Rambo
Rambo - Sylvester Stallone - 1hr 33mins 28%
John Rambo's back, this time 2 ratings higher. More violent, more... well, that's about it. It seems a strange choice, to make another Rambo film after 26 years after the first installment. What could cause him to make such a mistake? Possibly in financial crisis? Purchased to much HGH? Believe me, Sylvester Stallone should have just left the successful franchise and quit while he was ahead. For now, his name will forever be tarnished in history.
It would seem after countless films, Stallone has yet to learn the ways of a filmaker. Nothing has seemingly changed since the dawn of the Rambo/Rocky movies. I still wonder how he manages to attract such large audiences. There is also the other question asked, when is enough, enough? Why won't the 62 year old grandpa retire to games of bingo and semi-cooked roast, instead of continuing to make pointless, violent action movies?
Why won't the 62 year old grandpa retire to games of bingo and semi-cooked roast, instead of continuing to make pointless, violent action movies?
Rambo has retired to a solitary life in the jungles of Thailand. Haunted by memories of war, John tries to forget his past life by earning a living catching dangerous snakes, smithing and fishing (with a bow?). Still wearing his trademark bandana and a frown Marcos Baghdatis would be envious of, Rambo is forced back into his old ways after some Christian missionaries get captured in war-torn Burma. Julie Benz plays a well cast Sarah Miller, look out for her.
To anyone who has watched the movie, they will have to agree, it is a nonsensical bloodbath, a terrible waste of an hour. There is little or no script and Stallone says only a few lines (his voice is very deep and hoarse from his days of anabolic steroids. No-one can seem to understand what he's saying. When he talks, it sounds like an unloading garbage truck). From my understanding, there is no music, close to no character development, it's incredibly short, lacks direction and the action is incredibly unrealistic.
On the other hand, Sly hasn't completely mucked up. The cinematography is something of envy to other action films such as the Terminator and the Bourne Trilogies. The scenery and camera angles were impressive for the first twenty minutes, but were completely forgotten after that point. I was unhappy that he didn't do more for the sensual side of the movie.
The movie certainly deserves its R18+ rating. It is a complete bloodbath, people dying left right and centre in completely unrealistic terms. I noticed several men's heads just explode, chests ripped apart, limbs torn, heads cut off etc. , each corpse unleashing a bucket of suspiciously thick and crimson, paint-like blood. To get to terms with how many people really have died in the movie (apart from Stallone's career ), the LA Times coneveniently provided us with this table.
While I describe myself as an action movie buff, some scenes in Rambo were just downright distressing. I had to stop watching for a while after the rebel soldiers murdered the children in cold blood. Was this really necessary? I think we got the point Stallone was trying to portray, even without that sickening scene.
Overall, I gave Rambo quite a low score, for its lack of any sophistication. I'm sure if all you want is a nonsensical violent movie, you'll quite enjoy it.