I went to see this about two hours ago and was completely nauseated by it: at one point in the film I got up and went for a walk for about 15 minutes. The violence onscreen - once the film eventually gets going - is so over the top and gory (even though the bad guys deserve it) that I'm glad I stuck to my "no eating and drinking in the cinema" rule because I would have puked, seriously.
The kills are inventive - reminds me of what John did to the cops in the first movie - but the boss bad guy's death is so violent and ridiculous that you almost feel sorry for him, which is not the idea.
I give it a 4 out of ten for nostalgia only.
Wow, is it really that bad? I was really impressed by the last Rambo movie, where he goes to Asia to rescue the missionaries and comes to terms with his past and his nature. That was really violent as well, is the latest movie worse?
I wouldn't call it that bad. I'd give it at least 6/10 maybe a 7/10. As the capper to the Rambo series-then maybe it'll seem a little disappointing., but I enjoyed it fine as a movie.
It has awful, downright embarrassing dialogue. I mean, I was embarrassed listening to it. The "dramatic" conversations between Rambo and his niece sound like they were written by an 8-year-old. The pacing was also wrong . . . it just seemed like a series of scenes filmed by different directors and spliced together by several editors who had never met each other or read the screenplay. And Rambo doesn't even seem like the same character from previous movies. He's like a totally different guy.
The action scenes are the only decent parts of the movie. And honestly, they aren't very good either.
On a 5-star scale, I give this movie a 1.5.