Escape to the Movies: The Expendables

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 34 NEXT
 

VanityGirl:
I did hear that Jet Li didn't get to do his usual ass kickery in this movie and that depresses me.

Trust me.
Jet Kicks some Ass.
It wasn't as much as in some other movies but he did get a good amount of screen time.

ok, Moviebob please explain this to me. I saw both Expendables and Scott Pilgrim. Yes I hated Expendables but WHY in the world is every critic, who i consider to know what they are talking about, giving such great reviews to Scott pilgrim? I kinda hated that one too, though not as much as the before mentioned pile of crap. No im not ignorant to what they were trying to get through to the audience with Scott Pilgrim and yes i understould it all. But i STILL did not enjoy the movie. It just fell so...well to be honest, dumb. So my point being, why do i feel like this about Scott Pilgrim?

CronoT:
MovieBob, I was hoping you were going to do a review on the 'Twilight' spoof, 'Vampires Suck'. Nothing's more fun than watching a spoof movie make fun of a crappy movie, and then take apart the spoof movie for being a bad example OF a spoof movie.

You know, this conundrum has given me a new idea for a thread topic. Thank you, CronoT.

On topic, why the hell has Scott Pilgrim not come out in my theatre's but we get Expendibles for three solid weeks?

Hubilub:

Ekonk:

Eicha:
Well, nobody saw THAT coming. NAAAAT.

Hahaha, I did NAAAHT.

... O HAI MARK

I really hope you were meaning to make a The Room reference

HAI DOGGIE GOODBYE

just adding more wood to the referance fire...
Anyway not every good work of fiction needs a plot. If you are calling out the expendables on it having a thin plot then what about scott pilgrim? wasn't it mainly like a string of boss fights to get to the girl? Thats about as deep as super mario bros! (Im not saying Scott pilgrim was a bad movie, havent seen it but that is what the plot is right?)

Just out of curiosity, was there another version of this film that was released? Because I saw tonnes of blood and gore, people got ripped apart with bullets, cleaved with knives and all around it was a fun movie. Why is Movie Bob so pissed about something that was meant to be like this? It's supposed to be self aware, star studded and if he were expecting a huge oscar nomination shill for this film, he was mistaken. Can't we just watch a bad movie without going and tearing it apart for not being good? Am I only the only one who can sit down and watch a serious movie and then switch to a bad film like this and just have fun watching it?

And a spoiler alert right here. What did he mean by no memorable kills? I remember most of this movie having really awesome and sometimes brutal deaths, particularly the beginning with the pirates on the cargo vessel, Dolph Lundgren crushing a guys head under his boot, and a majority of the scenes involving Statham and his knives.

And, while I'm here, I might as well just veer off course and say that Scott Pilgrim is an over rated celebration of the shitty ass hipster cunt generation that I have to grow up in. While I am a metal head and listen to a lot of metal, I can listen to alternative rock sometimes and enjoy it for what it is, but when I start seeing shit like that around me I really just want to throttle someone because of it. They're a bunch of pussies who wear the worst clothes with skinny jeans that show off more flatness than Alberta, stupid god damn hair and all around just a really shitty attitude towards most people. And he says we should be ashamed for putting The Expendables at number 1? Fuck that! I'm not celebrating a shitty generation that's going to be remember for making itself impotent and having a terrible taste in life.

LONG LIVE THE EXPENDABLES!!!

Well guess ill save my money for when i can see this movie on the interwebs

IronStorm9:

Hubilub:

IronStorm9:

Hubilub:

IronStorm9:
He's not insulting the people who like the movie.

Yes he is! Actually, it's worse. He's insulting people who like the movie's premise.

And even then, how the hell does saying that Stallone is cashing in on this film makes sense? Stallone is one of the most respectable directors out there, he's the last person to do a movie simply for a cash-in

But that's just what the movie was. It had no substance, you could switch the actors in and out and no one could tell the difference, and two of the best 80s movies actors (Willis and Schwarzenegger) only get cameos. I saw an interview with Stallone on TV and he said he only picked them because he thought they were pathetically imitating him and he made several comments along the lines of "They're over the hill".

No, the film is not a cash-in. The movie was a dumb action-film, but that doesn't make it a cash-in.

"Cash-in" is a word people throw around when they want to have a reason to hate a film that isn't purely subjective. This is not a cash-in. This is supposed to be a dream come true for many people. The people who made this film had fun, and they love this film. They also like to jokingly insult each other, which is where Stallone's "imitating" claim came from.

The point that I am trying to make with that statement is that he wanted to be the star of the movie. Normally I'm not against that (Clint Eastwood did a very good job starring in his own movies) but when you don't give anyone besides yourself good lines, that crosses into author-self-insertion territory.

I don't agree with you on this. I think plenty of the actors got their moment to shine in the spot-light. Stallone is pretty obviously the most in it, but then again, he's the protagonist. The theme of redemption and saving yourself from losing your humanity is all centered around him. But Jason Statham got a romance sub-plot and awesome action scenes, Jet Li got a lot of action (though not as much as Statham), and all characters got their Crowning moment of Awesome.

Well, the characters that killed stuff anyway.

I was very satisfied with the films use of the characters.

SODAssault:
According to these comments, you're only allowed to insult your viewers and go on a tirade about something you intensely dislike if your name starts with a "Y" and rhymes with "Nazi"; anybody else is a pretentious, elitist critic that totally blew his cool and jumped the shark at the same time. Seeing as how I'm not a sheep, I'm going to agree with all of them with neither question or reason. I mean, shit, why can't you just be a REAL reviewer, MovieBob, and actually do your job by making sure that your opinions and views coincide perfectly with mine?

Remember, you're not allowed to be frustrated about the box-office success of this movie indicating that we're going to continue on the cycle of creative, risky films being shunted in favor of brainless action flicks, because that would make you pretentious. Seriously, dude, that would make you almost as pretentious as a gamer that complains about how much they hate Call of Duty and Halo and everybody that plays them is too stupid and happy with their bland blandness to understand the complex beauty of a lovingly-crafted RPG that likely won't see a sequel because it's getting stomped to death by the competition... and let me tell you something, buster: you sure as shit won't find anybody like that, here.

Furthermore, how dare you take your job seriously by watching a film with an analytical, deconstructive mindset when the basis of your Escapist series is analyzing and deconstructing movies for our enjoyment? We don't want you to call out a movie's self-described style as being bullshit; we just want you to sit still for two hours, forget everything you know about everything, allow your eyes to glaze over, and when the movie is over, go home and make a full-length review that consists of the words "MOVIE GOOD" emblazoned over a fireworks display that makes fart noises instead of booms, for five solid minutes.

Lastly, just because people like to go slack-jawed while staring a screen full of explosions, bright colors and loud noises, doesn't mean you're better than them, so let me be the first one of many to say: throw away that TP and start wiping your ass with your hand, because we're all doing it, and the majority is always right, you arrogant jerk.

BAAAAA-AAA-AA-AA-AAA-AAAAAAH!

LOL

My thoughts exactly.

Haters gonna hate.

How dare movie reviewers give their opinions in a legitimate and entertaining fashion.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone counter-raging is just offended at being called a sheep (indicating insecurity on the subject, of course).

I saw the movie based on its supposed premise, tossing me directly into the flock with everyone else who did the same, and I fucking loved Bob's review.

Man, what a bunch of wormy little cretins.

Oh right, this is the internet. My bad.

SODAssault:
According to these comments, you're only allowed to insult your viewers and go on a tirade about something you intensely dislike if your name starts with a "Y" and rhymes with "Nazi"; anybody else is a pretentious, elitist critic that totally blew his cool and jumped the shark at the same time.

When Yahtzee insults the audience, he still does his job. He still critiques each game thoroughly even when there is fan backlash. I laugh off a lot of things that Yahtzee says, because he can truly make good arguments for and against the elements of a game.

Bob insulted the audience of the film, and didn't review the film in his normal format. I didn't feel as if he even tried to critique it. Even Twilight he sat down and analyzed it thoroughly, despite loathing the films and audience.

This is his job, and this week he didn't seem to care.

FargoDog:

Blue-State:

FargoDog:
And yet I'm still going to see it.

Traitor! >(

Why? Because I'd rather make up my own mind than just listen to some movie-critic who I could completely disagree with, which I probably will in this case?

exactly, that makes you a terrorist, havent you been listening to fox?

Bob sure has his panties in a twist.

You said it yourself, that Scott Pilgrim wouldn't appeal to everyone, so of course it's not going to be top box office.

Meanwhile a fun action movie is highly ranked?

This was a stuck up review consisting of you bitching because a film you like was more poorly ranked than a film you didn't like.

Get over it, Bob. I enjoy your reviews but this was pathetic. This was pretty much trolling.

Please try and keep a wider range of opinions in mind for future reviews?

Cheers,

-Sextus.

And one other thing I should add, I'm not a muscle headed jock, I'm not a touchy feely kind of guy either, I'm in the middle, I try to keep fit but I'm not a hippy of any sort, I'm the middle ground for this type of movie, and I enjoy it none the less because it's FUN!!! Well, anyway, here's hoping that next week Centurion and Last Exorcism will good.

I'm still gonna see Scott Pilgim and The Illusionist over this...and if you don't know what The Illusionist is, it's made by the director of The Triplets of Beveville, and if you don't know what that is and you love animation, then there is something wrong with you!

IronStorm9:

The point that I am trying to make with that statement is that he wanted to be the star of the movie. Normally I'm not against that (Clint Eastwood did a very good job starring in his own movies) but when you don't give anyone besides yourself good lines, that crosses into author-self-insertion territory.

He totally didn't, though. Arnie had a plethora of great lines in his scene and seemed a superior intelligence officer to Stallone.
So, yeah, I don't get where you're coming from.

Worgen:

FargoDog:

Blue-State:

FargoDog:
And yet I'm still going to see it.

Traitor! >(

Why? Because I'd rather make up my own mind than just listen to some movie-critic who I could completely disagree with, which I probably will in this case?

exactly, that makes you a terrorist, havent you been listening to fox?

No, I'm from a country that isn't the US. That's what makes me a terrorist, according to Fox.

Hubilub:

I don't agree with you on this. I think plenty of the actors got their moment to shine in the spot-light. Stallone is pretty obviously the most in it, but then again, he's the protagonist.

And the director, and the only one with good lines.

Jet Li got a lot of action (though not as much as Statham), and all characters got their Crowning moment of Awesome.

congrats, you found TV Tropes

Honestly, I fully expected this review to be the exact way it was. I would have been super surprised if Bob had actually found some praise for this film considering it did so well and Scott Pilgrim did not.

As a Scott Pilgrim fan, I enjoyed the movie and yet was let down by it. I felt the movie was waaaay too short and kind of watered down from the actual books to make it acceptable to a "mainstream" audience and yet Bob didn't seem to have a problem with the fact that Scott Pilgrim obviously and intentionally dumbed down so that regular people would 'get it'. Add to that the fact that I don't think some of the actors really played out well, with some of the greatest lines of the series falling flat: The best example is when Crash and the Boys have their little moment with Wallace heckling.. the whole scene seemed contrived and boring, and I don't know how they managed that. Then when Crash says "this next song is dedicated to the guy yelling at us from the balcony it's called 'We hate you, please die'." That should have been hilarious, instead it was kinda lame.
The katayanagi twins entire battle thing felt like it was filmed in half a day and tossed in to complete the story but we never really saw Scott battle them or their robots and that was a MAJOR part of the story. I realize the book series hadnt concluded by the time the movie was filmed but even the Gideon Graves final moments seemed to fall flat..
I don't know, other than Alison Pill playing Kim (who was totally hot), I felt that the rest of the cast (even the once great Jason Bateman) looked like they were just phoning it in.

The Expendables on the other hand, the cast seemed like they genuinely enjoyed filming the movie. Its like they went into the whole thing fully realizing that it was a little more than a spoof of action 80's films of yesteryear and that they all were pretty much part of a genre of films that has seen better days. Honestly, I actually appreciated the movie MORE for NOT trying to be Jason Bourne or any number of over the top CG-infested "serious" action films that we are forced to choke down these days. They made a basic and fun movie aimed at an audience that probably remembers these guys in their heyday, and always dreamed of seeing them on screen together. Sure it was a bit of a let down that Bruce Willis and Schwarzeneggar were reduced to little more than cameos but still, it was pretty awesome from a standpoint of someone who grew up watching these titans battle for "hollywood tough guy" in the cinemas of my youth.

People go to the movies to ultimately be ENTERTAINED and I think sometimes Movie Bob forgets that. I think MOST critics over time forget that... perhaps its because they have to watch so many movies as a matter of their job instead of just to pass a few hours in mindless entertainment. Not every film has to challenge us intellectually or turn common convention on it's head. Just enjoy it for what it is.
It's the same reason that while people rave about the new Daniel Craig bond movies, I still find those simplistic and sometimes corny Roger Moore bond movies infinitely more entertaining and watch them every time they are on tv. I've seen Casino Royale maybe twice, but have watched Live and Let Die about a thousand times. Its fun sometimes to just enjoy a movie simply for it being a fun movie.

I saw the movie, and since i am old enough to remember when most of those actors were young. I found the movie appealing. I have to agree with the overall postings people have written, movie bob you really need to calm down......

JourneyThroughHell:

IronStorm9:

The point that I am trying to make with that statement is that he wanted to be the star of the movie. Normally I'm not against that (Clint Eastwood did a very good job starring in his own movies) but when you don't give anyone besides yourself good lines, that crosses into author-self-insertion territory.

He totally didn't, though. Arnie had a plethora of great lines in his scene and seemed a superior intelligence officer to Stallone.
So, yeah, I don't get where you're coming from.

In the one scene, yes. but he could've been in more of the movie.

Canadian Briton:

Hubilub:

Ekonk:

Eicha:
Well, nobody saw THAT coming. NAAAAT.

Hahaha, I did NAAAHT.

... O HAI MARK

I really hope you were meaning to make a The Room reference

HAI DOGGIE GOODBYE

Oh hai Canadian Briton I didn't know it was you

Moviebob you suck, not for bashing expendables or disrespecting Randy Couture, (as MMA is not a fringe sport!), but the fact that you think your opinion should govern the way people think, Scott Pilgrim wasn't a turn in pop culture, and the fact that it bombed was proof. (hence the term popular culture,) Star wars was a turning point because a majority of people were influenced by it,

and stop acting like it's some great crime that Scott Pilgrim didn't bring in the big bucks, a critic like you, should have seen that one coming. It's going to make enough on DVD sales anyway and take its place as cult classic, so take a chill pill, I mean are you in love with Romana Flowers too and want to see her movie do well. Also, just one big no, people who go to see the same Movie with big name actors are not cheese eating sheep, they're not like us who are movie fanatics and most likely won't be tired of all the old cliches.

Lastly, your still one of my favourite critics just calm down after you see a movie you don't like and try not be so arrogant, peace out.

Ironically enough, we've got another throwback later on this year: a True Grit remake starring Jeff Bridges in the Duke's role and directed by the Cohen Brothers.

It's not so much the content as much as how the production and director uses it. The Expendables could've been a better film, but what I've heard from other critics (notably Spill.Com who took time to mention specific flaws), there was not enough time for each character and it came off as a bit diluted. If the director would've cut out a few of the less needed actors (Austin et all), maybe it would've been a fun throw back a la Grindhouse. But too many action stars who each demand equal time and you've got a mess.

What's with the people hating on moviebob for being an 'elitist critic who can't enjoy a good popcorn flick'? This is the guy who gave the thumbs up to GI Joe and the A-Team. The man can appreciate a mindless popcorn flick.

But just because a movie doesn't try to be anything more then a big, fun, dumb action movie doesn't excuse it when it fails to be fun, and doesn't even deliver well on the action, and ends up being nothing more then a big dumb movie. MB's certainly going overboard hating on those who liked it, but I can understand getting upset at a movie going public that pumps so much money into these movies.

The reason why you don't get this reaction with Zero Punctuation is because Yahtzee is God. Besides which he has self-effacement, makes ludicrous insults against almost anyone or anything, and is hilarious. MovieBob evangelises that 'a is right, b is wrong. Those who support a are good people, those that support b are stupid'. Yahtzee says 'a is good, b is bad. Those who support a are idiots, those that support b are idiots, I wish to see them fight to the death in my sex dungeon cellar'.

As a blogpost on a blog, I would have passed this on as an outlet for this man's opinion. However I clearly see you are trying to be a critic. In that case I would have accepted a bad review for this movie if you would have thought it bad.

However, what you clearly did was post a video of you ranting on about artsy films and whining about how they're never successful. While I accept that you do not think the movie was particularly good, there was no call for insulting its audience because it did not see the movie that you liked.

There was also no call for saying that the entire human race is going downhill because people saw a movie they liked instead of one you liked. Perhaps the human race starts to go downhill when people can't accept other people's opinions as strongly as their own?

Try again next time.

IronStorm9:

Hubilub:

I don't agree with you on this. I think plenty of the actors got their moment to shine in the spot-light. Stallone is pretty obviously the most in it, but then again, he's the protagonist.

And the director, and the only one with good lines.

Jet Li got a lot of action (though not as much as Statham), and all characters got their Crowning moment of Awesome.

congrats, you found TV Tropes

Because answering "Who sent you here?" with "Your mother" is a great line.

I find it strange that your "It's a cash-in" argument is based on the fact that you think he got better lines.

FargoDog:

Worgen:

FargoDog:

Blue-State:

FargoDog:
And yet I'm still going to see it.

Traitor! >(

Why? Because I'd rather make up my own mind than just listen to some movie-critic who I could completely disagree with, which I probably will in this case?

exactly, that makes you a terrorist, havent you been listening to fox?

No, I'm from a country that isn't the US. That's what makes me a terrorist, according to Fox.

hmm lets see what fox says to do about this.... ok, first Im supposed to invade your county to make sure you dont take american jobs, then Im supposed to destroy your country so you cant destroy america then I have to declare freedom after your population is wiped out.... hmm that seems like alot of effort, think Ill play flash games instead

Hm hm... well, i didn't like this movie either. And i mean: COME ON.. you have Jet Li in it. That man never was in a bad movie. And you have Jason Statham... well, Transporter 2 was pretty bad... but he NEVER was not ENTERTAINING.

But this one: dark, fast-cut fightscenes with characters i didn't care about. The only character i liked at all was Gunnar.

And the movie is so forgetable too... it all blurrs together into a 5 minute-plot:

Dudes want to kill el presidente, but its hard, they go away but make the EXcia-dude angry. Gunnar betrays them (but doesn't want). They come back because of the woman. They kill the country and happy ending for all.

Bah... 5/10 (Because it has Jet Li in it... I can't give that man a BAD score)

Hubilub:

IronStorm9:

Hubilub:

I don't agree with you on this. I think plenty of the actors got their moment to shine in the spot-light. Stallone is pretty obviously the most in it, but then again, he's the protagonist.

And the director, and the only one with good lines.

Jet Li got a lot of action (though not as much as Statham), and all characters got their Crowning moment of Awesome.

congrats, you found TV Tropes

Because answering "Who sent you here?" with "Your mother" is a great line.

I find it strange that your "It's a cash-in" argument is based on the fact that you think he got better lines.

I'm going to stop talking to you now.

wildcard9:
Ironically enough, we've got another throwback later on this year: a True Grit remake starring Jeff Bridges in the Duke's role and directed by the Cohen Brothers.

It's not so much the content as much as how the production and director uses it. The Expendables could've been a better film, but what I've heard from other critics (notably Spill.Com who took time to mention specific flaws), there was not enough time for each character and it came off as a bit diluted. If the director would've cut out a few of the less needed actors (Austin et all), maybe it would've been a fun throw back a la Grindhouse. But too many action stars who each demand equal time and you've got a mess.

Cut Austin?

Austin was a villain meant for the Expendables to fight. Why would you cut him? If you cut him you'd have to replace him with someone else to have more action and that would make the entire firing redundant.

BOB:

In case you actually read these threads, do me a favor and pay no attention to the army of oversensitive mouth-breathers desperately trying to save face after being called sheep by someone they've never even met.

Remember, their very scorn praises you, for if they didn't respect and admire you your insult would have meant nothing.

You're right up there with Yahtzee, dude. Keep up the good work.

EchetusXe:
Obviously the former, if it was the latter then he would be an idiot. If Obama, Nelson Mandela and the spirit of Gandhi came out and called a press conference to say this film sucked then it wouldn't have any impact on ticket sales. Marketing and word-of-mouth matter more than whatever the critics says.

Aww k'mon! Get serious please! If that happened, people would go see that movie in DROVES to figure why they hate it so much.

Do you honestly believe that a movie endored by these people would NOT be affected in the box office?

In the end, critics are critics because they want their voice to be heard, and they implicitly WANT to matter. Whenever that doesn't happen, they hurt.

Hubilub:

Canadian Briton:

Hubilub:

Ekonk:

Eicha:
Well, nobody saw THAT coming. NAAAAT.

Hahaha, I did NAAAHT.

... O HAI MARK

I really hope you were meaning to make a The Room reference

HAI DOGGIE GOODBYE

Oh hai Canadian Briton I didn't know it was you

Movie Bob's review betray me, I FED UP WITH THIS WORLD!!!!
Anyway, how is your sex life?

Charisma:

Yeah, I'm pretty sure anyone counter-raging is just offended at being called a sheep (indicating insecurity on the subject, of course).

We're not allowed to be offended at being outright insulted? That's nice.

Charisma:
Man, what a bunch of wormy little cretins.

Not going to win many arguments like this, are you?

Cocamaster:

EchetusXe:
Obviously the former, if it was the latter then he would be an idiot. If Obama, Nelson Mandela and the spirit of Gandhi came out and called a press conference to say this film sucked then it wouldn't have any impact on ticket sales. Marketing and word-of-mouth matter more than whatever the critics says.

Aww k'mon! Get serious please! If that happened, people would go see that movie in DROVES to figure why they hate it so much.

Do you honestly believe that a movie endored by these people would NOT be affected in the box office?

You're thinking of when the Catholic Church says a movie is blasphemous.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 . . . 34 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here