Review: ‘Expendables 3’ did not have to be good, only fun; it failed

Posted on August 22, 2014

Having seen “The Expandables 3,” I have to say this particular train has run out of track. Less enjoyable than the first film and less funny than the second, I think Stallone and company forgot along the way that these movies were never meant to be taken seriously. The new cast members–led by Mel Gibson and Harrison Ford–do little more than phone in their performances, with the notable exception of Antonio Banderas, who gives it his all, but his character’s one trick of being annoying grows stale long before the film’s 126-minute runtime finally ends.

The first “Expendables” film had the novelty of throwing a dozen or so action stars into a movie and giving them automatic weapons to mow down faceless enemies. The second added in great comedy, Chuck Norris,  a simple revenge plot, Chuck Norris, a decent villain in Jean-Claude Van Damme…and Chuck Norris.

“The Expendables 3” is essentially an old-school action film with a bloated plot, passable acting and a multitude of characters we really don’t care about. In other words, it has become a bad 80s action movie instead of a film playing up the tropes of bad 80s action movies.

“The Expendables” films were never good films, but they were fun movies. Perhaps they should have stopped while they were ahead, but they didn’t and now we have “The Expendables 3,” which is neither good nor fun.

The movie is rated PG-13 for violence including intense sustained gun battles and fight scenes, and for language.

(This is a shortened version of the full review available in our printed or e-edition papers.)

Subscribe to our e-Edition and read the rest of the story. Already a subscriber? Click here to sign in.