Escape to the Movies: The Expendables

[MB202]

Just so I'm clear, I hate how MovieBob praises movie for the hot woman in them. It's like the whole review stops just so he can ogle the women in that movie, and to me that makes him look stupid in the process. He's supposed to be this intelligent guy who looks into stuff too much for a live, but here...

...Also, what does DoA stand for, again?

Dead or Alive. It's a series of fighting games that was infamous back when dinosaurs ruled the earth for being one of the first with jiggle physics. Hilariously bad jiggle physics. Over time, that's become the defining trait of the series, so the film being nothing more than scantily clad women fighting one another somehow seems like an apt adaptation, if more than a bit exploitative.

Oh THAT game... Ugh... 9_9

I mean, geez, right? I mean, I know he's a geek, but does he really have to obsess over boobs THAT much?

 

[Starke]

Just so I'm clear, I hate how MovieBob praises movie for the hot woman in them. It's like the whole review stops just so he can ogle the women in that movie, and to me that makes him look stupid in the process. He's supposed to be this intelligent guy who looks into stuff too much for a live, but here...

...Also, what does DoA stand for, again?

Dead or Alive. It's a series of fighting games that was infamous back when dinosaurs ruled the earth for being one of the first with jiggle physics. Hilariously bad jiggle physics. Over time, that's become the defining trait of the series, so the film being nothing more than scantily clad women fighting one another somehow seems like an apt adaptation, if more than a bit exploitative.

Oh THAT game... Ugh... 9_9

I mean, geez, right? I mean, I know he's a geek, but does he really have to obsess over boobs THAT much?

Fuck, I don't know. I grew out of being obsessed with them about the time I learned I could legally drink alcohol, but seeing as I'm about the same age as Bob?

Anyway, I was hoping you'd be right about his approach to this mess, this week. My cynicism paying off is only a pyrrhic victory at best.

 

[Starke]

Your not being too cynical trust me bob comes across (FHM EVERY MONTH sorry sorry had to...) as some one in dire need of a girlfriend, or at least some one to just hold it for a few minutes.

Which is usually followed by jail time and restraining orders.

On topic, I'm sure there's a detailed and probably very unflattering analysis of Bob's gender politics, I just don't want to be the one to do it because I couldn't take the bile.

Yeah, I mean OK I thought Watchmen was an un-watchable mess but if someone likes it I'm not going to call them out on it. Agree on the Yahtzee front to. His stance on JRPG's I think is hysterical (and in a lot of cases spot on) but I still enjoy them and would indeed like to sit down and debate over them with him for shits and giggles.

In Watchman's abbreviated defense, the film does manage to drag across a lot of themes about the actual uselessness of superheros in a plausible geopolitical system. These are people who in attempting to make the world a better place have actually made it much much worse. That said, the film misses out on some other critical components like the utter uselessness of violence as a means to problem solving, instead playing more conventionally in that regard. Finally it does suffer from Zack Snyder's style of action cinematography.

At least with Yahtzee he's given his reasons for disliking the JRPG genre a couple of times (mind that the lists don't exactly sync up each time). So it's not just, like this, where there's no explanation.

In fact you could see it that way. Yahtzee; you could sit down and enjoy the hell out of a debate with him and come away feeling you've at the very least had a good conversation. With bob you would sit there and get insulted for five minutes and come away feeling icky.

At the risk of remotely inflating is vacationing ego, Yahtzee's always struck me as a very intelligent individual who isn't adverse to discussion, even if he is highly opinionated. I'm not sure if someone can truly debate him, but I'm pretty sure a discussion wouldn't degenerate into irrational like/hate opinions presented as fact, like what Bob is demonstrating these days.

 

[lead sharp]

Your not being too cynical trust me bob comes across (FHM EVERY MONTH sorry sorry had to...) as some one in dire need of a girlfriend, or at least some one to just hold it for a few minutes.

Which is usually followed by jail time and restraining orders.

On topic, I'm sure there's a detailed and probably very unflattering analysis of Bob's gender politics, I just don't want to be the one to do it because I couldn't take the bile.

Yeah, I mean OK I thought Watchmen was an un-watchable mess but if someone likes it I'm not going to call them out on it. Agree on the Yahtzee front to. His stance on JRPG's I think is hysterical (and in a lot of cases spot on) but I still enjoy them and would indeed like to sit down and debate over them with him for shits and giggles.

In Watchman's abbreviated defense, the film does manage to drag across a lot of themes about the actual uselessness of superheros in a plausible geopolitical system. These are people who in attempting to make the world a better place have actually made it much much worse. That said, the film misses out on some other critical components like the utter uselessness of violence as a means to problem solving, instead playing more conventionally in that regard. Finally it does suffer from Zack Snyder's style of action cinematography.

At least with Yahtzee he's given his reasons for disliking the JRPG genre a couple of times (mind that the lists don't exactly sync up each time). So it's not just, like this, where there's no explanation.

In fact you could see it that way. Yahtzee; you could sit down and enjoy the hell out of a debate with him and come away feeling you've at the very least had a good conversation. With bob you would sit there and get insulted for five minutes and come away feeling icky.

At the risk of remotely inflating is vacationing ego, Yahtzee's always struck me as a very intelligent individual who isn't adverse to discussion, even if he is highly opinionated. I'm not sure if someone can truly debate him, but I'm pretty sure a discussion wouldn't degenerate into irrational like/hate opinions presented as fact, like what Bob is demonstrating these days.

And it would be bloody funny

Ergh don't get me started on Watchmen I blogged about it and that was enough.

I honestly don't like bobs reviews any more and that's not 'feeling insulted' or 'he picked on my fave' film' or 'nerd rage' it's just there kinda sad and have the distinct air of 'mums basement'.

 

[Whytewulf]

I don't understand why it's either Scott Pilgram or Expendables? Guess what I saw em both and liked them both in their own right. Was Scott Pilgram the more adventurous well acted movie. Heck ya.. But doesn't mean, I can't like another movie again.

Just never a fan of people call others out for what they like or if it's popular, calling them sheep. You can critique a movie without critiquing an audience.

 

[MovieBob]

There is a trend B-level horror movie began at some point that is a trend I freaking hate and as you know, is a trend that shows no sign of stopping any time soon.

The basic part of the trend is: a ridiculously hot girl at some point in the movie will show off her ridiculously hot body, usually her exposed breasts. Almost immediately after that happens, the ridiculously hot girl will be killed in the bloodiest manner possible.

I tend to think of this as just the modern horror version of the basic sex/violence conflation that's always been a part of movies in one way or another, though "slasher" films from the late-70s onward unquestionably took things in a more overtly-freudian direction.

Pauline Kael, probably the most famous film critic prior to Siskel & Ebert, once famously summarized both the appeal and the "makeup" of the James Bond movies as "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang;" referring to the series' then-unerring tendency to directly follow romantic/sexual scenes (which, being Bond films, never went further than foreplay) with some sort of action/chase/fight scene. Kael and others theorized that this was, knowingly or not, the real formula for the series' appeal to audiences, men in particular: Get them "worked up" with as much sex as you can get away with, and THEN give them the "release" of a big action scene. In other words, since you can't have what porn calls a "money-shot," you have a GUN SHOT.

From about "Psycho" on, in horror films the metaphor got MUCH more extreme. "Psycho" gave audiences a long and (for the time) revealing sequence of it's leading lady washing-up in the shower... which "climaxes" with her being violently knifed to death. You don't need a psychology degree to "get" the metaphor that's being played with here.

The subsequent Italian "giallo" thrillers and their offspring, the American "slasher" movies took the metaphor one step further, particularly the early "Halloween" and "Friday the 13th" movies. The formula became basically foolproof: "Foreplay," i.e. sex scene and/or attractive nude actress, "penetration," i.e. stabbing or some other violent visual metaphor, and "climax," i.e. blood-splatter etc. Probably not the cinema's proudest or most progressive moment, but certainly effective. Of course, if you actually NOTICE that this psychological-manipulation is going on, the filmmakers generally aren't doing their job

 

[Badger Kyre]

Kael and others theorized that this was, knowingly or not, the real formula for the series' appeal to audiences, men in particular: Get them "worked up" with as much sex as you can get away with, and THEN give them the "release" of a big action scene. In other words, since you can't have what porn calls a "money-shot," you have a GUN SHOT.

From about "Psycho" on, in horror films the metaphor got MUCH more extreme....

I never CONSCIOUSLY realized this, myself, with the exception of the Friday the 13th sequel movies, where I have heard someone else theorize that this represented some kind of puritannical freudian hatred of these people having sex, then getting punished.

What comes to mind is the scene in Chainsaw Massacre 2 ( worked on it here in Austin )- when
Laetherface is uhm, yeah, the chainsaw and Stretch.

It never occurred to me they may very well be mocking a HorrorTrope

 

[theimpsarecoming]

I saw The Expendables with a couple of friends yesterday, and I had to pee due to boredom several times throughout the movie, where i basically sat in the bathroom and read Scot Pilgrim on my phone

 

[katsabas]

I do not want to take any sides in this war cause I haven't seen any of the 2 movies. I have to say however Bob, being a critic and all, should have seen Scott getting thrashed by Stallone. Why? Think about it. Which is the movie you would feel safer going to, while knowing nothing except but the cast? We are still living in a world with no money and Bob sometimes forgets this. Besides, should people like us have gotten used to this by now? Mask Of The Phantasm got stuffed, Kick Ass as well, Fight Club, Hot Fuzz, Shawn Of The Dead, Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth. There are trillions of diamonds in the rough when it comes to movies. Is it really that much of a surprise that people nowadays choose premise over substance? And in the summer, of all times? Duh. Do bears take their shit in the woods?

I feel bad for Pilgrim getting box-office dumped. I really do and I wanna go see it not once but twice if I manage to find the right company. But calling people who like a B movie sheep? I do not get it. I am not that shallow as to judge a person from what kind of movies he likes.

 

[jpwdragon]

Movie bob, your really WRONG.
Firstly, the acting is fine
secondly, the action is friggin awesome
and what were you high on when you said there was no blood THERE WAS HEAPS OF IT, IT WAS ALMOST SAW in the amount of blood. this has lead me to believe that you watched a different film to me or that you think your ABOVE this kind of hilarious action film.
I shall no longer watch you videos
HOW COULD YOU SAY THERE WAS NO BLOOD, DUDE GETS KNIFED IN THE JUGULAR AND BLOOD CAME GUSHING OUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Frankfurter4444]

I tend to think of this as just the modern horror version of the basic sex/violence conflation that's always been a part of movies in one way or another, though "slasher" films from the late-70s onward unquestionably took things in a more overtly-freudian direction.

Pauline Kael, probably the most famous film critic prior to Siskel & Ebert, once famously summarized both the appeal and the "makeup" of the James Bond movies as "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang;" referring to the series' then-unerring tendency to directly follow romantic/sexual scenes (which, being Bond films, never went further than foreplay) with some sort of action/chase/fight scene. Kael and others theorized that this was, knowingly or not, the real formula for the series' appeal to audiences, men in particular: Get them "worked up" with as much sex as you can get away with, and THEN give them the "release" of a big action scene. In other words, since you can't have what porn calls a "money-shot," you have a GUN SHOT.

From about "Psycho" on, in horror films the metaphor got MUCH more extreme. "Psycho" gave audiences a long and (for the time) revealing sequence of it's leading lady washing-up in the shower... which "climaxes" with her being violently knifed to death. You don't need a psychology degree to "get" the metaphor that's being played with here.

I had hoped someone who knew more about this subject that I did would be able to shed some light on it.

I guess I don't really have a problem with the Pauline Kael formula of Foreplay+Release=Money Shot that is being used. The issue I have is more on what B-level horror filmmakers are plugging in to the Release portion of that equation. To put it another way: I find nothing psychologically harmful in a high-speed car chase, but I do find something psychologically harmful is watching a person stabbed to death. Any person!

The Freudian direction would even make sense, however, it really feels like the desired effect is a negative view of the sexuality. Who gets off on something that gory? Honestly. That seems like the kind of "Money Shot" interest that would show up only on people stuck in mental institutions for the criminally insane.

Then again, I could be implying a level of sophistication to B-level horror writing that may not exist. I mean, I don't want to stereotype; but I will say before I stopped watching B-level horror movies, I never saw one with good writing (In order for me to be stereotyping, I would have to say "*All* B-level horror movies have bad writing," but I'll stop just short of that) It appears to me that all the writers care about is the setup for the murdering to begin and everything else, it appears they don't care enough to write about.

To go a step further, I'll say A-level horror writing actually does have good writing, but you know what else? A-level horror movies don't have any of that formulaic garbage where a woman's intestines bloodily fall out of her stomach four seconds after she takes her top off.

What bothers me most is what your closing paragraph said, Bob. This has gone on for almost forty years, it is obvious as hell (to me anyway), and it shows no sign of stopping any time soon. Oh well, there are plenty of other genres of movies I can watch instead.

 

[Withard]

James Nintendonerd is actually a better reviewer of films than Movie Bob. He expresses his opinion without criticizing others opinions.

You could learn from him Bob.

 

[MovieBob]

Who gets off on something that gory?

The Romans. Also the Aztecs, the Mayans, French Revolutionaries and audiences for Mixed Martial Arts tournaments

It's kinda who were are. Run your tongue across the tips of your teeth. Those pointy ones "canines," and they're for ripping flesh off of bones. We're predators, and while the "manifestation" is obviously different in manner and scale for everyone, a little bloodlust is in our, well... blood

In other words, I wouldn't "worry" too much about it the folks who get into it. This stuff has been with us forever, though it's of course nice that we're for the most part done doing it "for real" in the name of entertainment. But, heck, Shakespeare plays threw (real, from animals) blood and guts around the stage - and into the audience - to simulate violence. And then there was the Grand Guignol, which entertained Parisian theatergoers with "realistic" splatterfest horror plays and "staged" tortures/executions from 1897 to 1962: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Guignol

 

[radicaledward92]

Satoshi Kon has died, Satoshi Kon was one of the most creative minds ever to have been brought into this world whose works such as PAPRIKA have been cited as direct inspiration for movies such as INCEPTION, he died of pancreatic cancer surrounded by family in his home....So Woe is us because were in a lot of trouble! So what does that have to do with these types of movies right? Why does it hurt us in the long run....right? BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE have fed the beast, BECAUSE YoU people have inspired Hollywood's marketing department to run with this beefhead formula once again. Right now all the imagination, creativity, and love for the medium is being drained from your mind, BECAUSE YOU PEOPLE get your fix from these movies. Day by day less of you read books, because their not more ACTION ORIENTED, day by day creativity is lost!
An entire generation now exists growing up with a formula that throws imagination and creative storytelling out the window before doubletapping it with a pistol, an entire generation refuses to accept character development, plot lines, storylines! These movies are the ultimate revelation, they can make or break an entire year's worth of output from hollywood, it can decide what it shoves down your throats in terms of propaganda, storytelling, subliminal messaging and woe is us if creativity is thrown out for box office checkouts, woe is us if creativity were to ever die BECAUSE if this ever falls into the wrong hands WHO KNOWS WHAT SHIT WILL BE PEDDLED ONTO US FOR MERE CASH PROFIT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2LXy66ah8I)
So my friends i beg of you, dont let another die, SCOTT PILGRIM was one of a kind, it was experimental, it attempted creativity and originality in a world in which THE A TEAM FORMULA 3 can rip it to shreds at the box office. Sure it may seem as a stupid choice compared to a movie in which things explode in a 30 minute orgy of violence finale that resolves nothing nor gives a proper resolution to THE A TEAM FORMULA 3. JUST REMEMBER. Entire Marketing departments are watching your wallet, attempting to decide whether or not to run with a formula for the rest of the year. Think i'm crazy? Consider how many 3-D movies were being made before AVATAR'S big entrance (which epically failed at the box office this weekend i might add), Now Count each week how many movies are coming out with the 3-D as MARKETING MATERIAL....In Fact where do you think THE AVENGERS came from, DARK KNIGHT was being watched CAREFULLY as most likely this movie was >.>

 

[OceanRunner]

This is more an opinionated rant than a review. He seems to spend more time saying it's bad than explaing why, apart from boring.

 

[Hayate_GT]

In hindsight, it's kinda hilarious how out of proportions this has gone.

Certainly didn't expect this to be taken to over 1000 comments.

me too...well by now its more than 1100... didn't think this would be that big of a deal...oh well in the words of 'anon' from 4chan...'bump'...

 

[AgentLex]

32 pages? And 90% of it are from butthurt people who feel the need tell Bob he's misinterpretated his own opinion?

Honestly, this has nothing to do with them disagreeing with Bobs opinion. This is a group of people who feel they were personally attacked with his "sheep" comment, got offended and needed to voice their disdain in some of the most immature fashion I've ever seen.

To those people I say: grow a pair.

 

[Gyrefalcon]

I new this film would be terrible, anything with Jason Statham is bad in my eyes.

Also it's shame it wasn't the film people wanted I.E haveing all the pre-90s action stars getting together for one big genocide.

I was hoping for exactly the same thing. I saw it getting reviewed on The Daily Show and even then, I wanted to like it, but it didn't look like it was going to measure up. If you want to bring back the old heroes, make them heroes not patsies. Then give it some real spice, good dialogue, and realistic action. This isn't supposed to be the "A-Team" movie after all!

Well, maybe they will try harder on the next action flick. (And really, was it so hard to put those actors into a room and make it a good film?) Ah well, I'm really picky about action flicks anyway.

 

[Frankfurter4444]

Who gets off on something that gory?

The Romans. Also the Aztecs, the Mayans, French Revolutionaries and audiences for Mixed Martial Arts tournaments

Yeah, I gotta give you that one. When I first read your reply, I thought "surely the gladiator events didn't occur at the same time as the wenches were walking about" but then again, any culture who would feed the Christians to lions would probably have no problem feeding naked Christian women to lions. I'm assuming here, I don't actually have any data on this. The sexual style in some of the armor from back then probably lends itself to the belief the line between sex and violence was blurrier back then.

Yeah, we like violence and we like sex. I, myself, enjoy watching both. Just not at the same time. I guess I'll just accept that as a style I personally don't care for. We all have styles we don't personally care for.

A little more thinking on the subject, though (which took me a few days to think up) got me to come up with a compromising solution that could create a slasher movie I would have no problem seeing. Based on the premise "Nazis are universally hate-able enough that slaughtering them for the fun of it is okay" (asserted by a rather learned gentleman who occasionally uploads videos to this very website) gave me the idea: How about a slasher movie about a psycho murderer set in Germany in the 1940s? You get the Nazi girl to take her top off and then *BAM* garden rake (or whatever his signature weapon will be) goes out and takes her head off, and it's okay. She's a Nazi. The one Nazi who says, "I think we should split up and search for this guy," yet no one yells at the screen. The fact that most characters are poorly characterized won't matter, they all began the movie with an "okay to kill" stamp across their forehead (that is another bit about B-level horror movies I don't like. I generally hold the belief, "everyone should be allowed to live until they do something that makes them okay to kill" in most of my fiction, while B-level horror movies usually kill an innocent person or two for no real reason) Also, you know how if the first slasher movie does well, they have to come up with some improbable ret-con to make the villain come back to life for the second one? That's the best part of this movie. He's killing Nazis, he doesn't have to die at the end.

Okay, I know this'll probably never happen. But if someone who reads the forums decides to plagiarize my idea, I'd totally be okay with it. I wouldn't even want royalty checks.

...I'd just want to be introduced to the girl who takes her top off in the movie, and for Bob to give the movie a good review