|
"Heroes never die.... They just reload." (imdb link) Written and Directed by Sylvester Stallone I can honestly say that this movie was one of the most gruesome non-stop action rides I've seen in a long time; possibly ever. The film wastes virtually no time ramping up to some really nasty violence and some otherwise intense crap. There's almost no CG, no T&A (unless you like watching glimpses of rape); just people killing people. Because of these simple facts, I actually found the movie to be believable in a sense; it wasn't full of special effects or any silly acrobatics and tricks--everything is straight to the point, gritty, and quick. Don't see this movie if you're the type that enjoys sipping on Cognac and nibbling on crackers after a movie--hell, don't even eat anything before this movie, if you're of weak constitution. I'm not really sure what else I can say beyond that. The film is everything I expected from a movie titled "Rambo" and written/directed by Sylvester Stallone, and I loved almost every minute of it. Pros: Over-the-top action that just doesn't stop Cons: Ends quickly, gruesome scenes (e.g. women and children killed/raped) 4/5 novaSphere fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jan 26, 2008 |
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
The parts where the film tried to add plot were pretty terrible. I got the impression from previews and such that Rambo was supposed to have "sworn off" killing, but he didn't hesitate to kill at the first time he had to, which made his little inner monologue where he decided that he had to fight kind of meaningless. That said, plot wasn't why I went to see the movie, but since they tried and failed to put it in, I'll count it against it - but not too much. The action scenes were pretty awesome, and we got Rambo yelling unintelligibly as he ripped people apart with a .50 cal. All in all, everything you'd expect and want from a Rambo movie. A good popcorn flick that you probably will watch twice ever, but with a number of really memorable shots and more gore than any action movie in recent memory. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 04:39
|
|
|
I feel I can die a happy man now. This movie was everything I expected it to be and more. I saw this right after seeing Meet the Spartans and laughed far more during Rambo. Everything about it was just perfect, from nonstop relentless slaughter to his meaningful flashbacks. Would (and probably will) see again and wouldn't change a thing. 5/5 EDIT VVV That is absolutely poetic by the way. Quiddler fucked around with this message at 07:23 on Jan 26, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 05:57
|
|
|
I don't think I've ever seen a movie where this many people die violently. Or that made me feel like someone just injected testosterone directly into my balls. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 07:03
|
|
|
Rambo is a monstrous hero of epic proportions. He will loving kill you. And you'll like it. It's nicely shot by Stallone, and the soundtrack is epic, with cues from the 1982 original. Check this out. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 11:45
|
|
|
This is definitely the most violent movie that I've ever seen, and probably the most violent movie ever made. I wasn't expecting too much from it going in, but I was pleasantly surprised by the extreme brutality and dramatic plot. I saw this movie last night and I can't wait to see it again. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 18:27
|
|
|
5/5 I went to the theatre expecting to be dissappointed and ended up leaving wide-eyed and in a daze. This might be the most brutally violent major motion picture I've ever seen. Rambo's flashback scene could have been horribly cheesy, but it was creepy and amazing. Every line of dialogue that came out of his mouth seemed like something Frank Miller would write for Batman. If you like watching people being torn apart by bullets this movie will not disappoint. The special effects were kinda lovely, but forgivable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 21:31
|
|
|
5/5 I just got back from seeing this and I was blown away. As it's been said there wasn't that much CGI at all. With the exception for a few of the parts where people get shot and blown back 20 feet it was really believable. I'm going to see this movie again just to spot gruesome things I wasn't able to pick up this time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2008 22:28
|
|
|
I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. When Rambo did a couple of very gruesome kills the only thing you could think was "gently caress YES!" 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2008 00:45
|
|
|
3/5. Yeah, the blowing everything up and ruining people's poo poo is all awesome. The movie is exactly what you would expect it to be--heroic and badass white people loving up ludicrously (and I do mean ludicrously) evil brown people. If there wasn't any dialogue at all the movie would have been a 5/5, easily. Jesus Christ, every single word out of everyone's mouth was physically painful to hear. Not a single believable line in the whole thing. See it drunk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2008 02:59
|
|
|
Wolfsheim posted:I don't think I've ever seen a movie where this many people die violently. Or that made me feel like someone just injected testosterone directly into my balls. HAHAHAHAHAHHAA. Yes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2008 03:33
|
|
|
I've never seen the original Rambo movies, so I didn't know what to expect going in here other than a movie that focused more on being violent than having a plot. In that area, it delivered. I can't say how true it is to the first three movies, but i enjoyed the hell out of it anyway. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2008 03:56
|
|
|
The “Rambo” films are the ultimate conservative fantasy movies of the 1980s, American wish fulfillment carried out through unspeakable acts of entertaining, if unbelievable, carnage and violence. John Rambo, embodied by the (possibly steroid) ripped Sylvester Stallone, took his personal war to Vietnam to save our semi-mythical POWs and bring the Indochinese communists to their knees. He followed up that résumé stuffer by dealing the deathblow to the Soviet forces in Afghanistan, teaching the Mujahideen how to fight old school American style: with maximum fire power and carte blanche to use it. Now twenty years after the last mumble-core super soldier vehicle rocketed to screens, John Rambo is back with a film bearing his name and the same old chip on its shoulder. Rambo has retired from the life, living on a river in Thailand where he passes the time wrangling snakes for low rent entertainment. One day he’s approached by a Christian missionary/human rights advocate, Sarah (Julie Benz), who implores the grizzled old warrior to drive her fellow Christians up the river into Myanmar, where the Burmese government has been graphically slaughtering Karen villagers. Rambo mumbles something about Burma being a war zone, but persistence soon brings him on board, along with a squad of mercenaries presumably in it for the money and glory. Stallone doesn’t so much act during the perfunctory scenes of dialog, as push his considerable middle-aged weight around and mutter sullenly. That is until the boat is attacked by pirates, at which point Rambo comes out of his shell to get some killin’ done. And kill he does, in one scene of audience pleasing brutality after another, using knife, bow, claymore (the mine, though I wouldn’t blame you for thinking the sword) and a really big machine gun that literally shreds his enemies. We don’t really get to know the Burmese soldiers or their victims. This is consistent with the Rambo worldview, which is about American catharsis first and foremost, merely using the suffering of civilians as a pretext for Rambo’s self-sacrificing heroism. We see civilians rounded up and shot, Karen women turned into sex slaves, boys abused and Burmese soldiers leering at their victims, but neither the Karen nor the Burmese are allowed any perspective- they literally exist to be wiped out or saved. If I can’t relate to the victims on any human level, why should I care if they’re avenged? Many critics talk about this film’s emphasis on human rights, but I’m not really sure what they mean by throwing around that term. I haven’t checked up on my UN charter lately, but I don’t remember the part where it says that illegally crossing a border of a sovereign state with mercenaries and killing members of said state’s army without a recognized international mandate is a legitimate means of dealing with human rights violations. In fact, I think it might actually constitute a human rights violation. “Rambo” movies have always promoted the belief among certain hawks that concepts like human rights just get in the way of the nasty, though necessary, business of war. To its credit, the new “Rambo” isn’t quite so enthusiastic about this dunderheaded patriotic line. Rambo doesn’t talk much, but when he does, it’s to express a creeping fatalism. “Things never change” is a recurring argument throughout the movie. Instead of fighting for freedom and justice, the old man is fighting because it’s what he’s good at. The humanitarian mission is of secondary importance. I don’t want to accuse this happily dumb movie of depth, but in its own way it creates a new context for the earlier “Rambo” movies. Maybe “Vietnam” and “Afghanistan” didn’t work out after all; perhaps the “Rambo” films don’t take place in an alternative history, but simply ended in failure. But I’m probably just digging in the mud here. Ultimately, audiences attend “Rambo” movies to ride the testosterone high provided by well executed action scenes. Sure, half the movie might be a slog through robotic dialog, murky locations shots and bad writing, but no one attends for the setup, only the payoff: bad guys getting their heads blown off by anti-personnel guns. In the end this is a country of action, not geopolitical contexts. And the “Rambo” series offers the seductive idea that action is all it takes. I’m just not sure John Rambo agrees anymore. I've made a psycho call to the woman I love, I've kicked a dog to death, and now I'm going to pepper spray an acquaintance. I mean, what's happened to me?
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2008 05:23
|
|
|
NM Not a review Phate fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 02:04
|
|
|
Oh man, I was so pleasantly surprised with this movie. The part with the .50 cal, when he blows away the guy in the driver's seat (god damned video-game fantasy, to shoot that guy driving you around in every WWII shooter)... worth the admission price. Hands down. 5/5 Will watch again
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2008 07:04
|
|
|
Sylvester Stallone is the only man in Hollywood with a real pair of balls. That much is evident from watching Rambo, his blood-soaked homage to everything that is good and true in the American character. This is a movie about carnage, plain and simple. Need fully developed characters? There's an artsy foreign film playing in the theater next to Rambo. Need a touching love story? I hear there's a Kate Hudson movie opening this weekend. I'm going to give it to you straight. If you are a red-blooded American man who hates this film, you're either a giant pussy or a pseudo-intellectual human being. Your balls are probably dangling between your legs as you read this, as shriveled as a pair of raisins, or your grandmother's hands. The mere thought of blood and viscera flying across the screen probably makes your testicles crawl up into your stomach. At 60, Stallone could probably gently caress every woman in your family tree and still have enough energy to break every bone in your body. While pantywaists like the Governator have thrown in the towel, Stallone's hulking biceps are still tearing poo poo up at your local cineplex. Look, do you like any of the following? -Soldiers being mowed down with a mounted .50 cal -Soldiers being gutted like fish -Soldiers getting their throats ripped out -Soldiers being shot with arrows, then exploding as their dead bodies fall onto landmines -Soldiers getting ripped apart by the most powerful sniper rifle on Earth If you answered yes to any of the above, see Rambo now. If the list above disgusts you, grab a seat and finish reading the latest book by Al Gore, you cock-devouring pansy. 5.5/5 Rabid Koala fucked around with this message at 15:08 on Jun 4, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2008 05:43
|
|
|
Awesome brutal violence and nothing else. If silly plot and lovely dialogue bother you, then what the gently caress, why are you seeing a Rambo movie anyway? The trailer tells you everything you need to know, and if that looks appealing to you, you won't be disappointed. It's by far the most incredibly rear end-kicking movie in the series, and as someone else already pointed it out, it even almost seems believable, because the violence is over-the-top in quantity but not in quality (if that makes sense). Taken on its own terms, 5/5.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2008 03:41
|
|
|
This movie was a bit cliche on the plot, but it really doesn't matter. It was gritty, and the villians were set up in a way that you didn't get to know them very well, but you really, really wanted them to die. The movie was almost believable. I don't think a claymore creates an explosion that big in real life, though. The stabbing of the young child with the bayonet also kind of made me angry. There was no character development or climactic buildup, just vast amounts of rear end kicking; the kind where you feel glad because some real piece of poo poo has gotten what he deserves. I actually wanted this movie to be a bit longer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2008 07:35
|
|
|
Boogaley Moo posted:I don't think a claymore creates an explosion that big in real life, though. The stabbing of the young child with the bayonet also kind of made me angry. How did you miss the part where he tied it to a huge loving bomb that hadn't detonated? I loved the hell out of this movie. I was quite happy with the low amount of CG effects in this movie. I miss movies from the 80's when their budget was spent on blowing poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2008 09:48
|
|
|
MEAT TREAT posted:How did you miss the part where he tied it to a huge loving bomb that hadn't detonated? From what I could tell, there are quite a few digital effects used for the carnage. This was one of the worst parts of the film for me. Digital blood just doesn't look good, wounds don't track to the bodies correctly, etc.. Really detracted from the action, as it just made it seem like a videogame. On other fronts, the camera work is pretty lame. Lots of confusing cloe ups and shaky cam. Many times, I just didn't have a good sense of the spatial relationship between combatants. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2008 13:50
|
|
|
This movie completely rocked my face, balls, and faceballs. It was easily the bloodiest action movie that's ever been thrown up on screen. Some of the dialogue leading up to the second half was retarded, but this is goddamn Rambo here, not Le Picnic de Cocksuck. You want character development, don't spend your money on Rambo. Stallone's camerawork was awesome, and the shaky-handheld bits were used effectively and didn't come off as cliché. All-Uh-murray-kin radness. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2008 07:35
|
|
|
For me, watching "Rambo" was like getting one of those liquor and energy drink cocktails in how it gives you a massive does of both stimulant and depressant at the exact same time. "Rambo" wanted to dazzle me with explosive and exciting action sequences, but at the same time it wanted to provoke some serious emotions out of me with some rather haunting images of rape and genocide, all of which makes for a pretty uncomfortable combination for an action movie. I always knew that the Rambo franchise was one that, even in lieu of its silliness, always took itself seriously to an extent, but even with its shocking images it never seemed like it was trying to float too far away from the realm of casual action movies so the movies never bothered me so much, but the new fourth installment shows no remorse in its pursuit to shock and terrify the audience. It was almost as if the movie was aiming to punish the audience for its bloodthirst. I'm guessing what the movie's intention was to give us a strong dose of some very real and authentic violence before it whet our appetite for movie violence. One thing that particularly bothered me about "Rambo" was how it tried to make a personal story out of everything that was happening all around the main character. Rambo is certainly a very interesting character who is in desperate need of some serious soul-searching after his exploits in the previous three films (and even more so after this one), but when you're exposed to the horrors of genocide, seeing innocent people being butchered without prejudice, it's kind of hard to concern yourself with just one person's feelings, even if that person is Rambo himself. I guess what I'm getting at here is a recommendation. "Rambo", for all its faults, dares to not to keep us in some sort of emotional comfort zone as it tears through waves of human beings like clay pigeons and it does not give us a watered-down version of the flavor of action we've become accustomed to in the previous installments (a trap "Live Free or Die Hard" almost fell into last year). The movie is in on how shameless it is, but makes up for it by trying to be fearless at the same time. The violence and gore might be a fair share more than gratuitous, but I'm willing to cut "Rambo" some slack for making good on its delivery with some some great action scenes (I'd be lying if I said that the climax to "Rambo" isn't easily one of the most exciting action scenes ever committed to film). "Rambo" doesn't mix politics and social statements with action as well as, say, Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" does, but for all its recklessness it's remains shocking, bold, and never bores.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2008 16:30
|
|
|
I heard a rumor going in to this movie that at some point Rambo was going to punch a guy's head clean off. This didn't happen, but I still loved this movie. I don't doubt that stuff like what occurs in the first half of the movie happens on a daily basis in my places around the world. It was nice to see them get the poo poo blown out of them even if it was fantasy instead of them getting away with it like they probably do in real life. Only gripe/question: isn't burma called myanmar now? 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2008 07:36
|
|
|
Not what I expected. From the reputation, I expected 10% setting up how evil the bad guys were and 90% Rambo kicking their asses. It wound up being the other way around. Spending such an disproportionate amount of time on highlighting the Major's cruelty took away from the fun action movie that I and everyone I went with was hoping for. Still, when Rambo is kicking rear end, it's great. Shooting holes in people and taking ridiculous bow shots is pretty much guaranteed entertainment. I just wish there was more of it. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2008 17:04
|
|
|
I can now honestly say I've seen Rambo rip a guy's throat out. The only thing wrong with this movie is it's not long enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2008 03:23
|
|
|
Best action movie in years, hands down. Rambo doesnt even attempt to gimp this movie into a lower age-rating, its nonstop over the top violence of the most gruesome kind. The only thing that irked me about it (and its incredibly minor and in no way affected the film) was the landmine noises use the EXACT same sound effect as the grenades in halo 3 and every time I heard one I went into Xbox live panic mode. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2008 08:44
|
|
|
The constant carnage all throughout the movie was just amazing. From the trailers, I knew it was going to be like this too. I saw it a second time the day after to show some skeptical friends how good it was, and they were convinced. I mean, he punches a guy's head off with a knife. How sweet is that? 5/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2008 14:40
|
|
|
I went and saw Rambo. I cannot stress enough how good it is, in that way where something is so bad that it's good again. Except that oddly enough it's not even really bad in the first place (okay maybe pretty bad), while simulatenousely also being super awesome as well as kickass. It also contained a lot of eye-popping carnage and gore and body part dismemberment and large amounts of undiluted radness, including tons of badassery. Obviously it didn't offend me or anything (the internet has utterly desensitized me to a deeply troubling degree), but I have to admit that just how violent this movie is kinda shocked me (in a good way). This has got to be some kind of record setting for barely making it as an R its so over the top. It really surpassed what I thought they could possibly get away with. Stallone is ripped to the core for his elder years and he wrote/directed/starred in this film. It's like entirely his baby and he went totally off the deep end. This thing is like action war porn almost, its just too good. I bet like 10 years from now it'll be a B movie cult classic for people looking to rent over the top ultra-violent action movies. In a weird way, when I watched this it was as much about Stallone as it was about Rambo. I mean he's like 60 years old and such a weird person, I dunno I just loved it. GO SEE RAMBO YEEEEE-HAW preferably immediately after eating a bloody rare steak and drinking a pint of pure ethanol 5/5 I agree with the guy who said his biggest criticism is there's just not more of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2008 19:32
|
|
|
-
Serious Sam fucked around with this message at 08:22 on May 15, 2011 |
|
#
?
Feb 15, 2008 18:50
|
|
|
4/5 for the action and awesome killing. But horrible acting. Good thing the acting did not take up too much time. My main complaint was I wish Rambo did a bit more hunting of the bad guys. Hiding in mud and stuff was a plus in the earlier movies. This would have added some great drama and suspense and would make the movie a bit longer. It was too short.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2008 22:33
|
|
|
Its hard to express words as to just how perfect this movie lives up to your expectations. You go in expecting carnage, destruction and John Rambo firing a machine gun into a crowd of bad guys. You get all of this melted into the form of bullets and blasted into your face. The action is really brutal and realistic in the way that it shows just how horrible war and genocide actually are but this dosent stop it from being incredibly fun. The dialogue is more then good enough for the movie and i felt it worked well and none was particually badly delivered. The mercenaries were just fleshed out enough so you care wether they live or die, which is important for the final fight, but not enough where the movie starts to drag because of it. The only things lacking in this was not enough of Rambo hunting/baiting the enemy like the other movies and that it is about 10 - 15 mintues too short. Hopefully an uncut version wil fix both of these. 4.5/5 for providing the audience with everything they went in expecting.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2008 06:56
|
|
|
I had high expectations for this film - some of my favourite movies are action films from the 80s/early 90s that no one makes anymore - Predator, Die Hard, Rambo, Total Recall etc, but for some reason I thought this one would be different. I like how instead of coming up with a clichéd story or dumbing it down for a lower rating, it seems like Stallone just went off and tried to come up with the goriest, most original ways of killing people and made a movie from it, which is what action movies are about. After I left the cinema though I realised how little Rambo actually did - a few bow and arrow kills, ripping a man's throat out and then dispersing soldiers with a 50cal. There was none of the stealth, guerrilla tactics from the other films as someone already mentioned, they just compressed all his killing into one 20 minute machine gun spree. It didn't make me like the movie any less but it would've been better if they'd have kept it in that style. 4.5/5 - one of the best action movies I've seen in years, even if it could've done with less action and more sneaking that would extend it maybe another 15 minutes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2008 17:23
|
|
|
Initially when I heard they were making a new Rambo, I thought we'd be in for a painful cash-in where Stallone tried to recapture his youth. The trailer changed all that and I just knew we'd be in for something magical. We were, except this was blood magic. I've seen a lot of violent movies in my time, and Rambo ranks right up there at the top. The violence hits hard, it's right in your face and it's loving relentless. This is definitely not a movie for the weak of heart, because it features detailed closeups of people getting bayonets stuck in them and various limbs blown off. Repeatedly. And for that violence, I love it. In a time where every movie has to have a message and show both sides of the issue, Rambo just went for the loving jugular and tore it right off. I was afraid Rambo would learn that violence doesn't solve anything or some poo poo like that but luckily not. It's just somehow comforting and extremely enjoyable to see a movie where the good guys gently caress poo poo up hardcore style and you can just cheer them on for 45 minutes or so. Like others I could've done with more old school Rambo hunting and stalking, but Rambo mowing down about 300 Burmese soldiers with a heavy machinegun more than made up for it. One of the most bad-assed movies of all time. It's like they took a frozen piece of the 80s out of a time capsule, boiled it in blood and set it loose. Sure, the plot is paper-thin, the acting is at times terrible and the movie will offend about a million different people, but that's the point. Rambo is a relic of times gone, in the best possible way. 5/5 Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 16:17 on Feb 25, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2008 16:13
|
|
|
Rambo is an average addition to the Rambo franchise. It has no intention to be more than it is: a homage to the original series and an excuse to blow poo poo up. This by no means makes Rambo a good movie. But it keeps your expectations in check early on so by the end, you leave the theater very satisfied. Here's my breakdown: John Rambo: Yeah, Stallone's old. So Rambo is hardly as dexterous as he used to be, but he does run a bit. War Scenes: Rape, bullet wounds, decapitation, stabbings and instant amputees. No need for a checklist, it's all there! Theme Song: Still awesome. Extraction Team: I felt like the movie tried to channel some of the chemistry from the team in Predator. It failed completely. Characters, Plot: Non-existant. You know the story by what you've read in my post so far. Violence: By sheer amount, it is probably more than anything I can remember from the 80's. In terms of quality, it is several steps backwards. The digital blood, fire and explosions are no match for physical effects. No matter how chaotic the battle scenes were, the animation simply lessened the emotional impact. By the end, I didn't feel the movie was anywhere close to setting a new bar for on-screen violence. There's no action sequences that you haven't really seen before. There's also not much regard for spatial continuity. Either the filmmakers took it for granted, didn't care, or were just following recent trends. WTF moments: There aren't as many as users seem to suggest here. I count 3. While I thought Rambo was an unnecessary addition to the series, it was enjoyable and fun nonetheless. It stuck strictly to the formula and made little or no attempts to be anything else. How good the movie is: 2/5, for lack of story and "forgettability" How much I liked it: 3/5, for quick adrenaline and nostalgia wretchx fucked around with this message at 12:29 on Feb 29, 2008 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2008 17:52
|
|
|
This movie had the best action scenes iv seen in a long time. One of the movies i can honestly say id watch more than once. Just as badass as the original was. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2008 11:37
|
|
|
I know this might elicit some groans and eyerolls, but I have to say this movie rather veered outside of my comfort zone. I'm actually surprised at myself, but seeing women and especially children so brutally slaughtered mostly just made me think "jesus, I'm sitting here watching a movie, but somewhere else this stuff really happens". The use of newsreels at the start of the movie solidified that. I guess, in that, Stallone hit his mark with me, if his talk about wanting to bring attention to the ongoing war in Birma wasn't complete bullshit. I didn't see the over-the-top cruelty of the Birmese army as a device to villify them, but as a very nasty slice of real life. Naive of me or not, I don't know. As said, there's not much plot to the movie, and it felt like a very quick ride. What developments there are, aren't very amazing - the missionary ending up bashing a soldier's head in was a little silly. The abrasive aussie character was the most annoying cliché out of all the mercenaries. Mumbling about the violence aside, it's only fair to admit that there were several brutal scenes I replayed, wondering "holy poo poo, did I just see what I think I saw?" In conclusion, (John) Rambo is a worthwhile watch, though I think I generally like my movie violence with a bit more tongue in cheek.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2008 14:04
|
|
|
Holy poo poo this movie took me off guard. What I thought was going to be another lovely wanna be action movie turned out to be the best action movie I have seen in years. Yeah, the dialog and the plot is what-the gently caress-ever but that's ok in this film because everything else makes up for it. I really wasn't expecting this to be anything above an average escape but it turned out to be a loving trip like I haven't taken since the first time I saw Predator or Die Hard. I gotta give it to Sly for this. Great job. edit: I guess I should say that I didn't watch any trailers for this leading up to seeing it. Also the Blue Ray quality is extremely good here. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2008 07:44
|
|
|
Every film should be reviewed by two criteria: what it tries to be, and how others who have tried the same have fared. I've got to give this a 5/5 as a result, and believe me, I don't feel bad about doing it. The scenes of violence setting up the bad guys were executed perfectly; there was no glorification or cheesiness to their genocidal rule, it was cold and brutal and made you hate them. The "plot" was of course deli-thin, but this isn't a movie made to ponder upon the moral implications of the 'villains' and 'heroes', this a visceral experience turned up to 11. You're meant to feel the moment more than you're meant to analyze, and it succeeds quite well in accomplishing that. The characters were flat and uninspired, and I liked them that way. No need to be overly attached to anyone (though there are a few you're meant to dislike) as long as you understand what type of character they are. The caught-in-the-middle innocents trying to do good, the arrogant merc who does what he has to but doesn't like it, etc.. The action... now there we go. It would be an understatement to refer to this film as bloody. We're talking exploding heads. We're talking people getting shot and seeing the sunny sky through the gaping wounds for a few frames before the cut. Arrows through the head. Throats being torn out. Men having their legs blown off by gunfire. Numerous explosions that send up equal amounts of red goo as they do dust and smoke, complete with the occasional limb slapping loudly against the dirt afterwards. A man is almost cut in half but his side still holds his bits together as he collapses and rolls. Violence. And by the time you're in the midst of this, you're cheering because of how absolutely well they set up the baddies to be completely inhuman. Even my mother liked this movie because of how much they made the audience want to see these bad guys slaughtered. See it and enjoy it, it's an experience you will not regret.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2008 03:29
|
|
|
I so enjoyed the black and white of the battle in this movie. So many TV shows and movies these days do the whole "well, he's good and bad at the same time - isn't he so complicated?" thing. It was nice to have bad guys that were pure loving evil. Watching them get what they deserved for an hour and a half was such a treat. I wish I had seen this movie in the theater because I know I wouldn't have been alone in yelling out "gently caress YES" every ten minutes. I now want to go back and watch the other Rambo movies. I've only seen them in chunks on TV. Rambo succeeded perfectly in what it was trying to be. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Aug 2, 2008 04:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 02:05 |
|
|
my review, or; my open letter to Sylvester Stallone spoilers Dear Mr. Stallone, First of all, thank you for putting in the effort to revive your old classic heroes. Rocky and Rambo are timeless and it was great to hear that they were going to get another movie to finish things off. With that said, just because you're old now doesn't mean you have to include 60 minutes of redemption footage. You have two things working against you here- one: this is a loving Rambo movie. If I wanted personal drama and emotional tension I'd watch a Days of Our Lives rerun. No, I want 120 minutes of ball-popping action. I wanted you to literally pop a man's testicle off. Did that happen in the first 60 minutes? No. All I got was you trying to bang Dexter's wife while at the same time being a dick for no reason ("I wasn't talking to anybody." Congrats Rambo, now you seem like a hardass for acting like you didn't just have a cry-off with that other guy who I wished would die for the entire movie. You know what? You shouldn't have talked to him. You should have cut that whole part out. You'd have 5 extra minutes to orally disembowel a person and that whole "I didn't talk to anyone" line would seem more like an action hero and less like a girl from Sex and the City. But I digress). Two: I could actually forgive you of all of number one if the personal drama was actually gripping. Love is a battlefield, and if Rob Reiner and Billy Crystal have taught me anything it's that romance can be just as exciting as Saving Private Ryan, and also that Meg Ryan used to have talent. But no... we got this. To call your acting wooden would be offensive to trees. I thought you were a second away from falling asleep for the entire movie. I don't know if the bullshark testosterone you injected into your taint is finally wearing you down, or if you were genuinely trying to act bored, but the 1970's Hollywood futuristic version of a robot could display more emotion than you. I didn't know whether you were back to being a badass or still a reflective, snake hunting (by the way... snake hunter..? Really? Did you google "jobs in the jungle" and click "I'm feeling lucky" and decide to run with it?) jackass until the arrows started going through people's skulls. Admittedly it was cool to see people die and stuff. But the Stallone version of a drama ends and the killing begins. Almost. I could respect the fact that you are old and had to get a ragtag bunch of mercenaries to help kill people, but if you wanted to have them wax philosophical about morality and duty you could have at least gotten help from a guy who knows more about philosophy than what he's read on fortune cookies. But they agree to go in and help, at least until things get "too bad" or whatever the hell the British guy was talking about. Yes. I can smell the blood in the air. They go in and girls are getting raped and stuff and it's a pretty bad scene altogether. What makes it worse is that one of the only people you left still alive from the large group of missionaries that initially went was that goddamn guy I hate so much. I could tell he was supposed to be Dexter's wife's love interest and I knew that he'd probably live, but to see him actually alive still pissed me off. You could have thrown in a curveball and defied the audience's expectations by showing him get tortured to death. Or shot in the head. I'm not picky. Anyway, I kind of forget what happens next and some people go back and the honorable mercenary and the asian guy say hey man let's go back and help Rambo (I think) so they break away. Rambo gets Dexter's wife and tears off her shirt and puts it on his shoe so the dogs will chase him. Then she leaves. Other stuff happens, but I'll get to my biggest disappointment with this movie: loving Rambo himself. No, not the pacifist "John Rambo" that he was in the beginning that I've already complained to you about, but the Rambo that's supposed to take rear end and kick names. You had my expectations so high when you ripped the throat out of that one guy. What makes it even better was that it was completely uncalled for and you did it right in front of that girl and it was awesome. You could have just snapped his neck quick and painless but you chose to get messy and tore his esophagus out. I forgot all about the first half of the movie and had an unquenchable thirst for blood. Then the final scene. The climax of the final Rambo movie. A jungle, hundreds of Burmese soldiers and a man who has killed more men armed only with a mullet than France could with its entire military. I was getting ready for you to unleash yourself upon them like a mythological beast. But no.. you got on a 50 cal machine gun. You stood on a heavy machine gun with an armor plate protector and shot at them at close range. I'm not going to brag but I've trained on that gun to the extent that even I could do that. Hell, at that distance anyone with opposable thumbs could do that, not discounting well trained monkeys. Nobody wants to see a large man with a kill sheet that could make Stalin uncomfortable do something that they could do. Hell, you start to feel bad for those little soldiers directly in the barrel of a 50 caliber gun that have nowhere to go but die. Rambo even fumbled a bit while reloading- granted he got shot but since when is that supposed to stop him. So the blood bath is over and all of the enemy soldiers are dead and the only other surviving missionary member beside Dexter's wife and the annoying guy is some other guy who loving gets shot in the back after all he's been through. I know you wanted those two to live for cliched reasons, but did the other guy have to die so pointlessly and after all of that? Dammit, Sylvester. But yeah, the annoying guy leaves the ordeal a little less annoying and more streetwise than he was before (but he said he's been in Burma about 7 or something times before that. He is honestly just now finding out that terrible things happen there? Why is he so world-weary and humbled now?) and him and Dexter's wife end up hooking up and she leaves Rambo all alone. She totally used him completely and that was pretty awesome I guess, but Rambo just took it. He should have had sex with a hotter girl right in front of her. But to really send the movie off both symbolically and emotionally you sent Rambo back home to America to see his... father? I guess if he does live on a farm and he could have had Rambo when he was 20 making him 80 years old, but unless Rambo enjoys cleaning Depends diapers I don't know what good it's going to do him. Rambo has been gone for basically haIf a century; I'm sure the dad would have a hard time recognizing him even if he wasn't senile and fingerpainting with the results of his latest "accident". I guess it was supposed to be a nice though. In the end you wanted to teach us something about duty, war, honor, humanity, charity, and some other stuff that equally missed its mark. Nobody wants a movie with a strong message when it ends up degrading the action to the point where it fails on both terms. And I say "send the movie off" because I don't care if you've announced a Rambo V. This is what I've read off wikipedia: Rambo V has been confirmed and is in pre-production.[3] On February 2, 2008, Sylvester Stallone informed Reuters in an interview that making a fifth Rambo would depend on the success of the fourth movie but that he thought he was "gearing one up" and that it would "be quite different".[4] On March 10, 2008, Moviehole.net revealed that in an interview with Metro magazine, Stallone said that he was "half-way through" writing Rambo V and that it would not be another war movie.[5] On March 20, Moviehole.net also said that ScreenDaily.com had revealed that the film would be shot in Bulgaria and later received word from a source that Bulgaria was to double for John Rambo's home town in Arizona.[6][7] On November 3, 2008, Stallone confirmed that they will be filming a Rambo V and that it's in the works. Stallone said: "Rambo hopefully will be back. We've just got to give you guys a story that's worthwhile." It is rumored that the new film's plot (which was an alternative for Rambo) involves Rambo's unknown daughter being kidnapped by cult leaders and he goes on a mission to rescue her.[8] On February 4, 2009, Sylvester Stallone quoted, "Yeah, we are doing another Rambo, but the conflict is whether to do it in America or Australia." Although the bolded parts, by themselves, can still make a pretty decent action movie (Taken was pretty drat good), I have absolutely no faith in the new "artistic vision" that you've developed in the twilight of your life. I think the scientific term for that type of vision is called cataracts. I don't think you've realized that American audiences only love you when your emotionless, hulking body is ruthlessly and indiscriminately cutting through faceless generic bad guys. They don't love you because you pull on their heart strings with captivating and deep performances. All it needs now to fully destroy your fanbase is Shia LaBeouf playing your daughter. I hope you're satisfied. 1/5 nice mattimer fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jun 1, 2009 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2009 05:39
|
|
