|
Yeah, just got back from seeing it. Twas awesome if a little bit slow for the first half. Roll on Expendables 2! |
The Expendables • Page 4
-
-
I never knew this was actually a real film until the other day, from the adverts I thought it was some parody mock up they made from other films as some sort of 'Action' month in an attempt to boost DVD sales. Heh. -
LazyNinjaUk 148 posts
Seen 8 years ago
Registered 12 years agoSome the dialogue was a bit ropey, but I guess it is quite hard when you need to write for so many main characters.
Apart from that I thought it was AWESOME. The action scenes were brilliant, and the bit with Terry Crewes unloading his AA-12 into the bad guys had everyone in the cinema (myself included) cheering.
Can't wait for Expendables 2. -
Awful film. So bad in fact it was one of the best films I've seen this year.
Direction was appalling, acting was ropey at best but it was just such a throwback to 80's gun porn and "Straight To Video" action flicks that it worked.
A must see for any classic action fan! -
dsmx 8,640 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoMost critics don't get action films so reading a review for them is pointless. -
PrivateFloyd 5,464 posts
Seen 38 minutes ago
Registered 14 years agoIgnatius_Cheese wrote:
Awful film. So bad in fact it was one of the best films I've seen this year.
Direction was appalling, acting was ropey at best but it was just such a throwback to 80's gun porn and "Straight To Video" action flicks that it worked.
A must see for any classic action fan!
YES! My sentiments exactly. -
LeD 7,063 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 15 years agoI thought the last third was lazy. When Sly and Statham have that action sequence when they try to leave the island the first time, I thought I was in for a treat. By the end it's just explosions and random gun action, not particularly well scripted or filmed. Disappointing. -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agoI wasn't very impressed with the camera work. Fast editing and shaky cam = blergh -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agodsmx wrote:
Evidence?
Most critics don't get action films so reading a review for them is pointless. -
Genji wrote:
Really was some of the worst handicam work I've ever seen. Very shoddily edited together.
I wasn't very impressed with the camera work. Fast editing and shaky cam = blergh -
Ugh. Begone, naysayers!
It was a great action film. -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agoNo no, I still liked it! Just not the camera work. -
Was really excited about this, really excited. Wish I hadn't bothered seeing it now. -
dsmx 8,640 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 16 years agoGenji wrote:
dsmx wrote:
Evidence?
Most critics don't get action films so reading a review for them is pointless.
Because critics are in general up there own arse and mark a film based on it's camera work, acting, plot but always seem to forget the only truly important bit about a film, were you entertained? Films are entertainment and that is the only thing that any film should be marked on yet most reviewers forget this very simple bit. -
dsmx wrote:
Because critics are in general up there own arse and mark a film based on it's camera work, acting, plot
Amazing -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agodsmx wrote:
Generally only the imaginary ones used in arguments, I find.
yet most reviewers forget this very simple bit. -
LeD 7,063 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 15 years agospudsbuckley wrote:
Ugh. Begone, naysayers!
It was a great action film.
Not even close, but it could have been. The scene with the old plane thing was awesome, and should have set the standard with the rest of the film. -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agodsmx wrote:
Um. That's not evidence. That's an assumption, based upon a stereotype.
Genji wrote:
dsmx wrote:
Evidence?
Most critics don't get action films so reading a review for them is pointless.
Because critics are in general up there own arse and mark a film based on it's camera work, acting, plot but always seem to forget the only truly important bit about a film, were you entertained? Films are entertainment and that is the only thing that any film should be marked on yet most reviewers forget this very simple bit.
Do you actually have anything to back this up? -
dsmx wrote:
and mark a film based on it's camera work, acting, plot
You mean....you mean they critique it? How fucking dare those critics critique something. Especially using more criteria than just 'IS IT FUN?' Yes, those critics should critique with less criteria. -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agoAlso, I'll argue that camera work is actually quite fucking important to an action film, and - yes - the "entertainment" value of it.
Will you be entertained by an action scene if you can't tell what the fuck is going on? I know I wouldn't be. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agoWell, more to the point, if he thinks that those things aren't hugely important points (yes, even in action films), then he's a monumental idiot. -
MrSensible 26,517 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 16 years agoAn action movie is never going to score high on those points though, so there's no need to look at those. An action is movie is all about entertainment, explosions, brutality, ridiculously over the top situations... as long as it has those, it's great!
You can like David Lynch movies and ones starring Arnold Schwarzenegger at the same time.gif)
-
If he wants 'IS THIS ENTERTAINING Y/N' reviews, I hear Newsround on CBBC occasionally talks about Pixar movies.
Sometimes they let the kids review as well, so, y'know, career in the making potentially. -
disusedgenius 10,677 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 14 years agothefilthandthefury wrote:
Of course it is, there's just different criteria to aim for. If you think the great action films were made like that by accident then, well, good luck to you!
An action movie is never going to score high on those points though. -
disusedgenius wrote:
thefilthandthefury wrote:
Of course it is, there's just different criteria to aim for. If you think the great action films were made like that by accident then, well, good luck to you!
An action movie is never going to score high on those points though.
Matrix (ostensibly an action film) scored pretty fucking highly on the cinematography. In fact it was one of the selling points of the whole damn movie. -
Genji 19,682 posts
Seen 10 years ago
Registered 17 years agothefilthandthefury wrote:
I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise.
You can like David Lynch movies and ones starring Arnold Schwarzenegger at the same time
But good camera work and editing is fundamental to most types of movie, no? -
PrivateFloyd 5,464 posts
Seen 38 minutes ago
Registered 14 years agoFor what it was I loved it. -
I liked the beefcake. But I could have used more cheesy one-liners.
.gif)
Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
