Articles & Notes — November 9, 2011 at 8:46 pm

“Expendables 2”: Rourke explains why he’s not in the film, Van Damme shares new pictures

Okay, another “Expendables 2” update here, and there’s some interesting info on why Mickey Rourke is not in the movie along with other action superstars.

Before, there was a rumor, that Stallone and Rourke had some financial disagreements, in other words – money was the factor. However, according to ContactMusic, that’s not the real case. Rourke had the following to say about his participation in the “Expendables” sequel:

“I did the first one because I felt that I owed Sly a favour. He gave me a job in ‘Get Carter’ when I couldn’t f**king shine my shoes, you know what I’m saying? And that was that. The other thing around that, I had never said I was going to be in it. I think the producers announced it but nobody discussed it with me.”

Quite interesting. So, if Rourke did say those exact (or not quite) words, then it means the Tool character in the first expendables movie was only a “favor” back to Stallone, for helping out Rourke back in the 2000s. Shame.

On the other hand, I looked at Rourke’s film list on IMDB, and it just might be true, considering the films he’s been in: Animal Factory (plays a fag in prison), Get Carter (thank you Sly), The Pledge (haven’t seen), They Crawl (smelly B-movie)…

Well, now if Mickey Rourke is not in “Expendables 2”, then I hope the script does include some sort of explanation why he isn’t.

Would have been great if they didn’t have to “kill him off” just yet, to maybe have an open door for Tool in the possible 3rd “Expendables” movie.

Another update (this seems to have become a regular!) comes from Jean-Claude Van Damme, as he shared some more pictures of him and the crew on the set of “Expendables 2”. Pictures also feature Randy Couture, Terry Crews and Scott Adkins. Take a closer look below.

BZFilm on Facebook:

comments powered by Disqus


  1. I don’t understand why Rourke should be so precious for the movie. Naturally Sly wanted him probably he already was big after ‘Wrestler’ but I thought Sly is more than that and would use rather better actor and more action star. Rourke is not and never was action movie star even if he appeared in a few such a movies.
    Aside from the fact the whole ‘Tool’ character was pretty much pointless for the movie it should be some real man like Lance Henriksen, Vernon Wells or Martin Kove(just to name a few) instead of drug addict who never was an action star. At least I think so.

  2. If Mickey’s story is true, then I can see why Stallone picked him….for a number of reasons, in fact: Rourke owed him, he would have agreed to get paid less, his name on the list packs more power than that of Wells, Kove (although I love the guy), and Henriksen. Rourke has been a favorite of mine for some time (even before The Wrestler), and yet he’s not an action star, I’ve always enjoyed his performances. As for the Tool character, yes, it was pointless in a lot of ways.

  3. Well, I’m not saying Rourke is a bad actor or anything like that but when Sly announced that he is making 80’s style action movie with action stars in it I would rather expect real action star in that part, even if It’s just a cameo. I know Mickey was worth to have in the movie because of ‘Wrestler’ and upcoming ‘Iron Man 2’ but to me it was just a marketing move and after Sly(like his fight with the producers for R rating instead of pg 13″) I would rather expect something more….well. He could get Eric Roberts, very good move and he was a lead villain without being A-list Hollywood star. Right now pretty much everything depends on a script but getting ‘Tool’ character for a first movie, just to not show him again is a kinda strange move. And getting actor cheaper sounds strange as we speak about 100 million budget movie.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.