Is it because it was better publicised, marketed etc. Or is it because it played as a Vietnam war revenge film? It's certainly more action packed. Any thoughts?
I wrote a review for the film with a few points in it. NO spoilers, if you want to check it out.
http://garethrhodes.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/rambo-first-blood-part-ii -1985-film-review-by-gareth-rhodes/
The main reason this one is the best remembered is because it showcased Rambo as an action hero. This is the one where he puts on his red bandana, heads into the jungle and mows down hundreds of bad guys with chainguns and ammo strapped to his chest, which is the iconic image of Rambo that everybody refers to. It shows the meaning of the term "Ramboing it" or the like. First Blood was a different kind of film and was not about mowing down bad guys, as a matter of fact I think only one guy dies in FB.
share"II" was just a Reagan-era, jingoistic, let's-re-fight-Vietnam-and-win wet dream for the far right. And, James Cameron wrote it, so it must reflect his "values."
sharePretty sure James Cameron is a liberal. And I don’t buy what someone said earlier about how First Blood showed the horrors of war and it just wasn’t the right film for the 1980s, Platoon came out in 1986, was a huge hit and won best picture
shareCameron claimed that Stallone "wrote the politics" of First Blood Part II, but if you read his draft you can see that's a bit of a stretch. Cameron has had a left-leaning public profile in recent years, but Aliens and True Lies suggest his mindset may have changed over time about a few things.
shareI don’t think it has become more iconic. I think only that the “Rambo” name has become more recognized, because our species is rife with simpletons.
sharemaybe because it's not a s heavy as the first film. it's cheesier and easier to watch and cheer rambo on knowing he's gonna win, than the first which is more edge of your seat / is he gonna be ok ? type of film.
share