IDs_Ego
Joined Jan 2004
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews17
IDs_Ego's rating
I tend to bash the films I think very little of, that nonetheless have a huge popularity. This is one of them.
It's freaking #66 of IMDb's all-time as of this writing, but c'mon, what a meaningless, storyless piece of pap. The problem is, its style has less to do with drug abuse and more to do with an indulgent director's unique camera work. Sweeeeet. Cooooool. Like, Whoooooooooa. But have you ever actually heard that speed makes you hallucinate? No, because it doesn't. But it happens in this film, because, like, that's like, so wow.
The film was powerful, but was also completely soulless bunko. I never read the book, but I suspect half the point was contrasting the legal prescription drug addicts to the illegal substance street addicts. But this was not explored at all.
This film only showed finesse at showing human degradation. Frankly, that's the easy part. And this director definitely looked down his nose on his subjects. Using neato-keen camera techniques turns many filmgoers into fans, but if you notice the directorial style more than the story, the director is not doing his job, and in fact - in my biased opinion- sucks. This is one of those films.
It's freaking #66 of IMDb's all-time as of this writing, but c'mon, what a meaningless, storyless piece of pap. The problem is, its style has less to do with drug abuse and more to do with an indulgent director's unique camera work. Sweeeeet. Cooooool. Like, Whoooooooooa. But have you ever actually heard that speed makes you hallucinate? No, because it doesn't. But it happens in this film, because, like, that's like, so wow.
The film was powerful, but was also completely soulless bunko. I never read the book, but I suspect half the point was contrasting the legal prescription drug addicts to the illegal substance street addicts. But this was not explored at all.
This film only showed finesse at showing human degradation. Frankly, that's the easy part. And this director definitely looked down his nose on his subjects. Using neato-keen camera techniques turns many filmgoers into fans, but if you notice the directorial style more than the story, the director is not doing his job, and in fact - in my biased opinion- sucks. This is one of those films.
On a Hollywood level, I've enjoyed all of them. But of this foursome, you have 2&3 that were Good Cheezy Popcorn Action, and then you have 1&4 that have Soul and Spirit. I really admire Mr. Stallone for returning to the icon of Rambo the way he did. As an editor, to me, that dream sequence was perfect.
In this one, he shows us the basic brutality of war and military murder, and puts it under a brutal light. And John Rambo is not by choice a machine-gunning war monger; he, like most of us, just wants to be at peace.
Why isn't Mr. Stallone directing more films? Does he have to be in all of them, is that the deal? He really knows the craft. Anyway.
Some would say it is a gore-fest. Sure, as is "Saving Private Ryan". Face it, "Rambo"'s violent mess is a hell of a lot more true, I suspect, than a tank playing chicken with a helicopter gunship (First Blood 3).
If anything, it could have been longer. The mercenaries were well performed but inevitably one-dimensional.
This is a very different film from what you'd expect of the Rambo mythos, but if you like Rambo at all, you'll love it -- if you haven't seen it already.
-D
In this one, he shows us the basic brutality of war and military murder, and puts it under a brutal light. And John Rambo is not by choice a machine-gunning war monger; he, like most of us, just wants to be at peace.
Why isn't Mr. Stallone directing more films? Does he have to be in all of them, is that the deal? He really knows the craft. Anyway.
Some would say it is a gore-fest. Sure, as is "Saving Private Ryan". Face it, "Rambo"'s violent mess is a hell of a lot more true, I suspect, than a tank playing chicken with a helicopter gunship (First Blood 3).
If anything, it could have been longer. The mercenaries were well performed but inevitably one-dimensional.
This is a very different film from what you'd expect of the Rambo mythos, but if you like Rambo at all, you'll love it -- if you haven't seen it already.
-D