The Expendables 3

This film has the most imaginative and technically proficient action (Hughes is as spectacular as in the 1980s and at the same time crisp and clear as is appropriate thirty years later), the funniest newcomers (not the youngsters!), the most luxurious villain (yeah, Mel's to blame, but damn it, take it easy on him already, he's in his prime), and sadly, the most boringly conceived plot (it's not much more than an amusement ride and the second film sorely lacks self-deprecation). (08/08/2015)

This movie is so terribly gay that if I were to unexpectedly walk into one of the RVs some night during filming, I believe I'd collide with an Italian Stallion clinging his powerful lips to the shaved nipple of a cute giggling Terry Crews, with Austrian-eyed Arnold rubbing a cigar on Statham's naked buttocks and Kellan Lutz with his pink lips behind the camera shooting the whole thing. The downgraded access to a PG13 rating has, among other things, traded blood for cold man sweat, and thanks to motivational bullshit like a gym coach, we suddenly have not an action movie in front of us, but a classic prepubescent muscle show for young Leo Beráneks. Logically, then, the best action scenes here are the skillful Banderas and Ronda, because they at least pretend to have some choreography. I don't think that the lower level of accessibility automatically reduces the functionality of the action scenes, just that for this action and the forms the filmmakers have chosen for it to it take (knives, machetes, close-range shooting), it doesn't work. Not even the LazyTown-esque special effects help. And as for Stallone and his old-man dragging of pensioner's dilemmas into an action movie, all I can say is "Sly, go to Pelhřimov. They have a crematorium there. Take a good look around. See what you're getting into." Actually, the whole thing reminded me of a pub owner I met recently who, when asked what kind of beer they had, said, "We’ve got Budvar. But I wouldn't have any." (12/07/2014)

The second one is just so good and has such great lines that the third one can't compare. It lacks Chuck Norris and a bit better interaction between the characters, those young ones are a bit unnecessary here, on the other hand, it would probably be even more boring story-wise. It's stretched out in some places, but when it comes to action, it's great, just there's not enough blood. Yes, I was expecting a little more, but for me, it's still a great spectacle that I enjoyed. The feelings are not like after the second one, but I'm still looking forward to the fourth part and I hope it comes. (08/14/2014)

A couple of minutes after the end, and I already don’t know what it was about. Maybe it’s because it was about nothing... :) While the second one made my heart skip a beat at the fact that an action film today can still be so genuinely entertaining and that can transfer that vigour to the viewer, the third one is a soulless, uninspired carnage that only tries to win fans by how many famous names appear in as super-stylish badass icons. The best character is hands down Banderas’s, who spices up the dull parade of B-movie action and script recycling at least for a while with much-needed, previously completely derivative humour. 45% (10/11/2015)

This is not a tribute to the eighties, this is mindless and dull. There is no winking, only a rehash of annoying trademarks we used to smirk at in the past, but in a newer package. The frowning main character, the incredibly confusing and poorly edited action, a heap of amateur digital effects, and except for two or three shots, uninteresting full-contact fights with no trace of dynamics. If it had at least least half of the raw feeling of Bourne, I would happy. Truly disappointing. Only Antonio Banderas and the non-action chemistry between the main characters entertained me. But they didn't have to make an action movie for that. A live stream while having dinner in LA would have been enough. (08/23/2014)