The Expendables 2

Gonna see it tomorrow or Sunday.

Are there critics already?

Rotten Tomatoes is Fresh at 66%, significantly better than the first movie at 41%. I plan on seeing it tomorrow, it looks basically like the first movie wanted to get the right idea in place and now this movie is hitting all the right notes.

Also, no knowledge of Movie 1 is needed. They do reference it, but nothing really that important. Church uses the events of movie 1 as leverage, but it can honestly be brushed off.

For anyone who's seen it by now (was lucky enough to catch a midnight showing), do you think the relatively cuss-free dialogue was a change for the better or worse? I was disappointed with everybody else when the PG-13 rating was announced, but honestly I think it worked out okay. In particular I'm thinking of Willis' scene with Stallone in the plane, which otherwise would have been more profane than pissing on Amma; but even in lieu of the Cluster F-Bomb, Church actually did not sound entirely dumb and overwrought.

Dude, this film is a 16s in Ireland, which is R in America. There was buckets of blood.

Yes, that is true. Not what I'm asking about, but true. It was very very violent - just as advertised. I wonder if we'll see a body count on the internet soon.

Another thing: Hemsworth's character's backstory was supposed to make him super sympathetic and respectable, I know, but his brief use of the term "hajji" was a little uncomfortable. Maybe I'm just ultra sensitive, or misinterpreting the word.

What does that word mean?

It's a slang term used for a middle eastern person, most commonly used by military grunts.

Well, that's a disturbing use. (It actually means "a person who has completely a pilgrimage to Mecca", I believe, given that the pilgrimage is called a hajj. So it's creepy that it's become a slur within the military.)

edited 17th Aug '12 1:56:21 PM by WarriorEowyn

Well he was a soldier so it wouldn't be surprising if it was just natural to him.

WWII games didn't avoid terms like Kraut.

Also this movie rocked. Much better than 1. Though I lament the lack of Rourke and the small role Li had.

I gave it a solid 7. It has the IQ of a piece of wood and absolutely no plot at all, but it's a parody/homage of 80s action and I enjoyed it.

Hell no I wasn't. I'm just saying, lol

edited 18th Aug '12 11:34:00 AM by primeyandereheika

edited 17th Aug '12 9:06:19 PM by 0dd1

I can back up the statement that this movie is bigger, better, and manlier than the first one.

Here, they took all the stuff that didn't work so well in the first movie, made it explode, and then stuffed as much manly action movie goodness as they could in its place.

Here's hoping a spin-off for Trench. Arnold is back in action, so why not?

Haven't seen this one yet, but on the subject of a possible sequel, Nicholas Cage is in while they are in talk with Clint F*cking Eastwood and Harrison Ford.

If they get Danny Trejo, Samuel L. Jackson and finally convince Steven Seagal to say yes, then they'll make the most awesome movie of all time.

Just got back from seeing it. There was some structural problems with the movie (a good part of the time you don't know exactly what they are trying to do) but overall it just runs with in-jokes and violent action "You don't bring that back and you're terminated!." The best part of the film was the opening sequence, filled with enough character bits and over-the-top moments to satisfy during the slower post-credits sequence.

One thing is that while Jean Claude Van Damme made for an excellent Big Bad, we just don't have any clue what his represents. He has a very large army, enough to occupy a decent portion of Europe, so it's unlikely he's a PMC like the others. The only real reason it matters is that enough faceless goons get slaughtered and we don't know why they are opposing the heroes.

As for spoiler stuff, I liked that they gave Billy so much characterization before killing him off. It painted a big target on him because of it but was certainly not a token character building scene, most of the movie up to that point was about him.

Was it right at the very end of the credits or was it before the part of the credits that most people leave at?

I stayed straight through the credits at the showing I was at, and I didn't see anything post-credits.

I meant post-opening title, after the whole Cold Opening.

What? Post-credits scene?

GRRRR! CURSE YOU LARGE DIET DR. PEPPER! You made me leave too soon.

Went to see it last night.

That was pretty awesome.

The movie is FUCKING AMAZING. Rotten Tomatoes can go screw itself, go watch it right now, FUCKING AMAZING with capital letters.

Are you surprised? It's the rare occasion when critics are able to look past excuse plots and enjoy movies for the real reason they were put together, such as giving a bunch of manly action starts an excuse to blow stuff up and kill bad guys for an hour and a half.

I remember being particularly amused by one review I read where the critic basically said "This is a bad movie, but I thoroughly enjoyed it" in a 'Everything I know is wrong' sort of way.

For some reason I liked the first one better than the sequel. As strange as it may sound, the tactics and firefights were slightly more believable, most of the characters had at least some development, and the villian's motivations were clearer. In this one, it's the exact opposite: the gunfights are FAR beyond over-the-top (hell, did they actually AIM at any point in this movie?!), no semblance of any kind of tactics are used by either side, only several of the characters get ANY sort of development at all, and Van Damme and his goons basically exist to sell black market nukes and rape the dog at every concievable moment, just for the hell of it.

The most bizzare part of all was this brief moment at the beginning where Segal and Statham were trying to shoot a gunship with their assault rifles, and claim "It's no good! our bullets can't pierce it!" when the damned thing is 500+ meters away! I'm pretty sure this must've been some sort of acting/CGI goof, because a few clips later the gunship is almost at point blank range, shooting at them from just outside of the building they're in, and eventually getting totaled when they ram a motorbike being into it's cockpit.

I mean, I know that this is supposed to be a pure testosterone rush that's also self-aware of how ridiculous it is, but I think it might've helped if they had parodied themselves a bit better or made it slightly more obvious. It might've helped to make the wall-bangers more bearable, or maybe even funny!