"Rambo: First Blood II" is a 1985 sequel to the 1982 post-vietnam drama "First Blood".
What made the original First Blood so fascinating? It wasn't overblown action and glorification of exaggerated patriotism. It was the way the movie depicted a vietnam veteran. Rambo was a traumatized man that just couldn't handle what he experienced. The movie was a critical look at war and how we see it. But this sequel here destroys everything the original movie provided. Now, the entire movie is about Rambo freeing prisoners from the "oh so bad" vietnamese guys. It turned into a racist, war-glorifying and right-winged action flick with a trivial, almost propaganda-like plot and minimal effort in acting and cinematic values. In other words: it is the opposite to the first movie, which heavily critisized war, and also was excellent in a cinematic way. Also, the action is that lengthy and over-blown that it gets rather tiring than any interesting. You can make action more fascinating than this. It is hard to believe James Cameron co-wrote the screenplay, for he is commonly known for making fairly excellent movies.
In conclusion, "Rambo: First Blood II" fails at plot, acting and action, and is not even entertaining on a low level. But the worst is its high contrast to its preceeder, and its unpleasantly conspicuous message.
(SPOILERS may follow:)
The violence is non-stop, but not too graphic.
Rambo shoots several people, with both guns and explosive arrows.
both of which is shown - sometimes resulting in visible blood.
Rambo is electroduced on a grid, and yells in pain. He is then cut under his eye.
Also, you should know that this movie has a subtle right-winged, and a strong war glorifying message.
Language is not as strong as in the first one, there is one use of the f-word, as well as some milder profanity.
Mature teens and up can handle the movie, but be aware of the bad messages.