It’s finally happened–A.O. Scott has deemed Rambo: First Blood Part II a Critics’ Pick. The NYT has an unintentionally hilarous review of the 1985 movie, which proves that genre will always be the whipping boy for critics. Until it’s not.
Scott praises the by-the-numbers action sequences, he name-drops Eastwood and Mifune, and he uses phrases like “classical style” and “exemplary grandeur and gravitas.”
I just liked the exploding arrows.
I can almost laud the NYT for having the guts to put Rambo on the front page of their movie section. Almost were it not for their initial review of the film, in which Camby said:
“…the mayhem is supported only by what appears to be the star’s ego and a large budget for special effects, without even the most primitive logic….”
I don’t disagree with Camby–Rambo is and always will be one of those terrible films that’s fun to watch–but this proves the need for genre-specific criticism. Of course a movie like Rambo has its problems. It’s a Rambo movie. Does this mean it should be held to the same standard as movies without exploding arrows? As action movies go, Rambo is a middling entry in the pantheon of guilty pleasures. But it works. And critics should be comfortable saying it works without artificially elevating it. I saw no exemplary grandeur and gravitas in Rambo. But I did see a shirtless dude with a bandana and a quiver full of exploding arrows, and that’s good enough.
