Jump to content


Photo

"RAMBO"


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 30 January 2008 - 02:03 PM

Wow that was horrible.

I was picking up some still photos I had processed, so I decided to step into the local AMC to see what was playing at that hour. There was only Rambo, but then an hour later There Will Be Blood was playing. So, I watched the first hour of Rambo...just barely.

Man it was painful. Laughable dialogue, a ludicrous storyline, and so many amputated limbs that I lost count within the first 15 minutes. It starts out trying to be some important message about what's going on in Burma, but then, of course, it turns into a mediocre and excessive action flick.

"Over the Top 2" would have been a better idea.

Glen MacPherson's work was fine, all things considered. There were a few shots here and there that were very "First Year Cinematography" style. There would be a staged rack focus from one of the mercenaries, out to Sly, then back to the mercenary, for one...cut to, some long lens, shallow DoF, "finding focus" type stuff, which was kinda weird.

Anyway, at the hour mark in the film the story takes a turn that pretty much leaves the rest of the film so incredibly predictable. So I walked out and saw There Will Be Blood again :)
  • 0

#2 Michael Collier

Michael Collier
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1262 posts
  • Gaffer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 30 January 2008 - 03:36 PM

I bet my boss some ding how that Rambo would be out of theaters in 3 weeks....hoping that comes true, I could use a free meal. He saw it opening night and still swears its the best film ever. I busted out a line from the flick when shooting last weekend. I think we were laying dolly track or setting a tough light on a hill and some how the line 'when your pushed, killings as easy as breathing came out.' weird.

still I probably won't even rent it on DVD, not much interest in that film.
  • 0

#3 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 02 February 2008 - 01:20 PM

What's the deal with Stallone's nose?

In stills showing him from the front, he's almost unrecognizable.
A way too long lens or HGH?
  • 0

#4 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 02 February 2008 - 05:29 PM

You can see when he's on talk shows that he's had quite a bit of work done. But it's actually well hidden in the film, just as was done in "Rocky Balboa".
  • 0

#5 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 02 February 2008 - 05:39 PM

You can see when he's on talk shows that he's had quite a bit of work done. But it's actually well hidden in the film, just as was done in "Rocky Balboa".

Comparing pictures of him from the eighties he has undergone some serious alterations. I was very impressed with stallone years ago for not taking steroids and building a great physique even training with franco columbo for rambo 2. However something changed for rambo 3. Shame because his aproach up to then had for me been very motivational.
  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 03 February 2008 - 02:04 AM

Has SAG done anything about preventing "Physique Enhancing Drugs", I wonder?
  • 0

#7 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 03 February 2008 - 12:14 PM

Lol this sounds TERRIBLE. I was actually kind of excited when the teaser leaked on aint it cool about a year ago.
  • 0

#8 klas persson

klas persson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 39 posts
  • Director
  • Bollnäs. Sweden

Posted 06 February 2008 - 05:07 PM

I'm all geard up for this one. May suck though. But if so, in a fun sort of way!
  • 0

#9 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:50 AM

It was very violent and not terribly good. However, I did get that feel watching it that I had as a kid when VHS was just new and someone at school had gotten hold of some banned copy of some violent video nasty. Rambo was like reliving the 80's again - spent at some friends carpet in front of a top loaded VHS (the Vic 64 and the Sinclair computer just beside it).

So for that sense of nostalgia, it wasn't an entirely unpleasant encounter.
  • 0

#10 Marc Alucard

Marc Alucard
  • Sustaining Members
  • 176 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 February 2008 - 02:01 PM

Has SAG done anything about preventing "Physique Enhancing Drugs", I wonder?


Ask your Governor. LOL
  • 0

#11 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 26 December 2008 - 06:56 PM

I watched this film today and I was very surprised I really thought I was going to dislike it as it cashed in on violence but not so I was surprised at just how good this was.. The violence was so realistic it was almost sickening until you realize that this is going on for REAL in Burma.. Yes its bad but one thing that is worse is NOT to show violence as real because that may glamourise it.. This does that too but in a way that is a hope for those in Burma suffering oppression.. Rambo is a voice for all those against injustice for the nobody who gets crapped on. To me this was the best of the Rambo series and Stallone is so under rated.. He directed co wrote and starred in this in fact he made the whole thing and I believe he is one amazing film maker..

What a year Indiana Jones Rocky and Rambo

Wow.
  • 0

#12 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 10 January 2009 - 01:10 PM

I know I'm late to the party on this one, but I loved it.

And I'm not even embarrassed to admit it!
  • 0

#13 James Martin

James Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 15 January 2009 - 12:31 PM

According to the Blu-Ray commentary, they were quite rushed for a few scenes and would literally run out and get shots, run along , get more etc etc...

Surprising for a $50m film.

I also felt that the whole thing felt a bit over-exposed and very harsh to my eyes, not really helped by the very hokey CG in just about every scene....
  • 0

#14 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 20 January 2009 - 07:40 PM

According to the Blu-Ray commentary, they were quite rushed for a few scenes and would literally run out and get shots, run along , get more etc etc...

Surprising for a $50m film.

I also felt that the whole thing felt a bit over-exposed and very harsh to my eyes, not really helped by the very hokey CG in just about every scene....


Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color?

The absolute best film of this genre ever.
  • 0

#15 James Martin

James Martin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 January 2009 - 02:13 PM

Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color?

The absolute best film of this genre ever.


Yes, I did notice the heads-a-popping ending scene. I was amused by the fact that Stallone seemed very big on the whole "realism" thing, yet there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic.

Don't get me wrong, I actually quite liked the film (Second best Rambo for me IMHO) but I was just disappointed by the poor CG. I saw it first on DVD and it was quite noticeable then, and doubly so on Blu-Ray. I'm just quite picky with these things I guess...
  • 0

#16 Ira Ratner

Ira Ratner
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 558 posts
  • Other
  • Coral Springs, Florida

Posted 21 January 2009 - 08:33 PM

Yes, I did notice the heads-a-popping ending scene. I was amused by the fact that Stallone seemed very big on the whole "realism" thing, yet there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic.

Don't get me wrong, I actually quite liked the film (Second best Rambo for me IMHO) but I was just disappointed by the poor CG. I saw it first on DVD and it was quite noticeable then, and doubly so on Blu-Ray. I'm just quite picky with these things I guess...


HAH!

I was just joking basically, and commenting as a viewer--not a film pro.'

It was just that after so many of these films--not to mention the Rocky ones--I expected zero, but instead, I really liked it for the action.
  • 0

#17 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 January 2009 - 03:58 AM

there's one shot I remember where a guy gets thrown something like six metres backwards by a shot to his head. Not realistic.


I can't imagine the effect being hit by a 50mm round in the bonce would have only that it would most likely just remove the head completely but certainly if the body held together would be capable of sending it flying 20' back.. Maybe the round hit something first or some other splinter type accident?
  • 0

#18 Mike Washlesky

Mike Washlesky
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 194 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin,TX

Posted 22 January 2009 - 10:17 AM

Didn't you see the arrows being shot into the enemies' eyes and balls? And their heads and limbs being blown off in glorious color?

The absolute best film of this genre ever.



Amen. Gory and pure awesomeness.
  • 0

#19 David Auner aac

David Auner aac
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 January 2009 - 02:48 PM

Hi folks,

well when I watched it on DVD a couple of days ago I wasn't expecting anything and got pretty much that. I really wondered when it was over. I had that "where was the story" kind of thing. And IMO the cinematography was really pretty lame compared to what Andrew Laszlo did on First Blood. Which I think is strange, because I liked some of MacPherson's other work. It wasn't bad at all from a conventional point of view, it just lacked some more innovative and unusual shots.

Cheers, Dave

PS:

I can't imagine the effect being hit by a 50mm round ...


Hi Mark, 50mm round? What gun is that supposed to be? Usually that kind of caliber gun uses explosive shells...
  • 0

#20 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 22 January 2009 - 03:45 PM

Hi Mark, 50mm round? What gun is that supposed to be? Usually that kind of caliber gun uses explosive shells...


http://uk.youtube.co...h?v=KT3bq1fUtEU

50mm machine gun!
  • 0


Opal

CineLab

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

The Slider

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

CineTape

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post