Why is this movie so goddamned underrated?

[deleted]

I completely agree with you. Also like you I had watched this movie with my father when I was only 14. From then till now(I've watched it for 8 times) this is the best of the series. Even there are some action scenes which I consider one of the best in its genre,(like the action scene with the rebels with the helicopter in the beginning). Also this is the best action movie for me when I wrote my journal on the "TOP TEN MOVIES" of each genre.
Forget what others say. This is simply best, although I'm thinking why is he making Rambo-5????

It's boring compared to the other 3.

I agree. This movie is a lot Commando, Delta Force or Iron Eagle. The main difference is Rambo is a character who is in a different place (physically and psychologically) every time we meet him. No, this is not a character study, nor trying to be, but I think the fact people often accuse and criticize the Rambo movies of this is telling that there is something more there than in a typical Arnie, Norris or Seagal vehicle (whether it succeeds or not is up to you). This is an action film (unlike US action movies where the action just happens and the character is just cool or pissed) more like European and Asian action movies where we have scenes that illustrate the character's motivation for the upcoming action sequences and makes you say, yes, he is justified in what he is doing. You are there with the character, but the narrative is still action and not dramatic.

As for underrated, well I'd rate the Rambo films thus:

First Blood - 9/10
Rambo: First Blood, Part II - 8/10
Rambo 2008 - 8/10
Rambo III - 7/10

The humor by Rambo in this film seems a little ill-placed and typical of 3rd films. Rambo starts off with an interesting personal conflict but the end resolution just seems to be he now has a light-hearted irreverence about violence. Not as strong an ending as what happens in 1 and 2. On the other hand this film is directed by a friggin cinematographer, so yea the action is damn well shot. Fun, but could have been more. Plus the story structure is basically ripped from R2 and is as simple as go to rescue Trautman once, fails. Go again, succeeds. The earlier scripts had more going on with the Afghan people and warriors (not at his exclusion) that the final version only hints at.

Rambo II was, in my eyes, birthed an entire genre. It was completely different than the first film, and took it to new places. Though part III added absolutely nothing... The only change being swapping out Vietnam for Afghanistan. Parts of it hold up well today, but it was just a rehash of the previous film, so it doesn't generate any new excitement. I was just a kid when i saw it, but even at a young age, i could detect the lack or originality. Its like they had a formula which they were so gosh-darn confident of, they neglected even try to develop the character or mix it up in any way... Plus, Rambo II had the benefit of Cold War going for it... and while this film also tried to incorporate the Ruskies, it was sorta stale by that point.

To the OP: There are thousands and thousands of films that have low scores because A. people didn't get them at the time B. People click on the low score just to be you know what to bring them down C. Too many films over the years have been underrated by the public and finally D. The critics just need to keep their mouths shut.