MovieChat Forums > Expend4bles (2023) Discussion > Saw it today. Worst of the series and on...

Saw it today. Worst of the series and one of the worst movies of the year. 1/10


Horribly directed, action scenes were terribly filmed and edited, some of the worst CGI I've ever seen, and the new team additions were awful. Megan Fox can't act for shit. Even Stallone didn't want anything to do with this one. Almost walked out multiple times.

reply

How bad is the CGI?

Does Arnold (or any previous expendables like Bruce/Church etc) get mentioned/reference?

How bad is Megan? on a cringe level of 5 (5 being worst cringe)

reply

Some of the worst CGI I've seen in a big budget film. There's a scene about 15 minutes in where looks like a PS1 game cutscene. Even the blood and gore was all terrible CGI.

No Arnold references

Megan is awful. She can't act at all and has no chemistry with the rest of the cast.

reply

Thanks. How bad is it compared to previous 3 films?, its obviously the worst one, but by how big a margin?

reply

Honestly, by a huge margin. 3 was bad, but at least it still had a solid cast and Mel Gibson was a great villain. This one you get a team that has no chemistry and the action sequences are the worst directed/edited of the series. Like I also mentioned, the CGI and green screen are some of the worst I've ever seen. If I had to rank the series:

Expendables 2 7/10
Expendables 5/10
Expendables 3 4/10
Expendables 4 1/10

reply

As I expected, thanks

reply

I won't bother with this one, but I agree with your ranking of the first three.

reply

Is the first one even 7/10?

I always thought this series was tonally… off. The first was too serious with a dull plot and poorly edited action. The second was a step up but not by much, they needed to lean into the comedy more, and generally be much more upbeat and entertaining.

reply

No the first one is honestly one of the most disappointing movies of all time. I remember from seeing the cast and the trailer how excited I was and went with my friends opening night. Aside from the opening and climatic action scenes, the movie was honestly kind of boring with a bad plot and Stallone did a crap job with most of the action scenes.

The 2nd one isn't great, but at least it had a better idea of what kind of movie the first should've been.

reply

I checked out after 2, especially when I learned they went PG-13 for 3. Fuck that.

4 sounds like it could possibly be worse. Yeah the R rating is back, but apparently the cast care about as much as the audience.

Stallone is still making great stuff so I don’t get why he’s dragging out this Expendables property. My only guess is that they make decent money because, however shit the films end up being, the promise of the concept - all the classic action stars reunited - is deliciously enticing.

reply

Yeah it's still worse even with the 4 rating. All the blood is crappy CGI. Somebody gets shot and literally explodes into blood and guts and it looks hilariously bad.

reply

In some of the CGI scenes you can see aliasing flickering because they didnt bother to render them in sufficient resolution for the blueray. Its bad.

Megan is always a 5, thats her natural state.

reply

It’s a low budget action feature. A quick cash grab. Release two years after post production.

The $100M budget is a blatant lie.

reply

Statham allegedly got 25M and Sly 3M out of the 100M.

reply

25m!? After this flop, Statham will be lucky to be paid half a million.

reply

No no no Statham did not command $25M for this part. He might have signed on for 5! Same with Stallone, a cool $5M
The supporting cast between $50K - 500K each.

reply

Given that Statham was the only one actually doing the acting in this one, it was a deserved cut.

reply

Statham was honestly the only redeeming quality about this movie. It was sad to watch because you can see that he still loves this franchise while it's become total dogshit.

reply

I just wonder what the point of this being made? Was it a contractual obligation? They kind of buttoned it up with the new generation carrying the torch in the 3rd one IIRC. I haven't seen CGI done this bad in a good while.

Almost walked out multiple times.

I was right there with you. Regretted not going through with it...

reply

Stallone just can't let any of his franchises die

reply

Facts.

reply

Is he still planning that Demolition Man sequel that we've all been just begging for?

reply

Yes he is

reply

I find this hilarious. This franchise has always been nostalgia bait trash. It's got one job have cool graphic violent action. It fails at this on an epic level! You want true action watch any John wick film and it mops the floor with any of these. You want more high class action than John Wick watch the raid, the raid 2, the night comes for us, ong bak, the recent mission impossible films, sisu all those mop the floor with this garbage.

reply

Just watch him on the series "Tulsa King".

reply

Im suprised its rated 5.2
This is 3.2 at best.

reply

It will drop to around 4.5 once it comes out on streaming

reply

Mel upped the respectability of the 3rd one just with his presence alone.

But this one was pretty rough, even by Sly standards.

reply

4.8 9 months later, you were close.

reply

The draw of these films, at least for me was always, "hey, look at these action stars of yesteryear kicking ass!"

They peaked at the second entry imo. I mean they got Scott Adkins, JCVD & Chuck Norris! It was also cheesy but hella fun.

Mel Gibson made the third one. I liked him & Wesley Snipes.

Also, the budget does NOT need to be that high. Damn!

reply

Also, the budget does NOT need to be that high. Damn!

I'm still wondering where was it spent in this film lol.

reply

It probably went to the cast. Or the "perks" they asked for.

reply

I overheard a guy proclaim that this movie took him by the hand and walked him out the door! This was 30 min in. I found it funny.

reply