Machete vs. The Expendables

[MovieBob]

My only gripe is: How was the AA-12 from Expendables not the iconic kill? (or series of kills?) Say what you will about the rest of the movie, but how is an automatic, 32 round mag shotgun not awesome?

Well... all things like this are subjective of course, and I'll admit right up front that I'm not a "gun guy" in the sense that I didn't really have a reference of what to "expect" out of the AA-12 or anything to compare it to. (When I play FPS games, I never know which gun I'm "supposed" to have a real hard-on to grab - I typically just take whatever has the most shots per mag and keep it the whole game and stick something with a scope in reserve if it's an option) Plus, the shootouts in the film aren't especially well-staged, so for me that whole sequence was just bad guys flying slightly further back and a much louder "BANG!" sound.

But, more importantly, it didn't strike me as as much of a character scene. The two-man axe-kick, at least, you get the film's only real moment where two of these guys act like a trained/tested military unit - snapping into almost-mechanical two-moving-as-one action. Suddenly there's almost a sense of history and camraderie between whatever-Li's-name-was and whatever-Statham's-name-was.

By contrast, the described scene from "Machete" - while certainly creative and audacious enough to rate high on it's own - is all the MORE memorable because it's such a great character-establishing moment for the hero. See, the film is VERY consciously working to ram home the idea that Machete isn't just a mindless bruiser but a quick-thinking, highly-intelligent operator; which isn't easy to do without slowing down the momentum. So instead, they use scenes like this to let his actions define him - he improvises a distraction and a lethal-weapon out of stuff he finds around the hospital, and executes the intestine-swing based on something he overheard from the doctor. So while looking awesome, it also tells us important things about the guy too. Contrast this with the "arc" of the AA-12 element in Expendables, which is basically just "Terry Crewes tells us he likes his awesome gun" followed by "see? He told you the gun was loud."

Now, I wouldn't presume to tell Stallone how to do his job, but off the top of my head here's how that might work out better: Instead of giving Crewes the gun right off the bat, give it to one of the bad guys and have Crewes notice it on Stallone & Statham's "recon footage." Have him get all excited and geek-out over the AA-12's specs. That gives him two extra details of character depth: Surprise! He's the smartypants "tech-head" of the team AND he's crazy-observant about background details. PLUS, it gives the audience something to root for regarding him: We now REALLY want to see him get his hands on that gun. Later, during the big shootout, have him finally come upon the thing. Close-up on the gun, heroic music swell, close on Crewes, BIG smile, pick up and arm the gun, HUUUUUGE cheer from the audience, transitioning into sustained applause as he puts it to work - we're thrilled to see this gun that's been built-up work, AND we're happy because HE'S happy.

 

[Maldeus]

Here's the deal: Machete may have been a better movie than the Expendables, but it's still not a movie that has real depth. It took a one-dimensional concept (Rebel Alliance v. the Evil Empire) and made it two-dimensional (also there is racism). We can do better.

The thing is, as mentioned in the article, the movie isn't subtle at all. The issue is. It's not about insane racists versus heroic underdogs anymore than it's about heroic vigilantes maintaining a border against an ever growing horde of leeches and criminals. Those are strawman arguments, and that's all the movie is making. A good movie would show you the benefits and drawbacks to each side, such that at the end, while you're positive which side you're on, you have no idea where the filmmakers stand. Better yet, you're convinced the filmmakers ultimately take your side in the issue until you talk to your friend who saw the movie with you and is equally certain that they support his opposing viewpoint. And then you both go argue about it on the internet for the next three weeks.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Enough about The Expendables. We know you don't like it.

 

[Bat Vader]

you know what Bob, get over it, your a snob it's that simple, so if you just keep that in mind we can move on to another movie, and you can keep going up your own ass.

Just because he is comparing a movie he disliked to a movie he liked does mean you should come into this thread and insult him. It was one movie he got mad at. He has made many other good reviews and I we need to give him the benefit of the doubt.

On Topic: Machete looks like a pretty gory and awesome film. The idea that some guy gets his large intestine ripped out and used as a rope is cool. I have got to see this movie.

 

[wadark]

While I do agree with Bob's analysis, I would just like to point out that with proper use of language, you can make ANY story sound stupid.

 

[titaniumChampion]

-snip-

I guess I missed the episode where they sat in the theater not doing an insightful critique of a film, but instead shouting "f*ck everyone who likes this" and "this makes me question evolution" over and over. In a film that Ebert thoroughly hated (North,1994) [http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/reviews.html?sec=1&subsec=1163] he goes over point by point what he hated and gave reasons. At no point did his evaluation turn to the audience, he simply mentions that this will be marketed to kids. That is professional ladies and gents.

MB called everyone sheep, but from what I can gather from your first paragraph is that they aren't being led in the direction you want them to be. Popularity is the measure of success, and that means appealing to a wider audience. I don't blame people for not enjoying every new idea out there all of the time. Some things become great on their own, some things achieve cult status, and others don't get any attention at all. If you have $60 dollars to your name only, and want to purchase something that will keep you entertained and satisfied, you will likely pick something safe as well. Dollar value aside, it's a hard sell to tell everyone you have to invest in experimental or outside their norm medium. Everyone wants to be entertained, and you need to accept that people will choose things, regardless of what they claim, that are safe as human nature.

Lastly, Inception did incredibly well at the box office and reviews. That is an experimental/out of the norm concept. That became successful and popular with the audience. Two key differences between Inception and SPVTW: Marketing and Demographic.

 

[CptShiv]

My only gripe is: How was the AA-12 from Expendables not the iconic kill? (or series of kills?) Say what you will about the rest of the movie, but how is an automatic, 32 round mag shotgun not awesome?

Well... all things like this are subjective of course, and I'll admit right up front that I'm not a "gun guy" in the sense that I didn't really have a reference of what to "expect" out of the AA-12 or anything to compare it to. (When I play FPS games, I never know which gun I'm "supposed" to have a real hard-on to grab - I typically just take whatever has the most shots per mag and keep it the whole game and stick something with a scope in reserve if it's an option) Plus, the shootouts in the film aren't especially well-staged, so for me that whole sequence was just bad guys flying slightly further back and a much louder "BANG!" sound.

But, more importantly, it didn't strike me as as much of a character scene. The two-man axe-kick, at least, you get the film's only real moment where two of these guys act like a trained/tested military unit - snapping into almost-mechanical two-moving-as-one action. Suddenly there's almost a sense of history and camraderie between whatever-Li's-name-was and whatever-Statham's-name-was.

By contrast, the described scene from "Machete" - while certainly creative and audacious enough to rate high on it's own - is all the MORE memorable because it's such a great character-establishing moment for the hero. See, the film is VERY consciously working to ram home the idea that Machete isn't just a mindless bruiser but a quick-thinking, highly-intelligent operator; which isn't easy to do without slowing down the momentum. So instead, they use scenes like this to let his actions define him - he improvises a distraction and a lethal-weapon out of stuff he finds around the hospital, and executes the intestine-swing based on something he overheard from the doctor. So while looking awesome, it also tells us important things about the guy too. Contrast this with the "arc" of the AA-12 element in Expendables, which is basically just "Terry Crewes tells us he likes his awesome gun" followed by "see? He told you the gun was loud."

Now, I wouldn't presume to tell Stallone how to do his job, but off the top of my head here's how that might work out better: Instead of giving Crewes the gun right off the bat, give it to one of the bad guys and have Crewes notice it on Stallone & Statham's "recon footage." Have him get all excited and geek-out over the AA-12's specs. That gives him two extra details of character depth: Surprise! He's the smartypants "tech-head" of the team AND he's crazy-observant about background details. PLUS, it gives the audience something to root for regarding him: We now REALLY want to see him get his hands on that gun. Later, during the big shootout, have him finally come upon the thing. Close-up on the gun, heroic music swell, close on Crewes, BIG smile, pick up and arm the gun, HUUUUUGE cheer from the audience, transitioning into sustained applause as he puts it to work - we're thrilled to see this gun that's been built-up work, AND we're happy because HE'S happy.

tl;dr.
But really though, that scene you described would have been a huge improvement on the movie, and I suppose you do have a point about your iconic kill. However, I am a huge fan of the AA-12, so when I saw the thing was even in this movie, I let out a squeal of joy. But, to each his own I suppose.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Why would he use the large intestine? The small one is longer.

Easier to hold on to?

 

[Necromancer1991]

So expendables sucks in comparison to Rodriguez's 2nd movie this year(after predators), because Machete does everything else better than the expendables, I can live with that

 

[anian]

Hmm, I guess warning of spoliers in reviews is fine, general opinion a movie should be said before them though. But this article kinda bugs the hell out of me, every other time I don't read them cause it says there's spoilers...wouldn't it be good to write the article but publish it a week later?
We usually get movies rather late in cinemas in my country (unless there's a world wide premiere or similar), so it wouldn't help me much, but at least in USA, people usually don't get to see a movie right away, am I right to assume that? Why not move the articles that are connected to a movie a week later for example. After all, it is my understanding that reviews are basically recommendations (or warnings) before you see the film, but articles are more discussion based and pressume you saw it already.

 

[heamrh]

this is the third time (123) time he has said something about Expendables, thats not being a critic, thats a snob. MOVE ON Bob.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

I know The Expendables was bad, but I enjoyed nonetheless. At least it was better than Predators...

 

[reiem531]

Bob, maybe you cannot convince other people to think like you and you should stop trying? If you had not come out and attacked the fans of the Expendables instead of just saying you did not like the movie, maybe the whole mess never would have gotten so out of hand. Maybe you might not have to keep discussing the movie if you stopped trying to get the last word. Someone is always going to answer any point you try to make about it, so you will never get the last word. I think there IS some truth to the accusation you attacked the Expendables because of Scott Pilgrim. The fact is Scott Pilgrim failed because of Scott Pilgrim, not because another movie killed it. Let the people like what they like and do not try to tell them they are wrong Like what YOU like and tell us WHY. When you try to make it a battle, you will lose because there will always be more people that are not you than there are people that are you. Like they say, when it's you against the world, bet on the world.
Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.com/2010/03/19/demotivational-posters-and-the-world/]

In case no one had noticed, "the world" wasn't too fond of The Expendables either.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/

And no, I am not trying to say, "Moar ppl agree with me there4 i m rite!"
I'm just saying, Bob is not the only one in the fucking world that hated The Expendables.

 

[DiscoAtThePanic]

Bob, maybe you cannot convince other people to think like you and you should stop trying? If you had not come out and attacked the fans of the Expendables instead of just saying you did not like the movie, maybe the whole mess never would have gotten so out of hand. Maybe you might not have to keep discussing the movie if you stopped trying to get the last word. Someone is always going to answer any point you try to make about it, so you will never get the last word. I think there IS some truth to the accusation you attacked the Expendables because of Scott Pilgrim. The fact is Scott Pilgrim failed because of Scott Pilgrim, not because another movie killed it. Let the people like what they like and do not try to tell them they are wrong Like what YOU like and tell us WHY. When you try to make it a battle, you will lose because there will always be more people that are not you than there are people that are you. Like they say, when it's you against the world, bet on the world.
Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.com/2010/03/19/demotivational-posters-and-the-world/]

In case no one had noticed, "the world" wasn't too fond of The Expendables either.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/

And no, I am not trying to say, "Moar ppl agree with me there4 i m rite!"
I'm just saying, Bob is not the only one in the fucking world that hated The Expendables.

Too bad that was not my point. My point was that Bob is never going to be able to come on here and get the last word on the subject because the readers will always post a response. He cannot force peopel to agree with him and there will always be more than one person here willing to argue with him.

 

[DiscoAtThePanic]

In case no one had noticed, "the world" wasn't too fond of The Expendables either.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/

And no, I am not trying to say, "Moar ppl agree with me there4 i m rite!"
I'm just saying, Bob is not the only one in the fucking world that hated The Expendables.

Quite the opposite, the movie made $177,228,000 worldwide, so yeah, the world was fond of the Expendables.

Scott Pilgrim? Not so much.

Wait, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the whole world? Someone should tell them!

 

[Dorian Cornelius Jasper]

In case no one had noticed, "the world" wasn't too fond of The Expendables either.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_expendables/

And no, I am not trying to say, "Moar ppl agree with me there4 i m rite!"
I'm just saying, Bob is not the only one in the fucking world that hated The Expendables.

Quite the opposite, the movie made $177,228,000 worldwide, so yeah, the world was fond of the Expendables.

Scott Pilgrim? Not so much.

Wait, Rotten Tomatoes isn't the whole world? Someone should tell them!

You have to admit, though, Scott Pilgrim was a good action comedy. And widely beloved movies like Office Space and Fight Club did poorly in the box office, too. I hope it makes up for it on DVD and Blu-Ray, it deserves it.

In contrast, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace made megabucks. Like The Expendables, it did so by riding a tsunami of popular hype. Surely, if the box office is a reliable measure of quality, then Episode I must be at least three times better The Expendables.

 

[Testsubject909]

Bob, maybe you cannot convince other people to think like you and you should stop trying? If you had not come out and attacked the fans of the Expendables instead of just saying you did not like the movie, maybe the whole mess never would have gotten so out of hand. Maybe you might not have to keep discussing the movie if you stopped trying to get the last word. Someone is always going to answer any point you try to make about it, so you will never get the last word. I think there IS some truth to the accusation you attacked the Expendables because of Scott Pilgrim. The fact is Scott Pilgrim failed because of Scott Pilgrim, not because another movie killed it. Let the people like what they like and do not try to tell them they are wrong Like what YOU like and tell us WHY. When you try to make it a battle, you will lose because there will always be more people that are not you than there are people that are you. Like they say, when it's you against the world, bet on the world.
Very Demotivational [http://verydemotivational.com/2010/03/19/demotivational-posters-and-the-world/]

I think he's avoiding explaining why because he did say why.

It's... not that tough. I'm actually quite confused each time I see someone posting "Explain to us why you didn't like the expendables instead of attacking us!"

Because... Quite honestly, if you can get over the fact that he's attacking the fans, why he didn't like the movie is pretty clear, especially now after this article and his triad of revies of Machete, Scott Pilgrim and The Expendables.

Also, the whole deal about telling people they're wrong? Sometimes, sometimes (let me stress this again. Sometimes.) it's a good idea. In this day and age of information where the idea that all opinions are right being reinforced despite it's many flaws and it's troubles it brings us as a society and in politics... It wouldn't be bad to drive people into the proper path, even if we gotta do it with a freaking hammer to their heads.

People aren't always fully aware of what's best for them, or of the consequences of their actions. Not many people see beyond their immediate profit, and even then, some misjudge exactly what is a profit for them. Now, ignorance is bliss, but even in ignorance you can suffer and many people suffer ignorantly (See the US. If you don't know what I'm talking about... well. Um... don't bother replying or reading my post?).

Of course, there are certain compromises to values and ideals going on at work here. It's like the fine line between dictatorship and democracy... Actually, it's finding a third path. One were the ideals of democracy are upheld, but with a dictatorial touch of sort, where the ones qualified for the tasks would be counted in. (of course, I think my ideas here are moving more towards politics here then personal opinions, but can still be applied on various subjects. Though the answer, as always, tends to be, educate the masses and they will grow and learn, to which case, they will then become fitting for what was stated prior to this little add-on.)

PS. It's 2:15AM, anyone else here mentally tired yet for some reason can't seem to fall asleep?