this movie looks good XD or at least stupid good fun!

man, when i saw the commercial for this and saw all the actors who were gonna be in it, i didnt care what the movie was about, i just wanted to see it

wow the reviews of this movie are so mixed :dizzy: . i love how joe proves the critics wrong. GO JOE! so i think i'll see think i'll see it tomorrow.thanks :grr: Joe

sorry Joe, but I got to side with the critics on this one. While I wouldn't exactly word it the same way as the critics, this movie was a big disappointment. The dialogue was crap, the story was mostly boring as hell and the characters tended to be flat or one note. Stallone's surprise motivation was probably one of the only good point of the story. I'm not saying the acting wasn't good, Micky Rourke was awesome and Statham was solid. But the whole thing just dragged, the action was VERY lackluster and there was barely any creativity throughout. The fight scenes could have been good, but the editing didn't give you a chance to appreciate a lot of it. All in all it just didn't leave any real impact and the bland sets and color palettes really encapsulate the overall feel of the movie. I love a good action romp, but the good bits were just buried so far beneath all the bullshit I couldn't really love it.

Oh yeah, and I just want to say that Terry Cruz dancing is quite possibly one of the most hilariously awesome things I've ever seen

I'm with smashballed in that the reviews for this movie are all over the place. Some said they really liked it, others said they hated it. Some say it's satisfying and others say its mediocre. I'm not sure if I'm going to go see it myself. I'm still on the fence.

Despite that, it was still a nice review Joe. I like hearing why you like the movie and you present your opinion quite well. Angry job, Joe. =)

Expendables did pretty well in theaters by being #1 twice in a row while Scott Pilgrim did "poorly" 5th and 10th place. (1st week and 2nd week respectively.)

I can't wait for your Scott Pilgrim review.

The funny thing is that on the same day I saw three reviews of the Expendables: Joe's review, Brad's review and Spoony's review, and somewhat surprisingly all three garnered great responses from viewers.

Here's what I think of the whole situation: as I stated in "The Other Guys" review there are no right and wrong opinions when it comes to entertainment. Can there be bias and some mistakes in the opinion? Yes, but it's silly to claim that someone is "wrong" for saying they loved/hated something, especially if they stated a logical reason for loving/disliking it. Once more, reviews are opinion pieces where things such as taste in movies, trains of thought and even personality play a major role in the overall critique of the piece. If Brad and Joe found a lot to love in the movie while Spoony didn't then it shouldn't be a problem.

I think what people are forgetting here is that all three reviews were HONEST. One of the things people want more of in reviews is honesty. Most of the time the reviewer is so focused on pleasing the editor or the company that they often disguise the truth in order to make the review more glowing or insulting than it is, meaning that we get a false impression of what the product is rather than the reviewer's TRUE opinion on it. Brad, Joe and Spoony told us very well why they loved or hated the movie, gave us detailed explanations of scenes and I at least felt that they were being legit. I guess this is one of the perks of being an internet reviewer: regardless of what people think of your opinion you are free to express what you think without worrying of what a major publication or company will think of it in the end.

And I believe this is the problem with the reviewers you mentioned, Joe. I am sure that half of these reviewers enjoyed the movie but needed to keep the status quo, because heaven forbid that a movie reviewer of a prestigious publication like a "dumb" action movie. XB

I definitely agree that while reviews are good in deciding in investing on the product it shouldn't be THE defining factor since in the end what matters are your needs, your opinion and YOUR MONEY.

I hope to go see this movie tomorrow, it looks amazing. I also wish Arnold would have had a bigger part, but maybe there's hope since he's not up for election this term, he might get back into the movies.

I'm with my man Joe! Amen, screw Rottentomatoes, this movie rocked.

Ralph Dungren? Haha.

this movie sucks......IN HELL!!!!

Ralph Dungren really was the best in the movie :uhh:

Behold, my manly nipples!!!!
[img]http:// www.threadbombing.com/ data/media/2/ arnoldschwarzeneggerinact ion1.gi.gif[/img]

[color=green]Seeing Arnold on the big screen lit me up, if they make a sequel I want to see Arnold, to me he's still got it.[/color]

I believe the gun that can shoot grenade rounds and make watch towers explode (at least in movies) is the AA-12.

Excellent explosions and fighting

Most of the snippets of Rottentomatoes critics are just taken out of context. Judging what someone said from a small part of their entire review isn't very wise especially if you're going to bash said person. As for why that person's review was rotten, that's because they at least rated the movie below 60%. Anything 60 and above is a fresh rating, anything below 60 is a rotten rating.

As for the Expendables, I expected it to be just a cliched, over the top action movie, it is. The characters are one dimensional and so is the story. You feel like you've seen this movie before. But at least I can say that you will not be bored. It's still entertaining, even though it's stupid.

[quote=pap64]
And I believe this is the problem with the reviewers you mentioned, Joe. I am sure that half of these reviewers enjoyed the movie but needed to keep the status quo, because heaven forbid that a movie reviewer of a prestigious publication like a "dumb" action movie. XB
[/quote]

There are plenty of critics that gave this movie a fresh review. If you look at some other "dumb" action movies like The Road Warrior, Die Hard, and Lethal Weapon you'll see they all have fresh ratings.

I know it has gotten some good reviews. I'm mainly talking about some of the more "prestigious" publications, the kind that would put these movies in their "worst of the year" lists.

Dissappointing.

Now I wasn't expecting a great story or anything. I was expecting some mindless 80's action awesomeness. A good story would be a nice touch as well, but as long as I got my shoot 'em up fun, I'd say it was a success. It had neither a good story, nor great action, nor just good ol' fun.

It's not a terrible movie, but that's the problem, it's just so mediocre. There really is nothing special about it, and I wouldn't advise anyone to pay money to see it.

The biggest problem was that they employed the shakey camera technique, which I have always hated. Combine that with too many close-up shots, and the big action climax taking place at night, and you won't be able to tell what the hell is going on. Say what you will about The Last Airbender (and I have A LOT to say about that abysmal turd), atleast they knew how to craft a shot. For a movie who's purpose was recreate an 80's action movie, they forgot to use the popular 80's camera trick called "showing what the fuck is happening". Camera work like this used to get people fired.

The story is nothing special, either. It did fit the 80's theme with South American dictators oppressing the locals and selling cocaine. But really it's just about killing him, and saving the hot chick along the way.

This thing had only one thing going for it, and that was it's star power. But it fails to use that to it's full potential, as well. The movie is really only about Stallone and Jason Statham. Everyone else is mostly absent throughout the movie, and we never learn much about them. Hell, at first the mission was only being done by Stallone and Statham, and the others guys weren't even involved until the end of the movie. Jet Li had one fight scene, and then became a background character. He didn't even get a chance to really show off his martial arts prowess like in all his other films. He shows a little kung fu, but ends up actually LOSING his fight to Dolph Lundgren. How the fuck does Jet Li lose a fist fight to ANYONE, let a lone a lug like Lundgren? And speaking of which, Dolph Lundgren is looking an awful lot like Gary Busey in this film.

Terry Crews is gone up until the end, and has one badass moment with a shotgun, which I have to admit is one of the better action scenes of the movie, but other than that he's just not even there.

And Randy Couture's character contributed absolutely nothing. He's basically the same as Terry Crews, only he doesn't get a badass moment. He's just a background character the entire film, not making any impact.

Steve Austin gets an okay amount of screen time, but he doesn't talk much. He's the right hand man for the villian, and mostly just stands next to him while the villiain talks to other people. He gets a fight with Stallone, but since the camera work is so shitty, I can't tell what's going on half the time.

The poster also mentions Mi...

Yeah, that one scene with Terry Crews, the gun and the hallway was the highlight of the movie for me.

My girlfriend and I just started laughing hysterically when we saw it =D

Next time review Scott Pilgrim vs the World. This review (and your opinions) were not hard to guess. We knew you were going to love this movie, Joe.
/soapbox

He already reviewed it:
http://angryjoeshow.com/ 2010/08/scott-pilgrim- review/

And already said he liked it far more than Expendables.

sorry joe I like you but I gotta gowith my man Moviebob
http:// www.escapistmagazine.com/ videos/view/escape-to- the-movies/1937-The- Expendables
and of course Spoony. Ill try to catche it some time and it is nice to see the gonernator in another film.

Moment I heard Shakey cam is the moment I knew I wouldn't see this movie. its what ruined the Born movies for me. There is a reason the steady cam was made. Also Tripod.

=D Asombroso Review
Saludos desde Mexico

Yes the film has fights and action but I share much of Spoony's sentiment that the film could have been even better.

I was especially bummed that they had Stallone and Lundgren back together in a movie and how prominent is Lundgren...about 20 minutes of screen time. WHY!? It's Ivan freaking Drago and he barely registers in the film.

Also, we know Mickey Rourke can kick @$$ on screen thanks to Frank Miller but why can't Stallone show it? I can't be alone in preferring Rourke to have been in the climax battle as opposed to the MMA guy.

Thinking about Spooney's review, it probably would have been even cooler to have Lundgren's troubled character as the main focus as opposed to Stallone's.

Still though, it was entertaining and a lot of those critics listed at Rotten Tomatoes really missed the boat on what the movie was about. It was never about art, it's about reveling in machismo and overly stylized violence...but without the CGI overload of Michael Bay.

Now who can tell me if I should give some large theater chain money to see "Scott Pilgrim"?

So you want to ignore Joe's reviews, but still felt the need to insult him and his intelligence while making a whole speech about the state of film making?

First of all, Movie Bob is just as much of a movie critic as Joe is, as in he too is a movie fan that gets to do reviews for an online outlet. The difference is that Movie Bob hated the movie while Joe loved it, and you seem to agree with Bob more. Again, no real difference other that Bob agrees with you, therefore to YOU he's a "real critic".

Second, regarding his "listen to your friends" comment, while I agree that he needed to dive deeper into it since friends DO make mistakes like critics, what I understood is that it's OK to listen to your friends as well on top of reading reviews. Again, he could have dove deeper into it, but it's really not as bad as you put it.

Finally, you talk about how people supporting these movies and contributing to the decline of cinema, yet proceed to directly insult Joe for no reason other than to make yourself look better in the end. Double standard much?

Joe realizes that not everybody will like this movie. He's not as idiotic as you claim he is. He made this review to express HIS opinion of the movie, and it happens to me that he LIKES this movie. Again, it's HIS opinion of the movie, not mine, not the critics, and certainly not YOURS. You CAN disagree with him in a mature manner. The other reviewers that have talked about this film have politely disagreed with each other and moved on.

From what I see all you want to do is antagonize Joe for liking a movie that simply isn't "the best cinema has to offer". But in the end, the one antagonist here is you. You can disagree with someone, but trying to claim that the person is inferior to you just tells me that you have no real opinion other than the desire to insult someone.

Yeah, just here to point out a few flaws there, Pap:

First, you define a critic as "a movie fan that gets to do reviews for an online outlet." That pretty much opens up anyone with an opinion on the internet to be qualified as a critic, doesn't it? One would think that a critic would be defined by both knowing what the hell they're talking about and not having lax standards, not the fact that they have dial-up.

Second, I honestly think you have no clue what the term "double standard" means. At all. Accusing someone of promoting something bad and being abrasive while doing so do not conflict whatsoever.

Third, you seem to not be able to tell when someone is stating opinion as opinion or stating opinion as fact. Joe declared the acting solid, the action great, and the chemistry between characters the best he's seen in this sort of movie in a long time. He was listing his perceptions as fact, and issued an "order" to go see it; this indicates that he is sure of the movie's quality as a concrete reality, and not just his opinion that many people may not share. I say "indicates" because I am not about to put words in his mouth like you are, but instead make a guess based on my observations.

And last, what does the concept of superiority have to do with an urge to antagonize someone simply for the heck of it? The two are not connected at all. I simply cannot fathom how you would think that a concept of human worth, which is ever present in areas both secular and religious, is an indication that a person is just mindlessly being hostile.

Look, I have no real opinion on this movie since I have never seen it, and probably wouldn't if I did since I know almost nothing about cinema as a whole. I do, however, know the ins and outs of logic and logical fallacies. I'm not for or against Joe or his opinion of the movie, but I am against stupidity no matter which side. Good day.

Dude... Shut the fuck up... -.-

DO!! DO SPEND MONEY!!! I loved this.

for the most part Joe. Howevah, (i'm from boston) there was not one quotable line in this movie. I also found it actually pretty boring up until the end. It was enjoyable dont get me wrong but it seemed like a missed oppurtuinity.

[quote=J-Dude]Okay, sorry Mr. "Angry Joe", be you are truly a fucking idiot, and I will continue to ignore your "reviews".

If you want to hear a REAL critic who goes against the mainstream often AND knows what the Hell he's talking about, take a look at my man, MovieBob.

http:// www.escapistmagazine.com/ videos/view/escape-to- the-movies/1937-The- Expendables

Yeah, that just happened.

Also, "don't listen to these critics; listen to your FRIENDS"??

You represent EVERYTHING that is dragging all of Hollywood into the gutter. Critics usually are a progressive bunch these days, and not the film snobs you pin them as. Your friends, are IDIOTS, and without proper guidance, without learning WHAT makes a truly excellent movie and what makes a bad one, you will remain ignorant while the rest of the sheep continue to bleat for more wallpaper paste.

I bet you liked the Transformers movies too.

If I seem overly angry, it's because people who throw these douchebags money for their tickets are DIRECTLY sponsoring every bland, shitty, soulless, artless, lowest-common-denominator pander-fest that Hollywood shits out because we continually prove to them that we don't WANT true art like Scott Pilgrim, Kickass, Watchmen or District 9.

Make no mistake, if you continue to knowingly FUND these assholes, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, and you have NOBODY to blame for a decline of quality in cinema but yourself.[/quote]

All those movies you listed are anything but "true art". They're better than the Expendables but calling them "art" is a laugh, and you sir are a hypocrite.

Dude you totally forgot to mention the incredible badassery of the WWE vs. UFC fight, StoneCold Steve Austin Vs. Randy Couture, and of course the real fighter beat the crap out of the performer.

[quote=J-Dude]Okay, sorry Mr. "Angry Joe", be you are truly a fucking idiot, and I will continue to ignore your "reviews".

If you want to hear a REAL critic who goes against the mainstream often AND knows what the Hell he's talking about, take a look at my man, MovieBob.

http:// www.escapistmagazine.com/ videos/view/escape-to- the-movies/1937-The- Expendables

Yeah, that just happened.

Also, "don't listen to these critics; listen to your FRIENDS"??

You represent EVERYTHING that is dragging all of Hollywood into the gutter. Critics usually are a progressive bunch these days, and not the film snobs you pin them as. Your friends, are IDIOTS, and without proper guidance, without learning WHAT makes a truly excellent movie and what makes a bad one, you will remain ignorant while the rest of the sheep continue to bleat for more wallpaper paste.

I bet you liked the Transformers movies too.

If I seem overly angry, it's because people who throw these douchebags money for their tickets are DIRECTLY sponsoring every bland, shitty, soulless, artless, lowest-common-denominator pander-fest that Hollywood shits out because we continually prove to them that we don't WANT true art like Scott Pilgrim, Kickass, Watchmen or District 9.

Make no mistake, if you continue to knowingly FUND these assholes, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM, and you have NOBODY to blame for a decline of quality in cinema but yourself.[/quote]

Dude are you aware that Joe's friends are Doug, Spoony, every reviewer on this web site? Think twice before calling anyone and idiot.

Why the hell are you being such a asshole! If you cant say your opinions in a more polite way, then shut the fuck up!

Are you for real?

"I disagree therefor you must be wrong!!!!"
Grow up.

Aww someone got their thesaurus out for this one. You're just as much an ignored message-board fuckhead as anyone else, if not more so by spouting out that every movie should be "art."

Yes stuff like Kick Ass and District 9 are fantastic pieces of cinema and definitely didn't get their due,

Also, I rather love the irony of saying you have taste in basically the same breath as you called Kick Ass art. Its like saying you're a gourmet who loves deep fried twinkies. J-dude, the pretentious false-snobs like you are what's wrong with cinema. Its people like you that made stuff like District 9 and Kick-Ass not get their due because assholes like you were saying to go see it and no one wants to do something an asshole says.

Lastly, you cite Bob Chipman.. a guy who said The Last Airbender was worth seeing and Batman was a bad movie. Yeah, lot of credibility there.

J-dude, if you want movies like District 9 to get more press, sever your jugular with the DVD and it'll be all over the news and the world will be a better place.

I expected it to be more of a tongue in cheek movie, but it seemed more like old guys taking themselves too seriously.

I really wanted to like this movie as I'm a big Stallone fan and the cast sounded awesome, but I found it a really boring movie with a very loose plot and no character development.

[quote=J-Dude]I retract nothing, I apologize for nothing. I stand by every damn word I said. If The Critic himself calls this guy his friend, that's his business, but I? I think he's a clown.

And yes, you half-cocked message-board fuckheads, the films I listed above ARE art, at least compared to most of the bland, forgettable or just plain SHITTY movies that are USUALLY in theaters Winter through Fall.

The fact remains; if you pay to see shitty movies, you get exactly what you deserve. And I'd have no problem with this fact, except the minority of people WITH taste have to suffer for their stupidity too. And that pisses me off, and this isn't exactly the Galleria, so I don't bother myself with being polite or retrained around people who don't deserve to be given quarter.[/quote]

Then don't expect to be taken seriously you retard. No one really gives a shit about your quarter because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen all those movies you seen in theaters plus the Expendables. Do I think those movies are better? Yes, do I think those movies are art? No, they too lack a level of sophistication and meaning that most critics would qualify as "art". Sans maybe District 9's parable to Apartheid or Watchmen's view on humanity those movies aren't incredibly deep. They're almost just as brain dead as The Expendables. Maybe when you're not too busy calling people idiots and you're over your "I'm right you're wrong" complex. We could have some serious discourse and actually talk "movies".