So, first there was the film First Blood, the title of which makes sense.
Then the follow-up was called Rambo :First Blood Part II. So, a sequel number with a subtitle-type-thing. Okay.
But the third film was called Rambo III, which suggests Rambo I and II had preceded it, right? They hadn't, though - unless First Blood Part II was actually called Rambo... but if that was the case, why is the new film in the series just called Rambo? Surely it should be Rambo IV (if it follows Rambo III in the series, which it seems to chronologically), or even Rambo II, to plug the missing gap between Rambo (First Blood Part II) and Rambo III, if it were a 'prequel'... but I don't think it is.
Oh, my head hurts from thinking about it all. We know Sylvester can count - he had no trouble using roman numerals on the Rocky films, did he? Then again, he did call the last one by the character's full name, so maybe I should just stop dwelling on this pedantry.
I have to say, you never have this problem with the work of his french relative Arthur Rambo*.
*This terrible pun first used in my earshot by my father, who used to say that you could tell a person's intellect by asking 'what do you think of the work of [phonetic] Ramm-boe?' I've since seen it in other places, including Grant Morrison and Paul Grist's comic St Swithin's Day.
2 comments:
I have a friend who will insist on telling me every time I meet him that Berkoff only appeared in Rambo II (see, I subvert their bad numbering and invent my own) because he only heard the offer to do a film on Rimbaud...
Whether there's any truth to this or not I don't know... but it always amuses my friend!
Good god, is Berkoff in one of those films? I had no idea. I once tried to watch the first one, and got bored after about twenty minutes - I think Brian Dennehy might just have appeared on screen.
But if Berkoff really ended up in it because of that mistake... oh, that'd be priceless.
J
Post a Comment