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.
When you think about it, they just don't make great movies like Cobra anymore.
Movies these days are loud, ugly, CGI bloated nonsense.
I agree. Numerous great action films like American Ninja, Rambo, Commando and Die Hard were grand spectacles that did not have CGI to use back then. People flying through the air, large explosions and damsels in distress who had way too much aqua net in thier hair were the real deal. Even some of the men used aqua net to keep the mullet in place. It was an awesome time at the movies.
Oh okay. Did anyone else have a problem with the moral preachiness going on in the movie though? I thought that it felt forced perhaps, like in the beginning, when the reporters question Cobra, they told him things like people are entitled to protection of the law, and did he have to take it that far.
But the hostage taker was wearing a bomb with his hand on the detonator. Cobra gave him a warning to "drop it" and the guy pulled a gun and pointed it at Cobra, so Cobra shot him. So I felt that Cobra gave the man a chance to surrender before shooting, even though the guy had a bomb with his hand on the detonator, and was holding hostages as well, and still gave him a warning to surrender.
Yet the reporter still wants to make him out to the be the bad guy.
Or later when Cobra is talking to the witness, and says why can't they just put people like this away, Cobra says how the judge lets them out all the time, and she says that it makes her sick.
Where did this come from? There were no prior scenes to any judges letting out anyone the police or Cobra arrested, and the police don't even know who these killers are to bring in... so a judge doesn't even have any opportunity to let these guys go. It just felt forced and out of nowhere, didn't it?
And later at the end, when the villain tells Cobra, that he won't shoot him cause murder is against the law, the villain is holding a gun in one hand and a knife in the other. So why does Cobra have a problem shooting this guy and is hesitant to do it, like the villain said, but a minute earlier, Cobra had no problem, dousing one of the bad guys with gasoline, and lighting him on fire, and burning him to death?
It just came off as this forced inconsistency in Cobra's character in order to shoehorn in, more moral preaching in the end. So I get that Cobra wants to be an action movie where you turn your brain off and have fun, but they keep trying to shove this forced moral argument down the audiences throat, when it never properly set up any such argument in the first place, and feels forced as a result. But maybe I am wrong?
Oh okay. Did anyone else have a problem with the moral preachiness going on in the movie though?
Granted, I don't think I've seen this movie since the early '90s, but I don't remember it having enough of a brain to have a moral point. The point was for Stallone to scowl, growl, and kill people. It's dumb fun, but not much more.
After a very promising career start in the '70s, by the '80s Stallone was saying yes to a whole lot of movies to which he should have said no. Movies like RHINESTONE, STAYING ALIVE, ROCKY IV, RAMBO II, RAMBO III, COBRA, TANGO & CASH, and especially OVER THE TOP, which has got to be on the list as one of the worst movies ever made.
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.