Tom Jolliffe on what to expect from The Expendables 3…
Two films into the Expendables franchise, fans eagerly await the arrival of the third instalment. Thus far we have come to expect certain things. Firstly of course, lots of stuff gets blown up. That’s a given considering the cast which is a group of 80’s and 90’s action Gods. Then there’s the referential humour, that in the second film in particular was almost non-stop. Did the first two films entertain? For many yes. Did they fully deliver on the promise? Not really. The balance has never quite been right. The scripts always felt a bit jumpy and in many cases some key cast members felt wasted (namely Mr Van Damme in number 2).
Now, expectation and the end result can often be two very different beasts. Many felt upon the first announcement of the original Expendables film that this might be something akin to the opening half of Predator. A great mix of machismo, expertly crafted set pieces and just pure badass. It never quite worked out like that. Did Stallone and Millennium Films miss a trick in trying to persuade Shane Black to get his typewriter out? Should they have been ambitious with directors? Much is open to debate.
With a few trailers out now, and many interviews and set pictures, what can we expect from the third instalment? Well, how about the following…
A fresh direction with an exciting director:
Director Patrick Hughes secured himself a hell of a gig. His only previous feature film, an Australian made, low budget modern Western, called Red Hill wasn’t seen by too many outside of Australia. Thankfully for Hughes it was seen by Sly Stallone though.
Now for anyone who hasn’t seen Red Hill, it’s well worth a watch. It’s a brilliantly crafted Western. It’s beautifully shot with some nice set pieces and it looks bigger than its budget. The films major strength was the clarity of the vision from its director, which helped overcome the somewhat patchy script. Hughes knows how to pace a scene, whether it’s simply dialogue, an action sequence, or when he’s ratcheting up the tension.
In the first Expendables, Stallone kind of hit the film like a torpedo of uncontrollable energy, for better and worse. Daily script changes, sudden flights of fancy, and all the while balancing his writer, director, and actor caps like he was spinning plates at a kids birthday party. The film was a bit messy and tonally inconsistent.
Simon West in the second instalment was a gun for hire. He knows how to shoot a big budget film. He knows what’s required. What he delivered was some good set pieces. The tongue was too firmly in cheek though. How much was down to him, or how much to Sly is debatable, but the overly jokey tone put some off. Indeed it’s not necessarily a genre or grouping of actors that West took too seriously. That whole winking at the audience can only go so far before you fall into Naked Gun territory and Expendables 2 tip toed along that line, damn near crossing it at times.
With Hughes you get the impression that he’s a fan of these guys. Aside from being a breakthrough job for a young and hungry film-maker, it appears to be a job he approached with great passion. You’d imagine, more so than West, that Hughes found the prospect of directing Rambo, the Terminator, Mad Max, Blade, Han Solo and Sideshow Bob in the same film to be a (very strange) dream come true. In interviews he appears to get the gripes that many had of the first two. He’s made mention several times of getting the “balance” right, and that’s the key. Not only that but he’s shown great vision with the action side. As much as possible done practically, and furthermore, a great deal of diversity in the sequences.
Also of importance, I think Hughes will be reluctant to waste the talent at his disposal. One thing the franchise has lacked so far is a really strong, well used villain, but it would seem like Gibson has been inspired in this and I’m sure his countryman and self proclaimed Mad Max fan, Hughes will not let Gibbo go to waste.
A balance between the 80’s style action film and the modern blockbuster:
80’s action fans love a bit of Rambo, a bit of Commando. That run and gun kind of silliness. The guys like Sly, Arnold etc, became known for their array of weaponry and destroying many a military vehicle. In the first film there was perhaps an over-reliance on the modern style shaky cam and fast paced editing, but in terms of the set pieces themselves, they were of the old school. The finale was cut straight from the 80’s as the gang take out a military compound.
The second film likewise had some nice back, very classically styled sequences, and again, much like the first film, and much of the 80’s, a lot take place at military bases, jungles, airports and docks etc. With the exception of a disappointing over-reliance on CGI enhancements to blood and some explosions, if you look back at trailers for the first two, squint a bit, they could almost have come from the beginning of a VHS among the trailers.
What they just lacked a touch of is a bit of the modern balance. Just a little dash of the more outlandish. Some crazier stunts, some crazier set ups, perhaps some neon lit buildings to descend at night. What the trailer for the third seemed to evoke was shots that seemed like they could have come out of a Fast & Furious film, or one of the Mission: Impossible films. Now this isn’t a bad thing. The opening prison train breakout of Wesley Snipes shows a lot of promise, and indeed there will still be plenty of war torn battle grounds full of disposable bad guys for the team to annihilate.
PG-13 won’t be the death knell of The Expendables:
This has been a point of contention since the franchise was birthed. A PG-13 rating was considered for the first and second films. Indeed upon it’s mentioning before the first film had finished the interweb backlash was such that Sly had to come out and reassure people it would be an R rating.
Granted, all these guys have built a career in the R rated world. These are different times though. Firstly, you can get more out of a PG-13 than you could 10-15 years ago. Secondly, the Expendables though affectionately based off the films of yore from Sly et al, are not like those films. They’re homages, often playful, and as mentioned previously, regarding the second one, bordering on spoof.
With PG-13 confirmed in the US now, the moaning has been there, though not nearly as much as it was after the first film. In part people may care less because the films didn’t quite live up to the promise in any case. A rating change now for something many will possibly bypass in theatres to await Netflix, is perhaps a redundant issue.
Lets face it too, the first two films were probably 10-20 seconds between them, away from being PG-13 anyway. They weren’t anything like Paul Verhoeven’s Total Recall or Robocop in terms of violence for example. Not even close. Much of the blood was added in post and looked thoroughly unconvincing. Now to us Brits the difference matters little. The first two were 15 certificates and the third film will probably be merely a slightly softer 15 certificate.
Will a PG-13 mean the film cannot be intense? Far, far from it. In fact one could look at some of the recent Bond films, The Dark Knight or Taken as examples of PG-13 releases with arguably more intensity and gruesomeness than the first two Expendable films. A rating does not a good film make, and if the PG-13 rating means less CGI blood, then surely that’s a good thing.
The Expendable Expendables wave goodbye, and the new kids prepare to take the reigns:
So far in the series, despite their name, the Expendables haven’t quite lived up to their name. These guys have been pretty indestructible. With so many people coming together and schedules as they are it’s been tough fitting everyone in and giving them enough. Statham seems to be taking a gradual decline in proceedings having been co-host in the opening film. Jet Li has turned from bit part man to cameo man. Couture and Crews have been under used, and in the third part Crews found his time limited due to scheduling conflicts.
At some point, something has got to give. People have to die, or get written out. “One last ride” as suggested in a tagline from the first trailer, may mean just that for some. If the series is to continue do we need to see Jet Li have a token appearence again? Can Ying Yang retire with his family in China happily now? Probably. Will Barney Ross finally call time and become more of a cameo artist in future franchises along with some of his cohorts like Gunner Jensen. We’ve got plenty of joy from seeing Arnold return but beyond this film, I don’t think we need to see him back. This could be his last time helping out Barney Ross.
One set picture of one cast member appeared to suggest his days could be numbered. So an element of mortality may have been added to this and perhaps more convincingly than writing in a young character just to kill him off, like the fate of poor Liam Hemsworth in the last film.
As for the newbies, putting aside debates about ability and potential (Kellen Lutz’s inclusion was somewhat contentious) it appears Sly is leaving options open for further sequels and spin-offs. Lets face it, the old guard have to call it quits sometime. There will still be room for cameos. Indeed the potential for money raking spin-offs is huge. Guys like Dolph Lundgren and Randy Couture are popular straight to video specialists who could lead straight to vid spin offs and indeed Statham is getting close to direct to video world after a string of box-office disasters. The younger guys could get their own spin off with the odd cameo thrown in, or Sly taking up more of a Judi Dench (tee hee) kind of role.
In terms of another instalment in the current format and line-up, I’m not sure how many more films they can get away with before the bones get a bit too rickety, but more importantly, before it’s no longer financially viable as a big budget blockbuster. Much depends on the takings for the third film as to whether we’ll see a fourth appearing as a big summer tent-pole picture.
The Expendables 3 arrives on August 14th, when we will find out just whether it can deliver on the promise.
Tom Jolliffe
