Expendables 3 (2014)

[Secret Executioner]

Which will just encourage more piracy of course...They really haven't got a clue

Entirely agreed here.

[Tex Killer]

Well, I don`t have bluray player...no fucking way will buy that pg-13 version on dvd unless find it for 2-3€ at second hand shop. I bet x-men days of future past extended version will be bluray only.

Sucking duck.

I truly hate when they do this.

[bigrogie]

Very stupid way of marketing a movie! Should always be the same version of the movie for each format.

Blu-Ray players are so cheap nowadays and can easily be picked-up for less than $60. I paid $45 for a Phillips last X-Mas and it works great (only have about 30 BR discs anyway as I never really got into that format).

Anyone who needs to replace an old DVD player should simply pick-up a BR player. It's about $20 more than a regular player. That way you're covered for both formats.

[the moose]

I won't be buying it in any format anyway. I found it to be quite boring until the action in the finale not much happened in the rest of the movie. The comedy aspect was too dry and almost non existent, stallone was annoyingly straight faced the whole way through (as the previous 2 but even more so in this), the movie was incredibly unevenly paced, Mel Gibson completely stole the show and I HATE Mel Gibson the seriously disturbed drunken ranting control freak - a movie with only Mel Gibson doing a good job of the acting is not a movie I would usually like to see. That all said I did enjoy the long finale. But this movie completely lacked the tongue in cheek self parody fun of the second movie. Of the trilogy 3 is the worst.

[Tex Killer]

Anyone who needs to replace an old DVD player should simply pick-up a BR player. It's about $20 more than a regular player. That way you're covered for both formats.

I know very little about BR players, have been reading only it`s quite hard to find decent player which plays both A and B region discs. Are they all region free when it comes to dvds?

[the moose]

I saw it too, and it wasn't too bad. It was better than Part 2, that's for sure!

NOT TRUE! The second one was far superior to the 3rd. The 3rd lacked everything that the second had. You're right in that Gibson and Snipes were good in the 3rd - but it was mostly a snooze fest.

I don't usually take Rotten Toamoes scores too seriously as I tend to disagree a lot with the scores of the critics tomatometer. However, it scores Exp2 at 65% and Exp3 at 33%. In this case I think that difference in score really does reflect the difference in quality between them.

Also the 2nd in my opinion really benefitted from It's tongue-in-cheek self parody fun. Poking fun at 80's action movie machismo excess, which peaked at the Chuck Norris Cameo. That wasn't just a subtle comic relief, it was in your face comedy gold. I laughed out loud when Chuck turned up and started telling his stories.

I'm sure you got your own reasons for preferring part 3. Respect.

[Secret Executioner]

I won't be buying it in any format anyway. I found it to be quite boring until the action in the finale not much happened in the rest of the movie. The comedy aspect was too dry and almost non existent, stallone was annoyingly straight faced the whole way through (as the previous 2 but even more so in this), the movie was incredibly unevenly paced, Mel Gibson completely stole the show and I HATE Mel Gibson the seriously disturbed drunken ranting control freak - a movie with only Mel Gibson doing a good job of the acting is not a movie I would usually like to see. That all said I did enjoy the long finale. But this movie completely lacked the tongue in cheek self parody fun of the second movie. Of the trilogy 3 is the worst.

While I sorta enjoyed it, it's a movie I wouldn't consider purchasing - much like most of the films I've seen in the theater. A film has to be really good or to have some kind of impact if I'm still considering purchasing it when it finally gets a home video release.

[Karlos]

Just got thru watching the unrated cut.

Unlike the director's cut of Exp 1, there are no significant differences between this and the theatrical version - there's more dialogue here and there, and some scenes (the opening Snipes train escape and the finale) are a little longer.

On first viewing, the main changes I noticed were the MF bomb being dropped twice, a little more Arnie half way thru, and a fair bit more of The Stath and Wesley Snipes during the finale.

It's not the "hard R rated cut" some may have been expecting (there's still almost no blood, CGI or otherwise), but this is clearly the cut that was meant to have been shown and therefore renders the theatrical cut redundant.

Apparently, there are 2 more deleted scenes on the DVD/BD - Yet more of JS, and, tucked away on a featurette, even more Arnie (is it possible to have too much?!)

[Takuma]

Good to hear they didn't ruin it with CGI blood. Do they use longer shots of bad guys getting hit (by bullets)? In the theatrical version it sometimes looked like they used quick cuts to avoid R-rating...

With the usual delay in Japan, I only got to see the theatrical cut a week ago. My comments below:

The Expendables 3 (USA, 2014) [DCP] – 2.5/5

An improvement over Expendables 2, though still not a very satisfying film. Thankfully the terrible and over-explained jokes have been cut down, which makes the film less childish than Expendables 2, which was more obviously made for children. The film is quite entertaining in the beginning with some nice action and fun performances – Snipes and Gibson especially stand out! Unfortunately there’s also tons of terrible CGI effects. The big finale also lacks rhythm: it’s got too many characters fighting simultaneously with no indication of what anyone is trying to do (including the filmmakers)

[Karlos]

Do they use longer shots of bad guys getting hit (by bullets)?

I think there were a few, here and there, but not many.

The most noticable addition, violence wise, was the big dude who fights Statham getting his own knife sunk into his shoulder (I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the theatrical cut?)

Apart from that, I didn't spot anything else that stood out.

I do agree with you, Takuma, that the film is at it's best at the beginning.

The later acts suffer from too many cast members.

[Takuma]

Here's a detailed Theatrical vs. Unrated comparison:

http://www.movie-censorship.com/report.php?ID=626620

Of course hard to judge from screencaptures alone, but looks promising. There should be about 80 violence related additions, mostly just seconds or fractions of a second (of people getting hit by bullets), but that could be just enough to make the action more coherent. And I'm very happy they didn't ruin it with shitty CGI blood like they did with Expendables 2.

Now, if they could just delete the other shitty CGI effects. And all the young cast members