f13.net

I saw all of these when I was a kid, and have watched First Blood one or two times since then, and have always maintained that it's a good film. Saw the latest one last year, after getting it from British Telecom, and it was okay. Watched First Blood recently on BRD with my wife, and we both agreed that it is indeed a good film.

She saw Rambo: First Blood Pt 2 when she was a kid, but didn't remember it. Wasn't sure if she'd seen the third one. I told her that they were bad films, but she maintained an interest in seeing them. I saw them on Amazon.co.uk for like 6.45UKP each, and the VAT gets refunded, so I bought them recently along with some films that aren't shit.

Last night we watched Rambo. It was pretty much what I expected in terms of how bad it was. Tonight we watched Rambo III, which was even shittier than I expected (actually, I think I enjoyed it the first time I saw it, but I would have been about 15 at the time, so you kmnow, taste..). But oh my word. The Unintentional Irony, especially watching it in 2010.. So, so thick, you could use it as foundations for a house. And such a slap in the face to First Blood, which is actually a reasonably intelligent movie.

Still though, I'd recommend watching Rambo III to any of you young'uns who have neve seen it, or to you older ones who haven't seen it for a decade or more. It's aged into so bad, it's not quite good territory, but my word, times have changed...

 :why_so_serious:

I've actually watched all 4 a few times the last half year. I won't say any of them are bad, they're all (well, to me at least) entertaining movies. The first two are obviously the best ones, and the third is just over the top, but I was still surprised at how vigorously Stallone played his role in Rambo. He's how old now?

First two? I thought the second one was pretty awful, personally. An awful adolescent Vietnam Revenge fantasy. Though the third one took the cake. Possibly the sheer amunt of homo-erotic lingering of the camera on Sly's sculpted orange muscular bod, along with hip-firing while running taking out hordes of VietnameseRussians.

I quite like the latest one, though. Not in any serious kind of way, but far more than in the middle pair. I found the middle two hard to enjoy, even as cartoons. We'll be watching the latest one in the next couple of nights to complete our Rambo-watching sequence.

Then it'll be either Terminator or Die Hard movies.  :grin:

I like the recent one the best, actually, though First Blood is solid as well. The middle two are shit.

First Blood is dang good. It helps that it is based off a book by a writer I like. The guy writes the same plot for most of his books but I like 'em anyway.

The plot:

Character is assassin for shadowy government agency. Character leaves and settles down into a normal life. Shadowy government agency shows up and kills everyone around him whether they be his new family or the monks in the monastery he has secluded himself in. Assassin comes out of retirement and kills everyone in that agency until he gets to the top only to find out they killed his friends because they thought he knew something and would cause problems.

The latest movie is very good as well. Expendables is going to tell me if Stallone has matured or if Rambo was just pure luck.

It helps that I saw all of them when I was 15 as well, and I just end up watching it all the way through. Hell, I like old movies like the two conan movies as well. I'm not that demanding when it comes to movies.

Oh come on, if at first you're going to go over the top, you might as well go properly over the top. He's a manly man. :grin:

Agreed.

I have fond memories of Part II, but it probably has something to do with the HUGE crush I had on Julia Nickson at the time.

(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/9035/cobao.jpg)

I'm with Azazel on this.  First Blood and Rambo are both good movies, part 2 doesn't really hold up well, and part 3 is a cartoon.

If I've got the energy when the wife gets home and after we eat dinner, we'll watch Rambo (aka Rambo IV, aka John Rambo).

We did Die Hard 1 last weekend, and the first two Terminator films a couple of months ago, but I'll start new threads for those film series'. I haven't seen Conan the Destroyer for years, since I was a kid, but we watched Conan the Barbarian over the Christmas break, and I felt that it still held up very well for what it is.

The writer's (David Morrell) DVD commentary track for First Blood is a very good one though, if you ever get the chance. I'm keen to get the US version of the Blu-Ray so I can hear Sly's First Blood commentary, which is also supposed to be excellent. Fucking UK version doesn't have it.

Don't do this.  It wasn't a good movie when it came out.  It's still not a good movie now.  I say this with Barbarian being one of my favorite movies.

I remember being devastated when she got killed. It probably won't move me if any movie do the same stunt now, but back then it was devastating.

Lies. It's still awesome, you just have to expect it to be over the top and hilarious. If you for a second expect it to be a deep and serious movie, you've failed as that movie's audience and should, indeed, not watch it.

Edit: Unfuck quote.

"Destroyer" is to "Barbarian" as "Terminator 3" is to "Terminator 2". Tries to hit some of the same notes but for a broader audiences, misses the scope of the preceding film by miles.

That's a pretty apt comparison, but I think Terminator 3 wasn't even hilarious in how badly wrong it was.

Indeed, nothing in T3 approaches the hilarity of the "protector of virginity" being Wilt Chamberlain.

Compare Rambo and Rocky Balboa to Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Stallone put a nice cap on his franchises, which I appreciate. Meanwhile, Spielberg and Lucas continue to shit all over their franchises.

I'll add my love for the destroyer. Oh it was bad, really bad but it's something I can watch any time it comes on tv for the cheese of it. T3 I wouldn't sit through a showing if you paid me $10 (20 maybe)

Not having seen the film for years, and having forgotten much of the actual content, I called the fact that she was going to/had to die as soon as she said "you takey me to america? me live simple life", and then when they got all romantic said "yep, she definately has to die, now." It did surprise me that she got riddled with bullets in the very next shot, though. I was "whoa, that was quick".

I'll get around to Destroyer some other time. Got a big pile of DVD's I've accululated over the years and not watched to get through first.

Watched the latest Rambo last night, as I'd hoped to. It really is a good film, and despite the ridiculous bodycount, it almost feels kind of feasable, which is what you want from an action film. I also checked out the deleted/alternative scenes, and I have to say, he made the right choices to leave those takes out and keep the ones he did (too many words, too preachy, too annoying). It's also been nice that the Rambo films are kept down to 90-ish minutes, rather than 120, 140, 180, 240mins. It makes them much easier to settle down and watch on a night after getting home from work and doing dinner and all that, and needing to get up again for work in the morning. Damn Die Hards and Terminators are all in the 2-hour range.

I did like Rocky Balboa as well. As it happens, I haven't seen Crystal Skull, but I did randomly watch the South Park Episode last night where the kids (In case anyone hasn't seen that SP ep- I hadn't.)


I liked Rocky Balboa, as well.

True, but John Connor being unable to get out of a dog cage despite having spent years training to be the Saviour of Humanity made me laugh.


I watched that again recently and it is a testament to Harrison Ford that the film is even watchable. He really brings so much to Indiana Jones that isn't in the script.

See, and I thought he was the worst thing. He never acted like he wanted to be there and seemed well...tired and put out at being there. It was like the grumpy old man version of Indy.

Yeah, I gotta give props to Stallone. He actually went ahead and made Rocky 6 and Rambo 4. Everyone laughed, but I'll be damned if they didn't both turn out to be pretty good movies.

Also, I have to say, I love me some Conan the Barbarian. In different hands it could very easily have descended into camp, but it avoided doing so by virtue of an awesome soundtrack, Arnold's stonefaced gravitas, and an overall feeling of taking itself utterly fucking seriously. As far as sword-and-sorcery movies go, I rate it behind the LOTR trilogy and that's it. Although admittedly, that's not a very deep genre.

We need another R rated low-fantasy flick with tits and beheadings and snakes, and wizards who throw orgies full of tits and turn into snakes and get beheaded. I'm tired of every fantasy movie being some insufferable PG bullshit about magical British schoolchildren, based on some obscure book nobody gives a fuck about, that only got greenlit because Harry Potter and Narnia made money. I want some gratuitous nudity and gore, damn it.

Destroyer sucked, but I'd still watch it over T3. Good comparison though.

I'd say spartacus trumps conan.

"Historical" Epics =/ Fantasy Sword and Sorcery

I'd agree Spartacus is a damn good film, but, you know, different genres.

Yeah. The swords-and-sorcery category basically goes...

1) LOTR Trilogy
2) Conan the Barbarian
3) Willow

Yes I like Willow. Fuck you if you don't. Beyond these three the genre is mostly just various grades of camp and isn't really worth ranking. You really have to regard LOTR as one movie, too, otherwise you're left in the inane position of trying to rank the beginning, middle, and end of the same story as separate entities.

I think he meant the TV show.  Which isn't really fair because it trumps anything in any genre ever.

"300" kind of straddled the sword-and-sorcery and sword-and-sandals genres.

There are plenty of sword-and-sorcery movies out there, but most are awful (even ones with magic weapons and wizards and boobs). "Conan the Barbarian" is probably the best of its kind.

What, no love for Krull?

Heh - I'd thought of that when writing the post.

"Krull" is a bit flat as a film, as I remember it. The Glaive (?) is a fun gimmick, but that's all it really was.

Good arcade game though.

Krull is amusing in that "Saturday afternoon and nothing good is on" sort of way that all those Hercules and Sinbad movies are, but that's about the best I can say for it. Nice production values though.

Not exactly related, but I need to tell someone: I think I am the only person in the world who actually likes David Lynch's Dune. At least I think I like it. It keeps playing on cable and I keep watching it. I never read the book and I still don't understand all of WTF is going on, but that's okay.

You missed the Barbarians (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=V3I6C24BUTg&feature=related).

That was awesome.

(http://www.zap2it.com/media/photo/2009-02/45295873.jpg)


Is pissed you forgot him

(http://i50.tinypic.com/2h8bckk.jpg)

Is equally upset.

Not alone, I like the Lynch movie too.  Still, read the book, as none of the current adaptations do it justice.

Also, Conan the Barbarian is a better movie than LotR, but otherwise I agree with your list.

Whoa. Conan the Barbarian is a funny movie, but better than LotR? Whatcha be smokin', foo?

lotr was long and boring, the only reason people like it so much is 'because it's lotr dammit'  it was an ok movie that dragged on and on.

Respectfully, speak for yourself. I liked it because it was a good movie/miniseries. It has to be the extended edition, though.

I agree with him. The first movie was fun but the second 2 were long and boring. The second has my record for number of times I've looked at my watch to see when its over. So yeah the first 1/3 of the 'movie' was enjoyable. Wow.

I LOVE David Lynch's Dune for reasons completely independent of the book (which is in my top 3 all time favorite books).  So no, you are not alone.

Also in the camp of liking Lynch's dune.  I've never read the book and heard my friend bitch and moan so much about how Lynch's version sucks but whatever, it was fun.

I've always felt that the movie captured the spirit of the book really well, even though it completely butchered the details.  Meanwhile, the miniseries got a lot of the details right, but missed the feel.

I saw the movie first, then read the book afterward.  This is the best order to do it in, as I loved both.  Actually, I've found that watching the film then reading the books is almost always the best way to do things, be it Dune, LOTR, or Jurassic Park.  Without the previous baggage, you can enjoy the movie, then move on to the awesome written material.

I actually liked both the movie and the miniseries over the books. I thought the books were too much introspection, but it's been quite a few years since I read them so I could've changed my mind since then.

Re: LOTR, about the only thing I didn't really like about the whole trilogy was the almost homoerotic relationship between Frodo and Samwise. Everything else was (to me) fine.

I also enjoyed both Lynch's Dune and the book. When people ask me how they compared, I usually respond with something like this:

The Book is spaced out evenly with a number of chapters covering a variety of events.

The Movie spends the first two and a half hours covering the first two chapters of the book, and spends the last hour and a half on the remaining 20 chapters.

Tim Curry and his devil costume were awesome, but Legend sucked.

Only 14 year old girls like Labyrinth.

It's much more pronounced in the books IMO.