Rambo series

briskhound2 said:Besides, the first Delta Force movie features Palestinians as the villains instead of Russians. 🙂

Just remember that he was dealing with the Vietnamese in the second installment for that very reason. If things had been different back then, they might have cast Arabs as the villains instead. I think there’s a specific film out there somewhere that tracks exactly how often Arabs are portrayed as antagonists versus heroes in American cinema.

Rambo: First Blood (1982) without a second thought—even though I actually think Rambo 4 is pretty solid, nothing beats the original in my book.

Personally, I feel like the second installment gets way more hate than it deserves because it’s such a blast, whereas the third one? Man, that was just a weak attempt at an action flick.

Rambo 1 - 7/10
Rambo 2 - 6/10
Rambo 3 - 3/10
Rambo 4 - 6/10

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...

Anthony Smith3 said:In my humble opinion, Rambo - Tetralogy is actually a hair better than First Blood—which makes it the best one in the whole series, honestly. It’s mostly just because that's the one movie where Stallone really gets to dig into the character itself... he finally manages to show what makes him tick and puts the core of the guy in a real light. Plus, even when you look at the action, it feels way more grounded and realistic than the rest of them...
So, here’s what I’m actually getting at... As great as that first movie is, it doesn't really "study" the guy's character, not even close. It isn't trying to do that. At its core, it’s just this raw story about one man going up against a system that basically spits him out. And honestly—right from the jump—it isn't even the whole system rejecting Rambo... it starts with just one guy, the local sheriff, who for whatever twisted reasons can't stand dealing with any Vietnamese veterans. He picks a fight with Rambo just because of his service record, which ends up triggering this massive avalanche of chaos... and suddenly, he’s turned the entire machine against a single person whose only crime was fighting in a losing war and actually making it home...

I’d argue it’s really about the system itself—since Sheriff Teasle basically embodies that hypocritical side of America that forcibly recruited those kids and shipped them straight off to war... Teasle is also a veteran of the Korean War, and he views Rambo through this incredibly negative lens that represents how many former soldiers were treated back then (which is actually fleshed out way more in the novel)... he just doesn't buy into what we now recognize as PTSD. He can't wrap his head around the idea that someone might struggle to function in civilian life because, to him, he’s this pillar of tradition, a "real man," and all that... On the flip side, in the book, Rambo has much more direct contact with the legal system—he ends up in front of a judge who doesn't even bother asking for his input—and that just fuels his rage even more. In the movie, it’s framed like he’s lost all control, but he’s actually fully aware of everything he’s doing... honestly, he’s intentionally escalating the whole conflict just to force a situation where they have to kill him in a fair fight. Since the movie came out in 1982, they leaned into a much more simplified narrative—basically the police harass him until he snaps. But, you made a good point there... even if he's losing it due to PTSD, he stays totally composed when it comes to the actual killing—which is a contradiction in itself... Maybe it's just my bias from reading the book first, but I find the adaptation a bit lacking when it comes to the Sheriff's portrayal—in the novel, he's this stubborn, rigid, old-school veteran, whereas in the film, he's a little more laid back... though I actually kind of dig that he doesn't fully back his men's actions...

There’s this interesting theory from Stallone that Rambo is basically a modern retelling of Frankenstein—you know, like how the monster just wanted to be accepted by society... but instead, everyone looks at him with nothing but pure disgust and contempt. It forces the "monster" into this corner where he has no choice but to fight just to stay alive. In this version of the story, Colonel Trautman is pretty much Dr. Frankenstein... the guy who actually built the "monster," or in this case, a literal killing machine...

The theory actually holds water—honestly, that’s basically the whole vibe of the movie. It was his vision from the jump since he took that original script and stripped out a bunch of the extra fluff... though, if we're being real, he definitely dumbed it down a bit to make it more digestible for the mainstream crowd. I guess I never really looked at it through that lens before...

By the fourth installment, Rambo has basically morphed into this pure killing machine—and honestly, he’s doing it without any real sense of purpose anymore. He isn't stepping up to save those missionaries because he’s got a thing for the girl, or because some agency put a paycheck in his hand... no, it’s deeper than that. It feels like he just can't suppress that primal urge anymore—that lethal mechanism buried inside him is just running wild... Like that heavy monologue says—"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 honestly, that whole line—"When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing"—kind of makes the first movie feel... I don't know, a little unconvincing? Like, he’s being pushed... really, really hard... but he just isn't killing, even though he totally should be at that point. Maybe they should've just stuck closer to the book, regardless of how much it would've messed things up...

Personally, I think he only really kicked things into high gear because of the girl—she was pretty much the only one who actually looked at him like a human being and talked to him like one. Once he finally snapped, she became the reason that gave all that violence a sense of purpose. See, the guy is basically a walking killing machine, and since everything he dealt with before was for some messed-up cause, this was the first time he actually had a decent justification for it. That’s why his homecoming feels more logical to me; he finally made peace with being a soldier because he actually fought one righteous battle, and after that, there’s no point in running anymore. To put it one way, he could finally head home with his head held high.

briskhound2 said:I still think he went into action because of the girl. She was probably the only one who actually looked at him like a human being and talked to him like one. When he finally snapped, she became the reason that made all that killing feel justified. He’s basically a killing machine, and since everything he fought in before was for some messed up cause, this time he felt he had a decent excuse. That’s why his homecoming feels more logical to me. He accepted his fate as a soldier because he finally had one righteous fight under his belt, so running away wouldn't make sense anymore. To put it simply, he could finally go home with his head held high.

That's how I saw it too, I guess. 🤔

briskhound2 said:I’d argue it’s really about the system. Sheriff Teasle represents that hypocritical side of America that forcibly drafted those kids and sent them off to war. Teasle is also a veteran of the Korean War, and he views Rambo through a negative lens for all former soldiers—which is fleshed out more in the book. He basically doesn't believe in what we now call PTSD; he can't wrap his head around someone being unable to function in civilian life because he embodies that old-school, "tough guy" traditionalism. On the flip side, in the novel, Rambo has way more run-ins with the legal system (ending up before a judge who doesn't even bother asking his opinion), which fuels his rage even more. In the movie, it looks like he just loses control, but he knows exactly what he's doing. In fact, he's intentionally escalating the conflict just to force an honorable fight. Since the movie came out in 1982, they went for a simpler take: the cops harass him and he snaps. But you hit the nail on the head—even though he's acting out due to PTSD, he keeps himself controlled during the killings, which is a contradiction in itself. Maybe it's just me because I read the book, but the adaptation trips me up regarding the Sheriff—in the book, he's a much stiffer, more conservative veteran, whereas in the movie, he's a bit more relaxed (I actually dig that he doesn't fully back his men's actions)

I don't know... like I said, I haven't read the book, so I can't say how the movie stacks up against it. Though, in his own commentary, Stallone mentions that the Sheriff was also a veteran of a different, forgotten war, and that's one of the main reasons he goes after Rambo. Later, when he finds out the kid is actually an award-winning vet, it hits his ego even harder since he doesn't have any medals himself. Now... that isn't really emphasized in the film. Honestly, if I hadn't heard Stallone's comment or known how it was handled in the book, I never would have gotten the impression that the guy was ex-military or that Rambo "bothered" him for those specific reasons...
The only way I see it is that he's just messing with him because the guy is a war vet he clearly doesn't respect, plus the fact that he's going against his "orders." When he tells him at the start, "We don't like people like you in this town"... there is no "we"—it's just HIM. But later, it shifts into "we."

briskhound2 said:I still think he kicked things into gear because of the girl, since she was the only one who treated him like a human being. Once the action started, she became the reason that gave his killing spree a sense of righteousness. He's a killing machine, and since he'd been fighting in conflicts for all the wrong reasons until then, this time he had a legitimate excuse. That’s why his homecoming feels more logical to me; he reconciled with his fate as a soldier because he finally fought a righteous battle, making further running pointless. To put it simply, he could finally come home with his head held high.

True... he builds this connection with her early on... honestly, even during my first watch, I was lowkey worried they’d force some romantic subplot, which would have been totally out of place for this movie, but thank God they didn't...
But look... deep down, he’d already accepted they were dead the moment he left them on the shore... by the time the priest shows up with news that they’ve been caught, he isn't even sure she's still breathing. In his mind... she might already be gone and buried fifty times over. At that point, he just can't run from what he's been avoiding his whole life... direct confrontation.
The movie is really about the brutality of war and how innocent people get caught in the crossfire for no reason at all. It's about war machines that aren't even soldiers anymore, just bloodthirsty maniacs who couldn't care less about human life—women, kids, elderly, doesn't matter. Those documentary-style clips showing the "army" torturing and terrorizing civilians in Myanmar at the start of the film look exactly like the stuff we see on the news daily when reporting on Iraq or other conflict zones. We all know ethnic cleansing, torture, and the suffering of innocents is never a pretty sight.
It also drives home the point that no matter how hard people try to fix things through diplomacy or peace talks, it isn't always the best solution... it tells us that sometimes you need violence to curb violence, and sometimes you just have to meet force with force.

And after everything... once the dust settles and he's standing on that hill looking at the wreckage and the fallout, he doesn't give much thought to her or the missionaries. Yeah, he saved them, but he finally realizes he doesn't belong on the battlefield anymore... he sees just how much pain war actually brings.

Though... I get where you're coming from... that he accepted a soldier's fate because he finally fought one righteous battle and running away felt pointless... but like I said... IMO, he isn't the only reason that fight happens in the first place.

Anthony Smith3 said:Nah, at the end of the day... he’s already made peace with the fact they were gone the second he left them on that shore... and when the priest shows up with news they’ve been captured, he isn't even sure if she’s still breathing. As far as he's concerned... she might already be dead and buried fifty times over. At that point, he just can't run from what he's been dodging his whole life... which is stepping into the fray.

My take was that he doesn't actually care whether she's alive or dead—given the circumstances, it's more likely she's gone—but rather, he gets pulled into the fight to repay her for treating him like an actual human being. Honestly, he owes it to her to try and find her because she was the one who truly saw him as a person, even in his role as a warrior. There are little details like that scattered through the whole series (don't know if it's accidental or intentional)... like how Carus doesn't get seriously hurt in the first movie (he's the only one who complained about the station procedures), then you have the whole situation with the girl in the second part, and that scene where he puts her necklace around his neck in the third. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but the underlying motive through all the films seems to be Rambo returning humanity with humanity. Because she’s the first one who looks at him like he's just some regular guy. In the first one—the locals see him as a psycho; the second—she sees him as a soldier trying to settle a lost war; the third—they see him as a killing machine to help them fight; and the fourth—just a regular man who's a long way from home.

The movie also touches on how no matter how hard people try to fix things through diplomacy, or how much they commit themselves to establishing peace in certain parts of the world, unfortunately, that isn't always the best solution... it tells us that sometimes violence is necessary to curb violence, that sometimes you really do have to meet force with force.

That explanation of yours would probably fit the third movie better. The fourth one has those intense scenes showing military excess (honestly reminds me of some stuff from our own domestic conflicts), but the conflict itself isn't really the point—at least not for me. Throughout the whole film, nobody is actually initiating the fight; the whole premise is built on the exact opposite... avoiding the conflict. Right up until the finale. But neither Rambo nor the mercenaries go there to cause chaos. He's there for personal reasons, while they're just there for the paycheck. Nobody cares about the conflict in Myanmar, or the victims, or making a point about the damage these wars do (that's actually where the movie works best). In the third one, maybe they focused a bit too much on the local insurgents complaining about the Russian regime and put Rambo right in the middle of it, but the core message is that you have to show aggressors you have teeth and won't just let them walk all over you anymore.

I really ought to rewatch the first one. It’s been forever, and honestly, I can barely remember anything besides that one scene where his buddy gets blown up by a bomb brought in by a shoe shiner; that part just stuck with me.

I actually just rewatched the fourth one a few days ago, and man, it’s great. The only real downside is a couple of those clunky lines right at the start. I'm actually trying to track down the Director's Cut now so I can watch it again.😁

I think briskhound2 is right—his girlfriend is pretty much the only reason he even went looking for those missionaries.

briskhound2 said:My take was that he doesn't actually care if she's alive or dead—in those conditions, she's probably already gone—but rather, he jumps into the fray to repay her for treating him like a human being. Honestly, he owes it to her to try finding her because she was the one who saw him as a person instead of just a soldier. You see these little details throughout the whole series (not sure if it's intentional or not), like how Carus doesn't get seriously hurt in the first movie (he only complains about the station procedure), then you have the whole situation with the girl in the second part, and that scene where he puts her necklace around his neck in the third. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but the core motive through all the films is Rambo returning humanity with humanity. After all, she’s the first person who looks at him like a normal guy. In the first one, the locals see him as a psycho; in the second, a warrior trying to finish a lost war; in the third, a killing machine they need for help; and in the fourth, just an ordinary man far from home.

Yeah... that's what I said. As far as him going, she's dead... he doesn't give a damn whether she's breathing or not. I agree that one motive might be owing her something for the "kindness" she showed him... but IMO that isn't the main thing. Otherwise, why keep pushing this narrative about a warrior, a killing machine that just can't exist without war? IMO, that's the main theme and primary driver... everything else is secondary.

briskhound2 said:Your explanation would fit the third movie better. The fourth one has some heavy scenes showing military madness (it really reminds me of some stuff from the Vietnam War era), but the conflict itself isn't even the point, at least not to me. Nobody initiates the fight throughout the film; the premise is actually built on the opposite—avoiding conflict. Right up until the end. Neither Rambo nor the mercenaries go there to cause chaos. He's there for personal reasons, and they're there for the money. Nobody cares about the conflict in Myanmar, nor the victims, nor any sense of payback or demonstrating how destructive these wars are (that's where the movie works best). In the third part, maybe too much focus was put on the local rebels fighting against the regime, putting Rambo right in the center of it, when the whole message should be about showing aggressors that you can't just walk over people anymore.

Yeah... that's what I meant... nobody gives a crap about those conflicts except for the missionary types trying to, let's call it, "bring peace to the area." But then it turns out that doesn't work with certain people, and sometimes you just have to meet force with force... and that's when Rambo steps in and "brings hell" with him.

I think you and I pretty much agree on almost everything, we're just saying it differently haha😁👍