REVIEW: Looper (2012)

When I saw the trailer for this movie, the only thing I had to know to get me HYPED was that it was about a time-travel organization that sends people back to the past so a hitman can shoot them. The fact that it had Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt playing a future and present version of the same person – made problematic by the fact that Willis, the future self, was sent back in time for his past-self, Levitt, to assassinate – was only icing on the cake. It took me many months of waiting for it to come out and many weeks of trying to find free time to see it AND…it’s OK.

Director: Rian Johnson

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis

IMDb

Yeah. Just OK. I really wish I could say this movie was the next masterpiece, and that it would end up on my year’s Top 10 List, but Looper is sadly just a solid movie, with some pros weighed out by some cons.

I like the atmosphere this movie has – the whole dystopian future with tropes of the Wild West and the 1940s mob era. It’s seriously cool, and done subtly enough so that it doesn’t feel like a cartoon like Repo or Sin City, so everything does have a very gritty and hard-assed feel to it that doesn’t come off as contrived. Maybe this grimy, crime-ridden hellhole of a future is a little too over the top dark at points, but mostly I got used to it ten minutes in and accepted the setting as naturally dark and seedy. I always hate when movies act like the future will be inevitably shittier than today’s world – it’s fear-mongering crap and lazy writing to boot, but Looper pulls it off fairly well.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is one of the greatest actors working today, only lately he just hasn’t been picking parts that show that talent. He was pretty annoying in The Dark Knight Rises and in this he does OK, but really I think director Rian Johnson was more focused on getting a good Bruce Willis impression out of him rather than a good performance. Still pretty fun to watch, even though it’s kind of like watching a kid dressing up as his favorite movie star for Halloween.

The plot about time-travel assassins and a more efficient way to dispose of bodies is really cool, and had a lot of potential. For a while it’s very well done, and bright spots pop up until the very end of the film, but overall it’s kind of baggy and unfocused. The first half hour is set in the grungy, dirty city and focuses on Levitt’s everyday life, and we learn some stuff about the organization of “loopers” that kill people sent from the future. It’s a lot to buy, but eh, at least it’s interesting a little bit…and there’s some stuff about ‘psychic’ kids who can do minor telekinesis stuff.

After Willis is introduced, it basically becomes a different movie. I mean it’s like night and day…suddenly we see a whole future for Levitt’s character in which he grows up into Bruce Willis and gets married to a beautiful woman, who is accidentally killed when the “looper” organization comes to call for him. So he escapes and runs back to the past to kill the kingpin who ordered him captured in the first place, thinking if he can do that, then his wife won’t be killed. Unfortunately, in Levitt’s time period, all the people who might be the kingpin called the Rainmaker are little children, and so we get a bunch of scenes of child murder in the middle of the movie. Bet you didn’t expect that!

After that we get introduced to some other characters, namely a mother and her son living on a farm in the middle of nowhere, of which the son is one of the kids Willis is hunting. Levitt hides out with them aiming to protect them and kill Willis when he shows up. We get some decent character development, a few commercial scenes like Levitt and the woman having sex, and some scenes to show how the child is psychic and can’t control it yet. It’s all pretty standard stuff for a set-up like this, and is done rather well, though I would have liked something a little less mainstream-y. Oh well.

The climax is pretty good, although it gets pretty pretentious as well, but the whole movie kind of was anyway, with lots of very self-indulgent camerawork and the whole thing being rather into itself. The pretension does make this a grander, more epic film than it would have been otherwise, but I wish the movie itself had been stronger to compensate that.

Overall I think this was more suited to be a three or four-part TV special on HBO or something rather than a feature film, as it just feels disjointed and cluttered and ultimately too long, even at only two hours – there have been longer movies this year by far, but Looper just kind of drags, with a few pointless characters and over-long scenes not aiding that fact. I have no qualms with the story or characters except that they could have been serviced with a better movie to make their depth more apparent – here we mostly just get a straightforward and frankly dull approach that neuters what complexity there could have been with a plot like this. Looper is entertaining, but it’s entertaining mostly in spite of itself, and for a better Rian Johnson-directed flick starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, I’d recommend Brick.

Image copyright of its original owner.

The Expendables 2 (2012)

Starring: Sylvester Stallone, almost everyone else who survived the first movie except for Mickey Rourke for some reason, plus more

Director: Mark Price

IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1764651/

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expendables_2

It is action time again! The Expendables are back, this time to take on a terrorist who is threatening to unleash a whole bunch of platinum on the world. Can they stop him?! Well, the villain is played by Jean-Claude Van Damme, so probably...OR WILL THEY...?!!!

This movie basically gives you what you want and more. It opens up with a great action sequence and carries on with a lot of back and forth between the characters. Not really much more I can add to that, to be honest. Oh yeah, it also has a climax with Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger all firing guns at the bad guys. That right there is worth the price of admission!

If I had to name two problems with this film, it would be these:

First of all, the plot. It is not a bad plot per se. It is just that the first film had them taking out a dictator of a small country, while in this one they are up against a terrorist played by a guy who has not had a good movie since...umm...wait...has Van Damme ever had a good movie?! By the way, the name of his character is Vilain. Get it? Because he is the villain?! Haha, that is so cleaver. Anyway, kind of a minor difference, but its just doesn't seem like the stakes are quite as high and makes it so that the middle drags a bit.

Secondly...the in-jokes. You know how in the first film they had the (awesome) scene with Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger and they made a joke about the last guy wanting to be president (yeah, do not see that happening anytime soon, Arnold). That was fine and it worked well. But in this movie, they are FLOODED with in-jokes! By my own count, there are at least one Die Hard, one Rambo, and three Terminator references. Oh yeah, Chuck Norris is in this as well. Well, there is no way that they will make a joke about...they did, didn't they? You know how in the scene from the first one where Willis asks the other two if they "are done [verbally] sucking each other's dicks?"? Apparently they were not.

But you know what? I don't care. That is the point of the whole franchise! It is a tribute to action movies, with all their awesomeness and cheesiness rolled into one! I admit, even when the in-jokes did get kind of annoying, I still laughed at them. So if that is what they want to do...go for it!

Overall, this movie does not quite match up to its predecessor, but as far as squeals go, its pretty cool. So if you liked the first one, you'll probably like this one as well. I recommend it.

P.S. I know I spent a lot of time making complaints about this one, but to be honest, this has more to do with the fact that I am writing this about a month after I was suppose to post it. So do not take it the wrong way.

I do not own the rights to these images or links. They belong to their respective owners and are being used for entertainment purposes only. Please do not sue me.

Review: Cop Out (2010) TH

Oh, buddy, more coppers

Brooklyn police detectives Jimmy (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracy Morgan) have been together as partners for the NYPD for 9 years, until they get suspended for 30 days without pay as per a botched sting operation involving Mexican drug dealers, excessive force and now an unusable informant. Jimmy's daughter is getting married and instead of letting his ex-wife's wealthy, condescending husband Roy (Jason Lee) foot the bill, he volunteers despite having no income for the next month and nothing to his name besides a very expensive, one-of-a-kind Andy Pafko baseball card.

This jumps over to a subplot that ties into the very reason they got suspended when the card gets stolen. They dodge giving information to the arch rival detectives Mangold and Hunsaker--who are constantly give them sarcastic flack for being screw ups--and decide to follow up the leads on their own. After getting some information off an effeminate cat burglar, who doesn't know when to shut up, they end up at the crib of the Catholic, murdering-dudes-left-and-right gang leader named Poh Boy who's got a posse that's armed to the teeth like a bunch of modern outlaw bandidos. The intimidating and potentially loco man named after a sandwich negotiates a deal that if they can get back his Mercedes Benz from some elusive guys who stole it then he'll hand over the card. Though a simple transaction turns into a fiasco that involves a growing list of illegal activities that these honest cops can't look the other way on.

"Cop Out" is a from-one-thing-to-another type movie, where the plot is loose and the players throw out some banter for the meantime. Problem is the story isn't note worthy and on top of that the chemistry between Willis and Morgan feels hit and miss, not to mention they frequently jump in and out of character. Ana de la Reguera as Gabriela is cute and likable, and the gang leader, played by Guillermo Diaz, is brutal to the point of exaggeration but also brings a certain on-screen presence just to see his next move. This isn't just a basic movie, it's a movie that doesn't hold that much power over its audience: they don't capitalize on what to root for, they don't take advantage of relating factors, there's nothing of value to polish with upkeep, light on mystery, small surprises, nothing to learn and repeat, little on growth, not as big on action and this produces superficial rewards--exhales. The one thing it does have is some nostalgia going on: '80s synthesizer music mixed with other radio hits, as well as more references to other movies than one can count. It plays on the cult, but doesn't produce a following itself.

This is purposely derivative and what makes it trip over its own shoelaces is it never fully crosses back over to walk with its own gait. "Lethal Weapon" and "Rush Hour" played on the tried-and-true and had their cliches as well, but still added some other elements to make the experience have their own distinctions to go back to. This is the second chance I've given this--being a fan of some of Kevin Smith and Bruce Willis' work--with the first time being okay if nothing special, but on the second time the slap stick jokes wear thin and have a shelf life of one time use with some currently having a stale taste as is. After awhile "Cop Out" feels like it's dragging through the mud as what's displayed isn't producing anything that's exceptional, even by simple escapism standards. For shame.

Director: Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Zack and Miri Make a Porno)
Starring: Bruce Willis, Tracy Morgan, Guillermo Diaz, Ana de la Reguera, Jason Lee, Kevin Pollak, Michelle Trachtenberg
Website: IMDB

REVIEW: Sin City (2005)

Director: Frank Miller

Starring: Bruce Willis, Jessica Alba, Mickey Rourke, Clive Owens

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401792/

"Turn the right corner in Sin City and you can find anything...anything."

In the early 2000s, Frank Miller created an epic masterpiece where he takes the rules of reality and just…makes them better. This is a world where everyone is immune to gunshots and where bombs only blow you away like a gust of wind would, but being slapped can send you flying across the room. This is a world where Mickey Rourke’s chin is so large that even Bruce Campbell would balk. This is a world where every woman is a hooker, no matter what, unless she’s under 18, and where there’s actually a whole city just ruled by hookers. This is a world where monologues eclipse the sun and make everything black and white, except for blood and the saucy blonde hair of beautiful women. This is the world of…Sin City.

Yes, everyone knows this one. It’s stupid as hell, but doesn’t really try and pretend to be anything else. This is just pure over the top delight. There’s nothing subtle or artful about the way this is executed. It’s just pure entertainment. The whole thing is an amalgam of old noir-style clichés and crazy comic book violence. Frank Miller’s dialogue is scientifically proven to be 70% or higher narrations, and those are just corny as hell. Sentence fragments. He uses them. Explicitly. Without pause. All the time. Getting shorter. Losing point. But still sounding awesome. Too much? Maybe.

The story is actually an intertwining, connected set of tales all revolving in the charming land where color lenses don’t work on the cameras, Sin City. One of them involves Bruce Willis trying to save a young girl from a rich guy who is actually a rapist and whose father runs the city. Another involves Mickey Rourke trying to avenge a prostitute’s death and getting caught in a web of conspiracy that involves a cannibal played by Elijah Wood – most apt casting in the movie? Debatable. The third involves Clive Owen defending another prostitute but getting caught up in more corruption.

So…yeah, they’re all pretty much about the same stuff. But somehow the movie makes this work to its advantage, whether it be by virtue of the great characters, the strong acting or the compelling, fast-moving plots. As silly as this can get, it keeps you hooked like a fish on a line. You won’t be able to quit watching this. Perhaps it’s the style that Miller uses, which is overwrought and gimmicky with the black and white and tons of really fast, comic-book-style action scenes, but is actually a lot of fun and makes the movie stand out in the end.

The characters are overblown and exaggerated – seriously; Mickey Rourke plays a guy willing to risk his life because a hooker was nice to him. I don’t know why, but this one in particular just bugs me. He’s really goofy, I guess you could say – like a caricature of a caricature of a film noir. Even in this movie’s comic-book mentality world, I still think he’s the most overblown. It’s not bad or anything, it’s just…really funny to me for some reason. Everything he says, every expression on his face and everything he does is just ridiculous. Bruce Willis, on the other hand, is pretty damn awesome, and gives a really passionate, engaging performance. Clive Owens is probably the least remarkable of the three, but he holds his own remarkably well anyway.

The stories are told with some real zeal and energy, and they all pack a lot of epic, gripping punch that will keep you on the edge of your seat, even excusing the retarded moments. Of which there are several – like how about the scene where the Yellow Bastard has Bruce Willis naked and in a hangman’s noose, about to die. The first dumb moment comes when he’s left hanging and somehow survives and is able to cut himself loose somehow, all without damaging any of his breathing tubes or cutting off his circulation in the least. He’s trying to save Jessica Simpson from that yellow weirdo, and so he has to get in the car and chase after them. Before doing so, he puts on all of his clothes, which probably takes up a lot of time he could have used to be saving her…I know it’s wintertime outside, but seriously, all he talks about is saving her, and he’s not really the type of character who would be affected by the cold. So it doesn’t make a lot of sense. But I’m just nitpicking now.

Other silly moments include the fact that there is indeed a city of hookers in this movie. A city of hookers; you read that correctly. Might as well just make a hooker amusement park; why not go all the way? I think it would draw in plenty of good profits from the residents of this crazy world. But seriously, Frank Miller’s obsession with making every woman a prostitute just baffles me. I don’t even know what to say about it. Why does he keep doing it? There’s maybe one female lead character in this entire movie who isn’t one, and yet she wears even less clothes than the prostitutes themselves do.

I know I’m making fun of this movie a lot, but…honestly, that’s part of the enjoyment in this. It’s a very corny, exaggerated film that just keeps on delivering, never flinching for a second even when delivering some seriously implausible stunt – like Bruce Willis getting shot 10 or 11 times and surviving while other guys get shot once or twice and die instantly without a chance of living at all. Sin City is just that kind of movie. If you liked The Crow, this is like that, except ten times wilder. If you liked Kick-Ass, well, this is the pre-cursor to that one.

It’s like the yin-yang of action movies. For everything stupid or silly about this, there’s always something endearing and awesome combating it from the other side, and it ends up a very even, enjoyable ride, with the silly parts balanced out by how well everything is done to come out as quite an engaging, ass-kicking ride. Sin City rules.

REVIEW: The Sixth Sense (1999)

Director: M. Night Shyamalan

Starring: STUTTERING STANLEY!

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167404/

“STUTTERING STANLEY! STUTTERING STANLEY!”

-Cole

What can you say about M. Night Shyamalan? Well, lots of derogatory things. But what about the movies he made that were actually not all out terrible as opposed to just…hollow, and without much feeling that isn’t sappy melodrama? That’s right. This is The Sixth Sense.

The film starts out with Bruce Willis and his wife celebrating an award the mayor gave him for being a great psychologist. They go upstairs to have hot steaming sex and decidedly do NOT notice the crazy man in his underwear standing in their bathroom waiting for them. That’s a real buzzkill on the sexual tension, guy. Don’t you have any tact? Next time wait till AFTER they’re done ravaging each other to go nuts. It’s just proper manners and all.

So yeah, this is apparently one of Willis’ old patients who feels like Willis didn’t help him at all and maybe even made his problems worse. He says everyone calls him a freak. He pulls out a gun from God knows where – he’s only wearing his underwear, remember; so I don’t know if I want to think about where it was before…and then he shoots Willis straight in the chest, not even giving him one chance to say anything. He then shoots himself as the camera fades to black…to “the next fall.”

We then see Willis sitting outside this house on a breezy autumn day right out of any given commercial. Haley Joel Osment comes out and runs down the street, with Willis in hot pursuit. He goes into a church to play with his toys, because that’s where you always went to play when you were a kid, right? I remember I used the holy water to make a flood on my GI Joes. And in the confessionals we played hide and seek. Oh the fun times I had.

"Don't you mess with the action figures. My Macaulay Culkin-esque demeanor does NOT approve!"

So yeah, this is Cole, one of Willis’ new patients apparently, who likes to follow him wherever he goes and try to get him to talk about his feelings. They have some conversations and Willis even comes back again the next day at Cole’s house, where Cole just doesn’t want to talk. Willis tells Cole that if he can guess what Cole is thinking, then Cole has to take steps forward until he’s sitting in the chair opposite Willis. Of course, Cole goes along with it, even though everything Willis asks seems to be pretty specific. I think in reality this question-and-answer exchange might go a little bit differently:

BRUCE WILLIS: You’re thinking that your mom abandoned you after your father left.

COLE: What are you talking about, wacko? I just got home from school and I want some Cheez-Its. *steps back*

Oh, and the kid also has a watch, which apparently his father gave him before he left. Hmmm…

Well, I guess we know what really happened to it. I’m glad that problem’s solved.

So after that, Cole goes to school again the next day, where his teacher asks the class what the history of the school is. Cole says people got hanged there, and the teacher says that it isn’t true. Cole thinks the teacher is looking at him funny and calls him out on it. Cole starts screaming violently at the guy, shouting “STUTTERING STANLEY, STUTTERING STANLEY!” over and over again. Yeah, apparently that’s what all the kids used to call the teacher when he was a kid. How Cole knows this isn’t yet explained, but it is really funny and probably the only part of this movie that really got a reaction out of me. I mean, it’s just so over the top goofy sounding. He just cups his ears and starts fucking screaming at the poor guy. On top of that, wouldn’t it suck to coincidentally have a name that starts with the same letter that your disability does? That’s just asking for it.

After Stuttering Stanley calls him a freak (is there no other insult in this world but ‘freak’?), Cole is sitting alone waiting for his mom when Bruce Willis comes in again. They have another conversation about Cole’s insecurity and I just have to wonder, how many times are they going to do this? It’s like the movie has such a short attention span that it thinks we wouldn’t get the point if they didn’t CRAM IT IN every five minutes that Willis is trying to help Cole out. We get it. You can do something else now. Oh, so Willis shows Cole a magic trick with a quarter? Big whoop.

So Cole gets invited to this other kid’s birthday party who he apparently doesn’t like. He shows the same trick with the quarter to some other kid, who promptly tells him it’s stupid. Cole is so frustrated at this that he leaves and goes upstairs, where a ghost is rattling around inside a cupboard. These two bullies happen to see him from downstairs, and follow him up there. Because all little kids aside from the main character are little douchenozzles with no human qualities, they lock him inside the cupboard as he screams for his life. Isn’t that just precious? Speaks volumes for the rights and protection of little children everywhere! His mom gets him out but by then he’s already fainted and has to be taken to the hospital.

Now, brace yourselves, audience. You’re about to witness one of the GREATEST…no, no, that won’t work…one of the MOST MEMORABLE…no, no, that isn’t it either…oh, I got it. YOU’RE ABOUT TO WITNESS ONE OF THE MOST OVER-USED POP CULTURE PHRASES OF THE 90S! As Willis comes into the hospital room – does he have any life besides tending to this kid? I mean, I’m glad to see a doctor taking a personal interest in his patients but GEEZ – Cole is lying there and says he’ll finally tell Willis his secret. He says “I see dead people.”

Well so do they, and look how they turned out!

Yup. That’s the big reveal. No big secret behind it, no explanation, no nothing. Just “I see dead people.” And we’re supposed to ACCEPT that, movie? We’re supposed to buy this obvious cop out of cheap writing? You expect me to just lie down and TAKE this?

…well, yeah. Yeah. That is what I’m going to do.

So apparently Cole sees ghosts everywhere and they try to talk to him. He’s afraid of them, so Willis tells him – apparently not questioning this at all or thinking about the repercussions of telling him to keep indulging in his could-be-insane-fantasies – to try and actually help the ghosts next time. The movie, ignoring the fact that this could be a potentially awesome plot for an entire other film, mostly shoves this into the last third of its running time. We see several ghosts roaming his house, including one kid that was shot in the head by his own father and a sick, diseased looking mom that slit her wrists trying to escape her abusive husband. So yeah. Those would make for interesting plotlines, right? These will really give the film the extra edge it needs to forever etch itself inside the viewer’s mind, right?

Too much oatmeal...

No, instead they go ONLY with the little girl whose mother poisoned her until she died, which I have to say is a much less interesting plot. What kind of fucked up parent would do that? Why? Well, I looked on the Wikipedia page for this movie and it claimed that this is actually a form of child abuse called Munchausen syndrome by proxy. How did Shyamalan know enough about this disease to include it in his movie? My guess is he spent a day looking through medical textbooks for some obscure disease that nobody in the mainstream would know about. But at least somebody’s being creative…not like you’d see that from him again in the future too much.

Then in the car later he tells his mom that he can see ghosts, citing that his grandmother comes to visit him all the time from beyond the grave and tells him that she’s proud of his mother every day. This provokes an extremely sappy and overdone scene that mostly makes me roll my eyes and tap my feet on the floor waiting for it to end.

Meanwhile, while that’s going on we get Willis’ side of the story. Apparently his wife doesn’t like the person he’s become after he got shot in the beginning of the film. Gee. I wonder why that is? It couldn’t possibly be because he’s been spending every waking moment with a little kid who claims to see ghosts, could it? Maybe she wouldn’t cheat on you if you actually gave her the time of day! Maybe if you…oh, wait, I’m sorry, we have a big stupid plot twist interrupting: HE’S BEEN DEAD THE WHOLE TIME AND HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT IT! Through a montage of scenes we already saw in the movie, Shyamalan guides us safely through this whole thing without any confusion at all. Because, as the viewers, we are far too stupid to figure it out for ourselves. Aw. How nice of him.

So yeah, The Sixth Sense; it’s pretty much lame and yet everyone loves it for some reason. Admittedly, this is a lot better than most of the bullshit I review on this blog. It’s decently acted, the story is told OK and the recurring themes and elements are well done for a pop film intended for wide audiences. It might not be the most intelligent or the most emotional film out there, and it doesn't delve as much into Cole's psyche and problems as I would have liked, but I can at least kind of see why people like it so much. Even if I think it’s pretty boring and silly. But enough of that shit. It’s time to review the Cube movies.

AHHHHHHHH!

My Theater Experience With The Expendables (2010)

First, I would like to introduce you to a new segment called Looking at some Trailers. Which I will find a better name for eventually, but for now, bear with me. Here are some of the movies showed in the previews for The Expendables, and what I thought of them based on the trailers:

Buried

Oh, hell yeah, this looks awesome. I mean, what more could I ask for out of a movie? A race against time, a dark, claustrophobic motif, and characters distressed and not knowing what to do. Just pure bliss for a thriller fiend like myself. I feed off things like this, and seeing a new one really gets my blood boiling. Will definitely be seeing this on opening night.

The Town

This sent chills down my spine. First of all, directed by the guy who made Gone Baby Gone? Sign me up! But it just looks really cool. The espionage, the dreary, drab settings, the off kilter and creepy Halloween masks…this just looks like a really cool movie. I can assure you this will be on many top 10s for the year, and I’ll review another horrible Japanese horror remake if I’m wrong!

…please, please don’t let me be wrong…

The Green Hornet

Alright, somebody needs to fire Seth Rogen’s agent. What’s the deal with this guy? Can’t he ever appear in a movie that is an actual film, and not just some cheap-ass bucket of “awkward” laughs and hammy acting? It’s insufferable. Also, “let’s act like villains so nobody knows we’re the real heroes”? That’s retarded, get this off my screen and never bring it back. Phew.

There were also trailers of The Last Exorcism, which looks so lame that I’d rather bash my head against a wall seven times than watch it, and SAW 3D, which if anyone thinks it’s really the end of the franchise, you need to get a reality check. But I’m not going to post those trailers, because I’m better than that, and this segment is going on too damn long already.

So, without further ado…drum roll please…THE EXPENDABLES, directed by Sylvester Stallone and starring more people than you can count!

Yes, this was all set up to be the action movie extravaganza of the summer, and did it live up to those expectations? Well, let’s just say it had an unfair disadvantage. But it’s still a hell of a ride. This movie is so jam packed with explosions and so completely action packed that your head will just about explode even just thinking about it! Of course the main draw was all the big names. I mean, they got Bruce Willis, they got Jason Statham, they got Jet Li, they got Mickey Rourke, they even got Arnold Schwarzenegger. Arnold Schwarzenegger, back on the silver screen at last! What a treat.

I’ll just go ahead and tell you that the best scene of this movie is sadly one of the shortest, and it’s where Schwarzenegger, Willis and Stallone meet in a church. Willis does his typical latter-day role where he plays an almost mobster-like character who keeps in the shadows and intimidates through words rather than through guns and punching people like in the old days. Schwarzenegger is a pompous older mercenary who doesn’t have time to help out Willis’ cause, and it results in one of the best lines in the movie – I won’t even spoil it for you, it’s that good. This scene is just great. Seeing all three of these huge icons on screen together even for a few minutes is a ton of fun.

But the rest of the movie doesn’t slack off too much, either. The plot is pretty simple – a bunch of ragtag, weathered mercenaries are hired to go take down a governor in South America (who is played by Angel from Dexter…). One of them, Lee (Jason Statham), is having troubles with his girlfriend. Which means…he finds out she cheated on him because she didn’t know what he did at work even though they had been living together for a year and a half. Got that? Good, because it doesn’t come up very much again, even if they do try to shoehorn in a positive message about how he’s trying to find himself. It doesn’t really take any kind of precedence over the main story with Stallone, though. Speaking of Stallone, he’s trying to fight his way to save a pretty girl who he got the hots for the second he saw her. A noble cause, and I will ignore the clichéd nature…sometimes that’s just what you need after a long day’s work.

And the explosions, oh, man, the explosions. They’re all over the place here. They’re so abundant that by the end they’re even happening on top of one another; it’s flat out ridiculous. But it’s also really awesome. It’s like Stallone just went, “Hmm, we need explosions in action movies. Okay, put in about fifty times the usual amount. That ought to do it.” I love every second of it.

If I had to pick out any real problems with it, it’s not so much about what the movie did wrong, but more about what it could have been. This movie is a lot of fun, but with the pedigrees of acting involved, it should have been a real epic as opposed to a short, quick film like this. This should have blown us away and given us a transcendent work of action masterclass. But the fact that it did not really live up to our expectations doesn’t mean much, because this is still a pretty solid film.

The Expendables uses a lot of action movie clichés, but it never actually feels dated or trite for all that, and its quick, snappy pacing and huge doses of explosive fun are really enjoyable. It’s clear that Stallone really loves action movies (and I would hope he does a lot, for what he does for a living), and I really enjoy the earnest, balls-out way The Expendables executed its foray of action-packed goodies. It’s an action fan’s action movie. I can’t picture any fan of the genre hating it. This is Stallone’s latest contribution to the genre he loves, and if you want an explosion-filled action flick, I can recommend this with no caveats.