that he obviously did not come to while looking in a mirror. Armed with a new group of unknown and unseasoned actors (with one of them having an IMDB bio boast of his existence on Dancing With The Stars), they go on to tackle dangers and be heroes. For not having a lot of recognition, it is the younger group of soldiers who bring a shade of life to the film. In the case of the UFC woman’s champion Ronda Rousey, she was able to shine at moments of personality and flair. However, the ball was dropped when she was given a weighty dramatic context that was at this point out of her element.
Maybe that is the biggest problem with the movie… so many people do not feel like they are actually given opportunity for their personalities to be properly brought to light and infuse some energy is this bullet riddled film. Wesley Snipes and Antonio Banderas grabbed their roles and ran with them, bringing some of the only moments of joy that I had while watching it, wishing that the others had done the same. If neither your time nor your money is expendable, save yourself the time and just Google the synopsis and you get all you need from that.
Rating - 1 out of 4 stars
Nostalgia almost always has a short life-span. The first 'Expendables' was not only fun due to seeing action stars of another era, but also playing around with the old tropes like the fictional South American country run by a rich and tyrannical dictator. It seemed to be self-aware and had an understanding what it was trying to be. That awareness clearly has been lost in the woods after returning to this franchise two more times, and is now seemingly trying to be the king of the action genre and take itself far too seriously.
ReplyDeleteIndeed you are most correct, sir. This movie had left behind the good natured feel of the first film and was playing as a straight actioner. The Gooker should only be brought back once for a feel good laugh and self aware entertainment, and so should have been the concept of The Expendables.
Delete