The Expendables (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


Empire Admin -> The Expendables (23/7/2010 7:57:37 AM)

Post your comments on this article




Timon -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 9:06:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lukeynemo

Criticising a Sly Stallone film for a weak story is like criticising Pride and Prejudice for a lack of decent bullet time.


You mean Oscar-winning screenwriter Sly Stallone, who took away the Acadmey Award for his Rocky script? The man can write when he wants, the new Rocky film shows that, but he is also capable of complete rubbish - Rocky V/Driven/Staying Alive.




grucl -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 9:12:25 AM)

Oh boy.

This thread will go nuclear about the quality of the review and about why Empire hypes a film all year and then only gives it 3 stars.




Timon -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 9:14:37 AM)

It might not....

Ha, who am I kidding? This is going to be insane. Farewell.




shool -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 10:46:19 AM)

Snake Eyes will still love it though. That much is pretty certain.




rawlinson -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 10:54:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Timon

quote:

ORIGINAL: lukeynemo

Criticising a Sly Stallone film for a weak story is like criticising Pride and Prejudice for a lack of decent bullet time.


You mean Oscar-winning screenwriter Sly Stallone, who took away the Acadmey Award for his Rocky script?



He was only nominated, he lost to Network. Not even the Oscars will go low enough to actually give the award to Stallone. [:D][;)]

quote:

This thread will go nuclear about the quality of the review and about why Empire hypes a film all year and then only gives it 3 stars.


They can't win really though. If it had been a five star review then the thread would be flooded by people accusing them of taking bribes.




livewire -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 11:41:22 AM)

I can't wait to see snakes reaction to this. I have visions of him transforming into John Matrix, going shopping and arriving at Empire towers to express his displeasure. [:D]

I really have to stop reading the reviews on this site. they are deffinately getting worse

Still can't wait to see this. don't really care about the plot as many of the best action films of the 80s didn't really have any either but they had lots of great action scenes to keep you entertained.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Oh, empire... (23/7/2010 12:21:22 PM)

Rambo was great dammit!




livewire -> RE: The Expendables (23/7/2010 1:50:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

What’s next, someone called “Kim” reviewing splatter? Blimey.



Nope, he reviewed predators and that went down equally well [:D]




Deviation -> RE: The Expendables (23/7/2010 7:28:06 PM)

What a beautiful thread will this be.




The Todge -> RE: The Expendables (23/7/2010 7:46:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: demoncleaner

Its probably a gross generalisation with no basis in truth or relevance whatsover but does anyone else think it was strange that Empire would send someone called "Genevieve” to review the Expendables?  Is it just me or is that just not the kind of name that is destined to wax effusely about a lunk-headed thunderer?  My research is admittedly limited but I'm pretty sure no one called "Ethel” liked Rambo.  No one called "Tiara” will like There Will Be Blood.  Very few "Lionels” like Dude Where's My Car?  for instance. Though in fairness most names in the phonebook don't like Dude so that's not quite QED.


I had a very similar thought that I won't post here cause I'll probably get accused of sexism.

I have to say though, once again a bloody awful review.  What, three or four paragraphs taken up with filler?  Ridiculous really. 

I'm really glad I don't buy the magazine now as this is just shoddy and there's little excuse for it.




kenada_woo -> RE: The Expendables (23/7/2010 9:52:36 PM)

That said, The Expendables does what it says on the tin: it delivers a super-size portion of bone-cracking, bullet-spraying, muscle-flexing, head-exploding action, thankfully with the kind of tongue-in-cheek ironic distance which was fatally absent from Stallone’s last directorial outing, the ill-advised, ill-fated Rambo.

That's all people need to read.

Move on. Get your tickets booked.

And Rambo was superb by the way




Keyser Sozzled -> RE: The Expendables (23/7/2010 10:40:08 PM)

Hang on, hang on....

*Keyser gets the popcorn ready, adjusts the ass groove in his favourite chair*

aaannnnddddd,,,,,,,,,,,GO



[:D]






Deviation -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 1:22:59 PM)

It's lacking that madness of the Inception thread though.

Keyser, help me implant an idea (We must act like morons) into some newbies.




Jasper_29 -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 1:42:00 PM)

First review? Congrats!!

The writer seems pretty disappointed to be honest, but the trailer didn't exactly make it look like a masterpiece...




My name is Legion -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 2:58:05 PM)

Who the fuck is Genevieve Harrison?  Why was this bod allowed to write a rambling, mess of a review for one of the most anticipated films of the year?




Deviation -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 3:39:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jasper_29

First review? Congrats!!

The writer seems pretty disappointed to be honest, but the trailer didn't exactly make it look like a masterpiece...


To be fair it looks like the mucsle macho version of Alien Versus Predator, only much much worse.




matty_b -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 4:07:57 PM)

I'm giving it another 12 posts before someone trots out the, "NOT EVERY FILM HSA TO WIN OSCARS!!!" defence.




Cord -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 8:47:20 PM)

Well, well done Empire. After years of pushing me close to this decision, this review has finaly nailed the coffin shut. I will never buy your hypocritical, snobbish, and irrlevant magazine again.

Explain why you are happy to get extra revenue by pimping the movie with a cover, and a fawning feature preview, when you already knew you were going to get your knives out over issues seperate to the movie itself, regardless of what it was like.

Explain why more than half of that review is nothing to do with the movie, and more to do with taking ageist, easy pot-shots at what is a remarkable genre cast?

Explain why a film that is focussed on action, and not exposition, draws derision, while a Woody Allen snooze-fest never gets criticised for a lack of high concept action set pieces?

Explain why, having had her post-ironic pound of flesh, the reviewer then tags on the relevant information that those looking for a homage to classic 80's action will find it does what it set out to do admirably, yet still gives it a reluctant 3 despite it succeeding within parameters set by itself.

This reminds me of that review of Clash of the Titans where all the reviewer went on about was the moulded armour and quality of the legs on show. If a movie sux, then fine, but tell me why, dont spew irrlevant agenda at the page and call it a review.

I trust that when Genevieve gets home to Tarquin, her flabby bellied 30 something struggling artist, they enjoy another outing of '3 colours Blue' on their Bang and Olufsen Blu - Ray, and leave us poor neanderthal's to enjoy what is already by the trailers alone, the greatest movie of the year.

I hope next time Sly has a project, and you go cap in hand, fawning with faux smiles to get an interview, he tells you to get fcuked.

Oh, and the last Rambo was superb by the way.

Goodbye Empire, you won't miss my fiver a month, but I wont miss your pi$$-poor elitist reviews either, so eat me.




directorscut -> RE: The Expendables (24/7/2010 10:52:36 PM)

Look Empire not every film has to win an Oscar.

But if there is any justice in the world this film would get a special Oscar like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, this time displaying 7 gold penises and 14 gold testicles for "The Most Manly Balls in a Movie Ever" award.




adambatman82 -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 12:49:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cord

Well, well done Empire. After years of pushing me close to this decision, this review has finaly nailed the coffin shut. I will never buy your hypocritical, snobbish, and irrlevant magazine again.

Explain why you are happy to get extra revenue by pimping the movie with a cover, and a fawning feature preview, when you already knew you were going to get your knives out over issues seperate to the movie itself, regardless of what it was like.

Explain why more than half of that review is nothing to do with the movie, and more to do with taking ageist, easy pot-shots at what is a remarkable genre cast?

Explain why a film that is focussed on action, and not exposition, draws derision, while a Woody Allen snooze-fest never gets criticised for a lack of high concept action set pieces?

Explain why, having had her post-ironic pound of flesh, the reviewer then tags on the relevant information that those looking for a homage to classic 80's action will find it does what it set out to do admirably, yet still gives it a reluctant 3 despite it succeeding within parameters set by itself.

This reminds me of that review of Clash of the Titans where all the reviewer went on about was the moulded armour and quality of the legs on show. If a movie sux, then fine, but tell me why, dont spew irrlevant agenda at the page and call it a review.

I trust that when Genevieve gets home to Tarquin, her flabby bellied 30 something struggling artist, they enjoy another outing of '3 colours Blue' on their Bang and Olufsen Blu - Ray, and leave us poor neanderthal's to enjoy what is already by the trailers alone, the greatest movie of the year.

I hope next time Sly has a project, and you go cap in hand, fawning with faux smiles to get an interview, he tells you to get fcuked.

Oh, and the last Rambo was superb by the way.

Goodbye Empire, you won't miss my fiver a month, but I wont miss your pi$$-poor elitist reviews either, so eat me.


Wow, somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

First off, Three Colours Blue isn't available on Blu-ray. If you're gonna bitch and whine and cry in public, lets at least get the facts straight.

Secondly, Whatever Works, the latest film from Woody Allen, received Two Stars from Empire. Again, a fact check prior to a pant pissing would have made your argument seem a little less ill-thought out.

Thirdly, are you honestly saying that Empire is a high brow read? If so, please don't go near a copy of Sight and Sound, or I fear your heart won't take it.

Fourthly, why on Earth should Empire give a film five stars simply because they put it on the cover? You do realise that a preview like that is generally written prior to a films completion don't you?

And finally, three stars is a GOOD review.




directorscut -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 1:18:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cord

Well, well done Empire. After years of pushing me close to this decision, this review has finaly nailed the coffin shut. I will never buy your hypocritical, snobbish, and irrlevant magazine again.

Explain why you are happy to get extra revenue by pimping the movie with a cover, and a fawning feature preview, when you already knew you were going to get your knives out over issues seperate to the movie itself, regardless of what it was like.

Explain why more than half of that review is nothing to do with the movie, and more to do with taking ageist, easy pot-shots at what is a remarkable genre cast?

Explain why a film that is focussed on action, and not exposition, draws derision, while a Woody Allen snooze-fest never gets criticised for a lack of high concept action set pieces?

Explain why, having had her post-ironic pound of flesh, the reviewer then tags on the relevant information that those looking for a homage to classic 80's action will find it does what it set out to do admirably, yet still gives it a reluctant 3 despite it succeeding within parameters set by itself.

This reminds me of that review of Clash of the Titans where all the reviewer went on about was the moulded armour and quality of the legs on show. If a movie sux, then fine, but tell me why, dont spew irrlevant agenda at the page and call it a review.

I trust that when Genevieve gets home to Tarquin, her flabby bellied 30 something struggling artist, they enjoy another outing of '3 colours Blue' on their Bang and Olufsen Blu - Ray, and leave us poor neanderthal's to enjoy what is already by the trailers alone, the greatest movie of the year.

I hope next time Sly has a project, and you go cap in hand, fawning with faux smiles to get an interview, he tells you to get fcuked.

Oh, and the last Rambo was superb by the way.

Goodbye Empire, you won't miss my fiver a month, but I wont miss your pi$$-poor elitist reviews either, so eat me.


Wow, somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

First off, Three Colours Blue isn't available on Blu-ray. If you're gonna bitch and whine and cry in public, lets at least get the facts straight.

Secondly, Whatever Works, the latest film from Woody Allen, received Two Stars from Empire. Again, a fact check prior to a pant pissing would have made your argument seem a little less ill-thought out.

Thirdly, are you honestly saying that Empire is a high brow read? If so, please don't go near a copy of Sight and Sound, or I fear your heart won't take it.

Fourthly, why on Earth should Empire give a film five stars simply because they put it on the cover? You do realise that a preview like that is generally written prior to a films completion don't you?

And finally, three stars is a GOOD review.


I liked his post better. He uesd the name Tarquin, which is always funny.




Deviation -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 1:46:24 AM)

But directorscut, it was never meant to win Oscars!!! Surely it deserves to get 5 stars even if it is probably a fanboy fantasy gone horribly wrong.

(also, Rambo was horrible)

Fucking Woody Allen, always getting five stars reviews even when he isn't.




Cord -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 12:28:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82

Wow, somebody's got a case of the Mondays.

First off, Three Colours Blue isn't available on Blu-ray. If you're gonna bitch and whine and cry in public, lets at least get the facts straight.

Secondly, Whatever Works, the latest film from Woody Allen, received Two Stars from Empire. Again, a fact check prior to a pant pissing would have made your argument seem a little less ill-thought out.

Thirdly, are you honestly saying that Empire is a high brow read? If so, please don't go near a copy of Sight and Sound, or I fear your heart won't take it.

Fourthly, why on Earth should Empire give a film five stars simply because they put it on the cover? You do realise that a preview like that is generally written prior to a films completion don't you?

And finally, three stars is a GOOD review.


I love mondays - shift work means its one of my days off.

Firstly, I was painting a satirical picture of the kind of mindset/lifestyle from whence the review appears to come from. Smug, superior, and pretentious. If you have no room in your mind for a little literary flair, then truly, it sucks to be you.

Secondly, who cares? Woody Allen is afforded a lot of credit for making films that focus on human relationships and personal observation. On the whole, this seems to be regarded more highly than films that explore drama through the physical. If you demand both of one genre, then it is flawed  not to demand both facets from the other. That and I really, really hate Woody Allen movies.

Thirdly, no, and that is my point. If you are going to cater to a wider public, then you have to take that into account in the reviews. On this very website, the feedback poll has 67% of people expressing MASSIVE excitement regarding the release of this movie. This is having a) seen the trailers/ net virals and, presumably b) having read articles such as the previews in Empire. They are excited already in the knowledge that it does not feature Seagal, Van Damme or Norris. They are excited despite of the fact that any idiot watching the trailers can tell it has a linear plot designed purely to drive the action, not the other way around. So why spend 2/3rds of a review concerned with people it DOESNT star, and scathing retrospective's of careers, again, some of people NOT in the movie. Seriously.

Fourthly. Aside from final edit, this film was complete and in a watchable form MONTHS ago. Maybe the preview team were not privy to a screening, but for goodness sake, it is slime-journalism of the highest order to use disengenuously elements of a film as positives for months, only to then use them as negatives when you have had your own mileage out of them regarding mag sales/interest. Its not only a low blow to the film makers, but its also a kick in the teeth to readers.

And finally, 3 stars is a solid score, but if you truly think that that was a 'Good review' or that its tone conveyed accurately that this is a 'good' film, then I would be very suprised.




My name is Legion -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 12:31:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
Secondly, Whatever Works, the latest film from Woody Allen, received Two Stars from Empire. Again, a fact check prior to a pant pissing would have made your argument seem a little less ill-thought out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation
Fucking Woody Allen, always getting five stars reviews even when he isn't.


Read this again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cord
Explain why a film that is focussed on action, and not exposition, draws derision, while a Woody Allen snooze-fest never gets criticised for a lack of high concept action set pieces?


Where did Cord say that Woody Allen's films garner favorable reviews?  That's right, he didn't.  He was making a point, one which you two dunces clearly missed.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 12:51:31 PM)

This thread is rather amusing.




Invader_Ace -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 12:58:05 PM)

I can't wait until Snake-Eyes gets here.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 1:00:08 PM)

I think Snake is quite reasonable - this is the sort of film where are either exicted to see or not. No review is going to change anyones mind.




Jasper_29 -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 1:24:20 PM)


It's a really schizophrenic review which basically informs us The Expendables is Sylvester Stallone using a bunch of over-the-hill action stars and a cheesy plot as an excuse to give us bone-cracking, muscle-flexing fight scenes. This is exactly what was promised, and if that's what's given why is the tone of the review one of mockery and disappointment?








Deviation -> RE: The Expendables (25/7/2010 2:21:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: My name is Legion

quote:

ORIGINAL: adambatman82
Secondly, Whatever Works, the latest film from Woody Allen, received Two Stars from Empire. Again, a fact check prior to a pant pissing would have made your argument seem a little less ill-thought out.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Deviation
Fucking Woody Allen, always getting five stars reviews even when he isn't.


Read this again.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cord
Explain why a film that is focussed on action, and not exposition, draws derision, while a Woody Allen snooze-fest never gets criticised for a lack of high concept action set pieces?


Where did Cord say that Woody Allen's films garner favorable reviews?  That's right, he didn't.  He was making a point, one which you two dunces clearly missed.



I dunno, he really seemed to imply it there and suggest that (and somewhat confirms it in his next post by saying that). Let alone putting Woody Allen into the discussion here is something of a red herring, seeming to suggest "films I don't like get great reviews WHILE what I like get just good ones".

He does have a point but the tone and melodrama of the post did lead me to ignore some of it. But still, the review is poor, but so what? It's a review not the voice of truth. People are still going to see this film, even if all the reviews it gets portray it as worse than The Room. He has a good point, but he also came out like a flippant fratboy in that post. And mentioning a director who has been criticized quite a lot lately did not help his argument. Also, didn't Transformers get 4 stars reason being it was a fun explosive blockbuster? And that was hardly a one-off.

Also, I can't wait for Snake-Eyes, he has good manners most of the time. And if he wants to insult me, he doesn't limit himself to dunce, he goes further to dolt and idiot, insult my ham-fisted use of the English language, while saying it in the deep, graveled Cobra accent. The man has balls. He rode a fucking elephant for fuck's sake.






Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
6.640625E-02