To reply to your original post, for me the biggest problem I have with R3 is the historical inaccuracies, but it goes deeper than that. As you have said, Indiana Jones and similar films have "bad guys" who are not taken seriously, so why is R3 panned for the same reason?
For me, the problem is that R3 wants us to believe it is providing some kind of history lesson or message based on actual fact. Indiana Jones etc. are content in having cartoonish super-villains that we really know are for entertainment purposes. However, R3, with its thinly veiled "message", attempts to educate the audience in its misguided history lesson. Sadly, it succeeds more than it should.
You wrote::
"Loyalty, honor, peace beyond religion, values that I hold dear all in one kickass film. I still wouldn't use it to prove any moral or political point but I thought it was a pleasant amalgam of ethics and semi-mindless fun. "
I agree with you completely -- the points you mention are great for an action film. But R3, at least for me, doesn't come through on these points because (from my perspective) it tries to be something more than just an action film. My feeling is that it does indeed try to make a moral and political point, and that is where it really flops.
To take a step back, I certainly have no problem with a shoot-em-up action flick that is fun, explosive, and entertaining. Rambo2 and countless other action films were great for this very reason. However, where R3 goes wrong is that many people take it as historical fiction, where most of the story is correct.
So here are some examples of what I find the most irritating:
-Afghans are portrayed as bumbling peasants who need outside intervention to win. Rambo is their savior; without Rambo, they would be helpless and hopeless. He wins where they could not.
-The Afghan conflict is shown in simple Cold-War era black/white simplicity. The reality is that Afghanistan is a deeply complex and tribal culture that does not fall easily into shades of "right" and "wrong". It gives no background or further information other than what is needed for Rambo to slay the bad guys.
-Soviets are portrayed as cookie-cutter "evil empire" drones bent on torture and destruction. The movie attempts to show Afghan tribal culture and how the people live; so why doesn't it try to show the Soviet side? The poor, conscripted soldiers far from their homeland, tired of war and killing? It shows just one half of the story, and that half is flawed.
-The easiest part to pick on is that the entire film is dedicated to the "gallant people of Afghanistan". This shallow interpretation of events pays no heed to the horrible missteps made in arming Afghanistan vs. the Soviets, which in part enabled the rise of the Taliban and Islamic extremism. Again, the filmmakers are content in laying sweeping praise on some of the same people that planned and executed 9/11.
-Stallone is obviously the showpiece of the movie; history is merely a background to his posing and muscled bravado. That is what makes this film all the more repugnant and distasteful to me; the hugely complex Afghan/Soviet conflict is boiled down to a thin mockery of a plot, yet we are still led to believe that this is somehow based on real events. We have no insights into the character of Rambo other than a fleeting few moments at the beginning and in the middle when we see that he wants to reach some kind of spiritual peace. However it is obvious that the only peace Stallone's Rambo achieves in this movie is by seeing how many gruesome and depraved ways he can slaughter the Soviets. Stallone's Rambo in this movie is far, far removed from the troubled Vietnam vet of the original First Blood, and the movie suffers because of it.
Am I over-analyzing this movie? Perhaps. However, in closing I believe that the filmmakers went wrong when they tried to mix an action film with a misguided history lesson. In an action-only context, R3 is a decent movie with some excellent action sequences. I believe that this film fared so poorly in the US (and is rated so poorly in imdb) because it is an uneven mix of action and historical inaccuracies that just don't work. Again, the sad part is that so many people that love this movie honestly believe that it is portraying events correctly. Believe me, I've been flamed to death by them on these message boards, and probably will be again :)
I welcome your thoughts or reply.
reply
share
arenotelicon
17 years ago
Hithere7 - That was a very interesting response, thank you so much for your time. I'd like to specify that I'm not one of those people. I'm not sure what makes this movie so good in my opinion but I know it's the kind of silliness I like to watch when I'm feeling blue rather than a chick flick. It just feels "right", it's not easy to explain. It may not be more than an action movie but I think it's great at that. It isn't actually mindless and the music just sounds "right" to me in every scene. Nobody else but Stallone could have made this work. There's something about Rambo that I find tragic and lovable. It's that sad pair of eyes and that honorable anger. I'm sure a lot of things about it are terribly inaccurate on many levels and I honestly couldn't tell you which ones because I'm no history buff by all means, but the energy and the general mood really got through to me. Maybe it's because I'm so angry and hateful inside too. And yet I have so much love to give. But then again, I like a lot of movies that a lot of people don't and there are countless that have touched a very profitable number of men and women I have yet to watch. I guess it's a mystery. Thank you again, I enjoyed reading you.
reply
share
hithere7
17 years ago
That is a cool reason for you to like the movie actually, thanks for sharing it. It is interesting because I like R1 for the same reasons you wrote that you liked R3; I guess different strokes for different folks :) For me, R1 was along the same lines as what you wrote; a man struggling with his own demons, which emerge when he is pushed the wrong way. I found it very poignant and believable.
Thanks for the response; I think this is the first time I've been able to discuss the movie with someone that disagreed with me without being flamed :)
I'm actually looking forward to the new Rambo to see what direction it takes.
reply
share
aloep
17 years ago
Sorry for replying so late as I just came back from vacation. I agree with much of what hithere7 has said about the political message. I can also understand arenotelicon's reasons for liking it, even if I don't see much of the original Rambo character in the movie.
Beyond the political message, I've just never found it very exciting. Even when I first saw it at the age of 12, I remember being largely bored by it. Too much of the action is just generic one many army scenes with little to no style or substance. Like Ballistic: Ecks vs Sever, things just go boom without sparkle, and I felt that anything interesting about Rambo's character has been killed off by this movie, with the Buddhist monk idea just seeming like a tacked on last minute attempt to give the character depth. I have always tremendously enjoyed First Blood. First Blood Part 2 is reasonable fun for just a basic shoot em up, although not a genuinely "good" movie IMO.
reply
share
zak_moondust
17 years ago
a few of the action setpieces seem a bit worn out, but the torture in this one is 'great' (scarier, as it leaves the exact methods open to the imagination)
And the scene where the soviet falls into the pit, snaps his neck, and then explodes is almost poetic in its presentation.
I've only just seen this movie for the first time, and, being able to look past historical inaccuracies, but not ignorant enough to say that the good guys in this movie were directly responsible for 9/11, can say that Rambo III is a fine movie.
If I fall, Moondust Will Cover Me
reply
share
nickrock23
17 years ago
i saw first blood when i was about 10, and when II came out, i saw it in the theatre and loved it. it took a while for the rambo craze to hit though. the first movie didn't have that patriotic feel, so there was no anticipation for a sequel.
i remember seeing the trailer for part II - which just showed rambo getting ready for battle with his knife and headband - and i was so siked, but people in the theatre were like, what the hell is that all about?
when the 3rd one came out i was siked, and saw it in the theater, but i remember toward the end saying to myself, this isn't that good. the icing on the cake was when rambo was walking at the end and you could actually see a whole through his body from when he cleaned the wound with fire or whatever. you could see through his body. that was just rediculous.
reply
share
sandrock41
17 years ago
Awesome action movie, I was expecting to not like it based on feedback from here but it proved false. I really enjoyed it, Sure it was no First Blood 1 in terms of story but it was no slouch by any means.
reply
share
SeanValen
17 years ago
The action genre is underatted, always has been.
And Stallone probabley is one of the best action actors, but he can act, he just made alot of success off his action films.
I personally love Rambo 3, for a action film, it does what it's meant to do, it's not First Blood, it's not groundbreaking, it's just great entertainment, and people sometimes forget that, I think Stallone carved out a genre where fans loved his action stuff, but critics wanted something deeper, First Blood was a better film storywise, I just don't get what anyone expects from Rambo 3-first blood part 3 etc, it's action, so enjoy lol
reply
share
CameronWalker01
13 years ago
I personally love this movie. In terms of action its the best in the series with balls to the wall violence and Rambo pwning the soviets. Far too many people miss the entire point of a lot of action movies. This movie doesn't try to be preachy or dramatic with an overly complex plot, it delivers exactly what it set out to and keeps you on the edge of your seat from beginning to end.
The movie is well acted with great cinematography and has great special effects that deliver a realistic viewing experience that makes you feel like you're right there with Rambo as he kicks arse. The soundtrack is great in its own right and provides exactly what is required of it and generally boosting the overall experience of the film.
8/10.
reply
share
Times_Up
12 years ago
I don't know that it tries to be more serious with it's message than say old sci-fi red scare films, yes it has a message, but is it trying to be Saving Private Ryan? I don't think so. Interesting enough, that film too portrayed its enemies (Germans) as nameless and faceless evil types.
As for the bumbling Afghans needing help in the form of intervention: why not, the CIA did train and arm them in real life. As for glorifying some of the people who carried out 9/11. Well, many different factions broke out of the mujahideen. The Taliban was one, who apparently were welcomed by the people (no matter how rotten they were) b/c they gave stability after a decade of civil war (that we abandoned them to) controlling groups who were more brutal to the people than they were. This movie does not deal in any factions that may come out of defeating the Russians and don't forget we don't know for certain who carried out 9/11. We have prima facia proof, which is to say no proof, just the general area where it probably came from. The real irony is now watching this film is that we (the USA) have become the Russians.
As cheesy as Col. Zaysen (sp?) was and with lines like "the missiles are close... In your ass," it is obviously meant to be for fun. The villains were about on a James Bond level (the older movies) or old spaghetti westerns. It's an entertainment, with a message (like Rambo 2 and most action movies dating back to westerns) that unfortunately glorifies violence and is basically a Stallone vanity project (he's a great action star, so the later is not necessarily a bad thing.) The original First Blood (and especially the novel, for the lesser amounts of people who read it) sets the bar high for something a bit deeper and the sequels will let anyone down expecting more. Regardless, I'm not seeing any attempts at claiming this is Apocalypse Now by the film makers and stars.
Even Richard Crenna himself said (much as Clint Eastwood when Dirty Harry politics were questioned) that these movies are escapist entertainment, they are not meant to be solutions to real life problems.
reply
share
RynoII
9 years ago
That is a really good response hithere7. However, I do not see how R3 has a more false historical message than R2.
You say R2 was great as a shoot 'em up action movie, but I found that R2 has at least just as much of a false history lesson. In R2 we have American POWs being held, not only by the Vietnamese, but the Russians are in on it too.
I couldn't find any info on that actually happening, where as at least R3 was set in a real event, which made it more historically correct. Very historically incorrect, but not near as much as R2 by comparison. Unless I am wrong?
reply
share