Was this the last one in the franchise? It's *5* Stars if all you were looking for was a self-indulgent, self-gratifying buffet of what you'd hope would be what looks like the before and after effects of a machine gun and the effects were suspect, at best.

Shoulda been called "The Feast of the 50 Cal". I don't mind watching violence. The two scenes in "Saving Private Ryan" did it for me. The CGI in this were almost as bad as in "I am Legend". But not nearly as bad as Sly's maple syrup therapy. He's gonna pay for what he did to his body. If you find yourself ooohhhing and aaahhhing at the massacre scenes in this one, you aught to try moving on to snuff flicks...

Simplistic, idiotic, jingoistic garbage from one of the most egregious self-serving hacks in the history of Hollywood.

John Rambo is the greatest man in the history of the universe! This movie was everything I had hoped it would be and more. I always considered my blood-lust to be insatiable, but found myself leaving completely satisfied. My only complaint would be that it is over and I am still not watching it. Society owes a great deal of acclaim to Sylvester Stallone for creating this epic spectacle of carnage. I go to see dramatic films to see good story telling and truly believable character acting. I go to action movies to see outlandish stunts and supreme levels of violence. Needless plot development only takes valuable time away from machine-gunning infantry and arrows through the face. Thank you Mr. Stallone for re-introducing me to the action movie genre. Well done sir.



checkout my new Secret Room >> http://shortub.co.cc

When Rambo III was released, it was said that it was the most violent movie ever made. The Violence in Rambo makes Rambo III look like Sesame Street. Two or three people got their heads blown off. A man got blown in half. Rambo chopped a man's head off and he disemboweled a man.
When Rambo took a group of people to Burma, they got captured. Rambo and a group of other soldiers had to rescue them.
In some parts of the world this movie's title is Rambo IV. They have to use that title because in those parts of the world, First Blood was titled Rambo. This was a good movie but I like Rambo III more. I give it a 4 star rating.

Just wasn't the real Rambo.

I barely remember this movie

Pretty much the same ol' same ol' you paid money to see in the last 4 or 5 Rambo movies. Some do-gooders bringing the Bible and medical aid (in that order) to the benighted masses in Burma are captured and tortured by the Burmese army. Like the Golem from Jewish mythology, Rambo knows that he's the only one to save these people, as much as he despises them and their kind, and he arises from the mud of his own tortured apathy to save the day (after a whole lot of blood-letting and killing, of course). Setting the film in Burma is different (I would've thought he might have taken care of Osama Bin Forgotten for us, and maybe even trekked over to Afghanistan to rectify all that he mucked up in Rambo III, and maybe capture Whitey Bulger as the icing on the cinematic cake), but it's basically the same tiresome premise re-hashed once again. The Rambo character of the original novel (which I liked as a teenager) was a bearded, psychopathic timebomb set off on a brutal killing spree with minimal provocation. The original Rambo was a Manson in Khaki. Stallone transformed that potentially fascinating character into a moody but good-hearted lug scarred not so much by his experiences in Vietnam as by the pencil-pushers back in Washington who wouldn't let him and guys like him win the war the way it shoulda been won (never mind that it was an immoral war we never should have been involved in in the first place; Stallone has no patience for such egg-headed sophistry). I suppose you could write it all off as harmless comic-book nonsense, but you have to wonder how many guys of the "Stay The Course" mentality in Iraq spent a  great deal of their formative years watching this Rambo dreck and taking its puerile message to heart. Even so, a better actor than Stallone might have been able to invest the character with at least a semblance of nuanced humanity or complexity. Stallone ain't that actor. Rambo functions in only 2 emotional gears-- sullen rage and explosive rage. Rambo has sort of become the Billy Jack of the modern-era, I guess. The misfit who loves peace and quiet (I think Rambo even spent some time in a Buddhist monastery in the 2nd film before traveling to Vietnam to free the MIA's being held prisoner in a jungle gulag) but is capable of psychopathic violence to achieve it. The film opens with what looks like actual footage of those killed in Burma, and its horrific and disturbing. Unfortunately for the film, it makes everything that follows look like cheap Hollywood pyrotechnics and 5-and-dime mayhem. Physically, Stallone is awesome to behold at 61 years of age (although he'd better watch that "growth hormone"; it's been known to accelerate cancer in certain individuals). In terms of talent and imagination, however, Stallone remains puny and weak.

by far the bloodiest movie i've ever seen.  not much of a story line, but still a decent flick.  i figured it to be worth the matinee price, but apparently they've jacked that to $7.50.  If you like bloody movies, it's worth renting when it comes out.  and hey, sly's 61 years old.... but he's still rambo.