MovieChat Forums > Rambo: Last Blood (2019) Discussion > Warning! This is not a Rambo movie! It’s...

Warning! This is not a Rambo movie! It’s Taken staring Stallone!


I wanted to like this but as a fan of the first four I was totally disappointed.

I have to wonder if this was another script and Stallone just changed the characters name to John Rambo and added a huge knife.

John Rambo is a man of few words, but in this, he likes to chat, even in Spanish!

It’s taken meets home alone and sadly unlike other Rambo movies, the audience doesn’t feel inspired to be more heroic or anything of the sort.

I have to give this 1 star.

reply

Several scripts was considered for R5. Even an alien subplot, then a genetically engineered creature to small town action film that would mirror R1. Stallone is a huge fan of Sicario and likes Sabotage and the sprit of these films inspired R5.
Script is weak and the action is un-shocking but its still an OK film.

reply

That explains it all! I remember he took the Beverly Hills Cop and tried to rewrite it as 'Cobra' and luckily they were like 'sorry, this is not your movie' and kicked him to the curb.

reply

This was news to me but I just looked it up Cobra Trivia.
Subjectively I would have loved to see a longer R5 and the silly rescue operation removed from the intro.
More gore & action in act 2 and a much longer final battle in act 3. Better CGI.

reply

yeah that rescue had no carry on to the movie at all. Just made him look like a weirdo.

reply

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Sylvester-Stallones-Rambo-Last-Blood-become-a-flop/answer/Wallace-Lee-6

My personal opinion is that with LAST BLOOD Stallone wished to show the world that he could do the same Liam Neeson did with TAKEN, or Keanu Reeves did with JOHN WICK, etc.

But since we currently are in the era of sequels / remake / reboots, his only chance of doing so and finding the producers he needed for a real Hollywood-style release was to ‘use’ the Rambo character, otherwise he wouldn’t have never found the funds he needed to make a ‘decent’ film.

The thing that disappointed me on a personal level, is that he tried this path already, and had failed already not so long ago.

The film I am talking about was BULLET TO THE HEAD, which was another box office bomb.

reply

Never saw it. I did see Now I See You, that was a flop.

reply

I feel disgust even just seeing this shit movie trending on here.

Utterly disappointed with this movie. Stallone wrecked this franchise with this random unnecessary installment. And that's what this was: ultimately unnecessary.

reply

I'll agree the script was basic as fuck - but in the end, I liked it. Was a great pleasure seeing revenge take this form of outright manslaughter in the dozens. :P

reply

I like a good revenge film... but this just had too many unliveable moments. The best part of the first Rambo was it didn't have him surviving injuries that would have actually killed him without immediate medical care... But over the years the ridiculous injuries has just turned it into a comic strip.

From a cartel leader in Mexico not just killing him to no one losing their hearing from all the explosions and gun shots in a cave... Oh and did we cartel guy is able to survive with no hear at all until he sees Rambo holding it? How can anyone suspend disbelief on this movie long enough to enjoy it... Sadly it wasn't quite bad enough to be a movie you could enjoy for its being bad, it was just a bad movie that stole an hour and half of my time.

reply

Soo, Rambo doesn't survive incredulous scenarious and injuries in the previous films? :D And I could see a sadistic person letting an old man go, to revel in his powerlessness... ;)

Don't think I've ever seen a revenge, nor action, movie, where the protagonist can't take a few gunshots/injuries and still be going strong. Most movies are stupid when held to the laws of reality.

One of my favorite "revenge flicks", Death Sentence (with Kevin Bacon), had the protagonist surviving incredible shit too, and I still loved it.

TL;DR: I rarely watch these kind of movies for their portrayal of realism. :P

reply

Clearly you didn't read what I wrote. The very first one, First Blood didn't include surviving mortal wounds, that came later along with the crazy hand holding of machine guns that are mounted on a helicopter for the simple fact that they aren't capable of being used by a solider on his shoulder...And no I don't expect pure reality... but it needs to be somewhere close to reality or it becomes a joke. The original Death Wish movie was a good revenge movie that didn't turn into a ridiculous comic book

reply

If you say so... I reckon most movies are a joke to you, it would seem.

So imo, you should probably stick to those "realistic" movies, and I'll stick with these "over the top unrealistic" ones. :D There should be room for both. ;)

I get realism every day during life, I usually don't need it in my movies! ;)

reply

"that came later along with the crazy hand holding of machine guns that are mounted on a helicopter for the simple fact that they aren't capable of being used by a solider on his shoulder"

You don't know what you're talking about. That was an M60 light machine gun, which weighs about 23 pounds (Stallone could, and can, lift 23 pounds with ease). Also, you actually saw him do it in the movie, which is proof that he can do it, obviously. There were no special effects there. That was a real M60 and he was really firing it (albeit with blanks rather than live rounds). You can clearly see the blank adapter in the muzzle in some of the scenes, like in this screen shot:

https://i.imgur.com/R08ano4.jpg

reply

What does a blank adaptor do?

reply

It allows the gun to function with blanks (blank cartridges consist of a case, primer, and powder, but no bullet). You only need a blank adapter for certain semi- or full-automatic firearms, because without one, the blanks don't have enough energy to cycle an action which is designed to be used with live ammunition. With a blank adapter you can fire the blanks in semi- or full-auto mode and it looks like you're firing live rounds, aside from there being a lot less recoil (and there are no bullets coming out of the barrel, but you can't normally see those anyway).

You don't need a blank adapter for other types of guns (e.g., typical revolvers, lever-actions, bolt-actions, pump-actions) because they don't rely on energy from the fired cartridge to cycle the action. Instead, they have a mechanism which requires you to manually cycle the action.

reply

thanks!
so in that pic its the little hole that presumably lets gases out slower and keeps some "back pressure" to cycle the mechanism?

reply

Exactly. When firing live ammunition, the bullet seals the barrel which results in gases behind it building up high pressure. In the case of a straight-blowback action (usually seen on compact, small caliber pistols [.380 ACP or less] and certain submachine guns), those high pressure gases, which are pushing rearward with the same force that they are pushing the bullet forward, push the action rearward to cycle it (the empty case acts as a piston in this case).

In the case of a gas-operated action (like the M60 that Stallone is firing in that picture), there is a hole in the barrel near the muzzle which leads into a gas tube which leads to a piston which is connected to the bolt. Some of the high-pressure gases are diverted into the gas tube which forces the piston and the bolt that's connected to it, rearward, cycling the action.

Without high-pressure gases neither system will work. Putting a restriction in the barrel to increase gas pressure duplicates the effect of a barrel-sealing bullet being in front of the gases, which solves the problem.

In the case of recoil-operated actions (typical of service pistols, 9mm Parabellum and higher), in addition to needing a restriction in the barrel, they also need to be converted to straight-blowback by using a fixed barrel (as opposed to the typical tilting barrel) with no locking lugs (because the blank cartridge doesn't have anywhere near enough recoil to cycle the action). The same thing applies to small caliber conversion kits. For example, if you buy a .22 LR conversion kit for a 1911-type pistol, it not only converts the caliber, but it converts it from a recoil-operated action to a straight-blowback action as well, and for the same reason that it needs to be done with a blank-firing adapter.

The trend in modern movies and TV shows is to use CGI to make it look like the action is cycling, like empty cases are being ejected, and like muzzle flash is coming out of the barrel, so all they need for that is off-the-shelf, unmodified firearms. I don't like that trend because it doesn't look real. Firing blanks inherently looks real because it is real (aside from the lack of recoil with the types of guns that normally have substantial recoil, but that applies even more to CGI, because they actually aren't firing anything at all from the guns).

On the other hand, it does allow for more options that would be unsafe with blanks. Blanks aren't 100% safe; those gases coming out of the muzzle can cause injury if the muzzle is close enough to someone. Plus they are loud, which can cause hearing damage if precautions aren't taken. For example:

While filming Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Hamilton suffered permanent hearing damage in one ear when she fired a gun inside an elevator without using her ear plugs.


The John Wick movies are good examples of the expanded options you get with CGI gunfire as opposed to using blanks.

reply