Anyone else think that Rambo III has been giving a bad rap and picked on because of the way that Rambo helps out the Afganistans against the Russians?
I think that Rambo 2 is dull and boring and I find it funny that people think that Rambo 2 is a good Rambo sequel.
Here's how I see the Rambo movies
First Blood > Rambo III> Rambo 4 > Rambo II
How can anyone misunderstand Rambo III? Aren't the Rambo movies have:
1) Lots of explosions
2) Numerous enemy "red" shirts to shoot.
3) A plausible location for Rambo to shoot lots of people. (Bonus points for being patriotic location!)
4) Simple dialogue with lot "one-liners"
That said I have just watched this and I would say 4.9 is low but I don't see how it is too off the mark. Most of the votes come around 5 so it is not just a bunch of people getting upset that Rambo assisted the Afghanistan either. Also remember:
1) It was relatively flat box office back in 1988 and most people it was going to break the bank. (Because of foreign box office success it probably was in the black.)
2) It was one of the two big releases of 1988 box office on Memorial Day weekend although the studios learned not to release all the big movies on one weekend. (The other movie was the awful Crocodile Dundee sequel.)
3) Rambo II really did have some long term influence the action genre. (It was Raiders of The Lost Ark or Saving Private Ryan.) Before Rambo II, most conservative vilgante movies (ie Dirty Harry and First Blood.) tended to more violent with some action. The movies tended to shades of gray for the (anti?)-hero. After Rambo, the movies went straight to blunt action.
4) If it is just the Afghanistan issue then why does The Living Daylights (1987 Bond film) have a imdb score of 6.7 which the second highest rating for a 1980's Bond. (The last fact has more to do with the 80's Bond quality than anything else.)
[deleted]