Horribly directed, action scenes were terribly filmed and edited, some of the worst CGI I've ever seen, and the new team additions were awful. Megan Fox can't act for shit. Even Stallone didn't want anything to do with this one. Almost walked out multiple times.
shareHow bad is the CGI?
Does Arnold (or any previous expendables like Bruce/Church etc) get mentioned/reference?
How bad is Megan? on a cringe level of 5 (5 being worst cringe)
Some of the worst CGI I've seen in a big budget film. There's a scene about 15 minutes in where looks like a PS1 game cutscene. Even the blood and gore was all terrible CGI.
No Arnold references
Megan is awful. She can't act at all and has no chemistry with the rest of the cast.
Thanks. How bad is it compared to previous 3 films?, its obviously the worst one, but by how big a margin?
shareHonestly, by a huge margin. 3 was bad, but at least it still had a solid cast and Mel Gibson was a great villain. This one you get a team that has no chemistry and the action sequences are the worst directed/edited of the series. Like I also mentioned, the CGI and green screen are some of the worst I've ever seen. If I had to rank the series:
Expendables 2 7/10
Expendables 5/10
Expendables 3 4/10
Expendables 4 1/10
As I expected, thanks
shareI won't bother with this one, but I agree with your ranking of the first three.
shareIs the first one even 7/10?
I always thought this series was tonally… off. The first was too serious with a dull plot and poorly edited action. The second was a step up but not by much, they needed to lean into the comedy more, and generally be much more upbeat and entertaining.
No the first one is honestly one of the most disappointing movies of all time. I remember from seeing the cast and the trailer how excited I was and went with my friends opening night. Aside from the opening and climatic action scenes, the movie was honestly kind of boring with a bad plot and Stallone did a crap job with most of the action scenes.
The 2nd one isn't great, but at least it had a better idea of what kind of movie the first should've been.
I checked out after 2, especially when I learned they went PG-13 for 3. Fuck that.
4 sounds like it could possibly be worse. Yeah the R rating is back, but apparently the cast care about as much as the audience.
Stallone is still making great stuff so I don’t get why he’s dragging out this Expendables property. My only guess is that they make decent money because, however shit the films end up being, the promise of the concept - all the classic action stars reunited - is deliciously enticing.
Yeah it's still worse even with the 4 rating. All the blood is crappy CGI. Somebody gets shot and literally explodes into blood and guts and it looks hilariously bad.
shareI just wonder what the point of this being made? Was it a contractual obligation? They kind of buttoned it up with the new generation carrying the torch in the 3rd one IIRC. I haven't seen CGI done this bad in a good while.
Almost walked out multiple times.
I find this hilarious. This franchise has always been nostalgia bait trash. It's got one job have cool graphic violent action. It fails at this on an epic level! You want true action watch any John wick film and it mops the floor with any of these. You want more high class action than John Wick watch the raid, the raid 2, the night comes for us, ong bak, the recent mission impossible films, sisu all those mop the floor with this garbage.
shareJust watch him on the series "Tulsa King".
shareThe draw of these films, at least for me was always, "hey, look at these action stars of yesteryear kicking ass!"
They peaked at the second entry imo. I mean they got Scott Adkins, JCVD & Chuck Norris! It was also cheesy but hella fun.
Mel Gibson made the third one. I liked him & Wesley Snipes.
Also, the budget does NOT need to be that high. Damn!
I overheard a guy proclaim that this movie took him by the hand and walked him out the door! This was 30 min in. I found it funny.
share