Rambo: Last Blood

Tools    





Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I was thinking of seeing it but everyone talks about how terrible it is and don't waste your time. But a lot of people say that about the other First Blood sequels as well? So is this one actually worse than the other sequels, or are they about the same, and maybe I wouldn't think it was that bad then?



Welcome to the human race...
I would say it's worse, especially by the standards of the other sequels.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. Thanks, good to know. My favorite sequel has always been Rambo III, but fans always thought that was the worst of the sequels, so I wasn't sure if I would like Last Blood or not.



Last Blood's a generic revenge movie.


Basically it's the same as Taken, but unlike Taken the main character does actually get hurt.
Only for a few minutes though. Then he's back to a relentless march of victory.


The best sequel in the series is Rambo (2008).



- First Blood
- Rambo (2008)
- First Blood: Part 2
- Rambo 3
- Rambo: Last Blood



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
A lot of people say that the best sequel is Rambo (2008), but I've always thought of it as the worst sequel. Mostly because it just felt like Rambo III all over again, with Rambo in Thailand again, and someone comes to ask him to come on a mission, he refuses, those people get captured, so then he feels bad and goes and rescues them. But it feels like such a rehash of it. They even have the same climax, where Rambo is shooting at all the enemy but is outnumbered and is going to be doomed, but then a group of rebels comes to save him and the others, just like in the third movie.

Buy why do a lot of fans think of it as the best sequel? Having not seen Last Blood, here's my order:

1. First Blood
2. Rambo III
3. Rambo: First Blood Part 2
4. Rambo

As for the Last Blood, I read that the movie Homefront (2013), which I saw, was originally a Rambo script, but was retooled to be an original movie. But when I watch the trailer for Last Blood, it looks like they just did the same script again. Unless I am wrong and it's a different original script?



Homefront was based on Stallone's script, which was based on the original novel, but he handed the role to Statham instead.


The idea for Last Blood though, a family member kidnapped by drug lords, was going to be used for Rambo (2008).


I can't remember if it was an interview or a DVD commentary, Stallone talks about how Rambo 4 was going to be about saving a family member from drug runners and criminals.
I've got a feeling it was a commentary he did for the First Blood, long before Rambo (2008) was made.


The reason Rambo (2008) got made the way it did though was because Stallone heard about the Karen People and their struggles. He wanted to show the world what's going on in Burma.
The 2008 movie though, is the first time we see Rambo as part of a team, and that team also initially treats him as some kind of old and decrepit has-been.
Rambo has an arc with the 2008 movie that reaches back to the original.
Is he past his prime? Is he a remnant of an old style of war? Is he no longer useful? Is he still broken? Has he finally had enough of war and death? And is it still possible for him to actually care about anything or anyone anymore?


The original script for the 2008 movie about drug dealers and kidnapped family members, was then dug up and partially used for Last Blood after Homefront got a warm reception.
I think they only halfheartedly rejigged the script though, which is why Last Blood ended up so generic.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, but I thought that Rambo had already gone through this similar arc by the end of Rambo III. So I thought that when I saw Rambo (2008), he was just redoing the same arc we saw before, as if Rambo III hadn't happened.

A question I also have about Rambo (2008), is why is that that when the missionaries were taken prisoner by the Burmese army, what did the army want with them? Were they going to hold them for ransom and try to ransom the US for them?



The missionaries didn't belong there. Simple as.


Also, they were helping local tribes and people... and the despots in charge don't like that.
They like to be in control.
Keeping the people down, sick and poor, gives the bad guys power... and the missionaries coming in and helping the people just simply won't do.


The reason a few of them were kept alive is simply to torture them.
As Rambo explains as well to the missionaries when he's taking them into the jungle, and he has to kill some of the military guys, he did it because they would have simply tortured everyone, raped the women, and then when they're finished, they'd just kill them.


If you want an answer as to why the bad guys behave that way... there is no reason.
It's based on reality.
Actual atrocities happening in Burma as we type.



You know what's weird about all this?
I got in the mood to watch Rambo (2008) now... and just as I flicked through my TV's EPG, the movie is on telly in about 2 hours from now



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah that's weird lol

The missionaries didn't belong there. Simple as.


Also, they were helping local tribes and people... and the despots in charge don't like that.
They like to be in control.
Keeping the people down, sick and poor, gives the bad guys power... and the missionaries coming in and helping the people just simply won't do.


The reason a few of them were kept alive is simply to torture them.
As Rambo explains as well to the missionaries when he's taking them into the jungle, and he has to kill some of the military guys, he did it because they would have simply tortured everyone, raped the women, and then when they're finished, they'd just kill them.


If you want an answer as to why the bad guys behave that way... there is no reason.
It's based on reality.
Actual atrocities happening in Burma as we type.
I thought they would keep the woman alive for rape, but I didn't think they had reasons to keep the males alive and would just kill them, I thought.



Yeah but in real life they do the same thing.
Anyone captured is kept alive, tortured, beaten etc.


Sure they kill a few, but the captives are used for sport and for sick games and self gratification.



No reason for it. They just do it. Because they can.


Like the scenes where they get the prisoners to run across the minefields.
They do it for fun. Because they can.


It's why Stallone wanted to make they movie they way he did.
It shows the ugly parts of humans, and the evil within the world that the press won't show us.
During filming, they actually had some of the military, who hated the idea of the movie being made, firing pot-shots at Stallone and his crew.
They'd fire their rifles from a distance over their heads to scare the film crew.


The actor who played the main bad guy as well, in real life he's one of the Karen people... and all of his family were arrested and jailed by the government because he was in the movie.



Stallone's a good bloke sometimes, literally risking his life to make an action movie with a humanitarian message



Oh, interesting trivia:


The Karen people, it's pronounced "Charen" or "Charon". With a soft-sh Ch.


Charon is also the Greek word for a mythical Boatman who carries the souls of the dead to the world of the dead.


Rambo is called "The Boatman" in the movie too by the crew of mercs... and Rambo's job is to carry people to a world where death basically rules



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Yeah but in real life they do the same thing.
Anyone captured is kept alive, tortured, beaten etc.


Sure they kill a few, but the captives are used for sport and for sick games and self gratification.



No reason for it. They just do it. Because they can.


Like the scenes where they get the prisoners to run across the minefields.
They do it for fun. Because they can.


It's why Stallone wanted to make they movie they way he did.
It shows the ugly parts of humans, and the evil within the world that the press won't show us.
During filming, they actually had some of the military, who hated the idea of the movie being made, firing pot-shots at Stallone and his crew.
They'd fire their rifles from a distance over their heads to scare the film crew.


The actor who played the main bad guy as well, in real life he's one of the Karen people... and all of his family were arrested and jailed by the government because he was in the movie.



Stallone's a good bloke sometimes, literally risking his life to make an action movie with a humanitarian message
Oh okay. I didn't really think the movie was that deep though, since like the other Rambo sequels it's mostly a movie that concentrates on action and shoot 'em up sequences. I mean it's not more political than Rambo III, is it?



About the same, except the 2008 film is Stallone making a statement about what is basically ethnic cleansing that never gets reported in the western world.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay. I suppose they could make more action movies dealing with the Burma situation? Maybe James Bond could go there on a mission for example? They already made a Bond movie set in the ethnic cleansing of Afghanistan, so why not do one in Burma as well?



Listen, I'm a Sly Stallone fan, but I'm going to be brutally honest. The only really good film in this entire series is First Blood. All the others were garbage, with different degrees of "stink". The least stink was Rambo (2008). The worst stink is Last Blood. The original film had a serious tone, a drama about the struggles of Vietnam War veterans returning home and being treated badly. Stallone delivered an excellent performance, with help of a great support cast that included Richard Crenna and Brian Dennehy. First Blood was supposed to end with Rambo killing himself, an ending that was true to the novel, that I personally preferred. Actor Kirk Douglas was the original choice to play Trautman, but when he learned that Rambo would end up living at the end, he backed out and in came Crenna. Stallone chose to keep Rambo alive because he knew it had potential to become a franchise much like his Rocky films. The problem with the franchise is that the story of a sad and lonely veteran struggling to get accepted by his countrymen was overlooked and the character became a more and more ludicrous superhero type character with zero personality and fewer and fewer lines in every new entry.
__________________
“Let me tell you something you already know. The world ain't all sunshine and rainbows. It's a very mean and nasty place and I don't care how tough you are, it will beat you to your knees and keep you there permanently if you let it. You, me, or nobody is gonna hit as hard as life. But it ain't about how hard ya hit. It's about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward. How much you can take and keep moving forward. That's how winning is done!” ~ Rocky Balboa



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay, it seems everyone says Rambo III is the worst, but I've always had a soft spot for it, and I think it's the second best after the first one. In fact, I think I would say it's the only good sequel.



Welcome to the human race...
Maybe Last Blood will overtake it in that regard, but I get the impression that a decent cross-section of people might prefer it to III simply because it continues in the same overly violent vein as Rambo. Just a matter of who likes these movies and why.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Oh okay .



Listen, I'm a Sly Stallone fan, but I'm going to be brutally honest. The only really good film in this entire series is First Blood. All the others were garbage, with different degrees of "stink". The least stink was Rambo (2008). The worst stink is Last Blood. The original film had a serious tone, a drama about the struggles of Vietnam War veterans returning home and being treated badly. Stallone delivered an excellent performance, with help of a great support cast that included Richard Crenna and Brian Dennehy. First Blood was supposed to end with Rambo killing himself, an ending that was true to the novel, that I personally preferred. Actor Kirk Douglas was the original choice to play Trautman, but when he learned that Rambo would end up living at the end, he backed out and in came Crenna. Stallone chose to keep Rambo alive because he knew it had potential to become a franchise much like his Rocky films. The problem with the franchise is that the story of a sad and lonely veteran struggling to get accepted by his countrymen was overlooked and the character became a more and more ludicrous superhero type character with zero personality and fewer and fewer lines in every new entry.
don t tell me you didn t like the second? the second for me is a guilty pleasure