briskhound2 said:Decision made yet? Planning on waking up the neighbors with a bazooka? 😁
Yeah... decision made.😁 Set up the grill for the weekend and binged all three movies back-to-back with commentary. 😁 I watched the fourth one about two weeks before The Expendables premiered, so I wasn't really feeling a rewatch... but man, felt like I just saw it yesterday, haha...
Wish I had some company to grab a drink and talk trash while watching, though. hehe... 😁
Anyway... here’s my take...
In my opinion, Rambo 4 is slightly better than the original and easily the best in the series. Mostly because this is where Stallone actually gets to dive deep into the character. He finally shows us the core of who this guy is, and honestly, the action feels the most grounded.
See, as great as the first movie is, it doesn't really "study" the character itself; it’s more of a story about an individual fighting against a system that rejects him. In that one, it isn't even the whole system turning on him at first—it's just one guy, the Sheriff, who can't stand Vietnamese veterans and targets Rambo just for being an ex-soldier. That one interaction triggers a landslide that turns the entire local establishment against a man whose only crime was fighting in a lost war and surviving.
There's also that interesting theory from Stallone that Rambo is basically a modern retelling of Frankenstein's monster—someone just looking for acceptance, but the world treats him with nothing but disgust, forcing the "monster" to fight just to stay alive. In that light, Colonel Trautman is like Dr. Frankenstein, the guy who created this "monster," or in this case, a killing machine.
The issue with the first film, IMO, is that the raw survival instinct and the "killing machine" aspect don't feel quite convincing enough. Rambo is a Vietnamese veteran and clearly a PTSD-sufferer; you see it in those flashbacks when a simple razor triggers him. Once he snaps and hits the run, he's mentally back in the war. His brain shifts entirely to survival mode. So, it feels a bit unrealistic that he’d spare any of those cops, regardless of their badges, because in his eyes, they're just enemy combatants. Sure, making him a cold-blooded killer wouldn't make him "likable" or win the audience's sympathy, but it would have captured the true nature we see in the fourth film...
In the fourth installment, Rambo truly is a killing machine, operating without any real motive. He isn't saving missionaries because he's in love or because someone paid him... no, he simply can't suppress the urge anymore. He can't control the weapon inside him. It’s like that famous monologue:
"You know what you are... what you're made of. War is in your blood. Don't fight it. You didn't kill for your country. You killed for yourself. God's never gonna make that go away. When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing."And right there,
"When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing" makes the first movie feel a bit "unconvincing." He is Pushed... really hard... yet he doesn't kill, even though he should. Maybe they should've just stuck to the book, regardless of the fallout...
As for the second and third entries... both are fun, spectacular, high-octane action flicks that you just don't see made anymore. I enjoy them every single time, and there isn't much difference between them. A ton of goons, tons of explosions, helicopters... one takes place in Vietnam, the other in Afghanistan... in one, Rambo saves POWs, in the other, he saves Colonel Trautman; in both, the villains are evil Russians, and in both, Rambo is a one-man army. The only thing the second one still has is some political elements that were actually relevant back then, which the third lacks. And both have that emotional moment between Rambo and the girl... though, IMO, she's mostly there just to make Rambo even angrier and more wired for what comes next. Action-wise, both films look almost identical... like they were directed by the same guy. In my opinion, both George P. Cosmatos and Peter MacDonald (who’s a great director in my book, shame he vanished from the industry) did an outstanding job with the direction...
All in all... a fun weekend...
briskhound2 said:On one hand, I agree; old-school action has that more direct way of showing things. The shot where Rambo fires the arrow, the shot where the trucks blow up on the bridge—excellent. The problem is it became a bit static. A more lively camera definitely adds to the spectacle. And that famous tank vs. helicopter clash—to me, it feels like those shots from Bullitt where the guy shifts gears through ten speeds (when there are only 4 or 5) just to give the impression of acceleration. It's the same here; every shot gets closer to the helicopter or the tank, but it's actually just one single sequence. I like Rambo, but he has his flaws regarding direction—not that I can blame him, since the first three were directed by people who have almost nothing to do with action, and it didn't always turn out great.
Maybe so... but man, the stuff people do nowadays is just way too much...
That whole helicopter vs. tank thing is actually a classic example of directing a sequence when you want to build tension and emphasize an impending collision. It's like how a professor at the academy might describe it. He says... you have two trains... one going left to right, the other right to left... you cut between shots of those trains, one after the other, increasing the rhythm, and the audience automatically concludes they're going to crash.
That's how it was done back then... today, they'd probably turn it into a total mess that would blow your mind...
