Already far too old for this shit

Randy Couture, Jason Statham and Sylvester Stallone in a scene from "Expendables 3." (Photo by Phil Bray)

It took all of two seconds for me to lose any enthusiasm for the “Expendables 3,” and an additional three seconds to realize how stupid the additional two-plus more hours of screen time would be. It came from on-screen text to inform the audience the train they’re seeing on screen is an “armored prison transport,” which is made quite clear once star Sylvester Stallone and his compatriots start shooting the heck out of that thing. What that reveals is a supercilious attitude of the audience's ability to decipher the action on screen – a habit the filmmakers fall back on repeatedly – and an overarching inability to do something interesting with staid material.

I'm admittedly a novice into what is now the “Expendables” series – I elided right over films one and two – but the gist of the storyline is simple enough. There's a ragtag crew headed by a melting Stallone that includes Jason Statham, Randy Couture, Dolph Lundgren, Terry Crews and new member Wesley Snipes, who are paid to capture a bad guy played by the nefarious Mel Gibson.

The crew inevitably fails because they’re too old, apparently, which leads Stallone to assemble a new team (with Kelsey Grammer's assistance) with younger blood in the form of Ronda Rousey, Kellan Lutz, Victor Ortiz and Glen Powell. I’m still not sure why this is necessary, as Stallone is the one tipping the age scale further to the AARP side of the spectrum, but whatever.

The infusion of youth backfires, of course, and Stallone has to rescue his new younger teammates and maybe get the band back together and make everyone work as a team and a family or something. Oh, and Harrison Ford, Jet Li, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Antonio Banderas stop by to shoot people.

Antonio Banderas pictured at his physical prime

 Three graphs of roundup and I'm already bored with “Expendable 3's” plot machinations, which lumber along at a less than thrilling clip. The film is just overstuffed with abundance and scenes whose only significance is to add screen time for the stars (Gibson has a couple of these instances) or to showcase the stars’ special talents (in this case fight scenes with Statham and MMA star Rousey). “Expendables 3” is an excellent example of the law of diminishing returns: Adding more elements, in this case action stars, to a production of any sort can lead to a reduction in satisfaction after a certain threshold is passed.

Perhaps cutting off a star or two – maybe Couture and Powell – could have boosted the CGI budget to push the special effects slightly above straight-to-VOD caliber. For a film that's major selling point is action scenes, the effects behind those scenes – in particular any helicopters, cars or airplanes – are surprisingly choppy and are more befitting a Star Fox game than a big-budget motion picture.

At the heart of the problem though is, again, an overwhelming lack of interest in making an interesting action film. Director Patrick Hughes – the third director in the series – lacks the chops to stage an impressive action sequence (seriously, how do you make a train escape dull?) nor does he seem all that capable of filming a coherent fight scene. (The latter is a little frightening for fans of “The Raid: Redemption,” as Hughes was announced as the director for the American remake.)

“Expendables 3” is really bogged down by the expectations of nostalgia and mandatory callbacks to the stars’ previous films. That means Schwarzenegger has to bellow out a token “get to the chopper” line while Snipes tosses out a tax evasion joke to make fun of his real-life financial problems. I'm not sure if I should give the filmmakers credit or grievance for avoiding an “always bet on black” reference for Snipes; a small part of the film does take place in an abandoned casino.

 

I'm leaning toward missed opportunity.

That isn't to say the nostalgia method is entirely ineffective; that Snipes line is pretty good, and there are a few other references that land well enough. And despite the glut of actors, there are a couple who get a chance to shine, especially Statham, Banderas, the ice-cold Gibson and even Rousey.

“Expendables 3's” best moment however belongs to Stallone and Grammer, when the two are shooting it while gallivanting about to find new recruits. It hints on the type of film this could have been: a group of aging fighters fighting, chatting and busting on one another with a mix of joy and existential clarity as they prepare for the last big battle. It'd be a very different film, but one with much more to offer than a haggard and sloppy second sequel.

Review: Two out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 126 minutes

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: The token fans of the first two films and people with soft spots for aging action stars going for that one last paycheck.

Take the whole family?: I'm perplexed as to what contortions this film underwent to receive a PG-13 rating. It's violent as all heck, making the “R” rating more apropos.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix for this one.

So who gets to be the villain in “Expendables 4”? With Mel Gibson, Jean-Claude Van Damme and Mickey Rourke already dispatched, the filmmakers could continue with the former A- or B-list stars and tab Kevin Bacon, Burt Reynolds, Christopher Walken or, shudder, Steven Seagal. A more interesting route though would be to go deep into the '80s action well and pull up Michael Dudikoff or Kurt Thomas.

Mr. Gymkata in action

Watch this instead?: “The Wild Bunch” employs the aging mercenary theme more effectively and in a far more poetic style. You can also take your pick of the film catalogs of the “Expendables” stars, for example Jason Statham's “Transporter” or Mel Gibson's “The Road Warrior.”

Not much to do in space but fly and fight

A buffed up Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill/Star-Lord in "Guardians of the Galaxy." ©Marvel 2014

I keep regressing back to 10-year-old Eric mode when thinking about “Guardians of the Galaxy.” That little me, who comes packaged with a Lloyd Christmas haircut and habit of wearing utterly unflattering sweatpants, gets overeager and wicked tongue tied trying to express enthusiasm. The best part of a film or TV show or book was X, and Y, and sometimes Zed and Alpha too.

I'm trying very, very hard to avoid doing so while describing “Guardians,” because, well, I could dip into the rambling excitable boy I used to be. So to sum it up as succinctly as I possibly can, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is the embodiment joyful awesomeness. 

This is the first thing that pops up when searching for 'joyful awesomeness." 

“Guardians of the Galaxy” has the delightful Chris Pratt playing goofy and ripped ladies' man Peter Quill (aka Star-Lord), who explores the galaxy as a glorified dumpster diver. After he finds a strange orb on a scavenging mission – an act that peeves father-figure Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) – Pratt attempts to cash in on his find but is intercepted by fearsome assassin Gamora (Zoe Saldana). Saldana's robbery attempt is sabotaged by a pair of bounty hunters, Rocket (a talking raccoon voiced by Bradley Cooper) and Groot (a giant tree voiced by Vin Diesel), who are after a price placed on Pratt's head.

An ensuing arrest by the militaristic Nova Corps results in the four taking a trip to space prison, where they encounter the revenge-crazed Drax the Destroyer (WWE wrestler Dave Bautista). Bautista's lust for vengeance is targeted at the insanely evil – or evilly insane – Ronan (an unrecognizable but wonderful Lee Pace), who, aided by Saldana's sister Nebula (Karen Gillan) happens to want the orb in order to destroy the planet Nova – home to characters played by Glenn Close, John C. Reilly, Peter Serafinowicz and others. Once the orb inevitably falls into Ronan's hands, it's up to the ragtag Guardians to stop him and save Nova from certain destruction.

There's way more to “Guardians'” plot than that – it has the same epic mythology as other Marvel film series like the “Iron Man,” “Thor” and “Captain America” – and unpacking too much of it does take out a hint of the surprise from a movie based on a lesser-known Marvel series. Mentioning the existence of a more complex plot, however, serves as a roundabout way of complimenting director and co-writer James Gunn's management of the complicated storyline; in other words, his presentation is much smoother than the above description indicates.

Much of my excitement about the “Guardians” film over the last few months was associated directly with Gunn's involvement in the project, which was unexpected to put it mildly. It’s risky enough green lighting a film about the obscure Guardians, but handing it over to a man whose best known to general audiences for writing two “Scooby-Doo” movies and the “Dawn of the Dead” remake with a $170 million price tag is insane. 

Gunn, however, has a knack for creating losers who have heroic intent but just need the right opportunity to do so, like Nathan Fillion's bumbling sheriff Bill Pardy in “Slither” and the Guardians, who at least sense the divide between right and wrong and know which side they should fall upon.

It’s one reason why hiring Gunn is a brilliant decision; he hits all of the proverbial notes correctly and creates a film with the right blend of action, comedy, pathos and dreariness. The combination is vital for a film like “Guardians,” which could easily be brushed off by saying it doesn't take itself too seriously or is meant to be the lighter Marvel film.

But that's not the case, because what's at stake in the film's universe are the lives of 11 billion people on just one planet, and Gunn doesn't joke around when it comes to the lives of so many people. (He even pulls a Whedon and kills off a likable secondary character in a rather cruel fashion). The moments of necessary gravity are played straight, which makes the inevitable triumphant ending all the more satisfying for the characters and especially the audience.

That isn't meant to underplay the comedy though, much of which comes courtesy of Cooper's Rocket and from Pratt's wacky antics (although everyone gets at least one very good line). Pratt's presence was the other major reason for my Guardians' gaga – watch a few episodes of “Parks & Recreation” to see why – and watching him transition seamlessly from serious man to goofball during the title credits justified my anticipation.

“Guardians'” sole bugaboo is a lack of time watching the five guardians bounce off one another because of the need to complete the origin story. It's the only reason why I have to dock the film a few points in the grading system, but it does make prospects of the sequel even stronger than before. “Guardians of the Galaxy” is awesome; “Guardians of the Galaxy 2: Electric Boogaloo” should be even better.

Just like the gold standard for sequels.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 121 minutes (Two hours and one minute)

Genre: Action/Sci-Fi

Ask Away

Target audience: The devoted Marvel fan base is a given; otherwise, “Guardians of the Galaxy” is great for audiences who like an amalgamation of action, Sci-Fi and comedy.

Take the whole family?: The large amounts of violence and general darkness earns it an inappropriate label for kids younger than 10.

Theater or Netflix?: Lovely special effects earn “Guardians” a rather rare theater recommendation regardless of time of day.

What is your favorite part of “Guardian”?: Bradley Cooper's Rocket is a constant stream of crepuscular hilarity, but what I loved most about the film was the beauty of Groot. He's a sweet, nurturing character in a world of evil and cynicism, and Vin Diesel's simple vocal performance – all the character says is “I am Groot” – is impressively nuanced in a similar manner as his work in the divine “The Iron Giant.” 

 

Reason five for why the '90s didn't completely suck.

Watch this as well?: The other Marvel films (at least everything post “Iron Man” are good choices, as is Gunn's comedy/horror full-length feature debut “Slither.” Another good place to mosey off to is the “Firefly” and “Serenity” universe. “Take my love, take my land, take me where I cannot stand …”