User Score
8.4

Universal acclaim- based on 373 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 30 out of 373
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. JimK.
    Jan 25, 2008
    1
    First Blood is a distant, distant memory. This movie is one giant bloody mess. Gone is an interesting story. Gone is any hint of excitement. Gone is the soul that existed in the first film. I wouldn't watch this again even if you payed me $50. Worst Movie I have ever seen in a theater.
  2. ChadS
    Jan 27, 2008
    0
    "Rambo" is the work of a desparate actor/filmmaker, who missed a golden opportunity to dig deep; to finally make amends with his big payday-motivated career choices and corresponding downward trajectory in popularity. The financially successful "First Blood", and its blockbuster follow-up, probably ruined his reputation as an actor like how "Smokey & the Bandit" made Burt Reynolds "Rambo" is the work of a desparate actor/filmmaker, who missed a golden opportunity to dig deep; to finally make amends with his big payday-motivated career choices and corresponding downward trajectory in popularity. The financially successful "First Blood", and its blockbuster follow-up, probably ruined his reputation as an actor like how "Smokey & the Bandit" made Burt Reynolds likewise, a washed-up A-lister, and industry laughingstock(before Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights"). Instead of living up to his "the next Marlon Brando" billing, Sylvester Stallone made films like "Over the Top" and "Tango & Cash", which would later lead his nadir, "Stop! Or My Mom Will Shoot"(w/Estelle Getty). It wasn't until James Mangold's "Copland" did audiences remember that Sylvester Stallone was indeed an actor, not just a celebrity. "Rambo", to my disappointment, is no meditation on violence like "Unforgiven"(in which Clint Eastwood returned to the western as a older, wiser actor/filmmaker); this fourth installment of the John Rambo saga is shockingly reductive. What little artistry that remains in the mind's eye of this filmmaker, based on this witless display of bang, bang, bang, and ka-boom, was spent on the nostalgia-heavy "Rocky Balboa". The violence on display here is supposed to be justified by its social consciousness; its global citizenry duty of shedding light on the social upheaval in southern Asia. Yeah, right; as if this movie's target audience gives a rat's ass about Burma. "Rambo" is pared down to the genre's essentials; blood and explosions, made reprehensible by its purported dilligence in political awareness. Expand
  3. ErnieL.
    Feb 14, 2008
    3
    Ultra violence and gore is campy now? What a waste of time. Stallone's worst acting performance, ever.
  4. MattCohen
    Mar 10, 2008
    0
    total crap :/
  5. bambam
    Feb 12, 2008
    2
    Good graphics no story no point not like any other Rambo. Unfortunately made me uncomfortable like Stallone ran out of money and is taking his past successes out for another spin
  6. DeanV.
    Jan 26, 2008
    1
    Terrible......disgusting and idiotic.
  7. BenJ.
    Jan 28, 2008
    3
    Is there really something to enjoy in what basically amounts to a Burmese snuff film? The action scenes were all technically well done. The scenes were never confusing and reminiscent of 80's actioners in feel. The action continually ups the ante in terms of both excitement and gore. The violence is never bogged down by a deep plot. But that may be the problem right there. Everything Is there really something to enjoy in what basically amounts to a Burmese snuff film? The action scenes were all technically well done. The scenes were never confusing and reminiscent of 80's actioners in feel. The action continually ups the ante in terms of both excitement and gore. The violence is never bogged down by a deep plot. But that may be the problem right there. Everything around the action scenes was deeply troubling. The dialogue and the acting was all pretty terrible, but the half-hearted attempt at some sort of morality was what is really disturbing about this film. And before anyone says "Dude, it's Rambo, don't go searching for deeper meanings," I am just responding to what Stallone as writer and director put in the movie. It's in there, so I am going to comment on it. I will say that I am glad there was at least an attempt at some sort of commentary or deeper meaning, because otherwise it would've been just an almost pornographic series of gruesome killings. However, the morality of film is so muddled that I'm not convinced Stallone even knew what he was trying to say. Violence solves everything? Don't try to make positive change? You can't change your nature? What? And I don't even want to get into the implications regarding race in the movie. The film ends up being completely soulless. The action is impressive, but only for the fact that it is completely relentless. The film tries so desperately to make all the violence about something, but ultimately fails, and the audience is left wondering what the point was. Expand
  8. Jack
    Jan 29, 2008
    2
    Lots of intense, explicit action. Don't get me wrong I loved First Blood and action movies, but this movie is so bad that we were laughing out loud in the theater! The movie shouldn't be taken very seriously anyway, though, since it is so dumb. We actually have a club that nominates the dumbest movies each year, vote, and then go see it all together. So far this film is leading Lots of intense, explicit action. Don't get me wrong I loved First Blood and action movies, but this movie is so bad that we were laughing out loud in the theater! The movie shouldn't be taken very seriously anyway, though, since it is so dumb. We actually have a club that nominates the dumbest movies each year, vote, and then go see it all together. So far this film is leading our tally by a wide margin. Looks like I will be seeing it again. High comedy! Expand
  9. Jul 1, 2013
    3
    What's good about First Blood is that not only is it one of the best action movie of the 80s, it's also an emotional portrayal of the psychological after-effects of the Vietnam War. Rambo tries to re-integrate into society, the challenge that's face by many American veterans, and Stallone was brilliant as Rambo.

    After the success of the first film, it spins bad to mediocre sequels and
    What's good about First Blood is that not only is it one of the best action movie of the 80s, it's also an emotional portrayal of the psychological after-effects of the Vietnam War. Rambo tries to re-integrate into society, the challenge that's face by many American veterans, and Stallone was brilliant as Rambo.

    After the success of the first film, it spins bad to mediocre sequels and Rambo is one of them. The war may be fictionalized but at least make it believable like First Blood. There is no new ideas in Rambo, just more mindless violence. A film that values money over imagination, fan boys just eat it up without even realizing that Rambo is not as deep as First Blood. Therefore, it's not as good.

    More violence, killing (236 guys) and gore doesn't make it good or better. The final action sequence is just stupid, it's just Rambo on a machine gun shooting down guys for about 10 minutes. Anyone could have come up with that! This is not the worst Rambo film, Rambo III is, but it does suck. Not seen Rambo: First Blood Part II but who cares, it's not highly cerebral.
    Expand
  10. Nov 14, 2013
    0
    I dont consider this as an sequel or even an Rambo movie praticular. And this coming from an guy who grew up with the Rambo series. And having Stallone as one of my all time favorite movie stars. This movie was literally an mess. Some say its better than the previous movies. Just shows how the generation gets dumber over the years. Now gore is standard in action movies? I can watch all theI dont consider this as an sequel or even an Rambo movie praticular. And this coming from an guy who grew up with the Rambo series. And having Stallone as one of my all time favorite movie stars. This movie was literally an mess. Some say its better than the previous movies. Just shows how the generation gets dumber over the years. Now gore is standard in action movies? I can watch all the Rambo movies over and over. I couldnt watch this movie even when you paid me. Expand
Metascore
46

Mixed or average reviews - based on 26 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 6 out of 26
  2. Negative: 7 out of 26
  1. 63
    In the Rambo canon, where does this one fit? The tone is closer to "First Blood" but the body count is more "Rambo III." No matter how one dices and slices this new Rambo, the first one in 20 years, it will likely please fans of the long-in-the-tooth series.
  2. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    60
    Stallone (who looks fit but mostly keeps his shirt on) has no intention of bogging the action down, but it's still a notably cheerless exercise, without knowing winks or stabs (pardon the expression) at humor. It is in all respects, rather, a completely workmanlike effort.
  3. In short, No. 4 is one big snore.