The Expendables: Film review

Sylvester Stallone and gang star in this hard-hitting action/thriller about a group of mercenaries hired to infiltrate a South American country and overthrow its ruthless dictator.

Within the annals of film a sort of ‘action culture’ has developed. That is, there exist movies rife with senseless and illogical explosions, cardboard and/or overdone acting, killing sprees by the good guys that would shame any serial killer (John Rambo alone has murdalized over four hundred and thirty people), and somewhat moronic plot lines that strive to warrant all of the above. And yet, with all of this stupidity seizing uncontrollably on the screen, people can enjoy these films for what they are: a sort of eye candy glazed with camp.

This is why Sylvester Stallone’s The Expendables seemed at first like some miraculous gift – there were so many opportunities to exploit this ‘culture’. By enlisting a multitude of action-movie luminaries, Stallone could have reigned in nostalgia, brought down the fourth wall, self-referenced the film to death or slaughtered with style to create something amazing.

Also, the idea of seeing nine action stars killing absolutely everything in sight for two hours seemed too good to be true. But sadly, this isn’t how it happened. One of the film’s biggest disappointments is that only seven of the purported stars have combat roles, and of those seven only five fight for the so-called ‘good guys’. So instead of watching nine guys (or three fourths of a Dirty Dozen) massacre an army of doomed extras, the audience is treated to five guys somewhat massacring a similar army while Bruce Willis steps in to make a dick joke. It’s frustrating considering that the trailer lauded the inclusion of so many characters, collectively labeling them ‘The Expendables’, when Mickey Rourke doesn’t even lift a finger except to finish Stallone’s clichéd tattoo or slap a random girl on the ass. Having an ensemble cast to fill in the roles of both the ‘good guys’ and ‘bad guys’ isn’t necessarily a detriment to the piece, but it certainly is a disappointment seeing that the film’s advertising left most expecting a barrage of man-meat roundhouse kicking faces in unison.

But where The Expendables really shoots itself in its overly muscular foot is the plot. The movie opens strongly in media res as the titular mercenaries commit what could arguably be termed genocide against a group of Somali pirates. The scene is violent and tense, even working in a bit of character development, marking a great start for an action flick. But then there’s the next mission: five million dollars to go up against an island country’s entire armed forces to assassinate a ruthless dictator. So Stallone and Statham scope out the island before fleeing in a firefight that leaves about sixty of the army’s two hundred soldiers dead. After some discussion, the team concludes that the mission is too dangerous. And then they go back.

It’s difficult to figure out why, except for the fact that Mickey Rourke makes an incredibly moving speech about regret. The speech, by the way, teeters between profound drama and hilarity considering the context it is in. But besides the shaky plot, the movie also suffers from too little development. It’s true that the main characters are well-established, but the dictator isn’t made brutal enough, the Expendables aren’t made caring enough, and the audience wasn’t made stupid enough to look beyond all of this. When someone goes to see nine guys (five guys) go on to commit a war crime, it’s nice to know why.

All in all, The Expendables is a conventional, mostly awful action movie. It doesn’t work the nostalgia angle, it doesn’t break the fourth wall, it isn’t self-referential (sans a tradeoff between Schwarzenegger and Stallone), and for the type of hype that was created, the occasion deserves, neigh, demands more man-meat.