Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Wow that was horrible. I was picking up some still photos I had processed, so I decided to step into the local AMC to see what was playing at that hour. There was only Rambo, but then an hour later There Will Be Blood was playing. So, I watched the first hour of Rambo...just barely. Man it was painful. Laughable dialogue, a ludicrous storyline, and so many amputated limbs that I lost count within the first 15 minutes. It starts out trying to be some important message about what's going on in Burma, but then, of course, it turns into a mediocre and excessive action flick. "Over the Top 2" would have been a better idea. Glen MacPherson's work was fine, all things considered. There were a few shots here and there that were very "First Year Cinematography" style. There would be a staged rack focus from one of the mercenaries, out to Sly, then back to the mercenary, for one...cut to, some long lens, shallow DoF, "finding focus" type stuff, which was kinda weird. Anyway, at the hour mark in the film the story takes a turn that pretty much leaves the rest of the film so incredibly predictable. So I walked out and saw There Will Be Blood again :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Collier Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I bet my boss some ding how that Rambo would be out of theaters in 3 weeks....hoping that comes true, I could use a free meal. He saw it opening night and still swears its the best film ever. I busted out a line from the flick when shooting last weekend. I think we were laying dolly track or setting a tough light on a hill and some how the line 'when your pushed, killings as easy as breathing came out.' weird. still I probably won't even rent it on DVD, not much interest in that film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Anthony Vale Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 What's the deal with Stallone's nose? In stills showing him from the front, he's almost unrecognizable. A way too long lens or HGH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 2, 2008 Author Share Posted February 2, 2008 You can see when he's on talk shows that he's had quite a bit of work done. But it's actually well hidden in the film, just as was done in "Rocky Balboa". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 You can see when he's on talk shows that he's had quite a bit of work done. But it's actually well hidden in the film, just as was done in "Rocky Balboa". Comparing pictures of him from the eighties he has undergone some serious alterations. I was very impressed with stallone years ago for not taking steroids and building a great physique even training with franco columbo for rambo 2. However something changed for rambo 3. Shame because his aproach up to then had for me been very motivational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted February 3, 2008 Author Share Posted February 3, 2008 Has SAG done anything about preventing "Physique Enhancing Drugs", I wonder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Lowe Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Lol this sounds TERRIBLE. I was actually kind of excited when the teaser leaked on aint it cool about a year ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klas persson Posted February 6, 2008 Share Posted February 6, 2008 I'm all geard up for this one. May suck though. But if so, in a fun sort of way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted February 7, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 7, 2008 It was very violent and not terribly good. However, I did get that feel watching it that I had as a kid when VHS was just new and someone at school had gotten hold of some banned copy of some violent video nasty. Rambo was like reliving the 80's again - spent at some friends carpet in front of a top loaded VHS (the Vic 64 and the Sinclair computer just beside it). So for that sense of nostalgia, it wasn't an entirely unpleasant encounter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Marc Alucard Posted February 7, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 7, 2008 Has SAG done anything about preventing "Physique Enhancing Drugs", I wonder? Ask your Governor. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted December 26, 2008 Share Posted December 26, 2008 I watched this film today and I was very surprised I really thought I was going to dislike it as it cashed in on violence but not so I was surprised at just how good this was.. The violence was so realistic it was almost sickening until you realize that this is going on for REAL in Burma.. Yes its bad but one thing that is worse is NOT to show violence as real because that may glamourise it.. This does that too but in a way that is a hope for those in Burma suffering oppression.. Rambo is a voice for all those against injustice for the nobody who gets crapped on. To me this was the best of the Rambo series and Stallone is so under rated.. He directed co wrote and starred in this in fact he made the whole thing and I believe he is one amazing film maker.. What a year Indiana Jones Rocky and Rambo Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 I know I'm late to the party on this one, but I loved it. And I'm not even embarrassed to admit it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Martin Posted January 15, 2009 Share Posted January 15, 2009 According to the Blu-Ray commentary, they were quite rushed for a few scenes and would literally run out and get shots, run along , get more etc etc... Surprising for a $50m film. I also felt that the whole thing felt a bit over-exposed and very harsh to my eyes, not really helped by the very hokey CG in just about every scene.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 According to the Blu-Ray commentary, they were quite rushed for a few scenes and would literally run out and get shots, run along , get more etc etc... Surprising for a $50m film. I also felt that the whole thing felt a bit over-exposed and very harsh to my eyes, not really helped by the very hokey CG in just about every scene.... Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color? The absolute best film of this genre ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Martin Posted January 21, 2009 Share Posted January 21, 2009 Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color? The absolute best film of this genre ever. Yes, I did notice the heads-a-popping ending scene. I was amused by the fact that Stallone seemed very big on the whole "realism" thing, yet there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite liked the film (Second best Rambo for me IMHO) but I was just disappointed by the poor CG. I saw it first on DVD and it was quite noticeable then, and doubly so on Blu-Ray. I'm just quite picky with these things I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ira Ratner Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Yes, I did notice the heads-a-popping ending scene. I was amused by the fact that Stallone seemed very big on the whole "realism" thing, yet there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic. Don't get me wrong, I actually quite liked the film (Second best Rambo for me IMHO) but I was just disappointed by the poor CG. I saw it first on DVD and it was quite noticeable then, and doubly so on Blu-Ray. I'm just quite picky with these things I guess... HAH! I was just joking basically, and commenting as a viewer--not a film pro.' It was just that after so many of these films--not to mention the Rocky ones--I expected zero, but instead, I really liked it for the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic. I can't imagine the effect being hit by a 50mm round in the bonce would have only that it would most likely just remove the head completely but certainly if the body held together would be capable of sending it flying 20' back.. Maybe the round hit something first or some other splinter type accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Washlesky Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color? The absolute best film of this genre ever. Amen. Gory and pure awesomeness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted January 22, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi folks, well when I watched it on DVD a couple of days ago I wasn't expecting anything and got pretty much that. I really wondered when it was over. I had that "where was the story" kind of thing. And IMO the cinematography was really pretty lame compared to what Andrew Laszlo did on First Blood. Which I think is strange, because I liked some of MacPherson's other work. It wasn't bad at all from a conventional point of view, it just lacked some more innovative and unusual shots. Cheers, Dave PS: I can't imagine the effect being hit by a 50mm round ... Hi Mark, 50mm round? What gun is that supposed to be? Usually that kind of caliber gun uses explosive shells... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi Mark, 50mm round? What gun is that supposed to be? Usually that kind of caliber gun uses explosive shells... http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KT3bq1fUtEU 50mm machine gun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Auner aac Posted January 22, 2009 Premium Member Share Posted January 22, 2009 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KT3bq1fUtEU 50mm machine gun! Hi Mark, from what I see that is a caliber .50 machine gun. .50 caliber equals .5 in = 12.7mm! Cheers, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted January 22, 2009 Share Posted January 22, 2009 Hi David From what I understood the video was showing two.. A Katana against a 50mm machine gun.. Looked like a 50mm to me the way it was blowing chunks out of the wall. Anyway whatever Im sure its on the Rambo dvd making of somewhere. Sylvestor Stallones machine gun is talked about as being 50mm. Or allegedly so. Before this I had no idea such weapons existed but soldiers have said that Rambo prtrays the 50mm gun impcts very accurately. Still maybe thats wrong. I only know what I hear regarding these things. I'm not trying to pass it off as expert comment only whats been said on the Rambo DVD and by soldiers temselves but dont ask me for a link. from what Ive heard Rambo 4 is the most accurate portrayal of violence yet. As for ripig someones throat out with one hand I believe thats possible.. Its quite frightening really at just how vulnerable the human body really is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now