|
Post by ck100 on Aug 17, 2020 20:00:16 GMT
Two statues that were recently put up in the filming location of First Blood (Hope, Canada):
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 17, 2020 22:30:50 GMT
Two statues that were recently put up in the filming location of First Blood (Hope, Canada): Wow! Awesome!!!
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 17, 2020 22:32:06 GMT
Indeed. She was beautiful.
|
|
angel
Sophomore
@angel
Posts: 275
Likes: 142
|
Post by angel on Aug 18, 2020 0:40:55 GMT
The second film achieved a degree of notoriety when it was released in the UK due to a mass shooter, (a rare occurrence here) who allegedly had an obsession with Rambo going on a rampage killing 16 people. I remember the BBC at the time vowing never to show the Rambo films on their channels ever again. (I wonder if they ever kept their promise? - I suspect not).
I always found it interesting that Dustin Hoffman was originally slated to star as John Rambo but turned it down, but he did acknowledge that had he accepted, it would have been a very different film.
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Aug 18, 2020 3:40:35 GMT
First Blood is pretty good on its own. Rambo II bastardized the premise, III was a sellout. Rambo (IV) is actually a decent bad movie as it were.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 18, 2020 20:26:22 GMT
The second film achieved a degree of notoriety when it was released in the UK due to a mass shooter, (a rare occurrence here) who allegedly had an obsession with Rambo going on a rampage killing 16 people. I remember the BBC at the time vowing never to show the Rambo films on their channels ever again. (I wonder if they ever kept their promise? - I suspect not).I always found it interesting that Dustin Hoffman was originally slated to star as John Rambo but turned it down, but he did acknowledge that had he accepted, it would have been a very different film.I've read about that on one of the first two films' trivia section on IMDb. Geez! Some people are depraved! Yes, First Blood would've been a completely different film if Dustin Hoffman starred in it.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 18, 2020 20:30:33 GMT
I know the second film had this reputation of being very violent, and it is, but it feels relatively tame compared to violent films in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's, and today.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 18, 2020 20:36:36 GMT
Love both and while First Blood is more drama\action and stunningly photographed by the under-rated Andrew Laszlo and has the always dependable Brian Dennehy, Part 2, I rank as one of my top straight forward action films. Dumb in parts, but staggeringly mounted as an action film with awesome set-pieces. The first half hour sets up the situation with ease and conviction and then the next hour hardly let’s up. Great nationalist pride and egocentric fun. Part 3 I find a tad dull. 4 & 5 were ok, but lost that original 80’s Rambo essence. I can't speak on the latter three films but I agree. The first film was stunning PERIOD. And haunting. It left me rather spellbound. The second film was great fun but was also kind of a physical endurance test for me.
|
|
|
Post by Marv on Aug 18, 2020 20:39:00 GMT
The second film achieved a degree of notoriety when it was released in the UK due to a mass shooter, (a rare occurrence here) who allegedly had an obsession with Rambo going on a rampage killing 16 people. I remember the BBC at the time vowing never to show the Rambo films on their channels ever again. (I wonder if they ever kept their promise? - I suspect not).I always found it interesting that Dustin Hoffman was originally slated to star as John Rambo but turned it down, but he did acknowledge that had he accepted, it would have been a very different film.I've read about that on one of the first two films' trivia section on IMDb. Geez! Some people are depraved! Yes, First Blood would've been a completely different film if Dustin Hoffman starred in it. Probably wouldn’t have gotten action packed sequels with Hoffman as the lead. I’m confident he could pull off the tortured veteran role, but not sold he could pull off the one man army persona.
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 18, 2020 20:40:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 18, 2020 20:48:40 GMT
I know the second film had this reputation of being very violent, and it is, but it feels relatively tame compared to violent films in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's, and today. Yes and no. On one hand, it didn't have a lot of blood for the most part. But on the other hand, some of the scenes like the torture scenes and the way the bad guys were being offed were extremely intense. Don't get me wrong. There are some films, past and present, that are way more violent than this film. But even some of them didn't go that far in the intensity.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 9:16:21 GMT
I can't speak on the latter three films but I agree. The first film was stunning PERIOD. And haunting. It left me rather spellbound. The second film was great fun but was also kind of a physical endurance test for me. Emotionally and physically draining presentations and are designed for the big screen experience. Both utilise their backdrops exceedingly well and show ugliness reigning amongst the awesome beauty. Wow. That was beautifully stated. And too true. Both films look beautiful due to the ways they were shot and, as you said, they utilized their backdrops well. There were times where I couldn't help but admire how lovely the forest or jungle views looked. Meanwhile, ugliness in the form of human evil is running amok.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 9:18:24 GMT
I've read about that on one of the first two films' trivia section on IMDb. Geez! Some people are depraved! Yes, First Blood would've been a completely different film if Dustin Hoffman starred in it. Probably wouldn’t have gotten action packed sequels with Hoffman as the lead. I’m confident he could pull off the tortured veteran role, but not sold he could pull off the one man army persona. I totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 9:19:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 10:02:49 GMT
Wow. That was beautifully stated. And too true. Both films look beautiful due to the ways they were shot and, as you said, they utilized their backdrops well. There were times where I couldn't help but admire how lovely the forest or jungle views looked. Meanwhile, ugliness in the form of human evil is running amok. I mentioned Andrew Laszlo earlier who shot First Blood and did a terrific job. The legendary British cinematographer Jack Cardiff shot Part 2 for Stallone. I don't know who the original DP was for Part 2, but he apparently got sick and Stallone needed a replacement. It was by sheer luck that Cardiff was vacationing in Mexico and Sly got wind and encouraged him to shoot the film.
It is staggering and disturbing to think that, and especially the theme of Part 2, that atrocious human behavior was carried out in the beautiful and extraordinarily beautiful jungles and landscapes of Vietnam, with Mexico doubling for Vietnam here in the film. Andrew Laszlo did a beautiful job on the first film and Jack Cardiff did an equally beautiful job on the second film. I absolutely agree that it is staggering and disturbing that atrocious human behavior was carried out in the beauty of nature whether in America or Vietnam. Watching both films, I kept thinking, "It's a shame that there really are people out there who are this evil and cruel." And people call John Rambo a cold-blooded psycho? Btw, similar to how Mexico doubled as Vietnam for the second film, Canada doubled as America for the first film.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Aug 19, 2020 13:43:07 GMT
I know the second film had this reputation of being very violent, and it is, but it feels relatively tame compared to violent films in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's, and today. Rambo 2 is a Disney movie compared to Rambo 4
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Aug 19, 2020 13:46:01 GMT
I know the second film had this reputation of being very violent, and it is, but it feels relatively tame compared to violent films in the 90's, 2000's, 2010's, and today. Rambo 2 is a Disney movie compared to Rambo 4 I've heard Last Blood (Rambo 5) is even more violent than Rambo 4.
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Aug 19, 2020 13:51:08 GMT
Rambo 2 is a Disney movie compared to Rambo 4 I've heard Last Blood (Rambo 5) is even more violent than Rambo 4. I heard some of the stuff that happens in Rambo 5. Sounds like violence for violence sake to me. The Burmese armys violent acts hit home harder as they are based on true events. Lighting villagers on fire, raping women infront of their husbands and stabbing children is on another level.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 23:02:06 GMT
I've heard Last Blood (Rambo 5) is even more violent than Rambo 4. I heard some of the stuff that happens in Rambo 5. Sounds like violence for violence sake to me. The Burmese armys violent acts hit home harder as they are based on true events. Lighting villagers on fire, raping women infront of their husbands and stabbing children is on another level. I've heard about that as well. It makes me not want to see that film and I don't think I will.
|
|
|
Post by gljbradley on Aug 19, 2020 23:07:27 GMT
Andrew Laszlo did a beautiful job on the first film and Jack Cardiff did an equally beautiful job on the second film. I absolutely agree that it is staggering and disturbing that atrocious human behavior was carried out in the beauty of nature whether in America or Vietnam. Watching both films, I kept thinking, "It's a shame that there really are people out there who are this evil and cruel." And people call John Rambo a cold-blooded psycho? Btw, similar to how Mexico doubled as Vietnam for the second film, Canada doubled as America for the first film. Vietnam is a very grey and murky area for me. I am both equally fascinated and repelled at what transpired. It NEVER should have happened. These guys didn't really know what they were fighting for and they were lied to as well. They were chumps for getting themselves suckered in by the propaganda and victims for being used by a nefarious and devious establishment. Rambo was a heavy casualty of those that survived and then ended up having their own personal battles raging.
Even during the war itself, many of these soldiers ended up fighting and waging their own battles within their ranks and Platoon - 86' is one of the best Vietnam war films at depicting this. It doesn't go down the hero nationalistic pride route. Just the confused and questioning moral and ethical route of what is really going on here. If you haven't seen, I highly recommend this emotional gut punch cinematic wallop. Excellent points. There is a reason why there's a saying, "War is hell!" You know, I'll probably check out Platoon also.
|
|