I feel as though no spoiler alert is necessary, as you
should know what you’re getting from The
Expendables franchise, if you ever had any interest in it, by now. There
are no surprises. You’re getting a movie that tries to draw upon the nostalgia
of action movies and actors from the past three decades. However, the
action-hero movie genre should not be thought of as a homogeneous monolith.
There are differences along a variety of margins.
Consider the original Die
Hard. We see John McClane as quite vulnerable. Whereas other action movies
have led us to perceive a bullet wound in an extremity as a minor annoyance,
broken glass presents a real obstacle to McClane. We don’t see him taking on a
million guys at once, but resorting to guerilla tactics due to his comparative
weakness in force. Because of this, the drama is far more palpable and McClane
seems much more heroic.
Contrast this with The
Expendables 3, which contains no
tension at any point. The audience is never led to feel that the protagonists
are ever in any serious danger at all, despite the fact that they are routinely
vastly outnumbered and outgunned. Regardless of all the “action” that occurs in
the film, it makes for a rather boring experience.
Also disappointing is the missed opportunity in drawing on
the potential nostalgia of the characters associated with the cast members. For
example, there is a subtle reference to the character played by Antonio
Banderas in Desperado and Once Upon a Time in Mexico, but why not
just make up some excuse to have El Mariachi in The Expendables rather than have Banderas play some generic guy? I mean, it’s not like it would damage the plot
in terms of its plausibility or cheesiness. The payoff of seeing guitar cases
filled with guns or guitar cases as guns would be totally worth it. The same
goes for other beloved characters like Statham’s Frank Martin. Would a story
that finds a way to bring these disparate characters together make sense? Probably
not. Would anyone care? Probably not. This is The Expendables, after all.
My final grief has to do with the phenomenon of the villain
having ample opportunity to dispatch the good guy(s) and for no reason choosing
not to. This happens multiple times in The Expendables
3. Early in the movie, the evil Mel Gibson has Rocky Balboa in his
crosshairs, but chooses to wound another guy. He is able to capture most of
Rocky’s team and later sets a trap that could kill Rocky and the other guys he
brings to rescue them, but instead of just blowing them up, he gives them a 45
second grace period in which to disable his bomb. Why he does this, other than
keeping the movie from abruptly ending, is not explained. And, in what was
supposed to be the climatic showdown between Rocky and Gibson, Gibson has the
ability to shoot Rocky dead but instead decides to toss his gun away in order
to have a fist fight. The reason for this can’t be to see who’s the better
fighter, as Rocky eventually grabs a gun and just shoots Gibson. All of this
leaves one feeling as though the villain isn’t that evil (even though we’re
told he did all these bad things in the past), but rather exceptionally
merciful. Needless to say, this does not make for a compelling triumph over
evil.
The Expendables 3 is
not really satisfying in any way. It lacks creativity, plausibility, and a
reason to keep watching. With Hollywood’s preference for producing
tried-and-true formulas, I wouldn’t be that surprised if they tried to make
another one, perhaps with an all-female cast.
