Review: 'Expendables 2' Has Fun Blasts & References But Little Else
by Jeremy Kirk
August 17, 2012
In The Expendables 2, Arnold Schwarzenegger name drops Rambo while sharing a frame with Chuck Norris. If you're a child of the '80s, this just blew your mind. That's exactly what Sylvester Stallone hopes with this follow-up to his 2010 endeavor to bring the great actions stars of the New Wave Era to the Bieber Generation's screens. It's nostalgia for everyone involved, creators and observers alike, and The Expendables 2, though an improvement over its predecessor, packs as many references as it does bullets. It's fun for a while, but like its core cast, it quickly becomes clunky and head-slappingly hokey.
For synopsis' sake, let's just say the group of mercenaries with a penchant for blowing up people's heads find themselves in deep with the CIA and are ordered by the very persuasive Church (Bruce Willis reprising his 20-second role from the first film) to undertake a rather by-the-numbers job. The task is so trivial, it's a wonder it takes the entire team of Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren, and Liam Hemsworth, the only new member of the team. Accompanied by a Chinese agent played by Nan Yu, the team encounters the bad guy of the film, Vilain, played by Jean-Claude Van Damme. After tragedy strikes, the team sets on a quest to take Vilain down and keep him from selling stolen plutonium that will make him a lot of money, something the character continuously makes reference to. That may have been more than a little revealing with how Stallone wrote the character.
That and the shot earlier described are two very clear examples of where The Expendables 2's head is at. It's a dream poster for fans of '80s action to have Stallone, Schwarzenegger, and Willis all firing machine guns at the camera, context be damned. When it's a shot that epic, the context writes itself. There are bad guys. These three action stars you remember from your childhood are the good guys. The good guys are shooting a load of heavy artillery at the bad guys. Call it action porn, but story and character never work themselves into anything The Expendables 2 has to offer.
That action, by the way, is superior to what we got when Stallone directed the first film. Taking up the reigns from this time is Simon West, director of Con Air, a big action movie with a lot of stars featuring a rather large plane. This probably had a hand in him getting the job here, and for the most part, he keeps the action heavy and fast. The number of extras who lose limbs or even have their heads exploded in this film may be an all-time record for such a film, and if it isn't, it's a close second to Stallone's last Rambo movie. Much of it is CGI, a major gripe with these action movies that aren't trying to hold themselves back in terms of rating, but it just looks bad.
But exploding bodies and decapitations can only take a film so far regardless of who's wielding the grenade launcher or brandishing the machete. The story and character that The Expendables 2 lacks keeps the film from every reaching a true level of suspense or excitement. Even early in the film when one of The Expendables follows through on the name, you get the impression it's only existence is to kick off the feature-length chase that follows. After characters start popping up and, literally, dropping out from the film like Wack-A-Moles, any feeling of attachment to any of them begins chipping away. By the time the explosive finale kicks in, any care for how the film will end has long since been buried by all the debris.
One element that shines through, though, is Van Damme, playing a full-fledged villain here on a very rare occasion. His years playing hammy villains in cheesy but awesome action movies have learned him a thing or two about chewing the scenery, and Van Damme takes control of his character better than anyone else in the film. Even the jabs about money end up sticking in the viewer's rib worse than they do the actor. Van Damme is having the time of his life here dressed in black, wearing sunglasses, and giving some James Bond villains a run for their money.
The rest of the cast has ups and downs, most of them - Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger included - playing the same type they've been playing for decades. Crews and Lundgren provide the comic relief, warranting the two get their own buddy movie, and the best self-referential quips stemming from Lundgren's very real degree in chemical engineering. Hemsworth fills a role fine, offering something of subtext being the youngest in a group of old guys who's served his time in Afghanistan. Jet Li very awkwardly disappears early and Statham's big arc is that he forgives a woman who cheated on him and who keeps calling. The quack quack ringtone on his phone is one of the film's many awful attempts at humor. Chuck Norris' attempt at making a Chuck Norris joke falls better, but that's once again the very reason this film even exists in the first place.
The Expendables 2, and The Expendables for that matter, is for action junkies who don't care about minor details like motivation or logical plot points. As long as the fireballs and explosions are big and the wanton carnage brought on by half a dozen men carrying machine guns is adequate, mission accomplished, everybody. There's more that could be getting done with this series, much more character that could be put into the people all these actors play. Character names would help here, but this is just Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Bruce Willis playing in a multi-million dollar sandbox. Somewhere, buried way down there, there might be an Expendables movie that is both fun and good. With The Expendables 2, fun will just have to suffice.
Jeremy's Rating: 6 out of 10
Reader Feedback - 15 Comments
The most unessasary sequel since basic instinct 3...
Guest on Aug 17, 2012
The most unnessarsary sequel since basic instinct 2
dgeet on Aug 17, 2012
Basic Instinct 2 is a decent thriller, just don't get stuck on its name.
Ryderup on Aug 17, 2012
I thought it was a fun movie. I came in for terrible dialogue, no character development, and just a shitload of killing and nothing else. And I came out of the theater satisfied. I have to say that after the first 10 minutes, I felt like I had my money's worth. I think all the face-palm worthy things about it just made the move more fun. It honestly didn't bother me this time around in a movie.
Jacob Denton on Aug 17, 2012
this! No one should go into a movie like the expendables expecting things like character development, a good script and a huge plot twist. especially after the first one. Van damme was a very good villian. Edit: I also recall watching the movie and not once heard any curse words which for me took away from the film, you cant just go around censoring guys like stallone its unnatural.
Chip_Tha_Ripper on Aug 17, 2012
Carpola on Aug 18, 2012
I'd have to agree a bit, but it did what it set out to do, give us 1h30 of action heroes and explosions. But in the end I ended up feeling that the first one was a bit more "mature", the actions scenes were more concise and this one had way too many special effects. *green screen alert* Also the fighting scenes weren't as good as the first one. I don't know if the stunt choreographer is the same, but the fight between Steve Austin and Stallone in the first was better than all of the fights in this second round. It had potential but the directors ruined it.
Ricardo Marques on Aug 17, 2012
Stallone and Statham both said in interviews how there wasn't CGI in these movies, so based on this review, I guess this isn't the case. Digital blood, digital explosions of heads, etc. is not interesting and can leave many viewers bored, because it lacks realism. So if the film maker isn't invested, why should the audience. We've all seen such over the top effects in the last many years that we just go "yawn", next, and yawn again. Quick cuts using stuntmen also not interesting. Better to stage fights that all the actors can actually do themselves. These are supposedly the best of the best? Otherwise, move over and let someone else do it that gets full credits and top billing. Bigger does not mean better. The secret to anything is to give the audience just enough that they want more, not too much that they say "enough!"
Stuart Klee on Aug 17, 2012
CGI head explosions? I really wanted there to be real head explosions!
Carpola on Aug 17, 2012
still depressed this got a sequel when a-team didn't. sub par film series if ever i saw one
Matthew Sam Russell on Aug 17, 2012
I went in expecting an action movie with brainless dialogue and lots of boom boom boom. I loved this movie for what it was. 😀
Chris Amaya on Aug 17, 2012
I'm a 80's kid and seen Rambo, Terminator, The Last Boys, and BloodSport. The 80's were chessy. That's what makes this movie awesome. Back then Hollywood didn't do remakes of everything. Let's give credit to where credit is due.
dee on Aug 18, 2012
It was just like their old action movies and I loved it. What more could anyone want? Shakespeare? Can't wait to get this on BluRay...
Obi on Aug 19, 2012
ugh. way to get the point of this movie.
michael on Aug 22, 2012
gun fires, boom boom blasts, tanks, airplanes and lot of action ..... what a great movie ...... when will 3rd part release .....
Johnny Firday on Sep 13, 2012
Sorry, no commenting is allowed at this time.