The Expendables 3 - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Expendables 3 Reviews

Page 1 of 130
October 4, 2017
Once again, not nearly as good as it ought to be. Stallone just keeps getting in the way, putting himself in the star position when others might carry the weight. The villain is two dimensional (again). What's the point of being Expendable if no one dies? And they fold at the first sign of adversity? Nah, too much self-pity in this for my taste.
August 21, 2017
Regardless of the critics, and other than the needless inclusion of the younger crew, this film had it all with Ford, Banderas, & Snipes joining the old crew, all that was missing was Willis and the legendary Chuck Norris returning for this outing. And Gibson's maverick arms dealer/ex-mercenary partner, Stonebanks was a villain worthy of closing out the trilogy, exuding menace and malice well.
½ August 20, 2017
Expendables 3's PG13 rating restricted the film's action way too much
½ August 12, 2017
Worst in the series.
August 9, 2017
Lotta action. Lousy story.
June 11, 2017
The weak movie of the trilogy, it is not the worst action movie but it is still a stand out shot em up movie.
May 1, 2017
Grade - C+
I honestly didn't hate this movie. It didn't reach the so-called 'heights' of the second movie, but it's still entertaining and a fun way to turn off your brain.
½ March 22, 2017
These movies aren't getting any better, just need to call it off.
March 11, 2017
These movies are what they are, action thrillers and sarcastic wit. This group played well together!
February 11, 2017
I love this movie series. Here we get a nice blend of old and new members of the team, tons of explosive action, and a sense of family and honor among those assumed to have no honor. Just enough comedy amongst the group to break up the scenes that could get maudlin. As always, the only place you will see some of these older action stars in movies these days. Great stuff.
½ January 3, 2017
Better than the 2nd, but not close to the first.
December 30, 2016
Not good movie to watch, horrible and waste of time
½ December 24, 2016
Let's get this elephant in the room out of the way right now: trimming the content of "The Expendables 3" in order to secure a PG-13 rating was a huge mistake.

Let's assess. It's the third film in a to-that-point successful series. The first two were rated R (pretty "hard" R's too, if I remember correctly). After all, the series is about a grizzled team of mercenaries that find themselves doing the CIA's dirty, very violent cleanup work. What exactly made the filmmakers think it was a good idea to give the next film a PG-13 rating? Now obviously, this was an attempt to make more money by appealing to a younger audience.

Only...it didn't. And that's because the first two movies were not made for a younger audience. Fans of the first two movies most likely fell into an older demographic; specifically, they were probably people who grew up watching the all-star cast members' individual movies in the '80's and '90's, during the time when the coveted "younger audience" would have been in diapers (if they were born at all). So the "younger audience" was indifferent to a brand they knew very little about, and the "older audience" likely didn't appreciate their more hardcore movies getting toned down for the kiddies.

And not one person involved in the production of this thing thought about this?

Of course, the toning down of the movie also serves to further highlight the bizarre reasonings of the MPAA. Scores of people get killed in "The Expendables 3," by bullets, blades, explosives, fisticuffs...you name it. But because there's no spray of blood or the characters don't drop f-bombs while doing so, the film snags the lower rating.

Okay then.

The rating blunder was obviously a mistake, but I'd argue that it's hardly the movie's biggest problem. (After all, the theatrical version of "Live Free or Die Hard" was an absolute blast, and it's light years better than the R-rated follow-up "A Good Day to Die Hard.") "The Expendables 3" is just not nearly as much fun as it should be; there's nothing special about any of the set-pieces, too often many of the characters are given nothing to do, and the story is uninspired, even for this kind of fare.

In fact, much of the movie hits many of the same notes as its superior predecessor. Once again, we open with Sylvester Stallone's Barney Ross leading his ragtag group of hired guns to rescue an imprisoned comrade. Shortly after, the team encounters a psychotic villain (this time played by Mel Gibson) who takes out a member of their team, leaving Barney very angry. The rest of the movie basically focuses on his quest for vengeance. The major difference this time though is that he sidelines his old squad (consisting of series vets Jason Statham, Dolph Lundgren, and Randy Couture, and newcomer Wesley Snipes) in favor of younger, sexier recruits (including Rhonda Rousey and Kellan Lutz).

This is also a misstep. There are too many characters as it is, and it doesn't make much sense to cast aside the characters we've seen in the previous movies to make room for newer, prettier and--let's face it--essentially interchangeable models. Maybe we should be focusing on returning players to try and give them some depth. Randy Couture has been in all three movies, and I still can't tell you one defining characteristic of his role. He's always just there, another entity in the background.

The same could be said for Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jet Li, whose presence feels perfunctory, at best. I really get the sense that they're in this movie solely because they were in the previous two. Their characters don't really serve much of a purpose, and Jet Li doesn't even get to do any kung-fu stunts. What's the point?

The bright spots in the film mostly involve individual performances. Gibson has a few great moments, sinking his teeth into the scenery with gleeful intensity (though the role is very similar to the one he played in "Machete Kills"). But the best moments belong to Antonio Banderas as a motormouthed, overzealous mercenary who desperately wants to join the Expendables team. Of all the new characters, he's really the only one who makes an impression. Should there be an "Expendables 4," I'd be very displeased if he were not in it (particularly if empty characters like Couture's are allowed to return).

After the raucously enjoyable ride that was "The Expendables 2," "The Expendables 3" is a thudding disappointment. Boring set-pieces, lame jokes, useless characters, a neutered rating...the worst part is that many of its mistakes could've been easily rectified.
Super Reviewer
½ December 12, 2016
After the success of the sequel, everyone knew the Expendables was destine to become a trilogy, because after all, there were still a few action stars who hadn't gotten in on the action (pardon the pun). This time however things did get a little out of hand, as one can see by the enormous cast in the movies poster. the Expendables added something this time around that the other two films were severely lacking in, comedy, whether it was intentional or not. Included in this were how Barney's team had to be bigger than ever to fight the baddest guy of them all, Mel Gibson. Harrison Ford and Arnold Schwarzenegger taking part in a machine gun battle from a golf cart, since they obviously can't run anymore, and they even managed to sneak in a joke about Wesley Snipes being in prison for not paying his taxes. New editions included Kellan Lutz, Kelsey Grammer, Ronda Rousey, and various other UFC personalities, leading to a lot more hand to hand stuff than in previous films, but much like the other films, the third installment of the Expendables was an action junkies dream come true. There were non-stop explosions, gun battles, and bodies, all surrounded by a very thin and improbable story. We don't watch these movies for the story or even the characters, we watch these films simply for the adrenaline rush. In that context alone, Expendables 3 hits the target every time, but if you're looking for a good story, great performances, or even a reason behind the madness, then you're watching the wrong series. When it comes to the Expendables think less Die Hard and more Michael Bay.
December 5, 2016
Weak plot and good action but weak affects. Ford Raptor was in the movie though. That's pretty cool.
½ December 2, 2016
Snipes and Banderas bring a welcome touch of personality to the mix, but Banderas is intentionally annoying and Snipes isn't around enough. Nor are Statham, Lundgren or Crews. Jet Li does zero martial arts, and we get yet another crack about his height, due to him being the only one shorter than Sly. Rousey is great, but the three young guys are interchangeable. Action superstar Kelsey Grammer is shrugworthy. Arnie is fine, but little more than a quotebot for his past movies. Ford is a better G-man than Bruce Willis. Gibson is good, but his manic persona, while well performed, needed some better dialogue to work with (I liked him more as the villain in Machete Kills). Hughes is not as good a director as Simon West (or maybe just less experienced at huge action movies), but is better than Stallone. And Sly needs to realise that these movies aren't all about him; Barney is arguably the least interesting Expendable, but he's the only one there for the whole duration. Overall, this is still slightly better than the first one, but less fun than the second. The heinously underused Snipes is the best thing about it.
½ November 26, 2016
Seen twice now ...good one but EX2 was the best in the series for me , Gibson was a fine Bonus also a Funny Banderas was good . SOMDVD
October 29, 2016
Un bon divertissement, sans plus. Le concept classique de la mission "suicide" qui se termine avec succès sans qu'aucun membre du groupe ne subisse la moindre blessure retire toute crédibilité au scénario. Là où les deux premiers films étaient intéressants, celui-ci n'est qu'un simple prétexte pour voir se réunir les plus grands acteurs de films d'action de l'ère moderne. Malheureusement, ces derniers n'ont plus le charisme de l'époque et même Sylvester Stallone en tant que principal protagoniste ne parvient pas à attirer les regards. Seul Antonio Banderas apporte un vent de fraîcheur et d'humour dans le rôle du rejet qui tente par tous les moyens de se faire des amis.
October 10, 2016
Stallone and Statham with guest appearances by other stars. Gaps filled with action and one liners.
Super Reviewer
October 5, 2016
After the mediocre first and insultingly stupid second part this one finally delivers what the series always set out to do: elderly action stars in ironic, fun action scenes. The humor works much better here and doesn't feel as forced as before and the new additions are great. Especially Gibson obviously had fun with his villain role. Sure, this still isn't one of the smartest films ever made and it certainly wouldnt have needed the young additions. But at least the film is fun and thoroughly entertaining, unlike the stupid second part.
Page 1 of 130