 | ON: Content is age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | PAUSE: Know your child; some content may not be right for some kids. |
 | OFF: Not age-appropriate for kids this age. |
 | NOT FOR KIDS: Not appropriate for kids any age. |
Rambo: First Blood Part II
- Review Date: February 1, 2008
- R
- Genre: Action/Adventure
- 1985
Common Sense Media says
Sly shoots up Vietnam in glorified '80s actioner.
Parents say
QUALITY
Kids say
QUALITY
What parents need to know
Parents need to know that there is abundant violence and killings using guns, knives, and arrows, plus grueling scenes of torture. Swearing is milder than in First Blood, but it's there, as are slight details of prostitution. Kids who don't know much about Vietnam War history probably won't be enlightened here; all that's said is "we weren't allowed to win" as Rambo burns down Indo-Chinese villages and troop convoys.
What's the story?
This sequel to First Blood was a bigger, dumber, and more financially successful action-blockbuster that opened on a then-record number of movie screens. It finds the muscleman combat-hardened Vietnam-supercommando from the first movie brought out of prison to earn a possible presidential pardon. Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) has 36 hours to be air-dropped into communist Vietnam and seek evidence that American POWs are still being held captive. But his superiors -- Yuppie white-collar types only interested in a cover-up -- don't expect him to succeed. When Rambo does find an active POW camp, the Americans abandon him to evil Russian and Viet Cong forces, and Rambo has to fight his way free -- shirtless, muscles gleaming like an oiled bodybuilder, amidst giant fireball explosions.
Is it any good?
"I just saw RAMBO; next time I'll know what to do," famously said President Ronald Reagan, conferring a White House blessing on this action smash-hit. John Rambo, a tragic and mostly human-sized character in the first movie, got peddled aggressively as a Tarzan/Davey Crockett/G.I. Joe combo to 1980s kids, soon showing up in a weekly TV cartoon. Rambo: First Blood Part 2 is cartoonish, and in a B-movie way. When the unstoppable Rambo (he just ignores bullets fired his way half the time) kills a whole Soviet patrol one by one, in a different camouflage disguise/gimmick one edit to the next, you remember Bugs Bunny doing stuff like that to Elmer Fudd or Daffy.
Plus tie-ins with Vietnam War reality, and the melancholy legend maintained by conspiracy-thinkers, that U.S. POWs still languished in enemy hands, seem tactless -- if you take it seriously. If you do scratch below the surface, you may find this overly simplistic message: The U.S. military -- in Rambo's case, one warrior -- could have won Vietnam, or any conflict, if "they" (who? Liberals? Jews? Jane Fonda? Freemasons and Illuminati?) hadn't sabotaged the effort.
What families can talk about
Families can talk about why Rambo was so popular in the 1980s, when USSR occupation troops could still be found in Afghanistan, Poland, East Germany, and other Cold-War hotspots. Do you think Rambo helped the image of Vietnam veterans (often portrayed by Hollywood as dysfunctional down-and-outs) or was it just another pernicious stereotype? Some critics called Stallone's action movies "fascist" in their glorification of pumped-up white patriots with big guns/fists putting the smackdown on foreign foes. What do you think now?
- Show:
- All members
- Parents
- Teens & kids
AGE
IT IS GD FOR TWEENS THAT ARE 16 AND UP
I loved this movie becuz it was sooo violent But I don't kids under 14.to watch it becuz it is too violent and has language inappropriate for kidz
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Good but a little IFFY
This movie was pretty good. There was a lot of violence but nothing Really Really bad. Just a lot of blood. For one example I remember an arrow being shot through a mans forehead. The language was a little inopropriate. I have not seen this movie in a while but I think they said the F word at least once.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
A more violent, cartoonish, boring movie than the first
This film was boring, very violent, piece of crap. It looked good, but was not. It was very dumb. Get Rambo 3 if you want more boring, violent piece of crap. I say rent it
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Great Movie 13+
Well it has a strong message about GI`s coming back from wars with emotional problems. Rambo kills one person because he was shooting at him and harms defensively but not kill people trying to hunt him down. must see movie
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
This movie isnt bad
One of my favorite war movies.
Was this review useful?
|
|
AGE
Lame but classic action movie with lots of over-the-top violence.
This is a brainless action movie with lots of explosions and shooting, but I can't deny that it's a classic in the lone-wolf genre.
Violence: much more than the first. Lots of shooting with sprays of blood and bullet holes. Several people are shot with arrows - one at close-range in the face. Rambo stabs several people with his knife and in one instance we see blood dribble down his hand. Countless people are enveloped in explosions. Rambo shoots an explosive arrow into a man's chest and the man blows up. Plenty of hand-to-hand combat.
Sex: a prostitute is shown. We see a woman presumably naked, but her knees and below is all that's visible.
Language: one f-word and several uses each of "h**l," "d**n," "b**t**d," "s**t," and religious profanities.
Was this review useful?
|
|
| Studio: | Lionsgate |
| Director: | George Pan Cosmatos |
| Cast: | Charles Napier, Richard Crenna, Sylvester Stallone |
| Genre: | Action/Adventure |
| Run time: | 98 minutes |
| Theatrical release date: | May 22, 1985 |
| DVD release date: | November 23, 2004 |
| MPAA rating: | R |
Review It
Great alternatives handpicked by our editors
Already seen it? What do you think?
More from Common Sense Media
Top advice and articles
