Why "The Expendables" Sets a Bad Example for Action Films

The Expendables is a marketing ploy, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. An ensemble cast consisting of several big name Hollywood action stars alongside some old and new faces. Nothing inherently wrong with that, the Ocean's # movies were the same thing. What seperates them is style, and ability to bounce around amongst the different characters.

That's one of the numerous problems that The Expendables has: it is completely incompetent when it comes to jumping between characters. In fact, more than half of the big names in the film are ignored completely and pushed to the sidelines until they need them. The first big chunk of the film consists only of Stallone and Statham, the rest of the team don't reappear until around the 1-hour mark. Yet, even with all this time with these two main roles, we get no sense of who they are. They're cardboard.

Yet it's not that the film doesn't try to create more interesting or complex characters, it's just that it is horribly misguided. Stallone is old, Statham is emotionally distant, Lundgren is a junkie, and Li is short. I'm not kidding about that last one, Li has an entire monologue about why life is harder for him because he's short.

The only character who seems to have any sort of arc at all is Lundgren, but it's so weak. His character is immediately introduced as a loose cannon, he's kicked off the team, predictably betrays them, fights Li and Stallone before being shot, and suddenly shows remorse for his actions and gives them new information to help them. What's really strange about the character is that appears to die in this scene, only to show up right before the credits, back with the team, genial as can be. There is no tension between him and the rest of the team, but there should be. I mean, he almost killed Li, yet isn't given so much as a cautious look. I have no problem with the team reluctantly letting him back in, but there needs to be some substance. I totally understand falling out with friends in horrible ways before eventually making amends and becoming amicable once more. But, speaking from experience, that initial betrayal can stick with you for a long time. You may never fully trust them again. However, this is just my experience from schoolyard scruffles, not whole-sale attempts on my life.

Another major problem is tone. Most of the film feels only somewhat serious, particularly dialogue sequences. Then the action sequences come and, for the most part, are super serious, not nearly as over-the-top as the rest of film would suggest they should be. In fact, the action scenes are a complete mess. I won't be hyperbolic and suggest they're the most poorly staged/filmed action sequences ever (that honor still belongs to The Hunger Games), but they are still incredibly incoherent. Several times I had no idea who was involved in the action on screen: the scene starts with Statham and Li, but suddenly there's someone else. Who? Oh, it's Randy Couture from nowhere. But wait, where the hell is Terry Cr... oh, there he is. Sometimes there are multiple action sequences playing out in tandem with one another. Not a problem in slightest, in theory. What becomes a problem is when you don't know which scene you're looking at. Example: two scenes running alongside one another was Li, Statham, Crews, and Couture fighting a bunch of henchmen, meanwhile Sly is fighting one on one with Steve Austin. The fight between Sly and Austin ends so abruptly I had to rewind the movie to see why it ended. It's not like cutting between tandem scenes is advanced stuff, it's first-semester Editing 101. Nor is it that Stallone doesn't know how to do it right, Rambo did it perfectly well.

But what really bugs me is that the movie isn't about anything. No, stop. I know what you're going to say: "but it doesn't need to be about anything. It's a mindless action movie harkening back to classics from the 80's and 90's, it's just supposed to be simple, mindless fun." Please realize that I completely understand such a statement, I can enjoy a little mindless fun as much as anyone: I've seen all three Jackass movies, including the 2.5 and 3.5 direct-to-DVD bits, and I saw 2 in theaters. But you know what, we're not talking about mindless fun, we're talking about a film with story, characters, and emotions. Just because you're not out to win any awards doesn't mean you can simply ignore those details.

Case in point. Lets look at a classic action film of the type The Expendables claims to be an homage to: Die Hard. Die Hard is fast, over the top, and incredibly violent (at least for its day). But really look at the film. What is it REALLY about? Let me tell you, it isn't about high tech theives seizing control of a building. Nope, it's about John McClane's marriage. It's about overcoming past traumas. We see right off the bat that they want to make it all work (John bringin a gift, Holly still has pictures of the family in her office), but they are definitely drifting apart (John is too settled in New York, Holly goes by her maiden name). Slowly, over the course of the film, they are realizing their own feelings about one another: Holly realizing that John is a determined man who will never give up, John realizing how immature he's been and how he should have supported his wife better. No, this is not the main plot of the film, but it is the basic underlying theme: support and trust. Die Hard does the little things that makes each character that much more relatable to the audience. In fact, the villains originally were supposed to be legitimate terrorists, but were changed to theives in order to have a more relatable goal (we all know what it's like to want money). Everything about Die Hard is done to benefit the audience's experience.

The Expendables does none of this. None of the characters are relatable: at their best they are archetypes, at their worst they are non-existant. There is no backstory to any of the characters (except Rourke, but I'll get to that in a bit). Every character exists solely to benefit the action, and they can't even do that right. There is no theme for any character, nor for the film in general. Perhaps you think Die Hard does this because it is a classic action film. Perhaps you think a "lesser" action film does not require theme. If you do think so, you are wrong.

Just to prove my point, look no further than Stallone's own Rambo. No, not First Blood, the introduction of the character, I mean the THIRD SEQUEL. It too could be called a simple, over-the-top, indulgent action movie same as The Expendables. But Rambo is a better film not simply because the action is better or it's edited better, but it does in fact have a theme: the call to action, the necessity of violent retaliation in the face of unforgiving brute force. Even the smallest, seemingly inconsequential role has an arc in that film. The leader of the missionaries, initially greatly insulted by Rambo's violent tendencies and convicted in his belief of pacifism is eventually forced to bludgeon a man to death to save his friends. Not exactly a sophisticated theme or execution, but it's there nonetheless. Stallone even placed the sequence of Rambo using an inactive bomb dropped in the country years ago to take out a large group of soldiers in as a way of commenting on the idea of the violence of past generations coming back to hurt current generations.

What I'm trying to say is that, contrary to what some people seem to think, Stallone is not some meathead movie star without a thought in his brain. Let's not forget, Sly has an Oscar... for WRITING (Rocky). He knows how to develop characters, he knows how to incorporate theme, he knows how to create character arcs.

So why is it that The Expendables is just so devoid of all these elements? I'd be hard-pressed to say that maybe scenes were cut and characters split into multiple parts to allow for more stars, but that doesn't excuse how shoddily constructed individual scenes of the film tend to be. If you've taken a high school English class you're probably aware of three-act structure. Many writers use this structure for the entire story, but it actually works better for individual scenes. Mostly because it's simplistic and allows for an emotional build to a climax before calming down and moving onto the next scene. As I write this I'm watching the scene in Die Hard where McClane is hiding in the airvents while Karl pursues him. That's a great example of an individual scene using three-act structure. You could also look at the Gruber-Takagi scene (if you've seen the film, you know which one I'm talking about). The Expendables follows no structure whatsoever for it's individual scenes. It just alternates between characters talking, shouting, or fighting.

Only one scene seems to have any emotional structure at all: the Mickey Rourke confession. The problem is that we literally know nothing about his character at this point, we have no context. Don't try to say you can infer elements of his character from his occupation or interactions with women, no. That's weak, an excuse. Why does manage this team, what led him to do so? Why is he promiscuous with women? Suddenly this incredibly emotional, deep confession comes from this character. It's there for a reason, to inspire Stallone's character to return to the action and rescue a woman. But why does this confession inspire him? There's seemingly on connection between this confession and anything about Stallone's character. If there is, it's glossed over so quickly I can't recall it in the slightest (I only finished watching it an hour ago).

That's the reason The Expendables sets a bad example for action films: it glosses over all the details. It thinks it can get away without them. It thinks it can slip past criticism by claiming to be an homage. Well sorry, homage is not a blanket term which excuses a filmmaker for not following the basic tenents of filmmaking. Think of Quentin Tarantino or Edgar Wright (the Kings of Homage as far as I'm concerned), whose entire filmographies are built solely on homages to other films, genres, and pop culture in general, yet always manage to have themes and basic emotional cores (Hot Fuzz is a vastly superior homage to 80's and 90's action films). And yet, audiences seem fine with The Expendables simplistic, hollowed out approach to filmmaking compared to the passionate, driven, and groundbreaking works of someone like Wright, seeing as The Expendables raped Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World at the box office.

It's not that I don't want simple-minded action films that serve as escapist fun, it's that I don't want films that serve merely as a paycheck to the filmmakers.

"Warrior" Analysis (or "Why the Protaganist Isn't Necessarily the Point of the Story)

I haven't written a review in while, partially because I've been working on other things, partially because I haven't seen too many new movies lately, but mostly because I just haven't had anything to add to the conversation. Case in point: the last film I saw in theaters was The Dark Knight Rises. What did I think: good movie, far from perfect, need to see it again to elaborate. A lot of critics have already had their go at TDKR and have said far more interesting things than I could.

But there is one film (not exactly new, mind you) that no one ever seems to talk about but which I think deserves much more discussion: the MMA drama Warrior. The film deserves discussion for numerous reasons, but mostly because it is the first of what could be a new genre of films: the MMA fighter film. Much in the same way Rocky opened the lid on boxing movies, Warrior deserves to be seen as a progeniter. Not to mention the fact that it's one of the most effective relationship dramas in recent memory(1).

The main characters of Tommy Riordan (Tom Hardy) and Brendan Conlon (Joel Edgerton) are brothers participating in a winner-take-all MMA tournament. Yet the two are not simply at odds in the ring, but also in their relationship to one another. Tommy and Brendan come from a broken home wrecked by their alcoholic father Paddy Conlon (Nick Nolte). The family broke apart as the mother planned to take Tommy and Brendan and leave, but Brendan decides to stay due to his developing relationship with his girlfriend Tess (Jennifer Morrison), who eventually becomes his wife. Brendan felt from then on that his mother and brother abandoned him, whereas Tommy felt betrayed.

The entire film revolves around these central family dynamics and grows from there. Yet, while on the surface the film appears to be about redemtion and forgiveness I believe there is something deeper: how a family must protect one another. This particular aspect falls upon both characters of Brendan and Tommy, although is perhaps a bit more subtle with the latter. Brendan is a family man who gave up fighting to become a teacher and raise his two daughters. But when the bank threatens to foreclose on his house and he is suspended from his teaching position, Brendan works tirelessly to provide for (or perhaps protect) his wife and children. Tommy is a bit more complicated. Tommy is revealed to have been a Marine in Afghanistan who went AWOL when his entire unit was killed by friendly fire. One of the men killed in his unit was his best friend, whose widow he subsequently promises to provide for after their loss.

Because Tommy is such a physical beheamoth and a brutal brawler we have a hard time seeing past the tough guy persona. He puts up that veil for the entire film, but you can see little moments bleed through. Tommy's promise to the widow of his best friend, the wish for his father to have been supportive as a child, and the final forgiveness of his father when seeing him at his lowest. We also see he is not an instigator, rarely starting a fight but always finishing it.

Yet look deeper and you see that Tommy doesn't want to be the fighter. He is not the eponymous warrior, nor does he want to be. At the center of his being Tommy wants to be the protecter, the provider. We see that in his promise to his friends widow, as well as through his act of bravery in saving the lives of fellow Marines after stumbling upon their struggling unit (even though he was at the time going AWOL). He clearly has the power and capabilities to be such a protector or provider.

However, going ever deeper, that may not be what he needs. Tommy feels completely betrayed by an abusive father and brother who he believed loved him. Even when he left with his mother, Tommy had to be the one to take care of her after she fell ill.

I should also probably mention this: Tommy is the younger brother. What kind of relationship develops between a boy and his older brother? Often it's a mixture of admiration and resentment. You want to be like your older brother, you see them as the standard to hold yourself to. They might poke and prod at your here and there, but you also hope that no matter what, push comes to shove, they will fight to protect you. And if something comes along and seems to prove otherwise, it's devastating(2).

So it seems that all his life Tommy has been the provider, the strong one. Yet in the final match against Brendan, Tommy is injured and loses the use of his left arm. While he refuses to back down, we see Tommy is in dire straits: weeping for the first time on screen, cowering in his corner, alone. Even the cheers of the crowd and support his of his Marine Corp "brothers" are of little comfort. Tommy fights on with one arm, refusing to back down, he knows nothing else. But in the final moments Brendan has him pinned and apologizes, before Tommy finally admits defeat. The most important part of this scene is not that Brendan apologizes nor is it that Tommy forgives him, but that we finally see Brendan behaving like an older brother: keeping the press away from Tommy, shielding him from the chaos of the crowd, and walking Tommy away from the arena with his arms around him. Protecting Tommy.

Endnotes

1. I decided to mix up the style of analysis for this one, reaching deeper into a single aspect of the film for more effective examination. I might try to keep this format for the future. Or maybe not, I've been watching this movie for a year.

2. I speak of this from experience with my own older brother. When we were much younger he allowed one of his friends (without my prior knowledge) to practice wrestling moves on me. In the ensuing scuffle I hurt my back and limped home, my brother staying behind with his friend. Needless to say, after learning of my brothers compliance in his friends actions, I put far less trust in him. We have since grown up and are on amicable terms.