Rambo is the most poorly titled entry in a series of movies that could nearly be defined by the stupidness of their titles. No offense of course to First Blood, of course. Rambo was already a kind of silly title for "First Blood Part II" frankly. I'd say "Return Fire" would be a good title on a number of levels, but admittedly not commercial. Rambo III is as ridiculous a title as it is a movie.
Frustrating that the fourth movie is given what amounts to being the same title as the second movie. I don't know how it affected the business of the movie in theaters, but I suspect it will be awkward in terms of its shelf life as a catalog movie. The rather redundant "John Rambo" title, following the format begun with Rocky Balboa, was mocked in many circles, but still would have been preferable.
It's too bad. It's actually the best of the three sequels actually, and demonstrates a fair amount of thought on Stallone's part. I would have kept at least half of the deleted scenes, but overall a good show.
Otherwise, in local news, I just wanted to note that, following The Saga of Lindy West, that I've found I vastly prefer her new column, "Concessions", to her reviews in general, although I'd gotten the hang of the format... in fact, I got past the "hang" and beyond into finding them tediously alike. I suspect others had a similar reaction, as the column keeps her from having to use her rhetorical style on a specific movie every week, as such keeping the style from stagnating as it seemed to for a time.
This week she writes Medium Uncool - I'm forced to wonder whose pun the headline is, a terribly amusing account of seeing Battle in Seattle, the new movie written and directed by Stuart Townsend, at SIFF.
I do think that the criticism lobbied at Townsend's silly and hyperbolic claim that the movie is "as indie as it gets" may be a bit harsh. Certainly indie heroes John Cassavetes and John Sayles have similarly strong Hollywood connections in their lives outside making indie movies.
Not that the movie, which she describes as "condescending, sentimental agitprop", sounds like anything I'd like, especially considering the characterization of "Movie Gary Locke's claaazy accent", seemingly also prodded at in The New Column!.
And finally in other news of The Stranger, making my post title slightly inaccurated, a couple of weeks back they featured A Review of Kirby: King of Comics by Jonah Spangenthal-Lee. He did not care for the book, as it goes. I disagree, but that's just opinion.
Unfortunately, he concludes by saying, "Kirby: King of Comics is worth the scratch for the art alone -- the beautifully recolored and cleaned-up oversize art is sure to simultaneously class and nerd up any coffee table -- but Evanier never manages to make Kirby's life more interesting than the accompanying pictures."
Wow! Could anyone live up to that standard?!
I mean, Evanier continues to work on a multi-volume Kirby biography that will be, as he says, everything he knows about Kirby. But I somehow doubt even that could be "more interesting than" Kirby's art. That's a nearly impossible standard to set, rendering, for me, the review itself nothing more than a pitiful joke.
Have fun, kids!