Could have been great, but....

Rating: 6/10 (14 August 2010)

I had some major problems with the film. I understand it was supposed to be a loud, fun, kick'em-in-the-"rear"-n'-blow'em-up good 'ole time, but it was lacking two key elements: a decent script, and some kind of coherent camera-work/editing.
The story was uninteresting. The plot was sort of just strung together from one action scene to the next with interludes of "check-your-watch" macho dialogue nonsense. The jokes and one-liners mostly fell flat (for me, anyway); this was one of the most disappointing factors. If the zings and jabs had been pulled off properly, the film's overall quality would have spiked, but instead it just felt stale and lazy. Ultimately, I didn't care about Stallone or any of the other Expendables; I didn't care about the girl, or the general (and their barely existing subplot), or who was "effing" over who. So, despite all of the explosions and blood, I felt bored (especially in the agonizingly bland first Act, although it picked up in the middle and through the climax).
Shaky, poorly-lit frame + quick-cut editing = disorientation. This style of filmmaking needs to die. It's like the camera operator was just throwing the camera up and down all over the place and then the editor went at it like a 5-year-old trying to cut out a snowflake. It got to the point where I just didn't care what was happening on screen. If this style and 3D are the future of action cinema, then I might as well tear-up my Regal Crown Club membership card now.
In short: the film had two fatal flaws, but would have been very good if not for those major misteps. The best thing I can say about the film is that it was amazing to see all of those 80's action legends on screen at the same time (and to see Stallone and Lundgren at each other's throats again; it made me want to watch Rocky IV).