Worst to First: Ranking the Sequels of 1988


5. Rambo III
Rotten Tomato Score: 40%
Domestic Gross: $53,715,611

Place in Franchise: 3 of 4
Years Since Last Movie: 3
Actors Replaced: It’s a Rambo movie.  Only Sylvester Stallone and Richard Crenna carry on from one film to the next.
Summary: Following Rocky, Sylvester Stallone had a tough time finding a hit.  In 1982, First Blood was modestly successful.  So a sequel was concocted in which Stallone’s Vietnam vet would return to wage a one-man war and save POW’s who had been abandoned by the country they served.  The sequel, Rambo: First Blood Part II, was pure fantasy but it struck a nerve with a country that was still grappling with the events of Vietnam.  Rambo became the second highest-grossing of 1985 behind Back to the Future.  Right behind it was Rocky IV in which Stallone further stuck it to America’s enemies.
The third movie in the series, with a title shortened to Rambo III, was a bigger production than the previous entries.  Stallone compared it to a military operation.  Unhappy with the script and the director, Stallone took charge.  He fired director  Russel Mulcahy and several members of the crew weeks into filming.  According to Stallone, the creative differences boiled down to a disagreement over casting the Russian extras:

He went to Israel two weeks before me with the task of casting two dozen vicious looking Russian troops. These men were suppose to make your blood run cold. When I arrived on the set, what I saw was two dozen blond, blue-eyed pretty boys that resembled rejects from a surfing contest. Needless to say Rambo is not afraid of a little competition but being attacked by third rate male models could be an enemy that could overwhelm him. I explained my disappointment to Russell and he totally disagreed, so I asked him and his chiffon army to move on.

Russell’s replacement was Peter MacDonald.  MacDonald had never directed a movie before, but he served as a second unit director on Rambo II.  MacDonald had the good sense to let the star call the shots.  After running into too many restrictions on location in Isreal, production relocated to Arizona where Civil War re-enactors were called upon to film desert battle scenes.
At the time of its release, Rambo III held the record for the most violent film ever made, with “221 acts of violence, at least 70 explosions, and over 108 deaths.”
A big part of what made Rambo II a hit was timing.  The third movie could not have been timed much worse.  The story had Rambo teaming up with Mujahideen fighters against the Russians.  But the Cold War was thawing as Mikhail Gorbachev began implementing glasnost.  Ten days before the release of Rambo III, Soviet troops began withdrawing from Afghanistan.  That sucked the urgency right out of the movie.
The movie ends with a dedication to “the gallant people of Afghanistan”.  There is an Internet Urban Legend that says the dedication originally read “to the brave Mujahideen fighters of Afghanistan.”  Supposedly the change was made post-9/11 due to links between the Mujahideen fighters and Al Qaeda.  While the links are true, the dedication was never that specific.
Rambo III ended up grossing roughly a third of what the previous movie made.  (Not that he likely cared, but Stallone added to his Golden Raspberry count.)  Failing to recoup its budget, Rambo III ended the series.  Of course Stallone being Stallone, he revived it 20 years later with the confusingly titled Rambo.

Next: Hellbound: Hellraiser II

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jeffthewildman
6 years ago

None of the sequels were anywhere near great. A few were passable. I did like Rambo III better than First Blood Part 2, because it wasn’t overrun with all the jingoism that was so prevalent in that one.

jeffthewildman
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

Right. Although I did like it better, It’s not a movie I feel the urge to go back to. Of the four Ramboes, First Blood is the only one I re-visit every once in a while.

jeffthewildman
6 years ago
Reply to  jeffthewildman

You are correct about it being off the charts in terms of violence. It wasn’t the comic book violence of the 2nd and third either. It was stretch that R rating violence. I’d rank it lower than First Blood and very slightly ahead of III. But on the whole, Rambo could’ve stayed retired. Yeah, the speech at the end of First Blood is one aspect that should’ve been left out. It did indicate that jingoistic cartoon direction the series would take from that point on. ,

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

The only sequel in this whole thing that I like is THE DEAD POOL. What a year of stinky sequels!

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I count 15 sequels from 1998, with slightly better choices overall. There are quite a few stinkers though.

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I can’t wait until we do 2017 and cover its 40 sequels!

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

Ha ha! Lebeau, Jr.?

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

2017 had 21 sequels in the top 50 of highest box office grossers.

jestak2
Editor
6 years ago

Now this is a really thin crop of sequels. The Dead Pool is watchable, and some people find it at least better than the previous Dirty Harry film. I will probably get to Return to Snowy River some day, as I have always liked the first film in the series. Since I’m not really into horror films none of the horror franchise installments are familiar to me. And the remainder are mostly films that would induce me to turn the TV off if I stumbled into watching them—there aren’t even any of them that qualify as cheesy-fun movies.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago

This might be the worst batch of sequels that I have ever seen – and the fact that they all come from the same year is mindboggling. I would agree with what a couple other readers stated before, The Dead Pool is the only film on this list that is at least watchable. Far from great, but at least watchable. Oh, that reminds me, the bandmembers of Guns N’ Roses make a quick cameo, in the funeral scene if I remember correctly. You cannot miss Slash’s black tophat in the crowd.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

A better year, sure, but no Guns N’ Roses cameos in funeral scenes either.

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago

I have a deep, unbiding love for the original Arthur film; it’s such a sweetly charming comedy, and Dudley, Liza and John Gielgud are delightful in it, the Oscar wins and nominations (Gielgud, Dudley, Best Song and Screenplay) were all well earned in my eyes. Its one of those personal favorites that I always return to every few years. To be honest, I’ve always heard what a lousy movie Arthur 2: On The Rocks was and have just always avoided it like the plague. I figure why tarnish my appreciation for the original? Would it be hyperbole to suggest Caddyshack… Read more »

Craig Hansen
Craig Hansen
6 years ago
Reply to  lebeau

I didn’t learn about the original plan for Ramis to write and Rodney Dangerfield to star until more recently, and I have to admit at least on paper I kinda do wish that had happened. Who knows, maybe it would have worked, maybe it wouldn’t have. But I do know that Dangerfield was on fire in the original Caddyshack. Also, nothing could ever be worse than the actual Caddyshack II that we got, so there’s that too. What do you think Lebeau, could a sequel starring Rodney, written by Ramis, have possibly worked? What’s your opinion on that?

robbushblog
robbushblog
6 years ago

The only good thing about CADDYSHACK II was Dyan Cannon. She was sexy in it. That’s it though. It has no other quality.

0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x