Reviews

The Expendables 3

3

The least expendable Expendables so far…

Back in 1985, much fuss was made over Rambo: First Blood Part II’s kill count of 69. Rambo III (1988) upped the ante to 132, Rambo IV (2008) clocked 236. Add those three figures together and you might, just might, get close to the number of body bags ordered up by Sylvester Stallone and his team of muscles-on-wrinkles lunkheads in The Expendables 3. The 12A certificate is explained by a curious absence of blood: ‘frequent moderate violence’ is how the BBFC describes the ceaseless carnage.

Kicking off with the rescue of ex-Expendable Doctor Death (Wesley Snipes) after eight years spent in Russian clutches with access to neither scissors or razor, this third instalment of Stallone’s geri-action franchise serves up an armoured prison train, choppers, planes, speedboats, tankers, trucks, jeeps, missiles, guns and knives to make Crocodile Dundee wee himself in its first 15 minutes. Everything explodes, Caesar (Terry Crews) winds up in critical care and the target of the mission, arms dealer Conrad Stonebanks (Mel Gibson), flees unscathed.

Retiring his team for their own protection, Barney (Stallone) then zips across America and Mexico to gather a younger, even dumber team (Ronda Rousey, Kellan Lutz, Ortiz, Glen Powell) with the help of Kelsey Grammar’s grizzly Bonaparte. Also signing on is Antonio Banderas’ eccentric Galgo, his verbal diarrhoea driving everyone mad – most of all viewers. New guys and gal in place, a 36-hour window opens up to take down Stonebanks in Bucharest…

While the new team members fail to make much of an impression and Snipes, after his big introduction, is quickly forgotten, The Expendables 3 marks a sizeable improvement on the first two outings. Director Patrick Hughes (who made polished action-western Red Hill) brings bigger and slicker set-pieces, the zingers are, well, zing-ier (“It’s a great plan… if it was 1985”) and the self-mockery scathes, with digs made at Snipes’ tax evasion, Stallone’s stroke and, most dangerous of all, Jason Statham’s accent.

And if the cast is now too big to handle (the old team inevitably get back in on the action, allowing for much dick-waving between whippersnappers and grandpas) then Schwarzenegger at least has fun popping up to fire big guns, chomp bigger cigars and bark “Get to da choppa!” Harrison Ford’s operations officer Max Drummer, meanwhile, is a good deal more engaged, in every way, than Bruce Willis’ Church.

And what of Mad Mel? Well, he steals the show. If you locked Max, Riggs and the hand puppet from The Beaver in a cell for 24 hours, only Stonebanks would walk out. Whether Gibson can ever again play a hero is debatable, but everyone can agree he’s a great villain.

Verdict:

More sure-footed than Expendables 1 and 2, and considerably more pumped up – it pauses for neither breath nor a change of colostomy bag. Dumb fun.

Film Details

User Reviews

    • matthewbrady

      Aug 5th 2014, 2:48

      3

      "I'm the knife before Christmas". The expendables are back and you still can't understand what there saying, but this time they are out for blood. With The Expendables as targets, Ross brings in some new blood - mixing old-school muscles with modern tactics and technology. He's hoping this one-two punch will be enough to bring Stone banks down... for good. The CG in this movie looks awful just like in the other expendables movies, The writing once again is bad and the story does make scenes. But this movie has a cool villain played by Mel Gibson who is playing himself, and Wesley Snipes and Antonio Banderas are the best parts in this movie, the action is so cool and so and well shout this time not like in the other films when the camera does keep still. I noticed something during the action and that is there is no blood, yeah, no blood... uh a bit strange because bad guys in the film are mostly getting they body parts blown off or they get shout at and still no blood.

      Alert a moderator

    • burpreynolds

      Aug 5th 2014, 8:50

      2

      The only thing TF got right was Gibson. With all his "previous", I almost forgot that he's a decent actor. But it was even more noticeable against this procession of "wooden tops". Stallone can't talk properly, Statham is a thumb headed, action monkey, with all the acting chops of flat pack furniture. But you can't blame him, as he has nothing to work with in either quips or fights. Lundgren does nothing. I mean I forgot he was in it at one point. Crews is under used. But it hardly matters. Snipes is terrible (other than the afore mentioned tax evasion quip). And Ford is woeful. "Looks like you gotta tank problem!" Really? That's your quip? It kind of made me wish they'd kept the DNA from the cast of Dad's Army, as they would have provided more warmth and heart. Also they ditched the digital blood for err no blood. Odd. My last two points go first with "new team". Dear Lord, they made the rescue team from Rambo seem complex. Cardboard cut outs with nothing to do. Rubbish. And finally Banderas. Oh dear. What in the wild world of action, is he doing in this film? I sat there watching Banderas trying to get a grasp on what he was up to. Gurning, jumping round. Flirting with a woman as though he wasn't old enough to be her dad. And then I got it. He's type cast as Puss In Boots! Once this dawned on me, I didn't have a care in the world! Oh and Arnie turns up (which was actually amusing) with Jet Li. Some will argue that you just "leave your brain at home" for these type of films. Which only stretches so far. You still need to be entertained with a level of cohesion that these stars once had in their heyday. Gibson aside, time to finally hang up their guns

      Alert a moderator

    • burpreynolds

      Aug 5th 2014, 9:41

      5

      "Film of the Year!" 5 Stars

      Alert a moderator

    • jonezora

      Aug 6th 2014, 4:48

      5

      m­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­y­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ n­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­g­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r'­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­in-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­law ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­makes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$86 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­hourly ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­She ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­has ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­been ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­without ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­work for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­six ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­months ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­but ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­last ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­month ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­her ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­income ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­was ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$19941 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­just ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­working ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­fe­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­w ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ho­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­urs. vi­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­sit ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­si­­­­­­te­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W­W­W.P­a­y­r­a­­p.C­o­­­m

      Alert a moderator

    • jonezora

      Aug 6th 2014, 8:50

      my best friend's sister makes $64 every hour on the laptop . She has been out of a job for eight months but last month her check was $12781 just working on the laptop for a few hours. check this site.............. P­a­y­r­a­­p.C­o­­­m

      Alert a moderator

    • garyu2

      Aug 6th 2014, 19:38

      matthewbrady. Why did your post begin with a basic plot synopsis then blend seamlessly into a critical review? You pitching for a job at Total Film?

      Alert a moderator

    • garyu2

      Aug 6th 2014, 19:42

      2

      I haven't seen this movie but I am going to for the old 2 star review. Cool posters, c**p film. About right yeah? Also, my dog's cousin (who is a cat) makes $2 a year AT HOME!! Check out this s**te... I mean, site... Payrap.c*m

      Alert a moderator

    • burpreynolds

      Aug 7th 2014, 9:31

      I don't think I'll be commenting on films from now on. First time I've bothered, but I'm far more interested in TF's avalanche of Spam they continuously get. Considering how constant it is, I'd like to think there really is a cool job on "a laptop". I'm also intrigued by the specific sum of $12781. Or $19941? There is some "Nicholas Cage" esque specifics here. Hmmm...

      Alert a moderator

    • bosshog

      Aug 8th 2014, 8:35

      5

      This was one of the most fun movies of the year. far better than 1&2 not impressed with the totals review at all it had no detail you got some of the biggest names in one movie that your ever see and you skim over it like they mean nothing. tand whats with the body count? dio you count bodies in captin america and evengers or iron man or king kong . staright away that gives the wrong impression of the movies and what its about. as for antonio he was so funny in this movie he is first class its worth watching just to see him. . the ammount of big names acting of eachother is something people have craved for years and yet peope want to attack this actors for it. hats of to stallone for doin these movies . whats the difference between these and the superhero movies the difference is these are more real and more fun. everything else is the same kicking a*s qips and wild stories . its sad that your no longer a action hero unless you stick on a cape. The expendibles are real men they dont need capes and shields. The most important thing about a non series movie is was it fun. did it entertain you. the answer with this film is a big massive YES . it was a lot of fun and very entertaining. the end battle scenes were as good as anything. the new younger recruits add some dimension to the gang. antonio provides the comedy. mel provides the acting chops. and ford provides the stature. while the rest provide the muscle., what more do movie goers want? This film is entertaining fun.

      Alert a moderator

    • burpreynolds

      Aug 8th 2014, 9:22

      @bosshog What a brilliant review! You are either: 1. Seven years old 2. One of the six Production Companies involved 3. One of the twenty Distributors involved 4. One of the nineteen Producers involved 5. Sylvester Stallone 6. Or a cretin

      Alert a moderator

    • bosshog

      Aug 8th 2014, 11:40

      @burpreynolds That wasn't a review if you had a brain you might know that. your a internet troll and probably a bitter old man my advice to you is have a deep look at your life and change it rather than going on sites attacking people who have more talent in their nose hair than you have in your soul if you have one. your review stinks of self loathing. i sugest you seek help people like you shouldn't be commenting on movies as you who have no unbiased judgment no insight , it seems the hobbit movie is missing one of there trolls. I appreciate a movie for what its worth. movies are meant to be entertaining if you dont understand that you should not be commenting. This movie was fun i,ll take a good time at the cinema over the hyped up sillyness and disapointing junk that hollywood gives out on a weekly basis anyday. if you dont like it dont watch it. but you didn't even understand antonio's character which says a lot for intelligence.

      Alert a moderator

    • Jaffa

      Aug 8th 2014, 16:34

      4

      This film is not a smart, deep or thoughtful film. it's a summer action movie, and one that stands apart from the CGI saturated crowd with some jaw-dropping stunts and one of the most relentless action set-piece finales i've ever seen. I think i'm just bored of marvel movies. They all look and feel the same tonally, using the same formula just replacing one costumed hero for another. At least the stupid loud action in Expendables is mostly practical. I really dont think there's much enjoyment or tension in seeing a clearly animated Chris Evans take down an animated hover air craft carrier thing. So marvel films routinely average 4 star reviews, I say why not Expenables 3?

      Alert a moderator

    • burpreynolds

      Aug 8th 2014, 16:47

      @bosshog How am I a troll because your appreciation of this film is poor? So are all the people on Rotten Tomatoes and the Guardian's reviewer a troll too? I'm 42 and appreciate all of these actors in their previous roles to these films. Now do tell me, does that sound like a troll or someone who genuinely recognises that Stallone won an Oscar for Rocky? Is it a troll that thinks Commando is a marvellous but also silly film? So go on, show me this talent you speak of. Because it isn't understanding how poor these films are. Because a clever person would know that these films are an attempt to bring back the glory days. And failing. It doesn't make me a troll because I recognise the failings in the film. It makes me someone who appreciates the best and recognises the worst in film. I would suggest that you actually appreciate why these actors made "great popcorn films". Because these films aren't it. They are cynical, and poorly made, efforts to reignite careers that could bow out with some element of respect. So you think I don't appreciate a film for what it's worth? Well I appreciated The Raid Redemption and Raid 2 far more than these films. Both "fun" films. If I'm wrong okay. But don't tell me I am until you've corrected every person for having the same view point. (And that's a lot of people). A troll indeed! The very nerve!

      Alert a moderator

    • Xoanon

      Aug 9th 2014, 4:39

      2

      Grammer is hilarious, Gibson is badass, Jet Li is -- once again, for some bizarre reason -- woefully absent. WTF?! Instead we get three annoying, unknown young uns who are utterly one-dimensional, and have no place in this series of (mostly) legendary action heroes. What a terrible mistake that is. The mayhem is ramped up, yes, but the actual combat and violence is clearly edited for its original PG-13 rating, coupled with the final "epic" showdown being over with in a matter of moments after a bunch of b***hslapping. The most disappointing part of the franchise so far, for sure. Even an R rating wouldn't have helped this.

      Alert a moderator

    • rafaelmmurray

      Aug 10th 2014, 19:24

      m­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­y­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ n­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­g­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r'­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­in-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­law ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­makes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$86 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­hourly ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­She ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­has ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­been ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­without ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­work for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­six months ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­but ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­last ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­month ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­her ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­income ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­was ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$19941 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­just ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­working ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­fe­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­w ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ho­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­urs. vi­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­sit t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­si­­­­­­te­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W­W­W.M­u­m­j­o­b.C­o­­­m

      Alert a moderator

    • rafaelmmurray

      Aug 10th 2014, 19:25

      m­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­y­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ n­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­g­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­b­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­o­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r'­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­i­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­s­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­r­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­in-­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­law ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­makes ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$86 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­hourly ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­She ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­has ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­been ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­without ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­work for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­six months ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­but ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­last ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­month ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­her ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­income ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­was ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­$19941 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­just ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­working ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­on ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­computer ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­for ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­a ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­fe­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­w ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ho­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­urs. vi­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­sit t­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­h­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­e ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­si­­­­­­te­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> W­W­W.M­u­m­j­o­b.C­o­­­m

      Alert a moderator