|
|
Post by LtD73 on Jan 16, 2011 21:10:53 GMT -5
I'm sorry but that film  ing sucked. The story was stupid and didn't make sense. "The best cast in action movie history" where most of the guys get barely any lines, just Stallone and Statham taken up all the air time. I thought it'd be good, but it was awful, i didnt like it at all. |
|
|
|
Post by TheNinthCloud on Jan 16, 2011 21:13:06 GMT -5
Why I'm not seeing it. It's an action film. 98% of the time, action films suck.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Boondock Syxx on Jan 16, 2011 22:29:43 GMT -5
i liked it but not as much as others on here, too much statham not enough willis lundgren or arnie
also terry crews was totally out of place, should have been wesley snipes
|
|
|
|
Post by slappy on Jan 16, 2011 22:41:31 GMT -5
It was the manliest movie in the history of mankind.
|
|
|
|
Post by TurboEddie on Jan 16, 2011 22:54:30 GMT -5
I agree with you, good sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by becausethenight on Jan 16, 2011 22:57:34 GMT -5
Why I'm not seeing it. It's an action film. 98% of the time, action films suck. Wow, sweeping generalizations much? |
|
|
|
Post by The Assassin on Jan 16, 2011 23:03:48 GMT -5
yeh i thought it was awful. but then i should have guessed it would be, since I thought the Rocky films were awful too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lk™ on Jan 16, 2011 23:49:17 GMT -5
It was the manliest movie in the history of mankind. yeah it sure was, if you're in doubt of your sexuality. come on. it sucked big. |
|
|
|
Post by "The Visionary" Eldniw on Jan 17, 2011 0:16:05 GMT -5
Each and every one of you saying it sucked have 48 hours to voluntarily turn in your Man Cards, after which I will send Grunts Mahone to find you, forcibly remove them from your person, and then break your kneecaps.
Seriously, how do people NOT like that movie? S**t was off the hook, bad ass! Best action movie in a LONG f**king time, no questions asked.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Jan 17, 2011 0:37:24 GMT -5
I too, absolutely hated it. I thought it was a sub-par run of the mill action movie. I sat through the majority of it just waiting for it to end.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Orange on Jan 17, 2011 1:51:45 GMT -5
Who gives a if the story sucked? THATS NOT WHAT THE MOVIE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT. It was supposed to be the greatest 1980's-2000 action movie stars all getting together, blowing crap up, and shooting a ton of people. If you wanted a good story or plot, watch a different movie. Its amazing that people go see an action movie for a ing 5 star plot. You want that, go watch a Drama movie. |
|
MX5
Main Eventer
Joined on: Apr 10, 2005 0:27:57 GMT -5
Posts: 4,520
|
Post by MX5 on Jan 17, 2011 1:59:43 GMT -5
i said it months ago, the movie was terrible. wasn't even good for an action movie, the effects were BUSH. LEAGUE.
|
|
|
|
Post by The UndyTaker on Jan 17, 2011 5:20:42 GMT -5
Most of the time I don't crap on the opinions of other people since everyone is different. But if you didn't enjoy The Expendables, most likely you were weren't old enough to enjoy the action films of the 80's-early 90's. That's what this movie is. Sure it has Statham and Jet Li, two guys who have made names for themselves in the past decade here in the States, but it was written and directed by Stallone, one of the Big 3 of the aforementioned time period. He knows crap like the Fast & Furious series, or most of Michael Bay's films are shit, and that there are those of us who don't need CGI doors flying at us during every explosion. Look at "Die Hard". I think the majority of us here will agree that it is a mother ing kick ass movie. How much was actually destroyed in that? Not much if you REALLY think about it. A lot of gun play, but one really big explosion on the roof, and the two rockets shot at the police. No lame obvious CGI explosions. Want to know a secret how they saved money? "Nakatomi Plaza" was a building owned by 20th Century Fox that was being remodeled. So they used it and saved money on sets and locations. Does that take away from your enjoyment of the film knowing how they saved money? It shouldn't. That movie is over 20 years old and is still better than the majority of action films that come out nowadays. One of the reasons films suck these days is because people think more is better. More explosions, more destruction, more CGI. Doesn't anyone wonder why ticket prices are as high as $10? It's because these films cost so much to make because of craplike this. If you believe the hype and go into this movie thinking you are about to see the best thing since "Seven Samurai", you are going to be completely disappointed. It's an ACTION movie. It's not a documentary about Antarctica. Plus, it's an action movie starring, written by, and directed by Sylvester Stallone. What did you think you were going to see?! i said it months ago, the movie was terrible. wasn't even good for an action movie, the effects were BUSH. LEAGUE. Watch the Inferno documentary on the making of the film and see how much was done without the help of CGI. You, sir, are spoiled. Michael Bay jerks off to you. |
|
|
|
Post by No Brokeback on Jan 17, 2011 5:49:53 GMT -5
If you watched the movie for a story that makes sense..then...well, I'm sorry. You were focusing on the wrong thing.
If you go to a movie with Sylvester, Stone Cold, Arnold, and all them, expect the best things from those types of movie, let me help you find a montage of awesome...
just a sec....
anytime now....
|
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 18, 2024 0:49:50 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2011 5:55:21 GMT -5
I thought it was fine to be honest-not great just good.
|
|
|
|
Post by LtD73 on Jan 17, 2011 8:07:43 GMT -5
I didnt mention anything about the effects. And i'm not one of them people who sees a trailer, and goes  GUNS AND FIGHTING ^_^ I NEED TO SEE THAT. Before i saw it i thought the cast was amazing and thats what made me want to see it but seeing how most of them barely had any ing air time, it was disappointing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deep Figure Value on Jan 17, 2011 10:52:21 GMT -5
Wait - did anyone see this movie under the impression that it was anything but a tongue-in-cheek, self aware homage to the action movies of the 80's and 90's?
|
|
|
|
Post by K5 on Jan 17, 2011 11:29:16 GMT -5
Wait - did anyone see this movie under the impression that it was anything but a tongue-in-cheek, self aware homage to the action movies of the 80's and 90's? this. although i still didn't enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by MacReady on Jan 17, 2011 13:29:44 GMT -5
Wait - did anyone see this movie under the impression that it was anything but a tongue-in-cheek, self aware homage to the action movies of the 80's and 90's? Get this man a prize. We have a winner! Seriously, the movie has an INTENTIONALLY mediocre plot, INTENTIONALLY mediocre acting. Did ANY of the films starring any of those guys EVER have award winning plots or acting? That's the POINT. If you don't get that, obviously you won't like the movie. Enjoy it for what it was. A tribute; and a ING FANTASTIC ONE AT THAT. THAT'S IT. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike Giggs' Munchies on Jan 17, 2011 13:38:43 GMT -5
Its ing awesome and my personal choice for the best movie of the year. |
|
I dont know good luck 
