So i recently watched First Blood parts 1 & 2 and after not seeing them for so long i was struck by 2 thing's...

1. The manhunt for the ''cop killer'' in Los Angeles seems somewhat similar to the plot of First Blood(Althought Rambo didn't really kill cops or many people in the first one)

2. That these movies actually caused a bit of controversy when they came out and sparked lots of talks about violence in movies and lots of talk about Vietnam.

But honestly First Blood pt. 2 is so over the top i don't see why people would get incredibly offended as it is close to a comic book more than anything.

What is everyones opinions on the first 2 Rambo movies?

and this is a short documentary on the film from 1985

[Edited 2/12/13 12:28pm]

I like the first one. The second one is ridiculous.

One thing i will say is i cringe hard at the racial sterotyping of Vietnamese soldiers in the movie.

I don't think Stallone was thinking much with that crap.

it's funny how First Blood was a somewhat political movie with a message...

While the message of aprt 2 is just blow up shit and blow up shit

I will say the new Rambo from 2008 got right what a lot of part 2 & 3 did wrong.

I forgot about rambo 2008. LOL. I never saw that one.

kewlschool said:

I forgot about rambo 2008. LOL. I never saw that one.

That one was very realistic and not over the top comic bookesque like the other 2 sequels so i dug it.

One positive thing i can say about 80's action movies is that the guys in them really looked like they could rip your arm off

Today we have fucking Tyler Perry and others trying to be action stars

Loved 1 & 2. Part 3 was just plain silly.

Part 1 was the best. Didn't care for Part 2. And I'm not even entertaining Part 3.

The first 2 Rambo films are classics. And I also think the 4th Rambo film was just as good as a stand-alone story as it is another direct sequel.

However, Rambo 3 was 100% total bullshit! Think about it; one man with only a tank successfully take down not one, but TWO Soviet Russian superhelicopters all by his damn self?!? Oh get the f*** out of here!

Gunsnhalen said:

kewlschool said:

I forgot about rambo 2008. LOL. I never saw that one.

That one was very realistic and not over the top comic bookesque like the other 2 sequels so i dug it.

One positive thing i can say about 80's action movies is that the guys in them really looked like they could rip your arm off

Today we have fucking Tyler Perry and others trying to be action stars

You can also add Robert Pattison to THAT list of wannable action stars. It's shameful.

First Blood is a classic movie, more like a thriller/"coming home" serious movie than an action flick...one of the best "rebel with a cause" movies I've ever seen, and basically because it was a book adaptation to begin with (a good book, btw)

the "sequels" are just a whole different animal, part 2 could have been very good, but as gunsandhalen has said, the stereotypes and the comic-book style kinda ruined it, half of the movie is right on the money,... the other part is laughable for the wrong reasons Yeah, I get the message of the film: the USA could have won the Vietnam War if we listened more to soldiers like Rambo, but I just didn't like the portrayal of the soviets, the vietnamese and the POWs, unrealistic/excessive if you ask me. It's a movie that perhaps made sense in 1985 but not anymore (not even in 1988-89)

part 3 was nothing more than a cash-in attempt, just another Rambo adventure against the "evil", nazi-like soviets, aiding the "noble" (yeah, sure ) mujahidin (no, not talibans, but equally mysogynistic/bloody) BOLLOCKS!!!

part 4 could have been great but the atrocius acting of pretty much everyone involved and the super-short running time (little time to savour the characters/situations) ruined it for me; still, it kinda erased the mistakes of parts 2 and 3

The body count in Rambo III is incredible... like how many people die in that movie?

Rambo III is one film were as strange as it sounds has TOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH action going on.

Maybe i should re-watch it again after not seeing for years but i recall just countless scenes of explosions, tanks, fights, warriors, deaths, more tanks, helicopters, explosions.

Like Michael Bay would blush at the mayhem going and say ''stop''

[Edited 2/14/13 17:03pm]

Gunsnhalen said:

The body count in Rambo III is incedile... like how many people die in that movie?

Rambo III is one film were as strange as it sounds has TOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH action going on.

Maybe i should re-watch it again after not seeing for years but i recall just countless scenes of explosions, tanks, fights, warriors, deaths, more tanks, helicopters, explosions.

Like Michael Bay would blush at the mayhem going and say ''stop''

But those things are exactly why 1980's action films are entertaining to watch!

Gunsnhalen said:

The body count in Rambo III is incedile... like how many people die in that movie?

Rambo III is one film were as strange as it sounds has TOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH action going on.

Maybe i should re-watch it again after not seeing for years but i recall just countless scenes of explosions, tanks, fights, warriors, deaths, more tanks, helicopters, explosions.

Like Michael Bay would blush at the mayhem going and say ''stop''

the final act of that movie was just ridiculous to the point of self-parody..Creena and Rambo surrounded by an entire soviet platoon (tanks and helicopters and all) and Rambo goes all berserk "fuck 'em!" and starts shooting...and survives...whatever

First Blood (part one) is a brilliant movie, whereas the second part is just a mindless, stupid action movie but I enjoyed it as a kid and I liked the scenery. Part three sucked, and so did the last one (2008).

I think the last one could´ve been much better if Stallone hadn´t edited it. He left out some of the best parts that would´ve given the movie and the Rambo character at least a little bit of depth. Without those parts the whole thing comes across as nothing but a dumb action flick with a lot of carnage and brutality for the sake of being ....well.......brutal, but nothing more than that.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone like Sylvester Stallone, whom I like quite a lot, often comes up with the most stupid screenplays and acting after delivering some unforgettably good movies and screenplays every now and then. He´s starred in some true gems of movies, and he´s starred in many awful movies.

He should´ve kept this part here in the last Rambo movie....it would´ve made the movie a bit better, in my opinion:

It´s a shame that he didn´t use this scene.

[Edited 2/14/13 11:08am]

KoolEaze said:

First Blood (part one) is a brilliant movie, whereas the second part is just a mindless, stupid action movie but I enjoyed it as a kid and I liked the scenery. Part three sucked, and so did the last one (2008).

I think the last one could´ve been much better if Stallone hadn´t edited it. He left out some of the best parts that would´ve given the movie and the Rambo character at least a little bit of depth. Without those parts the whole thing comes across as nothing but a dumb action flick with a lot of carnage and brutality for the sake of being ....well.......brutal, but nothing more than that.

It never ceases to amaze me how someone like Sylvester Stallone, whom I like quite a lot, often comes up with the most stupid screenplays and acting after delivering some unforgettably good movies and screenplays every now and then. He´s starred in some true gems of movies, and he´s starred in many awful movies.

He should´ve kept this part here in the last Rambo movie....it would´ve made the movie a bit better, in my opinion:

It´s a shame that he didn´t use this scene.

[Edited 2/14/13 11:08am]

I think it was during an interview with Letterman: Sly said that at some point he opted to tone down the dialogue about Rambo (as a character) and focused instead on the war situation in Burma, effectively turning Rambo IV into a brutal piece of propaganda against Burma's military (aka genocidares of the Karen people)...