MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
That's the ONLY good thing about this thing. I wouldn't call it a movie, though, it's a live-action cartoon where nothing makes sense and which stretches your suspension of disbelief beyond reasonable limits.
Drink every time a poster shows they don't understand english grammar (DON'T! You will be in a coma after five minutes!)..
It's not 'everytime'. It's 'every time'. There is a space between the TWO words!
Why do people do this? 'Anyday', 'anytime', 'everyday'.. JUST STOP IT!
There IS a situation where you need to type it like that, but 99% of the time, what you are typing is NOT that time. Like "it's an everyday-thing', for example.
I am not sure 'everytime' qualifies, though, but perhaps there might be a reason to type it like that, besides being ignorant, illiterate idiot, that is. I just haven't found that reason yet.
This movie is like 'Who knew clichés could be done in such a boring way'.
Why isn't there any martial arts in a movie with Pat Morita and Damme? Why put those two together in the MOST BORING MOVIE POSSIBLE?
As I said, nothing makes sense, and I paid 0 dollars for this movie (someone had left a bunch of DVDs in the garbage area), and I still feel ripped off.
To be honest, I couldn't even fully watch this crap, as the boring, overly zoomed and close-up, claustrophobic scenes (although it's a DESERT movie, and desert has nothing if not ENORMOUS, WIDE SPACES! How can they make a CLAUSTROPHOBIC DESERT MOVIE?!) kept droning on and on about trivial crap no one cares about. I started skipping and skipping and skipping and I saw nothing good happening at any point of this turd.
Why was this greenlit, who is responsible? I expected this to be BAD, but not in this boring, weird and convoluted way. It does have a bunch of clichés, but in the WORST and most repulsive way possible.. agh. This trash has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
It also proves Damme can't act.
The third movie even has an illogical name, suddenly it's no longer First Blood Part III: Rambo Goes Wild or something, but it's Rambo III... what kind of sense does this make? First movie was NOT called 'Rambo' - try finding that word anywhere in the actual title card of the movie!
The second movie was still FIRST BLOOD-movie, not a RAMBO-movie - Rambo was just a subtitle, after the movie's name was established to be 'First Blood Part II'!
How the hell do you go from that to 'Rambo III'? There was never Rambo I or Rambo II, for crying out loud.
To add, 'First Blood' doesn't even make sense in the second movie, as there's no 'first blood' scene, as in the first movie, even though Rambo himself DID draw the first blood out of someone's nose in the first movie.
So nothing makes sense, but it's like they're not even trying with this one.
The second movie's story didn't make any sense, so I guess they tried to simplify it into a 'simple rescue story', but that doesn't really work. The first movie at least tried to be poignant about shell-shocked Vietnam murderers, but what message did the later movies give us besides "War, it's fantastic!"?
Trautman is a great character, but not when he's in a position of weakness. He should always be the strong backbone of the movie, like he was in the first one.
Whatever, these movies are pretty dumb in any case, but the third movie REALLY shows just how dumb the Rambo character and these movies are.
I mean, the book's rambo was possibly even crazier, but still.
Rambo is not like Rocky, who is still kind of an idiot for willingly taking so many powerful punches to his head, but who can still be sympathetic 'hero' as the main character, because he starts off as poor and living in a ghetto, and slowly works his way up to fame, fortune and a big mansion and luxury cars. Rocky has a clear progression from a bum to a successful celebrity, but where can Rambo go?
He's a shell-shocked warmonger, trained to murder, kill and survive in difficult situations. In first movie, he blows up a town and endangers innocent people, in second movie, he murders animals, blows up villages of innocent people and kills many people, who were just doing their job. I mean, why is guarding a village a crime that earns an arrow through your brain?
How do you make this into an 'underdog' story, where Rambo becomes some kind of successful good guy? No matter what you do with the character, he's still going to be an unstable maniac that's capable of murdering without second though and exploding people's villages without provocation. He's a failed character, failed hero, so all you can do is.. send him to war?
I always hated deserts anyway, and those places are very 'unnatural and hostile', if you compare them to a lush forest, for example. I mean, there's not much nature in a desert. it's uncomfortable, hot, sandy, dry, survival is most difficult. In a forest, you have more possibilities, beautiful nature, different sceneries and such. Desert is just boring, it's just dry, hot sand and some rock formations.
You can't use desert as just a backgrop, because desert adds another hostile enemy to the list; you have to somehow survive in the desert, as it IS a hostile environment, instead of neutral. I wonder if Stallone felt too cold in the mountains, showing his muscles throughout the movie, so he wanted a warmer climate to do it in.
Third movie is like running in place, a rehash.
I have seen that cartoon movie so many times, and I still don't quite understand how the story is supposed to make sense.
The 'evil people' know 'our own men' are still POWs in Vietnam somewhere, except for some reason, Russians are involved, and Russians are 100% evil in the eighties.
The families of the POWs are putting pressure on the american goverment, so good ol' USA goes to Vietnam, establishes a base without air conditioning in the jungle, just so they can fly helicopters to 'enemy camps' (although Vietnam is no longer supposed to be the enemy), so some brave photographer can land and take photos of empty camps to prove they're empty, so then the families will shut up.
Did I get this right so far?
(As hare-brained as it already is)
Like, why can't they just FAKE those photos, if it's really all about photos? Why tell Rambo to photo camps that AREN'T empty? Surely they should know whether the camps are empty or not. Why hire an unstable maniac from prison instead of someone stable, stealthy and 'sound'? (Think of what Rambo did in the first movie, would you hire him for a photo mission? HIM?? OF ALL POSSIBILITIES?! A shell-shocked specialist with huge muscles!)
Why would they think the families would shut up after seeing a photos the families would probably at least SUSPECT to be faked even if they were real? What would photos prove anyway? I mean, timing taking the photos so the camps ARE empty, etc..
I don't know, it's just so hard to figure out how ANYONE (the chracters OR the writers) thought any of it would make any sense.
In any case, the second movie is a cash-cow because the first movie, as bad and stupid as it is, made money.
Now they wanted to make 'Rambo' into a franchise? A shell-shocked maniac with massive muscles and no qualms to blow up a town in the first movie, turns to be a cartoon 'hero' that explodes people's villages up because he's the good guy somehow, so in the third movie, what should he be?
Did anyone (besides Weird Al Yankovic) not notice how stupid it looks when Stallone screams, then presses a button and then something IMMEDIATELY explodes. No smoke trails, no missiles flying, no targeting required, nothing. Just press-KABOOM!!!
EVERY single time. Every. Single. Time.
There's no 'flying arrow' arc shown, there's no 'fire trail' or anything, just press or shoot or release something and IMMEDIATE BOOM!
Ok, when he explodes the guy that has the worst aim in the history of movies, there's at least some unrealistic sound before the explosion, but geez. Also, you don't AIM your bow for that long! That's not how bows work.
In any case, the cartoon is 'entertaining' and typically war-movie-hilarious, but I wish they had left the original 'Noooooo!' in, it would've been even funnier. The movie also cheats so much with 'movie magic', you have to wonder how stupid the audience is supposed to be. The helicopter scenes especially, holy cow.
Also, how does ONE CANISTER create a MASSIVE MULTI-LOCATION, MULTI-LEVEL FUEL EXPLOSION?!
HOW?
Almost every time an angle changes, we're shown something different than previously - Rambo ABSOLUTELY shouldn't have been able to reach the helicopter, but ANGLE CHANGE makes it possible. That's cheating!
Why are we applauding a hero that murders innocent animals and destroys innocent people's villages who have done nothing wrong, like it's nothing? "How clever to use the chicken blood" said NO CHICKEN EVER!
The whole weird, convoluted plot (why hire RAMBO for this kind of mission that involves taking photos? What? WHY?) that makes no sense, and the 'patriotic speech at the end' - I guess Stallone thought anything goes because Rocky IV also had a similar speech - it's just so hilariously cartoonish, that it's obvious this movie only exists because of money. It doesn't tell anything poignant, it doesn't point out anything we don't know already, it's just BOOM BOOM MURDER CHICKENS BOOM and speech.
The sheriff's car is upside down in a faraway ditch. Rambo could LEISURELY drive back, find some forest path NO CAR CAN FOLLOW (like he should've done in the first place - or he could've turned 180 degrees and gone to the opposite direction to gain some distance - a car is not gonna turn around as quickly, especially in some uphill in a field or whatever), between trees and such.
He could've even driven back to roads, and then taken all kinds of turns, and no one would've found him (at least for ages).
4) After the 'cave scene' when everyone thinks he's dead, and he should realize this is the case, he could've just walked away, continued his journey, found shelter in some other town or whatever, and no one would have found him until that 'gas station scene' that Trautman depicted. HE COULD HAVE WALKED AWAY SO EASILY at that point.
But our 'brave hero' chooses to start messing around with them and shooting innocent people's city, destroying some infrastructure, exploding buildings and thus destroying working careers of multiple people, possible even killing many (the people in the cop car car that exploded were surely killed).
So 'First Blood', although praised as a great movie, is really a very minuscule event that wouldn't really make any difference in this planet's history, it doesn't bring the viewer to fantastic escapism, it's just a dull 'chase drama' with so much stupidity and unrealism and Trautman's 'macho BS' that it's amazing anyone is able to stomach it. And then stallone weeping and crying like an idiot girl at the end. Groan.
(There's more stupidity, but I don't want to write about that movie for 800 pages)
Rambo: First Blood Part II, that some people call 'Rambo II' or even 'Rambo 2' for some reason (I will never understand people), takes the corpse of this pretty dead (at least brainwise) movie and tries to breathe new life to it by making it into a 'let's explode everything'-cartoon.
Yeh, Hot Shots 2 was a much better 'Rambo III' than this, dry crap.
It's like 'First Blood' wasn't really even a 'Rambo-movie', although everyone calls it Rambo or Rambo 1 for some reason. I don't really like these 'murderers are great'-type movies, but an action flick is sometimes brain-nulling to watch, so this type of romp serves a purpose.
That movie is of course as stupid as it is unrealistic, and the horrible, wimpy crybaby ending ruins it completely. Why are these war macho viewers so quick to praise crying like a girl all of the sudden? What wusses!
I mean, to list just some logical stupidities this so-praised character does in the movie:
1) He doesn't WAIT until the cop is out of sight to walk back in town and grab a bite to eat. WHAT does he expect to happen, defying without being ready to fistfight the sheriff? What is his plan? It makes no sense from any possible angle.
If you read the trashy, horribly filled with cusswords-type cheap hospital waiting room novel, even there, he has more brains, and has been in and out of towns like that a lot, and always walks back after the sheriff is not looking, and can spend many days until the sheriff finds him again, and runs him out of town. Heck, he even does some fishing and stuff, he's not in a hurry to confront the sheriff and go to jail in the book.
2) He resists arrest, as if he wouldn't know what THAT causes, instead of trying to communicate. He doesn't even plead, he just stubbornly and defyingly asks stupid questions, instead of just saying things like "I am sorry, sheriff,. I am really hungry, could I at least eat something before I leave? That's a long walk, you know.", or something?
3) This is the absolute kicker that a dumb hick redneck teenager first-time-on-a-motorbike moron wouldn't even do; he tries to ride the bike 50 degrees uphill and then leaves the bike when it OBVIOUSLY can't climb that steeply..
.. instead of.. well, let's check what options Rambo has.
Also, it ABSOLUTELY is 'I'm your worst nightmare', exactly the way Weird Al Yankovic says it in UHF. I don't know about Rambo III, though.
I don't know what you mean about the 'Bach'-thing, but Arnold absolutely said 'I'll be back' in a strong accent, now he says it fluently.
The bigger boat I can give or take, but I wouldn't be surprised if it actually WAS the actual quote, just like Sally Fields' (and it was Sally Fields, not Sally Field, hence the quote) 'You like me, you really like me'..
But believe whatever you want, I guess it's easiest to just claim some people are crazy and have memory problems and look at the 'proof' and be convinced, and go about your day. It's an enormous 'what if' one would have to swallow to even entertain the possibility that the reality itself was this faulty in this kind of weird, nonsensical, specific, subtle way. I am convinced this solar system was located at a relative edge instead of so middle in the galaxy as well, but whatever.
So to summarize;
1) It has always been that way - in THIS reality and history. It is useless to try to go back and prove it with old photos or whatnot, because they're going to show this reality's history of it. This means, you CAN'T prove it right or wrong. No one can.
2) It's NOT a memory problem, because if it was, the memory would be hazy and unsure and unclear, and people would be 'well, maybe it was like that after all'. No one would be 100% convinced their memory is correct if it was a simple memory error. I have PLENTY of memories I am not sure of, some memories where I was a bit wrong about some detail, and some things I can't remember at all.
I have never had a clear memory that turns out to have always been completely different, and something HUGE and MAJOR like human anatomy or Dolly's Braces that I remember very clearly, isn't something you'd misremember THIS MUCH anyway.
People use this 'memory error' explanation, because it makes the most sense (I can't really blame them), it's the easiest and quickest explanation, and ANY other explanation would prove the Universe is just TOO wild, and most people can't handle that.
However, if you are a victim of the effect, you can't really deny it this way, and you are FORCED to realize just how wild the Universe is. Maybe the LSD users and 'magic 'shroom users' have been right the whole time, maybe quantum physics' wildness has a point to it, maybe all the Zen masters and enlightened spiritual teachers of history were right that matter is illusory and there's more magic in the Universe than anyone dares imagine.
In any case, I just wanted to correct this erroneous statement that omits important facts.
Except that it ABSOLUTELY is 'Luke, I am your father' .. or maybe "No, Luke... _I_ am your father!"
It's not my fault this parallel Universe doesn't have it the same as it was, but 100% it contained the word 'Luke' in a different parallel existence of some sort. Even the voice actor has quoted and thus remembered it that way (not that it's proof of anything but mysterious residue).
Reality is more interesting than people are willing to admit.. Dolly absolutely had braces, and human anatomy absolutely wasn't as weird as it's now.
Just to clarify, I am not talking about this timeline, history or anything, so it can't be proven one way or another. In THIS (whatever), it WAS always the way it is not, it's not like it was changed from one form to another.
I am also convinced it STILL is exactly as I remember it in that other reality, Universe, timeline or whatnot (even though that other timeline might have been erased for all I know). Memory is fickle and untrustworthy to a POINT, but not _THIS_ much. It's like remembering sky as green and being shocked that it's blue (or vice versa - imagine if sky was suddenly green and you'd have to admit it ALWAYS was green, although to you, it has always been blue) - no one's memory misremembers THAT much.
Also, with misremembered memories, people are usually unsure, not convinced. I have never been convinced about something that I realized I was remembering wrong, I have always been hazy and unsure about it.
This is an impossible effect to explain to anyone that isn't a victim of it, because people will just react in two ways: 1) No, look, I can prove it, it was ALWAYS this way, look at this proof! and 2) It's your memory that's faulty, you are just misremembering, and you are stupid to think otherwise.
No one ever takes a step back, realizes that yes, in THIS reality, it has always been the way it's now (I hear Pepsi logo is used as a landmark - I have seen 'residue' of the blue and red portions switched in a product).
Please learn the names of the characters, if only for clarity. It's not very difficult, you owe it to this show.
Bernard was the one that talked about filing the survey results against government bugging and spying on people, that suddenly became a complication after Hacker, the minister found out that he is on a death list.
First Bernard mentioned filing it, the minister asked him to shred it so it can never be found, and then Bernard suggested that in that case, it's best that he files it, implying (but not saying directly) that filed files shall never be found. (Although he did manage to find it again when needed)
"..his outrage at the waste the size of the diplomatic visit quickly is gives way to his plan to set up a forbidden bar at an Arabic reception. "
Deception at the reception, eh?
I think it more encapsulates his contradictory character; on one hand, he has these high-minded ideals, philosophies and moral concerns - but then he lands back to the real world and has to give in to his personal greed and immediate pragmatism. He probably doesn't see contradiction between these two worlds, either, which makes it funnier.
In the end of the episode, Humphrey forcibly COLLIDES these words, and it almost short-circuits Hacker's brain.
In other words; Hacker 'means well' and has 'good intentions' and very advanced ideas - AS LONG as they don't collide with his selfish urges, lusts and needs, that are always a priority in the end. He can be a very generous, wise and moral minister, as long as he gets his needs fulfilled first. As long as he has his castle and servants, he can throw a few crumbs to the peasants and feel good about himself.
But if the castle is threatened, screw the peasants!
Conservatives conserve. Hacker didn't want to conserve. Therefore, he could not have been conservative. He was more of a renewative.
The way the episode underlines why governments often (if not always) overlook and override moral implications for profit and power, stability, supporting or establishing power structures and so forth.
They actually let people be murdered by british weapons to maintain status quo and to rake in profit and power. Human lives are a secondary concern to the powerful, when it SHOULD be a priority.
This episode is chilling in its realism and poignancy, and for the fact that things have definitely NOT gone any better since then, but considerably worse. The powerful are more powerful now, the rich are more wealthy now, people are killed even more by weapons created in wealthy countries.
There used to be a scary youtube video floating around, where Bush actually ADMITS that to the psychopathic 'elite', 'sometimes profit is more important than human life', or something to that effect (can't remember the exact wording, but it's chilling).
This is definitely one of the most realistic, chilling and eye-opening episodes of any TV show ever, it really shows how it all works, or at least how it all probably works (although I suspect reality is way more sinister).
Btilliant show, scary episode.
Yes, because young boys never ride their dirt bikes without a helmet, as we all well know.
I would want it to be like 'Yes, Minister', but about the governmental cover-ups and reverse engineering and all that has to do with the UFO phenomenon. No black goo, no monsters of the week, not necessarily even cancer man.
Just governmental officials trying to expose and cover-up the stuff, just the way the Minister is trying to do the right thing and Sir Humphrey is deflating all his attempts and ideas in a clever way that rings very true to how things probably are (though they're a hundred times more sinister and powerful in real life).
If they could've done this show the way 'Yes, Minister' is done, it'd be less about the 'story' and more about 'how the government operates', except it would be about this specific topic of secrecy, cover-ups, shadow government, the people with REAL power and their own, sinister motives, and so on.
It wouldn't be a superficial story about characters, one of which is always going missing or whatnot, or about some other macguffin, like a tape.
With clever enough writing, the same kind of 'fictional, but very close to how the truth actually is'-style of thought-provocative, understanding-expanding stuff could be done with this show as was done with 'Yes, Minister' - it was a comedy, but with extremely well-written, very 'true-to-life' situations and revelations about how things are done, that might have leaked more information than the powerful governments would have liked for people to ever know.
Why, oh, why couldn't this show be like THAT? Then we wouldn't have to worry about 'cliffhangers' or 'closures', as real life doesn't have those.. just tell us the truth and show us how the masses are duped about these topics, and you'll have the perfect show.
I thought you were talking about 'Operation Paperclip'.
"Operation Paperclip was the codename under which the US intelligence and military services extricated scientists from Germany, during and after the final stages of World War II."
In other words, USA INCORPORATED Nazís into their 'science community' and that's how NASA was formed.
I didn't think this show would dare talk about things like that, they rather talk about black goo monsters of the week.
" Scully didn't believe but she had an open mind. "
What?
I have NEVER seen a mind as closed as scully's in any TV show, ever.
OPEN MIND?!
Are you _OUT_ of yours??