The Expendables 2

Objectively, with a runtime of under two hours, you just can't give all the characters the space they undoubtedly deserve. Beyond that, it’s a pure action spectacle that works exactly as I wanted it to because it doesn’t underestimate fan intelligence - this is the only way to get the action going, which is secondary because the primary thing is to ride the wave of catchphrases that beat into the mummified icons of most of the people involved. (2012-09-12)

I understand the general enthusiasm because seeing all those legends together has a unique feeling. Unfortunately, when I take into account that a film has qualities and attributes other than the cast and the chemistry between the actors (which would exist even if they just looked at each other), it is a failure overall. Simon West seems to have forgotten what a quality action film should be like. I'll overlook the terrible television picture quality (retro and all) and the locations somewhere between Romania and Bulgaria (hello Van Damme and Seagal). If The Expendables had action as good as Con Air had 15 years ago, I would be thrilled, but unfortunately, it’s not even half as good. The editing very confusing, nobody knows who is shooting whom, there are several repeated shots within a few minutes, and woefully confusing fights, except for the last one. I wouldn't expect a purely action film to have its biggest weakness precisely in the action. Stallone is still a cool and the lines and jokes are fine, but I would rather watch three of each guy's best films and not have to look at such a mess. (2012-09-16)

It's not less that a good old classic. A group of retirees travel to digitally modified Bulgaria, alternating game maps that reflect the nostalgic-archetypal touch of the genre, and here and there we have deus ex machina, greeted by a volley of insider jokes. The banality of the plot as well as the parody touch of space and characters add post-modern qualities to it, while Simon West also adds clear personal qualities and a solid tempo. Fortunately, Stallone already understood that some seriousness or "realistic" motivation had no place here - nostalgics wanted their messages and more winks. Blunt warrior macho sentiment still abounds, but this time it's filler between great comedic performances and cutting action with much better timing than in the first film. Although it is again "only" an action encyclopedia, this time it is richly illustrated and has even more bloated references to the mythology of the wheezy grandfathers. I had a great time. (2012-08-27)

Much more polished than the rather dull first instalment, mainly because the script relies more on lightness and instead of conforming to standard action tropes, it turns them into a big joke. Although most of the credit goes to the protagonists themselves, who embody their career alter egos with admirable verve and insight (Norris's crazy cameo reigns supreme), and the story is downright slapdash when it comes to some dialogue and personal levels, the action is so good and well-paced and the villains, led by the cold-blooded JCVD, are so hilarious that you simply won't be bored. This time, satisfaction. (2018-08-05)

The first one earned points mainly for effort and for ultimately managing to cross the finish line. The second one sets a faster pace from the very beginning, holds it without stumbling, effectively sells the emotions of tough guys – and only then reveals its main weapons. Personally, I think that even though I really like Sylvester Stallone and Jason Statham, I am certainly not the primary target audience for this film. But just tell that to the final showdown at the airport, which must invigorate the senses of every viewer who has ever enthusiastically cheered on an action film. Whether it's anyone from the most anticipated trio shooting, Jean-Claude Van Damme delightfully delivering his lines or Chuck Norris charming the viewer with a joke about himself, this reached its climax in the final shootout. (2012-09-11)