The Expendables 3: the sequel too many? [critique]

  • Post author:
  • Post category:TV Show
  • Post comments:0 Comments
  • Reading time:4 mins read

Expandables 3
Matropolitan FilmExport

The film is broadcast tonight on France 3.

The third channel completes its cycle tonight Expendableswhen number 4 is in production. what did you think First ofExpandables 3 at the time of the theatrical release, during the summer of 2014? Here is our review.

We take the same and start again. This is the watchword given to the troop of aging heavyweights who have been following Sylvester Stallone for three films now. Expandables 3 does not derogate from the 10 commandments engraved by Sly: vintage atmosphere, supporting roles winks, fight and action, everything is there. Except that for a saga like this, populated by old has-been figures, it’s a headache to rest on one’s laurels. The formula more or less worked twice, it was a mistake to think that a third identical salvo would suffice.

We are not going to play the piss-cold and it is enjoyable to see Wesley Snipes interpret a character which necessarily refers to his legal troubles. Or to discover that Harrison Ford is able to mix with all these beautiful people like a fish in water, when he is not busy breaking a leg on the set of Star Wars 7. But these nostalgic pleasures don’t make a movie.

The Expendables: Why Première loved Stallone’s film

The infamous PG 13

Patrick Hughes is not a penguin but we still feel he is handicapped by this infamous PG 13 (classification of the film in the United States, basically he is not really entitled to much blood or “explicit” action ). Without playing the fundamentalists, getting out of oversized sulphates is of little interest if the staging does not show the impacts, and it’s even more frustrating if we compare to the brutal violence of the previous R Rated or John Rambo. The last act of the film is representative of this imbalance: a real urban guerrilla setting that would not have gone wrong in an action of the 80s, soldiers everywhere, a countdown that puts the pressure on… yet we miss the potential. Expendables aims to be a revival of old-school action, it’s almost a shame to try to make it family entertainment. Suddenly, the film seems to bet everything on its casting, even more than in the other opuses. Quit doing absolutely anything. Thus, we do not know why Antonio Banderas inherits the clumsy role of comic of the team, much closer to Puss in Boots than to Desperado. Even the good idea of ​​the script (the addition of a team of young people) is completely untapped – small flat for Ronda Rousey, MMA fighter and only girl of the team who reserves two rather funny and successful sequences.

Saving Private Gibson

The only one who somewhat escapes this impression of emptiness remains the character of Mel Gibson, first because he composes a rather serious villain, then because his presence functions as the reintegration of this infrequentable within his cinematographic family – turning point started with Machete 2. And it feels good. Despite everything, it would be unfair to bury the franchise for as much. Expandables 3 remains an honest summer entertainment, it’s just that we were entitled to have much better than that. But like other series or old school saga, it takes a failed episode to bounce back better and that’s what we want them to do. Because we’ll be there at the next movie, just to see what old glories were resurrected this time. Nostalgia: a scourge that is not talked about enough.

Expendables 2: Van Damme is extraordinary as the villain (review)

Leave a Reply