I'm glad I saw "The Expendables" with my fellow defensive linemen on a day when we finished football practice early, which enabled me to enjoy my night, no thanks to the movie. "The Expendables" is one brutal piece of filmmaking. I detested every moronic minute of it. I think, though I'm not sure, that the film intends to be "so bad it's good," but it's so inept it can't even pull that off. None of the action here is meant to be realistic, but since I wasn't enjoying the picture, I spent most of its running time picking it apart.

The movie is Sylvester Stallone's baby, as he is its co-writer, director and main actor. To these titles, one could add "newest example of plastic surgery gone haywire." I spent the entire movie looking at him, thinking to myself that he used to look his age, but now he doesn't even look his species. Not helping matters are the, I don't know, 40 shots of Stallone attempting, and not quite succeeding, to smile. And in case you're wondering, no, he hasn't eased off the steroids.

The plot, or should I say the excuse for one: Stallone stars as Barney Ross, the leader of a group of mercenaries played by several celebrities, some actors and some not. Among them are Jason Statham, Jet Li, Mickey Rourke and Randy Couture. Oh, and I can't forget acting stiff Dolph Lundgren, try as I might. You know you're in trouble when you're less natural as an actor than a former WWE superstar (Stone Cold Steve Austin) and a UFC fighter (Couture). What connects these diverse talents within the realm of this picture is that there is not a single one of them I actually cared about.

Anyway, Stallone is offered the task to assassinate the dictator (David Zayas) of the island of Vilena. This happens in an exposition scene featuring cameos from Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Two things struck me about said scene: 1. It's shot in a way that makes us think that Stallone, Willis and Arnold were never actually together in the same room at any point during the shooting process. 2. Talk about re-defining typecasting! I think David Zayas has played every latino dictator I can think of in recent movie history. Zayas' character, General Garza, is being maintained in power by the movie's true villain, a slimy American business crook played by Eric Roberts, who, in exchange for his support, gets to make money from the area's drug traffic. Stallone doesn't need a second look at Sandra, the sexy local contact played by Giselle Itié, to accept the mission.
 
The movie doesn't take long to stop making sense. It starts, in typical movie fashion, as the Expendables are about to carry out a mission. A band of African pirates have kidnapped an American citizen and are threatening to kill him unless they are handed a hefty ransom fee. I can't remember where they're from, but it's not like the movie cares. All that matters is that they're black, that they talk with accents and that lots of people have lots of guns pointed at each other. I don't want to be annoying, but (1) doesn't the African pirate leader realize that by negotiating this way, he has no chance of getting his money, and (2) would a character like Stallone's really berate Lundgren for his violent treatment of the only remaining live African dude when the Expendables have just finished racking up a body count that would shame an explosion at a nuclear plant? The answer to question two, of course, is that the fallout is necessary to set up a supremely predictable plot development.

The characters in this movie also have that annoying ability to predict everything that's going to happen and arrive just in time with cheeky things to say. The final fight scene is a perfect example. (Spoiler alert: I don't think knowing certain specific events of the film will change your experience, but do skip this next paragraph should you think that ignorance is bliss.)

After his helicopter is destroyed, the Eric Roberts character runs off, holding Sandra hostage. Naturally, Stallone gives chase and eventually corners him. The classic "drop the gun or I shoot her" scene follows, during which Roberts actually shoots Stallone in the shoulder. More talk ensues before Roberts simultaneously catches three bullets from Stallone and a mighty big knife to the back from Jason Statham, who was apparently hidden in a bush behind Roberts the whole time. Once again, I hate to be bothersome, but (1) given that all his means of transportation were destroyed, what was Roberts hoping to accomplish, and (2) for crying out loud, Roberts shot Stallone! Given that Roberts never bothers to look around for any other Expendable, what the hell was Statham waiting for?

Are my objections ridiculous? Why? I believe I am well within my rights to be cranky at this film. It presents us with a plot and a screenplay that are both of mind-numbing stupidity, featuring cliché dialogue such as Eric Roberts saying to Stallone "You and I are exactly the same!" ; characters we don't care about; a final fight scene that looks as though the production team gave up on it altogether and started editing at random, along with some shards of CGI that look like they came straight from the standard editing software on Windows 95.

I gave up on this movie when I saw its one scene featuring legitimate acting, courtesy of Mickey Rourke. Stallone frames him wrong, giving us mostly Rourke's forehead to look at. Are you serious? By the way, that's about a third of the way through.

If you're in the mood for mindless action, there is a very well-made movie called "Salt" currently playing in theaters. See that one instead. It has none of the aforementioned flaws, and the main character (Angelina Jolie) actually is a looker. Should you opt to see "The Expendables" anyway, you deserve the disappointment. 

Recommended: No