Rambo aka Rambo IV

Anyone else seen this yet? As you can realise by what lies beneath, I was moved to a bit of rant after seeing Rambo IV.

I am a self confessed fan of the Rambo films. Growing up, I always had this impression (as I wasn't allowed to see them at such a young age) that they were hyper-violent, knife pornfests, with no real story lines and awful production values. I'm old enough to remember the tabloid hoo-har about the Rambo combat knives with the unscrewable handles, and the Daily Mail/Express led campaign of vitriol directed at the films and their apparent attempt to corrupt the young and encourage random acts of violence - Michael Ryan didn't help much.

But then I saw all three movies and realised what a load of old guff the press were spewing. First Blood has exactly one death in, and that is an accident. It's otherwise a pretty thrilling, highly enjoyable chase movie. Rambo 2 upped the ante violence wise, but even so had a decent storyline, and some really memorable action set pieces. Now for me Rambo 3 is the best of the bunch. Politically naive, cheesey as anything, but has some stonking action in it, some great characters, terrific music, and some truly iconic movie moments.

Then we come to Rambo IV.

All I can is that I hope Sly is man enough to realise was an abortion of a movie it is. There really isn't much that's right about it. It's a Rambo movie in name only really. Stallone looks like a freak of nature in it. He says male growth hormones are a good thing - look in the mirror mate. You look like someone wearing a latex skin suit, with an oversized prosthetic lowerlip. It's telling that he never takes off his t-shirt in the film as he looks like a fat man with muscled arms. I was transfixed by his grossness to begin with, and that then mutated into disgust and pity as the film progressed.

In case you didn't know what the story was about, it goes like this: Rambo reluctantly takes some Bible-basers by river to Burma, to help the persecuted tribes people. Bible-bashers get put into bambo cages. Rambo goes back with bunch of mercenaries to rescue them. He kills everyone in Burma.

In between we get some of the most gratuitous violence I have seen in a mainstream Hollywood movie. Forget the slasher-porno-grossfests of stuff like Hostel and Saw etc. Here you get burning children being tossed into a burning hut... and then flamethrower-ed. People explode every few moments. Grunts are decapitated by machine gun fire. Limbs are hacked off. The weird and slightly disturbing thing is that it's done in the same sort of way the Private Ryan action is done, but it seems so wrong and unnecessary in a dumb action movie. It opens with all sorts of horrendous real-life footage of various war crimes and bloated rotting bodies, and you feel like the producers wanted to out-do even this, with even more grim stuff in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I love plenty of violent movies. Violence can be essential to tell a story, or can be the reason for watching the film if done right, with style or for impact. But this is like watching big budget re-shoots of the YouTube vids of real life atrocities or war footage purely to give sickos a semi.

The badguys in Rambo films (excluding First Blood) have always been larger than life, 2D KGB/Vietcong bogey men. The characterisation in Rambo IV begins and ends with the main Burmese officer being a child molester.

I'm gonna leave it there, and throw it open to the floor. Suffice to say, avoid this like a case of genital warts.

 

Ive never seen any of them, would like to see all four.

 

but is it as bad as AVP2... i doubt it

 

I think the main reason for the difference between First Blood and the other Rambo films is that the original film was based on a book by David Morrell (think thats the right spelling) and whilst the main flow of the story is the same as the film it does leave out big chunks of the story - true of many book adaptations.
Some of the main differences are that Rambo does kill his pursuers, a fair bit of the story shows that the Sherrif is a Korean war vet and makes comparisons between their experiences plus it has a very different ending. The other films were simply screenplays using the character in various situations and simply ended up as vehicles for Stallones talents - which seemed to involve a lot of strutting around with his shirt off, oiled up and shooting people.

Sadly I'll probably go and see the latest one (hits the UK in about two weeks) but I am prepared for it to be silly.

PS I did see a documentry a long time ago about Special Forces Vietnam vets who had gone back to living in the wilds in the US, I think it was made after First Blood had been such a success at the time and there was one guy on there who claimed that a lot of the action in the film was based on his experiences with the locals where he had built his shack. A lot of them seemed to be very disturbed individuals and they were all armed to the teeth and they had a serious grudge against the authorities and the human race in general. Most of them simply wanted to be left alone but there was one guy who was quite chilling in his outlook, he said it was due to being betrayed and abandoned by his superiors whilst in Cambodia and had gone on a killing spree there. He even said that he had contemplated shooting the film crew as there were approching his compound.

 

Won't read your post, but from the trailers I've seen, it looks quite good.

 

I've got it and am about to watch it, however I have a VIP screening to see it a week on Friday so I'll be able to tell any differences between small and big screen. *coff*

 

Stay tune for Rambo V! Stallone straps a rocket launcher to his wheeled walker...

 

Got to agree with JohnnyBoy, the First Rambo had something to say...

It dealt with some thorny issues at the time, How do you treat veterans of unpopular wars? (Relevant today)

I thought it was a decent film, the sequels were pure Hollywood... don't bother with plot,
show me the GUNS, BIG GUNS!

No surprise the fourth is wack! What I don't get is where are the new action heroes, why do we keep wheeling out these old fools Stallone, Willis, Cage etc

 

Guess after that "glowing review" I'll wait for the rental. Thanks mookboy, you saved me a cinema ticket plus expenses.

First Blood was my favourite of the 3 I've seen, mainly due to this Man. Great actor.

 

QFT.

I also liked Richard Crenna.

"God didn't make Rambo - I made him."

Liked even better the fact he parodied himself in Hot Shots! Part Deux.

 

I dunno about you but I thought it was awesome. Just a pure action movie with over the top blood and guts. I mean if your going to Rambo for a story don't bother. But it is never really portrayed as being a serious film is it?

After seeing the movie you will want nothing more to play COD4.

 

This hits the proverbial nail on the head (except for maybe the CoD4 thing). The movie is just pure action, through and through. If you enjoy action movies, you'll enjoy Rambo. If you don't, you won't. That's all there is to it.

 

Except... no. This is brainless action done in the style of the Normandy landings in Saving Private Ryan. You just can' marry high-impact, ultra realistic gore with brainless action. It just doesn't go together, it seems inappropriate and wrong. Aside from that, I suppose if your idea of a good action film is all action, no plot, no characters, no substance... then go for it. And I wouldn't compare it with CoD4 because you're comparing dung with caviar.

 

That has to be one of the best action sequences in any movie I've ever watched.

 

That scene was anything but senseless though.

 

Good point. Extreme violence like that is generally used to evoke strong emotion and seriousness - it shouldn't be taken lightly. Saving Private Ryan is a perfect example.

And for those who are saying Rambo movies are "just" action flicks: First Blood, by the way, did have a good plot. As already stated, acting was done at a very high level and when you really think about it, Rambo didn't even actually kill anyone during that movie, yet was still thought of as the ultimate badass with the M60 on a sling (BTW, how heavy are those exactly and is carrying/shooting them like that practical for any length of time?).

 

I'll wait to see it on DVD, but I don't expect too much. Really, how could you? He's old, and it's been said that it's really just an action flick.

I did like the other Rambo movies, but look at how long it's been and I expect it to be nothing like the origional movies. It really sounds like they made it to be like what people had claimed it was years back. (Referring to what was already brought up, he didn't even kill anyone in the first movie-but don't forget the dogs...)

 

Just saw it at the Vue, late night viewing at its best, oh and it was...

****ING AWESOME!

A movie which I've actually enjoyed, haven't watched a movie for a good few months and walked out thinking "That was worth £7.15", great action, decent story line imo (what else do you want), gets straight into the movie, gore is excellent imo (except for one scene, which I actually giggled at), but yeah overall an excellent movie. go and see it, you won't be disappointed. I think everyone who walked out said "that was awesome", quite funny listening to everyone saying the same thing.

 

You watched it straight after me in the same cinema, lol.

I have to say that on the whole I enjoyed it, and my only gripes weren't to be directed at the film, but at the sound setup in the cinema, which wasn't loud enough, yet already starting to distort with the heavier bits of firing near the end.

And whilst maybe the plot wasn't great, it does I think do some justice to portraying the horrific nature of some of the atrocities that do still go on in places like Burma.

 

Loved the film, was just awesome, alright it wasn't as good plot wise as Rocky Balboa, but I certainly had a great time in the cinema. The final big fight scene just had me grinning the whole time, and hearing the cinema audience's reactions to each injury inflicted was a highlight.