PG-13 Today?
could or would this movie have gotten a PG13 rating today?
shareIt would depend on what ratings boards are like now compared to 1985. Red Dawn was a PG-13 in 84 but I would have no doubt it'd be an R if that movie came out today. Back then they realized a high body count and lots of violence doesn't necessarily equal an R unless its quite brutal, realistic and bloody (which Red Dawn and indeed Rambo II wasn't).
Compare this film to Robocop or Predator 2 for example and it's like a Disney movie. Those are real R-rated action movies while Rambo isn't really one at all. I always figured it was the f-bomb that gave Rambo II an R, originally. The violence is pretty tame in retrospect (save for the guy that gets knived big time by Rambo on the boat, and maybe Co Bao's death - but that still wasn't that graphic).
Smoke if you got em
Most movies with a high body count tend to get an R rating.
shareSo strange. I agree about Red Dawn though. If that was released today it would probably garner an R rating. Especially because of the Daryl traitor killing scene where he falls onto Robert and blood smears on his jacket. That was pretty graphic. I dunno but maybe the bloody boat scenes in Rambo II were enough? Hardly it seems. Was there another F word in the movie besides Rambo saying it? I seem to remember another F word near the beginning of the movie somewhere but probably not.
shareExploding arrow scene.
Tell me something... are you fellas really with the Internal Revenue Service? - The Omega Man
Was there another F word in the movie besides Rambo saying it? I seem to remember another F word near the beginning of the movie somewhere but probably not.
Definitely only one f-bomb.
Both Rambo sequels got railed for being the poster movies for extreme violence and gratuity but there was no sign of gore or people banging and only two f-bombs between them (also used in very inoffensive contexts) which has pretty much never been seen in r-rated action movies before or since hence why I think this one in particular is a PG-13.
I dunno but maybe the bloody boat scenes in Rambo II were enough?
Had to have been the knife to the guy strangling Rambo on the boat, but even that wasn't too bad. The other stuff was james bond type cappings where you just see shooting and they fall down instanly. The dude zapped with the explosive arrow for example was totally bloodless and looked more like a cartoon or something - I thought it was both funny and cool thus awesome in an ott way. The Rambos always substituted stylish violence in place of the usual graphic r-rated action shots of people being blown away and I think it worked.
Plus I've found ratings for movies to be inconsistent and drawn up by people who have no clue about movies. Jaws for example has women and children being eaten alive with lots of graphic blood spillage and dismemberments - yet isn't an R.
Smoke if you got em share
[deleted]
It probably would still be rated R today I think, but at the same time the violence doesn't seem all that bad to warrant a straight R (maybe it's a 'soft' R at the most, I guess). Lack of more stronger adult themes should equal a PG-13. If Red Dawn's a PG-13 this should be too (a movie with a higher body count and a scene of a teenager being executed by a former friend).
Here's some examples of real R rated action movies from the same era as this film:
Predator 1 & 2 - features skinned carcasses, entrails, decapitations, dismembered limbs, eviscerations, bloody & brutal violence, sex & nudity, drug usage, $hit loads of bad language
Robocop 1 & 2 - Prolonged scenes of brutal and disturbing violence, gore, bad language, drug usage. Violence is very jarring and distressing including someone being cut open on doctors table alive.
Terminator 1 & 2 - Nuclear blast shown frying women and children to death on screen like a horror movie, hearts ripped out of bodies by hand, people brutally beaten or shot to death in detail
Die Hard 1 & 2 - Features graphic, realistic close ups of multiple gun shot wounds complete with blood spatterings. Brutal fighting and heavy use of profanity throughout. Plane crashes full of hundreds of people, throat slittings, old men shot to death
Total Recall - lots of gore, blood, language and violence including shots of grotesque mutants and innocent people used as human shields and riddled with so many bullets until they are literally no more than sloppy joe meat
Now, Rambo II:
High body count, but no emphasis on the killings ie they just fall down like in Indiana Jones or James Bond. Violence feels more cartoonish and not realistic or stark. One f bomb - language is not offensive or gratuitous. Also no drug use, nudity etc. Movie overall is more of a bright comic book film and doesn't carry the same dark, forboding or serious tones and themes as the aforementioned films.
I think it should be a PG-13 in that respect. At the time the censorship boards probably didn't like the almost celebration of this guy killing lots of people single handedly in Rambo II but in retrospect it is so tame, especially compared to the other movies in the genre with the same rating.
He was my C.O. in Nam. CIA listed him as MIA but the V.A. ID'd his M.O. and put out an APB.
I still think that Rambo: First Blood Part II is worthy of it's R-rating. It's true that much of the violence is not that detailed. But there are some shots where the gunshot wounds are more pronounced, like when the mercs attempt to extract Rambo from the rice field, and the bearded merc uses the helicopter's machine gun to shoot some of the Viet soldiers. Or when Co is killed. Or when the pirates betray Rambo and a fight breaks up and several people get shot. Visible squibs are obviously used there.
When Lt. Tay is killed with the exploding arrow, while this scene lacks the ludicrous gibs you'd expect to see in a death like this, it's still a pretty rough way to take someone out. And you still see Tay explode nevertheless. When Rambo torches the field of tall grass while being chased, you see several people burning to death, at least one soldier in detail.
Then there's the matter of the torture scenes. After capturing Rambo, the Vietnamese hold the captive Rambo submerged up to his neck in a pool full of pig feces, which is just plain gross and unpleasant thing to do to a person. And when Podovsky takes over from there, he electrocutes Rambo a pretty long time on-screen. Also add to that the detailed shot of Yushin cutting Rambo's face with the heated tip of the Lile survival knife.
In general, you get to see plenty of pointy, edged things burrowing themselves deep into peoples' flesh. Granted, not much blood, only when Rambo stabs one of the pirates in the boat, but you see the impacts from the knives and the arrows regardless. Rambo's may not be the hardest R, but it's an R-worthy film nevertheless.
I'd agree that ultimately this movie should be an R. If I was on a ratings board I'd say it's borderline (between a soft R and a hard PG-13) but I think those scenes you highlighted with the burning of the tall grass and the boat with the pirates (where you see blood squibs) would just about push it over the edge into R territory (I do think the exploding arrow scene is cartoon violence and enjoyable as opposed to bloody violence).
In Rambo III (which I reckon Sly made for kids) there's much less pronounced violence than in Part II and that to me always felt like a PG-13 movie. The whole movie is full of Looney Tunes type violence that you can't take at all seriously.
I still think there is inconsistencies within film ratings that confuses me when it comes to stuff like Rambo II. In Jaws for example you see women, children and such being eaten alive (complete with huge amounts of blood, screaming and dismembered limbs and so on). That movie was always a PG, yet something like Rambo actually got castigated in the 80s for its violence, and actually became the poster movie for condemning violence in film, when it was perhaps the softest R rated action movie of all time. It became a whipping movie so to speak which is a shame.
Shockproof - if you get the chance check out that youtube link two posts down with Richard Crenna talking about the violence in the movie. He is right to a certain extent in that Rambo is more heroic violence as opposed to brutal violence in these type of R movies.
He was my C.O. in Nam. CIA listed him as MIA but the V.A. ID'd his M.O. and put out an APB.
Funny how this is R yet Temple of Doom is PG, I think Temple might be more violent and the fact that it features violence against children is a serious red flag.
shareRambo is 100 times more violent because of the context, that's how ratings and violence is measured by MPAA, Indy is a children film, just like Tom & Jerry or any animation where you got devils ripping people apart, etc.. It is about context, Rambo is a bloody serious film, because of the real world scenario, that sells to children only because of its heroics, the same like all other Rambo films, but the content is tapping into deep emotions related to real war. Indy is an adventurous fantasy, Rambo is a political war film using only a narrative of a comic book film on the surface, what is underneath counts here. And some of us more emotional and impressionable can feel how deep this film is. Just because it has a gloss doesn't mean that there's nothing underneath.
shareThe context doesn't matter, both are equally violent and both show an incredibly high body count in a cartoony manner. Temple actually has more blood to it and is just as unsettling as little children are taken from their mothers and forced to work in an underground mine where they are beaten with whips if they don't work hard enough. Indy himself receives an incredibly brutal beating. Neither film has much basis in reality even though Rambo references true events. The truth is though in 1985 there is no way there were any POWs left in Nam, they would have been killed shortly after the war ended so the entire POW story is pretty much a work of fiction. Both films reference true events while still being complete works of fiction.
shareIt is the way how the films are done, Indy film is told in a jokey way, light hearted tone, whereas Rambo is a pure horror. Nothing light hearted, merely uplifting at the end, slightly. Indy is a family film, Rambo not even close, even though it is sold that way, almost.
shareFirst Blood had horror elements to it absolutely, and I saw First Blood to be more in line with a movie like Platoon instead of Parts II and III
Rambo: First Blood Part II however is done in a jokey way, the violence is on the same level of Star Wars where the heroes get an unrealistically high number of kills
Not to most people, there are no jokes, no comedy, some people are desentized to violence they may see it differently, the more impressionable people do not. I used to have nightmares from Rambo III, which is obviously more real and frightening than the first film.
shareIt's not about the cliched 80's one liners (although Rambo III had plenty of those), it's about the hero having an unrealistic ability to take out his enemies all by himself and the villains fall down after being shot with barely any blood or gore. The violence in Rambo II is on the same level of Temple of Doom except the violence in Temple is often against children which some audiences find objectionable.
OK obviously you had a typo in your last sentence but are you trying to say that Rambo III is more real and frightening than the "first film"??? If that is truly what you are trying to say then I know you're trolling me.
Clearly Rambo III is more real, IV too to a lesser extent, because that's what was happening, people were imprisoned for even owning that film back then. The previous two are fantasy, which is quite obvious to anyone I guess. The way how III is done is very traumatizing and real. It doesn't matter how you see it, many people used to see it the same way, especially those of us who lived under similar circumstances in the middle east. That's why it was so relatable back then. And again, Rambo II is a war film, that's enough for MPAA, even today. It would never be PG13.
shareRambo III is more real???? OK now you've lost me and I am now convinced you are a troll. Good job though, you had me going for at least 3 or 4 posts.
shareWell Stallone said the same, why wouldn't he, to anyone who knew anything about that war knows how real it was. All other films had a made up conflict that was not real, it was a fantasy in that way. But you got your own opinions.
shareNo dude you lost me when you said Rambo III was more real than First Blood. I don't believe you are a serious poster.
shareI dont see much difference between these two films in terms of how serious and real they are, the only difference is that 1st one is more of a downer while the 3rd is more uplifting, are you a troll yourself? You think people are such a brainwashed sheep to think the same? My God.
shareAother thing is, context does matter greatly in my view, it does not matter how much blood we see, there are films for children with more blood than Temple, yet they're PG, it's about the context, are people really that desentized that they just focus on graphic violence as the main indicator? There does not have to be any blood, yet the film can be rated R, Halloween has no blood, and is R. Rambo II is not Star Wars, because it is not as light hearted family film with cute creatures. Completely different films. And Rambo II may seem cartoony, but really is not a cartoon, it sells violence in a dangerous way to an impressionable mind, by disobeying orders and using violence on our own initiative for instance. The film plays with violence in a dangerous way for this reason. In Temple violence is done in an innocent way, good vs evil.
share