What have you watched recently? 3D!

Strangers on a Train - 1951.

Two men meet on a train. One has a problem with his wife. The other has a problem with his father, and suggests they swap murders.

There are lots of twists and turns in this Hitchcock film (and one beautiful rug pull), and some brilliant shots as well for good measure.

For a film nearly 75 years old, it feels very sharp and fresh - highly recomended.

Army of Shadows (L'Armée des ombres) 1969

Directed by Jean-Pierre Melville, on one level this is about a man who escapes from Gestapo headquarters in Paris where he is to be interrogated on his resistance activity, and then looks to track down who betrayed him.

On a more fundamental level, it is an unflinching account of resistance activity in Nazi occupied France. On the original release, there was a backlash against it as it refuses to romanticize or celebrate it's protagonists, but rather to show the grim reality of the zero sum game that a lot of them were engaged in.

It's a grounded story that will leave you with a lot to think on.

The Mission (1986)

This is a film I knew by reputation (an iconic soundtrack), and casting.

Jeremy Irons plays a Jesuit priest who travels to the Guarani lands in South America with the purpose of converting the natives to Christianity. The mission is under threat by the transfer of the land from Spain to Portugal, and the pressure of the slave trade leaves the church in the middle and puts the mission itself at threat.

The performances from Irons and DeNiro are really strong, and Ray McNally is also excellent in his role as Cardinal Altamirano. The film is visually stunning, and the soundtrack by Morricone is rightly recognized as one of the greatest of all time.

All that said, the script, and the handling of the subject matter as a whole is what lets the film down. The characters (including the natives) are portrayed in really broad strokes and there is a savior narrative at play that presents these type of missions in wholly positive light.

That aside, this is very strong film on the nature of faith, of power, and the choices people make to respond to that.

‘Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade’

The third movie in the Indiana Jones series has always been troublesome for me, despite its popularity amongst fans of the franchise. To be fair it is a good film, but it’s one that has many, many, flaws that are possibly glossed over because I’d say that most people simply remember the movie as the one with Indy’s dad. And it’s that angle that’s one of the most entertaining aspects of it, with a genuinely charming turn by Sean Connery as Henry Jones Sr. 

“We named the dog Indiana”.

However, right off the bat the film starts out with issues featuring an opening that depicts a day in the life of young Indiana Jones (River Phoenix) that’s a showcase for all the accoutrements that we know about the character. On the day in question Indy becomes the recipient of his bull whip, his chin scar (courtesy of his new whip) and his famous fedora. It’s all a bit too much and it comes off clumsily, never once feeling like anything to do with Indiana Jones. It ends up being a 10 minute chase sequence that just delays the movie that the audience actually came to see.

Once we’re into the film proper we settle down to more familiar Indy territory in a story that sees him and his father, along with (poor) Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliot) and Sallah Mohammed Faisel el-Kahir (John Rhys Davies) engage in a bit of globe trotting to seek out the cup of Christ which they have to get hold of it before the Nazis do. 

And dragging out the Nazis again is another strike against the movie, because it makes the film feel somewhat like a bit of a retread, whereas ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’ felt original. They’re also laughably goofy which steals all of their menace resulting in a lukewarm feel.

That goofiness is littered throughout the movie and is the single standout reason why I consider Last Crusade to be the worst (or least good) film in the original trilogy. There was humour sprinkled in the two previous films for sure, but it was never overbearing. Unfortunately the third film goes over the top with attempts at comedy, many of which just don’t work. Sequences such as Indy cracking the marble floor of a Venetian library which makes the old librarian think he’s making a racket stamping library books, or “no ticket” scene where Indy throws a Nazi bad guy out of a Zeppelin are just not needed in a film such as this. That kind of stuff may not look out of place in a Monty Python movie or a Mel Brooks farce, but here it’s just so ill fitting because the humour is cheap slapstick that belongs in a different film. And that kind of humour isn’t limited to the two scenes mentioned, it happens throughout the running time.

The reason why the comedy fails, though, is largely down to the two main drivers of the movie, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, who are just not funny men. They are imaginative guys, for sure, and each responsible for some incredible movies (Spielberg moreso of course), but being a writer and a director of comedy scenes is certainly not their forte, as is evident by Spielberg’s comedy effort ‘1941’ (his only true flop) and Lucas’s sequel trilogy comic relief character, the much hated (and rightly so) Jar Jar Binks. One also gets the impression that the inclusion of so much slapstick was almost an apology for the previous movie. But it’s a grovelling one.

The story, too, is quite poor and the quest for the Holy Grail feels again like trying to capture the essence of ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ which also featured a magical holy relic MacGuffin. But it doesn’t really gel in the same way the first movie did. The final act is also another reason why Last Crusade is the lesser of the original three movies. The idea that an immortal Crusader Knight has spent hundreds of years just hanging around a cave minding a bunch of grails is really rather stupid, even for an Indiana Jones adventure. The ending of Raiders was, of course, absolute madness and Temple of Doom’s mine cart roller-coaster ride pushed the boundaries of believability for sure even it was exhilarating. But what the hell was that Knight doing all day?

Finally, the film also feels very cheap at times in a way that the previous two did not. Both Raiders and Temple of Doom always felt like they were in the locations they claimed the were. But some scenes in the Last Crusade look and feel like they were shot on a sound stage. The fight on the boat where Indy recovers the Cross of Coronado never looks like it isn’t shot in the tank at Paramount, and places like Walter Donovan’s office look like they were made with a TV show budget and not the biggest budgeted production in the series at that time. Sound stages were used in both previous films, of course, but the Well of Souls or the Temple of Doom itself never felt fake.

It’s major plus, though, is centred on the inclusion of Jones’ dad whose obsession with the Holy Grail and knowledge of Grail lore acts as a sufficient reason for his being there in the first place. Sean Connery delivers a subtle, but fitting, portrayal as Jones Sr. with his admonishing of Indy never being overstated and done with some wit. For instance when he finds out that Indy has brought his Grail diary with him to Europe after he mailed it back to the States so it wouldn’t fall into the hands of the Nazis, he reprimands his son and says “I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers”. And when Indy is all chuffed with himself after he dispatches a German motorcyclist he finds that his dad is glaring at him disapprovingly while he starts fiddling with his pocket watch. It’s those little father and son moments that are the film’s biggest strength and they’re handled beautifully, with the Spielbergian schmaltz kept to a minimum. But Henry Jones Sr. comes off as easily the most beloved supporting character of the series. 

“You call this archaeology?”

Also very good is Ireland’s own Alison Doody who acts as Indy’s squeeze and femme fetale Dr. Elsa Schneider. Doody offers something different to Marion Ravenwood and Willie Scott, even if her character ends up being a little obvious and the real relationship of focus is the one between Jones and his old man. But she fleshes out the other supporting characters well enough, with the bad guys satisfactorily handled by Julian Glover and Michael Byrne.

‘Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade’ is an entertaining movie. But as a result of some poor decision making with regards to humour and an ill-advised desire not too offend, the film loses much of the impact that made ‘Raiders of the Lost Ark’ and ‘Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’ so great. There’s also a curious dullness to the movie’s action sequences too, and they never reach the heights of the first two pictures, apart from the tank scene in the final third. Not something that one would expect in an Indiana Jones movie.

Over all, though, Last Crusade acted as a fitting end to a highly recommended trilogy, and once the heroes rode off into the sunset the curtain was suitably brought down on a generally great series of movies.

That was until 19 years later and the unsteady resurrection of the series with ‘Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull’ which, along with ‘Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny’, completely failed to rekindle the magic spectacle of the original trio.

5/10

*Some mild spoilers.

'Frankenstein'

Over my 50 years I've seen more adaptations of Mary Shelley's classic novel than any other tome. None of them have ever really captured the book in it's entirety, whether it's the 1931 James Whale classic, the Hammer version from 1958, Kenneth Brannagh's 1994 attempt or any number of Frankenstein's that have been filmed, and Guillermo Del Toro's epic is no different in that regard. Of course no movie will ever be put on screen without numerous changes to the source material and Shelley's story may be difficult to adapt because of its structure and pacing.

What Del Toro's movie does attempt to capture, in amongst the numerous changes he's made to the story, is the loneliness of the monster and it's feelings of abandonment by it's "father" after Victor Frankenstein becomes completely disillusioned with his creation. Oscar Isaac and Jacob Elordi do well to get that point across, even if it does eventually become arduous. Unfortunately the rest of Del Toro's 'Frankenstein' is a bloated, crashing, bore and has to be one of the most tedious films I've sat down to in a long, long, time.

After an exciting opening based on a Danish ship stranded in the North Pole 'Frankenstein' then settles down and unfolds in an excruciating 150 minutes taking its time getting to the point of anything. Split into two parts Del Toro lets Victor tell his tale to the Danish captain and then, subsequently, we get to hear the creature's version of events. But the pacing of the movie is awful and everything is dragged out interminably.

I'll admit to not really being a fan of Del Toro's movies, though, and his version of 'Frankenstein' is no different. I find it difficult to put my finger on exactly why I am always disappointed by his work while recognising that the Mexican director is a good film maker. But his stuff just never moves me. I've seen everything he's made from 1992's 'Cronos' to this latest effort and I am always left feeling very underwhelmed. 'Frankenstein' lacks any kind of urgency and ticks by at such a laborious rhythm that its two and a half hours feel much more than that. Even the central scene of the creature's creation is rendered in a dull fashion and like the bulk of the movie is terribly uninteresting.

Not every section of the movie is dull, though, and there's some entertaining passages such as the aforementioned Arctic opening, Victor's demonstration to the Royal College of Medicine, and the creature's doomed friendship with an old blind man. But it's not enough to offset the deathly slow movement of the rest of the film.

There's some curious changes to Shelley's novel in the mix as well. Del Toro makes Victor a repulsive character, a man whose own daddy issues have transformed him into a poor father himself. The young Victor (Christian Convery) is relentlessly disciplined by his father, Baron Leopold Frankenstein (played by Charles Dance for the second time in ten years), and in turn he uses his own dubious parenting methods on the creature, berating it for only knowing one word. His creator's name. Whereas in the novel Victor is more sympathetic and naïve despite the fact that he is unable to show his creation any compassion, empathy or understanding. Book Victor rejects his creation almost instantly, too, but he isn't nasty to it like Isaac's version of the character is. Which is why, in the novel, when the creature enacts it's vengeful rampage it's shocking. That part is also largely absent from Del Toro's movie in which he clearly wants the audience to connect with the monster rather than the man who made it. But this always feels quite forced and never organically developed.

Apart from the slow movement of the picture there is some extremely poor CGI effects on display as well. The wolves who attack the old blind man in particular were almost laughable. And there was also something about Oscar Isaac's accent that was very off putting. Mia Goth's accent, too, sounded quite bizarre and she came off as someone from foreign shores trying her best to do a toffee nosed English accent. All the more bizarre because she is English.

In any case, and regardless of my own feelings on the movie, it seems that Del Toro's version of 'Frankenstein' is striking a chord with reviewers and audiences alike. So it appears I'm in a minority view. Maybe it's one to revisit at a later date to reassess.

4/10

Big long scattered rundown of my past few weeks:

Layer Cake, 2004

Was dreading this one a little bit as I’m not exactly Matthew Vaughn’s biggest fan but I had a really good time with it, I think his style can be a little over-indulgent but as his debut feature this one really works, can totally see why this swayed them towards Daniel Craig for Bond. Carlito’s Way if it was English.

4/5

Drive, 2011

Not a first watch, still as good as ever, chills every time the soundtrack kicks in.

4.5/5

Saw, 2004

Also not a first watch, also still great. I enjoy all the Saw movies in a “trashy movie marathon” kind of way, but the original is legitimately good and really stands apart from the others, namely in how it’s not actually all that gruesome. It’s a lot less “gory torture porn” than the other movies and builds to some genuinely tense moments. As much as they ran it into the ground the twist ending is still fantastically executed.

4/5

Romeo + Juliet, 1996

I thought this movie was really dumb when I was younger, now I adore it. It’s stunning to look at, the performances are so strong (Leo, Danes, Perrineau, and Leguizamo in particular) , the Shakespearean humour is adapted and performed in such a way that all the jokes had me laughing. It’s got the most famous ending of any story ever and I still found it tugging at my heart. I totally get this not being someone’s style (much like as above I understand others like Matthew Vaughn’s stylings despite my hatred) but it’s right up my alley.

5/5

American Pie 1, 2, & 3, 1999-2003

I’ll just throw the three of these together really quick.

American Pie: A legitimately solid raunchy comedy coming of age type story. Characters experience growth, learn lessons, and have actual arcs at no expense to the over the top gross out humour.

3/5

American Pie 2: A rehash of the first one, not as good, not as much heart, but still nowhere near the depths they would one day reach just yet. This is the one I would’ve seen most when I was young so I have a slight soft spot for it.

2.5/5

American Wedding: Brutal. I read after watching that this was just a generic “Bachelor Party movie” script that was adapted into an American Pie movie in order to get funded, no surprise there as it’s so far removed from the other 2. Clearly this is when Sean William Scott was at his peak because he is fully the main character in this one. Half the cast don’t return even though the plot could use them, half the characters that do return have literally nothing to do.

1.5/5 (and 1.0 of that goes exclusively to Eugene Levy)

Phone Booth, 2002

Colin Farrell saying outrageous stuff in his most half-Irish half-American accent for 80 minutes, Kiefer Sutherland channeling Kevin Spacey on the phone, Forest Whitaker playing the hostage negotiator who can’t stop bringing up his divorce. This one was a lot of fun, great little flick that doesn’t overstay its welcome, definitely one I could see myself watching again.

3.5/5

Drag Me To Hell, 2009

Sam Raimi doesn’t miss, some good scares, some great laughs, some really disgustingly gross out moments, a great ending. Near perfect horror movie.

4.5/5

Bram Stoker’s Dracula, 1992

Another one of those movies that I know scenes from entirely through The Simpsons. Yes the accents truly are as bad as everyone has been saying for 33 years, but my god is there a lot to like here. Some of the most gorgeous imagery I’ve ever seen put on a screen, Coppola loves a slow dissolve and this movie has some of his best. Dracula’s shadow effects had me giddy with how well done they were. A really great atmospheric piece that is going right into the annual October watch list.

4.5/5

Misery, 1990

One of my favourite horror movies, there’s so much good to be said for it. Kathy Bates is electric, terrifying, imposing, hilarious, pathetic, and highly-quotable. One of my top individual performances of all time. She’s not the only one on top form here though, James Caan is excellent in what could have been a very limiting role. Buster is one of the greatest horror movie cops in history too. I always find it hysterical that Annie’s ideal “Misery Returns” novel is just nonsense fanservice tripe, very prescient…

5/5

Back To The Future, 1985

Been one of my favourites since I was very young, first time getting to see it in a theatre for its 40th anniversary. The sequels are just fine, and it works well as a trilogy, but the original is just such a classic, one of the best scripts Hollywood has ever produced. It was also really nice to see that the theatre was both 1. Packed, and 2. Full of young kids who all seemed to have a great time. This movie is timeless, no pun intended.

5/5

Rounders, 1998

Ed Norton is so good at playing sleazy fcuk-ups. John Malkovich is such a good actor that he makes the worst accent of all time almost believable. Fun movie.

3.5/5

28 Days Later, 2002

Thought it was excellent, I wasn’t expecting it to be so dark (especially the “we promised them women” stuff), there’s a real feeling of hopelessness throughout much of it. I really like how the movie looks, I believe it was one of the first fully digitally-shot movies and that definitely lends to the look, parts of this movie felt straight up like watching a snuff film.

4.5/5

Sorry To Bother You, 2018

Another I’ve seen before and absolutely love, Boots Riley has such a unique voice, there’s very little like this. So much style, powerful imagery, sharp commentary, really good comedy. Quite possibly my favourite movie of the 2010s.

5/5

Gravity, 2013

I love Alfonso Cuaron, this is definitely no Children of Men but it’s still a very good movie. Cuaron’s classic long takes are all over this, and while the fully CG environments take away some of the charm of those long takes they still maintain the desired effect keeping the audience in the moment and on their toes. There were a lot of heart-in-mouth moments, especially in the scenes with the orbiting debris. Some really beautiful motifs surrounding ideas of rebirth that I’d like to read more about too. Sandra Bullock is excellent, George Clooney is exactly who I’d want guiding me in that situation. This also features one of the most gruesome corpses ever seen in a movie. Definitely one I wish I’d seen in the cinema.

4/5

Superbad, 2007

I hold this one a cut above the usual 2000s American comedies (Anchorman, Step Brothers, Pineapple Express, etc). It’s a really wonderful coming of age story and I’m not sure any other movie I’ve seen has so perfectly captured the feeling of being in your last weeks of high school. There are some moments I don’t care for (the period blood joke is just nonsensical, a lot of the Bill Hader/Seth Rogen scenes drag on because the actors couldn’t stop riffing) but these are minor complaints. McLovin is one of the greatest original characters of the 21st century. Michael Cera is at the peak of his awkward powers (the bedroom scene towards the end has so many great lines from him), Joe Lo Truglio plays one of the creepiest men ever put to screen. The ending is really surprisingly sweet. It’s the best thing Judd Apatow has ever put his name on.

4.5/5

The Running Man, 2025

Caught this early at a mystery screening last weekend, I didn’t enjoy it. Edgar Wright is someone I want to like more than I actually do, The Cornetto Trilogy is excellent but I haven’t much enjoyed anything he’s done since then (Baby Driver has a couple fantastic scenes but I think it’s poor overall). The Running Man knocks him down another peg because this is the first time his style is almost non-existent. This is a painfully generic movie from the direction to the writing to the plot to the commentary to the lead actor (Glen Powell is not an action hero). Michael Cera, Katy O’Brian, and Colman Domingo are the only minor saving graces. Little about it is straight up bad, but nothing about it is all that good either.

2.5/5

The Big Lebowski, 1998

Uncovering a big Coen Brothers blind spot of mine here, I liked it a lot but maybe not as much as I was expecting/hoping. It may be victim to its own popularity in that it inspired a million stoner/slacker comedies, I’m sure if I saw it in 1998 I’d think it was the greatest movie ever made. Every Coen Brothers movie has grown on me over time so I expect this to be no different, but right now it’s actually at the bottom of my Coen rankings.

3.5/5

'Predator: Badlands'

A rather fresh approach to what has become a very tired series of movies, 'Predator: Badlands' offers us something a little different in its approach to what has to be one of the most one note of movie monsters. The predator, or Yautja if you prefer, in the 1987 John McTiernan original was exciting precisely because of its unknown origin and motives. We never really get that much from McTiernan's movie about its monster other than it's a big game hunter looking for trophies on planet earth, in which it proceeds to wipe out Arnold Schwarzenegger's band of musclebound hard men in a south American jungle.

Seemingly this is all the Yautja do and their clans are dedicated to flitting off around the universe looking for game to bring back home so they can show it off to the rest of their kind. They are the intergalactic equivalent to those rich white men who used to travel to "deepest darkest" Africa to shoot various animals so they could hang their heads on the walls of their opulent homes pretending that they tackled the most dangerous game that nature could offer them despite having all the advantages in firepower and technology to overwhelm their prey.

None of the sequels ever truly expanded on the Yautja's nature and, in fairness, they never needed to. But 'Predator: Badlands' shows us that not only do the Yautja have clans, they also have family. Families that root out their weaknesses by killing it off. Which is where Dek (Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi) comes in. Dek is a young Yautja, a runt who's desperate to prove his worth and he sets out (or is rather set off due to some familial difficulties shall we say) to tackle a gigantic beastie called a Kalisk on a distant planet called Genna and thereby show to his people that he's strong and, at least, worthy of life. Along the way he encounters a Wayland-Yutani synthetic humanoid, Thia (Elle Fanning), who's also interested in the Kalisk but for different reasons. Thia's sister model, Tessa (also Elle Fanning), gets reactivated by the mega corporation and is sent to Genna to search for both Thia and the Kalisk.

In its own right 'Predator: Badlands' is an entertaining 107 minutes, but I'm not too sure about its "humanising" of the predator. In one way it does an ok job of expanding Predator lore, as it were, but it other ways it makes the monster of 'Predator' a bit too relatable even if Yautja society is, frankly, quite absurd. But adapting the age old tale of a rights of passage to its own sci-fi sensibilities works more than it doesn't. Where the main strength of the film really lies in a very pleasing turn from Elle Fanning who, in her Thia form, adds some much needed humour and the interaction between her and Dek is usually quite charming. The audience will naturally associate itself with Fanning's Thia character, despite the fact that it's a robot. But she's the only remotely "human" character in a movie that is completely devoid of us.

Something that has always been an somewhat uncomfortable mashup is also handled quite well in 'Predator: Badlands' and that's the crossover between it and the Alien universe. Viewers familiar with the name Wayland-Yutani will understand the significance of it within the film and fans of both 'Alien' and 'Predator', along with the Alien vs Predator movies will understand where the producers are coming from. As someone who isn't all that big on that particular idea, its inclusion here isn't that intrusive.

All in all 'Predator: Badlands' is worth the time, even as a stand alone story. In fact, I might have preferred it if it was actually completely unrelated to any...ugh..."franchise" at all. Thankfully, director Dan Trachtenberg has resisted the temptation to have all the characters speaking in English which was a severe shortcoming with his previous effort, 'Predator: Prey', that saw 18th century Comanches all taking as if they'd come from the California hills. But 'Predator: Badlands' is a generally entertaining action movie with some relative familiarity that doesn't drag itself out and, to its credit, keeps the call backs that marred 'Alien Romulus' to a strict minimum.

It does, perhaps, make the predator a bit too relatable to a human audience, thereby robbing it of much of its mystique and there might be a touch too much in the feelgood factor going on in what's decidedly a 12A family friendly movie. But I can't deny that I was entertained throughout, even if the final ten minutes weren't as good as what came before. However, in a series where the only truly good movie was the first picture (an 80's action classic if ever there was one) it is, in the end, a welcome offering among the better sequels in the 'Predator' series.

7/10

I finally watched Chris Stuckmann's Shelby Oaks. On one hand, you have to admire the tenacity to develop filmmaking skills by making amateur moves for fun and then a few shorts, and then to crowd fund his first feature. His direction is fine, nothing too exceptional but it gets the job done. The movie is let down by its writing however which is heavily inspired by other horror movies and gets worse as the movie progresses. A number of reviews have mentioned that Stuckmann should focus on his directing career rather than making his own scripts, and I agree with that.

Chien 51

At the IFI French Film Festival. Bladerunner meets Strange Days in this dystopian thriller. Paris is divided into zones based on wealth and presided over by an AI justice system. Two cops, the ever dependable Gilles Lellouche and why-isn't-she-a-Hollywood-star Adele Exarchopoulos investigate a murder.

Very slick, very cool thriller from Cedric Jimenez. The folly of relying on AI to keep everyone safe makes for a fascinating story. Paris is given a subtle future noir look and the action scenes are very well staged.

That's a pity. I loved the first 2. Rewatched them again recently.

Rocky - 1976
First Blood - 1982

Two Stallone franchises that both started in a very different place to where they ended up. Fair to say that there's more affection for the Rocky sequels than the Rambo sequels but the Rambo ones do tell an interesting story on the progression of action films in that time period.

The first time I saw Rocky would have been late 90s/early 2000s. Without ever seeing any of the sequels, I was aware of the larger than life character, the famous lines, the montages and all that is associated with this franchise. I distinctly remember being surprised at how grounded and almost muted the film was compared with what I expected. Going back to it now, the start with the small time boxing fight (the only time we see Rocky fight in the film until the end), the dockyard, the grimness of the debt collection business, it all feels very down to earth and very far from where the franchise would end up. Rocky is lost, meandering through life in the same way that Paulie and Adrian also are. Mickey is scathing towards him, raging at him for squandering his talent and the seedy debt collection work "It's a living" "It's a waste of life". When the life changing fight drops in his lap, Rocky can barely process it. The first montage (of the many in the series), is a quiet affair, Rocky struggling to run up the steps before walking back in defeat. The heart of the film is the relationship with Adrian. From the shy beginnings to the gorgeous scene on the ice rink to Rocky quietly sharing his doubts and fears before the fight, it's the real soul of the film. Rocky is a sentimental film, and that sentiment would get ramped up (along with everything else) in the sequels.

First Blood is a very different affair. John Rambo is a Vietnam veteran suffering badly with PTSD. Stallone himself chopped a huge amount of dialogue out of the script, so we are left with a relatively mute character. The flashbacks are very powerful as we see how terrified and fearful Rambo is at heart. By having others speak on his exploits, as viewers we know both things are true - the character is capable of incredible exploits, but is also fundamentally broken. Rambo never kills in this film, and like Rocky its far more grounded than the films that came after it. First Blood is far from sentimental. The closing lines are devastating, and the film has a very bleak message to send about the fate of military veterans. Like Rocky, the action scenes/one man army aspects would get dialled up in the sequels but they lost the humanity of the character along the way.

Both 'Rocky' and 'First Blood' are very good films and ones that I'd recommend highly. I'd even give 'Rocky II' a good shout as it completes Rocky's story quite nicely. But, really, everyone can stop right there. It picks up somewhat with 'Rocky Balboa' from 2006 but the story was silly and there's really no need to go there.

The Rambo story just turns into unbelievable junk from 1985 onwards and it gets worse and worse to the point where the great original is hideously tarnished.

If every there were prime examples of diminishing returns it's those two film series.

Rocky IV. Drago. "I must break you". Class entertainment. Except for the American/Russian political togetherness at the end. That was a bit silly.

Never watched the Rambo movies after the first. So don't know what they are like.