criterionforum.org

souvenir wrote:

That caveman is fucking awesome! I like the guy from the insurance commercials too.

Woman: Don't you want to help?? Rambo: Fuck those brown people! <later> Man: The white people haven't come back. Rambo: White people in trouble? It's on now!

Maybe he's a libertarian non-interventionist?

I'd much rather see Chuck Norris suit up for a big screen version of Walker, Texas Ranger as edited by Conan O'Brien.

Now let's not get carried away!

Wait a second. This is a Rambo movie--indeed the fourth Rambo movie--and yet people are complaining it looks stupid, non-sensical, and slightly racist? Have we even seen the other sequels? This thing appears gritty, brutal, and over-serious--meaning it's a perfect entry for this series, and I can't see how you could complain if you're a fan of these movies. If you're not, yeah, it's passable, much like number 3 would be passable.

I loved these movies as a kid, so I'll go see this one.

Yeah, that's true. I guess I just always preferred Arnold Schwarznegger's Commando (which, I'm aware, borrowed the whole one-man-army concept from First Blood which came out three years prior).

Antoine Doinel wrote:Yeah, that's true. I guess I just always preferred Arnold Schwarznegger's Commando (which, I'm aware, borrowed the whole one-man-army concept from First Blood which came out three years prior).

Commando's like an even more juvenile parody of Rambo. I think Rambo, at least the second one, is a more successful thriller--but Commando tops it for sheer entertainment value. The punchlines are better. And the villains are memorable in their lameness (where the Rambo villains are truly hateable).

This comes out of left field, but the trivia page for First Blood is quite interesting.

BTW, Has anyone read the original novel First Blood was based upon?

That IMDb trivia page wrote:Sylvester Stallone hated the first cut of the film so much that he tried to buy the film back and destroy it. When he couldn't do that, he suggested that the producers cut much of his part and let the rest of the characters tell the story. That cut the movie time in half and set a precedent for future action movies.

What precedent is that? The precedent of action movies not running 200 minutes?

New trailer.

Ugh, that new title is horrible.

"Attacking Soon"

Looks comparable to the last half of Death Wish 3, namely the scene where Charles Bronson shoots the villain with a bazooka, point blank.

GoldenPilgrim wrote:"Attacking Soon"

Looks comparable to the last half of Death Wish 3, namely the scene where Charles Bronson shoots the villain with a bazooka, point blank.

Maybe the greatest scene in film history

In response to another thread, this is the type of fascistic violence I enjoy.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Ugh, that new title is horrible.

So we're going to stick with the old one?

Hella lame.

Here's the one sheet.

The Lionsgate site and attached press sheet that AICN links to, along with the poster simply call the film 'Rambo.' There's nothing on either about this new subtitle...

New trailer.

It looks like the title is just plain old Rambo now and the galling racism is still on full display.

Is chopping off the John in this title really going to put more butts in seats? WTF? It's a fine title, I just wish they had used it from the beginning... BTW, I don't see the racism...

From the beginning, I imagine nobody knew it was going to be a franchise.

Antoine Doinel wrote:New trailer.

It looks like the title is just plain old Rambo now and the galling racism is still on full display.

Just looks like a fun Rambo sequel to me and I don't really see the supposed racism in the trailer, although I'm not denying an undercurrent of that in the actual film, but none of us have seen it yet. Besides, it's a Rambo sequel and it'll be enjoyable to watch an aging action star of my youth kill naughty people again.

Well, I wonder if any the "naughty" non-white people will speak a single line of comprehensible dialogue or if they'll just brandish weapons and assault women.

exte wrote:Is chopping off the John in this title really going to put more butts in seats? WTF? It's a fine title, I just wish they had used it from the beginning... BTW, I don't see the racism...

Perhaps after extending Rocky to Rocky Balboa they felt it would be a bit too plucky to do the same with Rambo?

skuhn8 wrote:

exte wrote:Is chopping off the John in this title really going to put more butts in seats? WTF? It's a fine title, I just wish they had used it from the beginning... BTW, I don't see the racism...

Perhaps after extending Rocky to Rocky Balboa they felt it would be a bit too plucky to do the same with Rambo?

That's why they changed John Rambo to Rambo to Hell and Back. Later, Stallone regretted the title change and said he would turn it back to John Rambo. I guess "Rambo" is the compromise. Oh, to be working minimum wage in home video retail when people come asking for specific Rambo movies...

"I want Rambo"
"First Blood? First Blood Part II? Or do you mean Rambo IV?"

'BTW, Has anyone read the original novel First Blood was based upon?'
i have.
it's actually rather good.
also, this movie looks unspeakably bad and i just can't actually fathom paying money to see it.