>>70855539
There solid flicks deal with it

How thick are you? The movies are perfect for what they are aiming to be: mindless, explosions and speed of light action all the way through.
What did you expect?

Reminds me of some review of Expendables II I think it was where the critic was talking about how bad a movie it was because the characters were lame and it was all action, no real storyline etc.. Talk about the wrong expectations...

>>70855659
I agree with OP

They're an homage to shitty 80s action movies that somehow don't live up to the quality of shitty 80s action movies.

The first two were fun, the third was awful though especially since they cut it down to PG-13.

>>70855539
>he doesn't like the expendables

Wanna know how I know you're a cuck?

>>70855769
Yeah tell me. It probably has everything to do with the fact that I think these flicks are the laziest muh nostalgia cash grabs imaginable that don't even deserve to be compared to the classics they pretend to be emulating.

There was a third?

>>70856559
It was PG-13.
Enough said.

GOAT cast though.

Name a other movie with such a star packed cast, that is decent.

Mel in 3 gave the best performance of the series. Not that that's saying much

>>70855683
This
As a fan of hyper violent 80s action cheese these movies were a bit of a let down .

I guess making action flicks is harder than one would think

>>70859174

AND it got "leaked" ahead of its theater release in glorious quality.

>>70859908

Ocean's 11.

>>70855539
>CGI blood squibs
FOR WHAT PURPOSE. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A HOMAGE FOR 80'S ACTION MOVIES. INSTEAD WE JUST GOT A SHITTY MOVIE.