Thursday, May 17, 2012

MOVIE REVIEWS: THE EXPENDABLES

August 13, 2010 by · 4 Comments 

Since they really don’t have to confront him face-to-face, the major movie critics have no reluctance to punch Sylvester Stallone and his latest movie, The Expendables, to a pulp. No matter. It’s the kind of movie, everyone agrees, that is utterly critic-proof. As Kenneth Turan puts it in his review in the Los Angeles Times: “[The movie] “exists in a Twilight Zone dimension of its own outside of normal critical time and space. In other words, if you want to see old-fashioned nonstop mayhem with stars so venerable that “The Leathernecks” (and I don’t mean Marines) might be an alternative title, reviews are going to be superfluous. If you don’t want to go, no review can change your mind. Certainly not this one.” Nevertheless, most critics are having a grand old time whipping Stallone’s pic. (He directed and co-wrote it and is the principal lead actor.) Perhaps the mildest blows are administered by A.O. Scott in the New York Times, who writes that the movie could aptly be described as “Bad Kurosawa, Bad Peckinpah or Bad Leone. Which might be a way of saying that it’s better-than-average Stallone. I can’t quite say that it’s not bad: it is bad! But not entirely in a bad way.” Mick LaSalle in the San Francisco Chronicle has the identical reaction: “Within its genre — that is, the lousy movie genre — The Expendables is one of the better ones,” he writes. Or consider Ty Burr’s comments in the Boston Globe: “The movie’s macho swill but it’s honest macho swill, and it wears its nostalgia lightly. “The Expendables” takes us back to those halcyon days when all you needed to launch an action career was a body, some steroids, and a really bad script.” Claudia Puig in USA Today notes that at the Los Angeles premiere of the movie, “a band of pickets marched to protest California Gov. Schwarzenegger’s political policies. Maybe they also should have urged audiences to boycott this sadistic mess of a movie.” Lou Lumenick of the New York Post figures that most men must be asking themselves, what red-blooded male could resist such an action movie? “Well, me — I’ve unfortunately suffered through this incoherent, inept, testosterone-drenched mess, which is very much the brain-dead male equivalent of Sex and the City 2.”

Please help support Studio Briefing by purchasing your movie tickets via our website.

  • Anonymous

    Clearly wrote the movie off based on its genre. Can we get some legit reviews up?

  • admin

    We only cite critics at newspapers in major markets. These are representative.

  • Galapagospete

    I forget who said it, but it was something to the effect that if critics made the movies, they would be high-brow films that no one would ever go to see.

  • Admin

    A couple of years ago, Roger Ebert wrote this in the Chicago Sun-Times: “Why do we need critics? A good friend of mine in a very big city was once told by his editor that the critic should ‘reflect the taste of the readers.’ My friend said, ‘Does that mean the food critic should love McDonald’s?’ The editor: ‘Absolutely.’ I don’t believe readers buy a newspaper to read variations on the Ed McMahon line, ‘You are correct, sir!’ A newspaper film critic should encourage critical thinking, introduce new developments, consider the local scene, look beyond the weekend fanboy specials, be a weatherman on social trends, bring in a larger context, teach, inform, amuse, inspire, be heartened, be outraged.”