Another Uh-Oh

email this story
read comments (32)
post a comment

The fact that there's no apparent intention to screen Sylvester Stallone's The Expendables (Lionsgate, 8.13) in tandem with a 6.23 L.A. Film Festival interview he'll be doing with Elvis Mitchell is another indication (on top of that pompous trailer that posted three or four days ago) that this all-star actioner may have problems. The web page says only a "sneak peek" (a presumed reference to a product reel) will be shown.

If the film has issues (I say "if"), here's a shot-in-the-dark guess as to why. It may be that The Expendables has too many aging-macho-guy egos to juggle, and in its struggle to give everyone a fair (or contracted) amount of studly screen time with cool dialogue and all, the rhythm of the story, as it might be or could have been, may have been been lost. Perhaps it doesn't flow together and operate like a organic, integrated, well-oiled thing; perhaps it feels more like a kind of muscular, gun-totin' fashion show on a runway in Milan. Again -- a guess!

I'm not gunning for this film. I loved the last Rambo for its comically excessive violence and am still hoping that The Expendables will somehow work. But the notion that some kind of trouble may be afoot is definitely on the wall.

Helium<< previous | next >>What It Comes To

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on June 7, 2010 at 8:06 AM

comment #1

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

You may be right.

I sorta doubt it affects the movie's B.O. too much, though, at least on opening weekend. Groups of guys in their 20s-40s -- and especially 30-something dudes -- are pretty much going to see for themselves no matter what anyone says.

If there's ever a definition of someone that by and large doesn't give a fuck about critics, it's the sweaty, 38 year-old, blue-collar guy bitter about working long hours in August unloading trucks in the back of a warehouse ("I never liked any piece of shit that asshole's ever recommended, anyway!).

And that's pretty much the target audience for this flick.

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 10:02 AM

comment #2

THE MovieBob says ...

"And that's pretty much the target audience for this flick."

And if that's all they've got, they could be in real trouble. There aren't enough of those guys who go to movies regularly. If "Expendables" is going to fly, it'll need the fairly larger audience of 30-and-under movie geeks who appreciate macho-action stuff ironically; and unfortunately at least the first night THAT audience is probably next door seeing Scott Pilgrim.

Posted by THE MovieBob at June 7, 2010 10:20 AM

comment #3

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Do geeks like that appreciate when the irony is already built into the finished product? The returns on Kick-Ass seem to possibly suggest otherwise, but I concede that I really have no idea.

It seems safe to do at least Rambo-like numbers. I'm assuming the budget is a lot bigger on this, though, given the casting. Anyone know?

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 10:47 AM

comment #4

Eloi Wrath says ...

The budget is quite large. Something like $80m, which seems a lot. I think Pilgrim has a similar budget. Absolute lunacy to release them both on the same day. It'd be like releasing The Avengers on the same day as Batman 3.

"And if that's all they've got, they could be in real trouble. There aren't enough of those guys who go to movies regularly."

Correct. Why shell out $13 for the ticket when they can get it from Redbox for $1 in a few months' time?

Posted by Eloi Wrath at June 7, 2010 10:55 AM

comment #5

LexG says ...

Can CitizenKaned please again do his rant where he explains he has no idea who Terry Crews is?

Maybe I'll look it up. It's either filed under "I Haven't Seen a Movie Since 2004" or "I Don't See Movies With Black People.... Or Watch Television."

Posted by LexG at June 7, 2010 10:56 AM

comment #6

Eloi Wrath says ...

Actually, I don't think Universal have mentioned Pilgrim's budget. So I've no idea how that much cost. It looks expensive, though.

Posted by Eloi Wrath at June 7, 2010 10:57 AM

comment #7

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

I don't know who the fuck Terry Crews is! Which one was he in Crash, again?

As per IMDb, apparently I've seen eight films he was in, but I'll be damned if he's made much of an impact on me (obviously).

He's obviously a hard-working guy with plenty of credits to his name, but to flash his last name up on the screen in big blocky lettering like he was the next coming of Stallone (or even Statham) or something? Embarrassing.

It's about the equivalent of pimping out Cavaziel in '96 for The Rock after Cage/Connery/Harris. Biehn I could see, thanks to his association with Cameron, or Tony Todd (Candyman 4ever!), or even David Morse due sheerly to his long tenure and journeyman career. That gay hairdresser probably had more name-recognition at the time, due to his dumbass show.

Couture is even more baffling to me. Oh, you mean the guy that grabs other guys bare bodies for a living and did some voice work for a real-time computer strategy game where he's billed somewhere beneath Kelly Hu?

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 11:43 AM

comment #8

LexG says ...

I'd like to be beneath Kelly Hu.

Terry Crews's bits in WHITE CHICKS were the stuff of legend and pretty much what put him on the map. Even if you didn't see the movie, the trailer bit with this imposing black guy singing along to Vanessa Carlton was a pretty prominent pop-culture meme.

Posted by LexG at June 7, 2010 11:48 AM

comment #9

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Ohhhh, so that was him. Now I know who Terry Crews is!

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 11:56 AM

comment #10

DeeZee says ...

Kane: You'd be surprised how many films he took in stride on those fan Q+As on AICN.

Bob: "it'll need the fairly larger audience of 30-and-under movie geeks who appreciate macho-action stuff ironically"

Yeah, because they totally made Snakes on a Plane and Kick-Ass hits.

Eloi: The budget should be fine, given the world-wide appeal of the talent involved. Eighty mil for Pilgrim, though, is nuts. That thing looks like it should cost $20-$30 mil max.

Posted by DeeZee at June 7, 2010 12:15 PM

comment #11

Ashleyo says ...

President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho is displeased.

Posted by Ashleyo at June 7, 2010 12:31 PM

comment #12

THE MovieBob says ...

Crews has a HUGE following with black audiences, is why his name is in there with the "bigger" guys. He's been the go-to "why aren't WE allowed big action leads" argument for years now. If Marvel were smart, he'd ALREADY be playing Luke Cage.

Posted by THE MovieBob at June 7, 2010 1:29 PM

comment #13

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

"Kane: You'd be surprised how many films he took in stride on those fan Q+As on AICN."

No idea what this means. How does one take a film "in stride?"

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 4:19 PM

comment #14

Jeffmc2000 says ...

This movie is never going to live up to the version action movie geeks have been playing in their heads ever since it was announced, so it's probably better if they let the mystique simmer as long as it can. This is a movie that promises the GREATEST ACTION MOVIE EVER! and it's never going to be that. It'll probably be lots of fun, but absolutely everyone is going to be disappointed that their favorite push-up artist didn't get enough screen time, or that they only blew up a country when they should have gone for a whole continent, or whatever. It's sort of a can't win situation.

And as far as ego wrangling goes, I get the feeling that everyone knows this is Sly's baby and they're just along for the ride. At least I hope they know that.

Posted by Jeffmc2000 at June 7, 2010 4:23 PM

comment #15

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Agreed, Jeff.

I remember waaaay back when Inglourious Bastards rumors where first starting to hit the internet (this was pre-Kill Bill), and obviously the movie freaks' imaginations got carried away and they started imagining this dream team of '80s action stars (to be fair, Quentin talks too fucking much and he's at least partly to blame for this rampant-yet-idle speculation).

I'm really glad he sat on IB as long as he did. The finished film was almost nothing like I would have expected 10 years ago. But by not focusing on the expecting (the Bastards), it became so much more.

Now it looks like Sly has actually made the exact kind of film that all these people were imagining on AICN, Coming Attractions, and Dark Horizons 10 years ago.

I hate to be a miserably cynical fucker, but there's almost no way it can live up to that kind of hype, even if it was REALLY good, as opposed to just the moderately entertaining summer flick it appears it might be.

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 5:08 PM

comment #16

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

*by not focusing on the expected

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 5:09 PM

comment #17

Gordn27 says ...

Kaned - David Lynch is a Terry Crews fan, so you really have no excuse.

Posted by Gordn27 at June 7, 2010 8:37 PM

comment #18

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Fair enough, fair enough. But I'm not exactly tearing the roofs off clinics to practice transcendental meditation, either, if you catch my drift.

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 7, 2010 9:05 PM

comment #19

JaySmack says ...

CitizenKaned--
Terry Crews is no household name, but he's been in quite a few films, starting with The 6th Day. Some parts he's gotten are large, other not so. He also was on a TV series (Everybody Hates Chris).

You really ought to be profoundly embarrassed at admitting you don't know an actor who everyone else is familiar with.
That's okay, outside of this site nobody knows who you are either.

But when somebody is THAT totally clueless they really ought to think twice before showing how sarcastic they can be.
It makes ignorance look like total stupidity.

Posted by JaySmack at June 8, 2010 9:29 PM

comment #20

CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts says ...

Jay -- it was a reference to an earlier inside joke between Lex and I. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

Seriously, though..."profoundly embarrassed?" An actor everyone else is familiar with? Now whose ignorance is showing?

Like I said before, I've seen eight of the movies he was in and recognized his face, but I really don't know his name and my overall point is that selling his NAME on the same level as Stallone, Jet Li, or even Jason Statham (all of whom are obviously household names for the average Joe) is a little bit silly.

I'm glad you know who he is -- or you can at least pretend by using IMDb -- but I doubt you know all the character actors I know, either. Believe me, if they tried to sell a drama on the strength of one of my favorite smaller supporting actors like Bruce McGill (you know who that is?), I wouldn't be disparaging you at all; quite the contrary. I'd be right there with you, laughing at the awkward attempt to market relative anonymity.

Now having said all of that, I don''t much appreciate the cutting tone of your response, and you can go fuck yourself in an anonymity deeper than Terry Crews, for all I care.

Posted by CitizenKanedForPostingThoughts at June 9, 2010 11:34 AM

comment #21

lfmaxmen says ...

A Vibram FiveFingers is one of very few designer Vibram Five Fingers that still maintain their Timberland Shoes that shows ghd straighteners on sale off a woman as Coach Bags, fluid and voguish. When one Chanel Bags the handbag, they definitely buy Louis Vuitton Bags that is quality guaranteed in which the Prada Bags, color, texture and the Gucci Bags are identical in design, inside and UGG Sandals. Not to mention the MBT Sandals is handpicked by the MBT Shoes only from the top 10% that are produced for Chanel Jewelry. Coach bags come in an assortment of colors, Ray Ban Sunglasses outlet, sizes and styles giving MBT Shoes the option of selecting exactly what you want MBT Sandals is suitable for any occasion.