The enormous success of Rambo: First Blood birthed several action-packed sequels that never managed to imitate the original film’s critical impact nor its Certified Fresh Rotten Tomatoes score. In 1982, Rambo introduced a sympathetically dynamic character into a genre where moral complexities and humanity are often displaced for the sake of high-intensity action sequences and shock value. The message of First Blood seems to taper off from the franchise with every installment, which could explain the lower ratings bestowed on its sequels.
For a film to earn the special distinction of being Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, a movie must have at least five reviews from the website’s top critics and maintain a Tomatometer score of 75% or higher. Rambo: First Blood stands at a Tomatometer of 86% and an audience score of only one percent lower. In his review, top critic Kevin Maher points out Rambo’s merits as an action film but praises its sensitivity and empathy more so. In contrast, the sequel that immediately followed Rambo stands at a Tomatometer of 33%, which is a drastic drop in score from its predecessor.
The Rambo movies are known for their unflinching brutality and clever action sequences, but Rambo: First Blood isn’t so much an action film as it is a commentary on the flaws in militarism. Sylvester Stallone’s harrowing performance as John Rambo is the true appeal of the first movie, but the introspection into the traumatized roots of his survival instincts is watered down in the subsequent sequels. While the sequels of Rambo continued to succeed at the box office, they’ve become a collective antithesis of First Blood which never glorifies John’s combat abilities. The action is enjoyably suspenseful but also perfectly mingles with the heart of the movie, which is John Rambo’s distress at having become a weapon of war. In this way, the exploitation of war and lack of relatability in Rambo’s sequels may explain why none are Certified Fresh except the first.
Are Rambo Sequels Really That Much Worse Than First Blood?
Despite Rambo: First Blood Part II receiving 33% on the Tomatometer, Rambo‘s bombastic sequel stands with a 60% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes. The reason there’s been a steady stream of Rambo sequels despite their poor critical reception is that they follow a classic action film formula. The conflict between the antagonists and protagonists is fairly simple in nature, making it easier to root for Rambo when he brutally kills whoever opposes him. In contrast, nothing in Rambo: First Blood is so neatly defined, which makes it a genuine reflection of violence in real life. While the sequels are fun, explosive, and suspenseful, they are also shameless in exploiting war and its causalities, especially when it refuses to highlight the faults on both sides of the fight. As a result, the Rambo sequels are not obscenely worse than First Blood, but they do not emulate the focal moral complexities of the original.
There have been rumors about Rambo 6 happening, but Rambo 5 performed poorly enough with critics that it seems there may be little chance left to return to the franchise’s roots. The first Rambo is the only film in the series to be Certified Fresh by Rotten Tomatoes, and it will likely stay that way so long as the movies cater solely to the action market. Simply put, Rambo: First Blood remains an iconic action film because of its dynamic hero and the moral dilemmas at the heart of its narrative.
