In the age of legacy sequels and seemingly endless franchise installments, I don’t think a fourth film to a series that was last seen in 2014 was high on many folks’ wishlist.

“Expendables 4” (or “Expend4bles,” because nothing can ever be simple nowadays) is the fourth installment of the throwback action franchise, and sees Jason Statham, Sylvester Stallone, Dolph Lundgren, and Randy Couture reprising their roles and Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson, Megan Fox, Tony Jaa, Iko Uwais, Jacob Scipio, Levy Tran, and Andy García joining the cast; Scott Waugh directs.

Overall, I enjoyed the original “Expendables” trilogy, with the first film being a “it’s good because it knows it’s bad” 80s wannabe romp and the third film, despite its now-infamous PG-13 rating, featuring a fun villain performance from Mel Gibson. Like most (all?) people, I was content letting the franchise ride off into the sunset at three films, and since the last time we saw the aging group of mercenaries the world has been introduced to John Wick and gifted a reinvigorated “Mission: Impossible” series. But here we are with a new entry, and while it is not quite awful, it sure doesn’t justify its existence.

In recent years it has become low-hanging fruit for audiences to knock the CGI and green screen of blockbusters, with the likes of “The Flash” and “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” looking laughably poor despite their $200 million budgets. Blame the pandemic or over-worked VFX workshops if you must, but films like “John Wick 4,” “The Batman,” or “Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning” remind us that meticulous and crafted filmmaking still exists, and on budgets half of what Marvel or the Disney remakes get, no less. “Expendables 4” cost $100 million to make, but it straight-up looks no better than one of those commercials you see for mobile games. Explosions are PlayStation 2 quality, sets are overly-lit or under-exposed, and no actor actually appears to be on-location wherever it was the film wants us to believe they are.

The “Expendables” franchise has never been about the writing, willfully implementing action clichés and cheesy one-liners, and that carries on here. The plot is paper-thin, with a cookie-cutter “this would cause World War III” mission and mystery villain holding it all together. Things just begin to happen seemingly at random by the end of the film, but you’ve likely checked out by that point.

The film gets its R rating back after making the miscalculated decision to make the third film PG-13 (though I actually found the action the most-enjoyable of the bunch). The kills aren’t anything special and while the CGI blood in the first film is almost endearing, here it just comes off as cheap, and director Scott Waugh is unable to stage any creative sequences or memorable kills (whatever your thoughts on the 2010 original, the Terry Crews AA-12 scene is iconic). There is one kill that made me smile, and Jason Statham is able to squeeze a little bit of badassery out of his leading role, but those sort of moments are fleeting.

“Expend4bles” is shot like a Capital One commercial and has a script to match, and unless you grew up on these stars or have bare-minimum requirements for your action fares there isn’t fix you can’t get by rewatching something from the 2000s or even closing your eyes and picking a random VOD title (the CGI there won’t be any better). In a world where “John Wick” gives us flair, style, and mind-blowing stunts, “Expend4bles” seems content l̶a̶u̶n̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶m̶o̶n̶e̶y̶ going through the motions and delivering nothing new, and is a franchise best to be put in a retirement home (or taken behind the barn).

Critics Rating: Expend4/10