Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The first two did well, and made quite a bit of money, but for some reason the third one is often considered to be the worst of the series. But why is that? I thought the story held together better than the second one, and a lot of people like the fourth one, even though in my opinion, it feels like a retread of the third.
I feel Rambo III is probably the second best, after the first, so why is it not very well liked by the majority?
I feel Rambo III is probably the second best, after the first, so why is it not very well liked by the majority?
I speak only for myself: Because it was a dumb movie. FIRST BLOOD was a great movie. Rambo II and III were hilariously stupid. The last Rambo flick wasn't half bad, but still not as good as FIRST BLOOD.
This bit was actually better than anything in Rambo II and III:
The first two did well, and made quite a bit of money, but for some reason the third one is often considered to be the worst of the series. But why is that? I thought the story held together better than the second one, and a lot of people like the fourth one, even though in my opinion, it feels like a retread of the third.
I feel Rambo III is probably the second best, after the first, so why is it not very well liked by the majority?
First blood is like my 4th favorite movie.
The reason iii did poorly is that it was confirmation that there would never be a part 2 of the original first blood. II was cool but a 1980's joke. But we still had hope. Iii was the last nail in the coffin. We knew, after that, that first blood was a one and only. Similar to rocky. But at least then rocky II tried. And I'm the only person in the world that liked rocky 5. Creed was a pathetic abomination.
The first two did well, and made quite a bit of money, but for some reason the third one is often considered to be the worst of the series. But why is that? I thought the story held together better than the second one, and a lot of people like the fourth one, even though in my opinion, it feels like a retread of the third.
I feel Rambo III is probably the second best, after the first, so why is it not very well liked by the majority?
While First Blood had the interesting and thoughtful underlying premise of the tragedy of the Vietnam war veteran (well-worn as a theme now, but much less explored back in 1982), it was still a fairly thin film populated by trite caricatured characters.
But the sequels were all utterly vapid films with ludicrous premises. Arguing which is 'better' is like debating the merits of the fourth Children of the Corn installment versus the fifth.
While First Blood had the interesting and thoughtful underlying premise of the tragedy of the Vietnam war veteran (well-worn as a theme now, but much less explored back in 1982), it was still a fairly thin film populated by trite caricatured characters.
But the sequels were all utterly vapid films with ludicrous premises. Arguing which is 'better' is like debating the merits of the fourth Children of the Corn installment versus the fifth.
I love first blood but have to admit "thin" is a good way to describe it. Painful for me but appropriate. It's still one of my top five if all time but I won't argue against it's short comings.
I was young at the time so a question (and yes I know te book was old by the time the movie was made), was the perspective of the antisocial Vietnam vet complete untouched by film when first blood came out? Except for that job voight movie...
How many times have we seen an unstoppable muscled up killing machine blast the bad guys and save the woman, the country and the world? It gets a bit old even for a a fan of the genre.
Usually the first in a series is the best movie because those involved believe in it as a good story to tell. When it becomes a hit they believe in the money and rush out a second or even third installment. Alien 4 anyone?
The sequel movies are usually bigger with more CGI but if the story is not there then it falls flat. Still fun to watch like the Matrix 3 but no where as good as the first.
Sequels tend to lose the original innocence that the first movie had.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
