3 has bad one liners, Rambo fighting for the bad guys, the story isn't as fleshed out, the motives aren't as good - nope, it's just crazy.
Watching it now, in 2016, seeing him and the 'brave afghan fighters'? Yeah, nope.
I respect your opinion that 2 is better than 3. I love them both but I prefer Rambo III. It's the most epicly bad ass movie I've ever seen.
shareGrowing up watching this movie, I always preferred it to II because it felt bigger and had better action, but now I think Rambo II is better.
Basically, it comes down to the quality of actors and their performances. All the guys in III do a great job, but II was on a higher level. For instance, the bad guys in II consisted of Steven Berkoff, who had been a Bond villain and had been in Beverly Hills Cop, he was really charismatic as Podovsky and being British he had that theatrical bad guy quality down perfect. Then you had Murdock, played by a really talented character actor in Charles Napier, so much charm. Julia Nickson (Co Bao) and Martin Kove (Ericson) rounded off a really colorful cast of characters.
Also, the interplay especially between Murdock and Trautman is what makes that movie. They're electric.
Death by stereo
1 and 4 are the only good movies.
share