I’ve read a review somewhere on the Net saying that Rambo IV lacked self-awareness as the excessive gore and sadism was set against a backdrop of reality, as alluded to by the news reporting montage at the beginning of the movie, and was therefore not something to be meant tongue-in-cheek.

That was what made my guts telling me that there was something not right with the movie.

But then, that is why I read the AV club for reviews and this site for laughs.

I give this review 10/10 and the Airhorn mark of approval.

Rambo would wipe the floor with Jason “Matt Damon” Bourne.

A tad of criticism.

“The ending made me realize that there was a time when I was, like, 11 years old and I watched First Blood and First Blood Part II (as you know the third Rambo is lame) and I equated the image of Rambo firing thousands of bullets shaped like monsters’ golden teeth with America, as people all over the world did, more so than Ronald Regan, the flag, and, at the time, fast food”

I agree again, but I would never have gotten away with such an overeager period-less rant.

This is by far one of the greats in /Film movie reviews. And I agree, Rambo was not reinvented, but came back full circle to the simplicity of First Blood, when he was just a broken man. Remember? He wasn’t RAMBO yet then, that was basically a drama I suppose.

And one last thing, don’t give the satisfaction of responding 3 and 4 times to negative feedback like Pete does, let the Negs be negative and revel in the compliments of all the people who are actually right….. Tee Hee.

Good job, Great Movie, Your competition is now a fan.
~ZL

Thanks for the great review, bud. Keep up the good work here at /Film.

for years i thought stallone had lost his mind. one dogsh-t movie after another.

it’s now clear that he just needed to be comfortable with doing what he wanted to do - rather than what some z-grade producer would fund him doing.

great job, sly. and great review, hunter. you are really making this site a must-read, my friend.

And Hunter, Rambo III did not suck.

Thank you for commenting. The argument you are getting at seems directed at /Film’s policy to add a numerical rating, 0-10, to its movie reviews. I think this is a fine, dandy and fun policy and more readers definitely check out and will read full reviews based on movies’ assigned numerical values by the critic(s). That said, movies are made by humans. We can quantify humans. We’ve all said (the better of us have merely shrugged the thought) that someone is a 6, 7, or a 2. Fact is, this is the inner robot in all of us, in this case a Hunter-bot. In a free world, no human is really a number, but it’s like a plastic sword through an olive. We like to see it, if not applied to humans, then to human-made movies.

My review speaks for itself and I have commented more on my reasoning for the 10/10 in my second comment above. As for Rambo being a “simple action flick,” and thus undeserving of a perfect score, I disagree. The story might seem simple, just like the recipe for apple pie. But as we’ve all experienced, some apple pies are 10s and some apple pies are, yep, complete shit. Simple ingredients, rather simple and similar recipes, rather exact goals. Different humans made them. Mmm, Burmese Rambo apple pie. It’s got perfect pop!

You also suggest that there is a limited number of 10/10s allotted for films per year. In your case, you have come to the conclusion that there can only be 3 to 5. This is interesting to me. See, my top three films of the year will be labeled “Hunter’s Top 3 Films of 2008,” and that’s how I will know. Let’s trade text books though.

Also, please comment on how this Rambo could have been better. I’m curious. If you give it a 6/10, what would Mark have done in the jungles of Thailand to oomph it to a 10/10? And what numerical value do you give the Star Wars Flute video on YouTube?