The Expendables sucked??? Will you still see it?
- Thread starter ForensicYOYO
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why do you care what a newspaper says? Are you really going to let someone boss you around all your life? You might as well write in and ask what you should wear the next day and who you should marry. If you want to go see it, go see it. If you thought it was good, chances are you will still think so. I work at the theatre and i personally guarrenttee there will be packed theatres tonight for that movie and for scott pilgrim.
Anyway, I think the movie will be awesome for what it is. I'm not looking for story. I'm not looking for love. I'm not looking for depth. I'm looking for a movie, thats going to have big name action stars, doing what they do best, with plenty of action, death and explosion throughout. And with that, the expendables looks like it WILL deliver. Besides, its nice to finally get a Man's movie that will have people talking and might actually let the twilighty boyfriends drop their sacks and say "no, i will not see eclipse, I'm going to The Expendables."
Anyway, I think the movie will be awesome for what it is. I'm not looking for story. I'm not looking for love. I'm not looking for depth. I'm looking for a movie, thats going to have big name action stars, doing what they do best, with plenty of action, death and explosion throughout. And with that, the expendables looks like it WILL deliver. Besides, its nice to finally get a Man's movie that will have people talking and might actually let the twilighty boyfriends drop their sacks and say "no, i will not see eclipse, I'm going to The Expendables."
It hasn't got that review everywhere. Sounds like someone has the hump because the film exists or something. People are douches like that.
I think it got a 3 out of 5 by Empire, who are usually pretty dependable when it comes to common sense ratings. I would see it anyway, it's a great beer and nachos film that you go to with your mates, or have on after sports games or something. It's also a tribute to 80's action films, and while most of those have (thankfully) stopped being produced, it's nice to have a reminder of what we liked about them, without it being another "..... Movie" parody.
I think it got a 3 out of 5 by Empire, who are usually pretty dependable when it comes to common sense ratings. I would see it anyway, it's a great beer and nachos film that you go to with your mates, or have on after sports games or something. It's also a tribute to 80's action films, and while most of those have (thankfully) stopped being produced, it's nice to have a reminder of what we liked about them, without it being another "..... Movie" parody.
There is a pretty simple "rule" or "guideline" if you will that usually come pretty close to the truth, and that is: Whenever a movie gets bad reviews it will probably be liked by a large majority of the moviegoing public, whereas movies that get really good reviews are generally considered "bad" by the moviegoing public.ForensicYOYO said:
Sometimes this is true because the moviegoing public are all a bunch of thick morons who can't appriciate anything more advanced in terms of plot, story or character development than let's say Transformers 2.
In contrast, the rule holds true because most reviewers are a bunch of pretentious, self-entitled pricks who only like "artsy" sub-culture films that no one has ever heard about outside their small, select fangroup, and will basically give everything that might be considered "famous" bad reviews simply for being famous.
My point here being: don't let the moviegoing public nor reviewers do your thinking for you. Make up your own opinions instead.
It still looks like a fun time.
The review in the Edmonton Journal this morning gave it 1/4 stars. But the reviewer was Katherine Monk, a woman that gave Inglourious Basterds a low score and always looks for any reason to bash it in other reviews. I can't trust her reviews at all. They're mostly talking about "if the movie had ____ it would be ____". Well guess what? It is what it is, so review it as such.
The review in the Edmonton Journal this morning gave it 1/4 stars. But the reviewer was Katherine Monk, a woman that gave Inglourious Basterds a low score and always looks for any reason to bash it in other reviews. I can't trust her reviews at all. They're mostly talking about "if the movie had ____ it would be ____". Well guess what? It is what it is, so review it as such.
It's just since they believe it's extremly generic, but it has all of the big named action stars ever to be in any good action movie in it. If that's enough for you, go and see it but I can almost be sure that movie bob will be doing a review of this movie next week.
Wait, are you really surprised?
Of course it sucks. That won't stop me from seeing it, though. It'll be a perfectly good action movie, which is completely different from a good movie.
Of course it sucks. That won't stop me from seeing it, though. It'll be a perfectly good action movie, which is completely different from a good movie.
Even without one review the movie still isn't doing too hot in reviews. I'm not surprised, it was always going to be a clunky mess with its brain stuck in the dusty, forgone mindset of the extravagance of the 80s action movie that NO ONE misses. Sure, I don't expect The Godfather, Unforgiven, or Memento every time I watch a film, but I don't adjust my bloody standards; I just want good writing, good direction, believable/interesting characters, and a coherent plot, that's not a tough hurdle. If critics really were the strawman snobs that fanboys believe they were then stuff like Robocop, Terminator, Aliens, Iron Man, Indiana Jones (the only three), Star Wars, Hard Boiled, Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, and Heat would not have had such acclaim from critics.
I going to see The Expendables tomorrow. I completely expect it to suck, the only thing it's got going for it is the cast. Cast reliant movies almost always suck, but can still have a fun charm to them, which I look forward to finding in The Expendables, no matter how much of a challenge it may turn out to be.
Everything about the movie screams that it's going to be bad.
If you're surprised by this... I don't even know.
If you're surprised by this... I don't even know.
Well reviews are opinion based and ya can't really form a proper opinion on the film until you've seen it so yeah, I'd say go see it...then again, it doesn't take alot to please me movie wise
You were expecting it to be good? It's main selling point, was a buch of action stars... I could tell the story was gonna suck, and the action wouldn't be anything we hadn't seen before.ForensicYOYO said:
EDIT: Also, they used a Guns N Roses' song in one of their trailers which is an instant -50 on my personal movie score-sheet.
I'm going to see it despite what "reviewers" say. The only person who can tell me if this movie will pass or fail is myself and that is after i see it.
I figured it was gonna suck... Any time all those big name stars have gathered... it has been to try and sell an otherwise horrible movies..
Having now actually seen the movie I can say it certainly doesn't suck, but it isn't as amazing as it could have been. It's essentially a typical 80's action flick but with a ridiculously big named cast. There's less action than I'd hoped for and much of the action there is isn't espcially jaw-dropping. Two main scenes stand out for action, Jet Li's big fight scene which is almost ruined by the camera cutting every 2 seconds and the climax, which is one of the biggest and best action sequences I've ever seen. For the dialogue the only standout part is the church scene, which is brilliat, the rest is forgetable, not especially bad but not good enough to remember.