nicolovvassil Reviews

Apocalypto (2006)

Do some research before writing a negative review!

[7/10 · 14 March 2008]

I liked the movie and before writing a review I read only negative comments on IMDb to see why people hated the film.Most of them claim that the movie is historically incorrect,based on false facts.Here are two arguments of the haters of the movie:

1.The Mayans didn't make human sacrifices and didn't rip off the hearts of the victims.That is something the Aztecs did.

2.The Spaniards arrived 500 years later.

OK, I didn't know if that was true so I decided to take 20-30 min. of my time and do some research on the internet.And guess what!!It turns out that Mel Gibson did his homework right and those who write the hate it reviews didn't!The Mayans DID make human sacrifices, they DID rip off the hearts of their victims, they were no better than the Aztecs. They began with human sacrificing about 300 A.D.This is a fact known since 1973(the year scientists managed to encrypt the Mayan hieroglyphs).Besides:who sais that the bad guys in the film are too Mayans?!!They may be Aztecs or Toltecs!The Aztecs were at that time at the peak of their civilization, their territories went deep into the south.

"The Spaniards arrived 500 years later" You really don't know when the movie takes place until the end when the conquistadors show up.Then we see, aha: the year is 1511 + something.Is this possible?Why not?The end of the great Mayan civilization was about 900 A.D. After that we have the post classic period until 1511 (the year of the arrival of Cortes).Gibson doesn't claim that the occurrence's in the film take place in the early Mayan history.To all the haters of the film who have a problem with not presenting the great achievements of that culture(mathematics, astrology an so on):That was BEFORE the happenings in the movie!And besides, that was not the story of the movie.Not showing the greatness of the culture doesn't mean that Gibson denies it! "The Mayans were presented as savages" - that is because they were(check out their rituals), or what is your definition of a savage?There is another moment in the film:the bad guy threatens Jaguar Paw he would skin him alive and then wear his skin.I first thought, well that was original of Gibson, but then I found out on the internet that skinning your enemies and wearing their skin was an ACTUAL RITUAL of the Mayans.Yes they were savages, and I don't care how many Mexicans(who think they are the legacy of the Mayans, which they are not) feel offended by this movie.

Another point is the gore in the film.After reading some reviews I noticed that people who liked "The passion of the Christ" have a problem with the gore in this movie...Excuse me!?!!So you don't have problems watching the Romans beat the crap out of Jesus but mind some Mayan heads being cut off!

My recommendation to all who want to write a negative review: make some research before doing so!That is the only way to find out how much truth there is in this film!I, for example found also out that they were using exact the same type of weapons at that time, like knifes made of obsidian. I would also recommend to see this film along with another great film:The Mission(1986).If you liked "Apocalypto" and want to see a true story about what happened next, you should see "The Mission".If you saw "Apocalypto" and hated it, "The Mission" will make you fell better. Yes, I agree that Mr. Gibson is a Christian fanatic, but unlike many others I wouldn't interpret the ending as pro-Christian.Why?Because there was a priest on a boat?

The film is not perfect though.Mr. Gibson, if you want to make a realistic movie, you have to stick to this idea the whole way:No human is faster than a puma!There were hundreds of beheaded bodies in that pit, that was too much to be believed!The little girl having the plague(!!!where did that come from?) and making prophecies was also unbelievable.But this is still a movie! And in my opinion it deserves 7 stars for being good but not special.

Jumper (2008)

A movie with a big "We want your money" on it.

[3/10 · 10 March 2008]

I was pretty sure that I will have to write a negative review about this flick before seeing it.So before watching it I read mostly "hated it" reviews here even with spoilers and I knew that I would agree with all of them.And thats the way it turned out to be.

Jumper is just the next franchise project based on sci-fi and CGI.It has an open end, so a sequel is coming for sure(at least one).Even if so, the producers didn't bother to make the movie complete, it really ends nowhere like a soap, but here the viewers will have to wait more than just a couple of days to see what happens next(provided that someone cares).I didn't read the book the film is based on, but after seeing the flick I really don't have to read the book to know that its better.The real jumper in that project is Samuel L. Jackson cos this man would do any part in any movie if its for the money.And I don't blame him and can't understand the people here who do blame him either!In Hollywood as an actor you chase two things:the Oscar and the money.We all know that Samuel wont get the Oscar(he had his chance with "Pulp Fiction"), so why not take the money!I mean the guy is pushing 60...I am with you, Sam!Keep it that way! As to "Jumper"..yeah it is bad, but I'll watch the sequel anyway...those bastards got me.....save yourselves!

Planet Terror (2007)

Lots of blood and zombies, just the way I like it!

[8/10 · 8 March 2008]

Rated R for Rodriguez!!!

Rodriguez' movie is definitely the better one of the Grindhouse project. It outperforms Tarantino's "Death proof" in any possible way.The gore level is one of the highest I've seen in an action movie lately, making "action masterpieces" like Rambo 4 look like a romantic comedy.Unlike Rambo 4 this movie even has a plot! "Planet terror" is very good casted, I was surprised to see Josh Brolin in this movie, but he did great and is becoming one of my favorite actors.This movie has a lot to offer:action, blood, comedy,some scenes that would make you throw up if you are not used to this kind of movies, so beware!This film is definitely not for everybody and certainly not a first date movie, but if you know the work of Rodriguez you will know what to expect.

Death Proof (2007)

Crapantino

[1/10 · 8 March 2008]

I am a big Tarantino fan but this joke of a movie is very disappointing.I first checked "Planet Terror" and loved it.Then I thought, OK lets check the other movie which is Tarantino's own project so I expected to be better...man, was I let down!

Storyline:some chicks in a car chatting blah blah blah blah blah, same chicks in a bar chatting blah blah blah blah, a lap dance, 5 seconds action sequence,then other group of chicks in a car chatting blah blah blah blah, same chicks in a restaurant chatting blah blah blah blah, 10 min. car chase, chicks beat the crap out of Kurt Russel,END!

The one star I am giving is for Kurt Russel's great performance as stuntman Mike.You f***ed up, Quentin, f***ed up good this time!

The Air I Breathe (2007)

A failed "Crash" wannabe

[4/10 · 7 March 2008]

I was hoping so much for this movie to be good but I was let down.What were the producers thinking?: OK, lets make a multi plot movie!Instead of paying a famous lead actor $10m, we'll pay 4-5 famous actors about $1m each for 15 min. screen time.That's saved money!Lets get that black guy who won the Oscar..what was his name..oh yeah..Whitaker.OK, we need a mob guy so lets hire Andy Garcia...and...oh yeah..get me that guy from "Crash", B.Fraser.We can't make a Crash movie without him!Then we need a spoiled pop star character, something like Britney...get me that Buffy chick, she'll do the job.Then we'll make a story based on a Chinese proverb with stuff like love, happiness, sorrow and pleasure so the audience would have something to think about.And may be they wont notice that the plot is a complete mess...ha ha ha!!!

But I'll rate this fair. 4 stars for a movie with 4 stars(Whitaker, Garcia, Fraser and Bacon) and nothing more to offer.

The Contractor (2007 Video)

Cheap is cheap

[2/10 · 6 March 2008]

I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!

Youth Without Youth (2007)

Sorry, didn't get it. Ending with great what the f*** value.

[3/10 · 6 March 2008]

I read some reviews here before watching, so more or less I knew what to expect.The first 30 min. of the movie were annoying, was about to skip it, but then I said to myself:"Hey,its a Coppola!" so I kept watching.It got interesting! Suddenly the movie had a plot.So far so good.It was obvious that this was a fiction about paranormal stuff, so I could even live with the "superpowers" of the main character Dominic(Roth).Then he meets that girl Veronika, who looks like his old flame Laura, and it gets even more interesting.You start asking yourself where is this gonna lead us? And just when the movie connected with me it slowly started to disconnect...Dominic leaves Veronika for her own sake. Then he sees Veronika on a train with some children of hers and we never understand the point of this(like many other moments in the film). Was this the same Veronika, was this some other girl that looks like her(number 3)?You then totally disconnect with the movie when the end comes.Dominic suddenly gets old again and dies in the cold Bukarest.A guy approaches the dead body and checks his ID: a HONDURAS passport(???), birth date April 1938(why? even with the lightning effect he must've been 35 by 1938)!Who is this guy?!!I mean what the f***?! Did I just watch a David Lynch movie?I envy the people who write the good reviews here, they must've got the idea and message of the film. To me it even didn't have those things. The acting was very good though and the cinematography too + one star for Coppola's old glory, makes 3 stars.

Into the Wild (2007)

Stupid story. Good acting.

[4/10 · 27 February 2008]

Didn't really know how to rate this.And it is hard to write an opinion for everybody here to read it without spoilers.The film is based on a true story.It certainly is an unusual story but I hated the way it was presented.We have a college graduate, Christopher McCandless who is very smart(because he read many books)and runs away from his family to make an adventurous journey to Alaska.In order to do this he takes a shortcut trough Mexico.He rejects civilization and things like money.So before starting the journey he burns the few bucks he has. Short after that he suddenly realizes that you actually need money to buy things and starts working at a farm to earn some of the greenbacks he so much hates.Later he works at Burger King who seem to hire illegal workers since he has no ID whatsoever(he destroyed his ID, driving license and credit cards in the beginning of the movie cos those things are part of civilization).In the movie McCandless is presented as a heroic 23 year old full of philosophy and wisdom adventurer, who cares only about nature and doesn't give a damn about things like money, family, love, society and similar human crap.He hates his family cos his dad got his mom pregnant while he was still married to another woman.He doesn't hate his sister but still doesn't bother to give her a call after being away for over two years.So after this time he finally reaches Alaska and starts living in a junk bus.After some deeper reading of Tolstoi he realizes that coming to Alaska was not a good idea and heads back to the humans. But his way back is cut by a river.So he has to stay in Alaska and starve to death.This movie worships stupidity, irresponsibility and ignorance!In the end of the movie McCandless was so pathetic that even the grizzly bear didn't bother to eat him.

The moral of the story: Even after graduating from college you can still be stupid!! I gave it 4 stars though because of the good acting in the movie.Hal Holbrook is amazing!Even Emile Hirsch wasn't that bad.

To all the "loved it" users here:rating this movie with more than 5 stars means you like McCandless and agree with him.Guys, you should unite!!Make a sect like....Witnesses of Alaska...or McCandlesstology!Sean Penn will be your guru, and McCandless will be your god.The "magic bus" will be your temple.You should all go to Alaska and follow the footsteps of your idol!

Things We Lost in the Fire (2007)

That was a good one!

[9/10 · 27 February 2008]

Wow!What a story!Benicio del Toro is brilliant as a chain smoking heroine addict.He proved once again after his great performance in "Traffic" that he can be one of the big ones in Hollywood.Halle Berry's acting is also outstanding worth the comparing of her Oscar awarded play in "Monster's ball", but if this movie has an Oscar worthy performance its definitely Del Toro's.This is one of the best films from 2007 and I am giving it only 9 stars because there are some weak spots in the plot that are not exactly realistic: Berry's character invites her dead husbands best friend in her bed to help her get asleep by massaging her ear.Del Toro's character (once a lawyer)started using cheap types of drugs to end up as a heroine junkie. Nevertheless this is a movie worth seeing!

Awake (2007)

This movie will definitely keep you awake

[7/10 · 27 February 2008]

Hey,that wasn't bad at all!!Very good story, excellent crime movie plot, unexpected turnings: this film has all that a film needs in order to be entertaining.And of course a great ending, that is may be 70% of why one should watch the film.Don't read any reviews with spoilers!It woudn't make sense seeing the film after wards.It would be like watching "The sixth sense" and knowing from the beginning that Bruce Willis is dead.The best acting in the film came from Lena Olin (mom Beresford).The rest of the cast was average but the plot makes you ignore that.If you come across that one, see it!Seven stars because its still mid-quality Hollywood.

Day Zero (2007)

Not bad. Worth seeing.

[7/10 · 27 February 2008]

The idea of the movie is not bad: three guys get drafted and we get to have part of their feelings, emotions and fears for the last 30 days before day zero, the day they have to sign in for the army.Those three guys are very different characters, they have nothing in common so we wonder how can they actually be friends.Apart from that, the film is very realistic.It gets also political on the war in Iraq and it shows both conflict parties: those for the war and those against it.It shows us who are the people supporting the war: lower class,propaganda brainwashed, uneducated, ordinary people from the street like cab driver Dixon, who thinks that fighting in Iraq is defending the freedom in America. His friend, lawyer Rifkin sees no point in the war and tries to use his daddy's connections to get "undrafted".The third guy is writer Feller (Wood) who doesn't really have an opinion because his mind is too occupied with the fear of dying in the war.He is weak, mentally and physically. The film is good, good acting, good script.I don't regret seeing it and I'm sure most people wont.It's not a must see, but if you come across it you should give it a chance.Seven stars for being good but not special.

Cassandra's Dream (2007)

This could have been a good movie...in the 80s

[4/10 · 27 February 2008]

Woody Allen..same old, same old....this guy still lives in the past and makes movies that seem old fashioned.What can I say about this movie: bad plot, bad script, average acting(except Colin Farell who was surprisingly good as a complete loser moron)The plot is very predictable, there is no suspense.I didn't cry, I didn't laugh, I wasn't surprised by anything. This is an "empty" movie, after watching it there is nothing left behind.The two good things about the film: 1. Colin Farell's acting 2.The film was shorter than 2 hours. I wouldn't consider it a complete waste of time though.This and the fact that there were some famous actors involved makes me give it 4 stars.

The Shepherd (I) (2008 Video)

Cheap and bad

[1/10 · 23 February 2008]

This flick is a waste of time.I expect from an action movie to have more than 2 explosions and some shooting.Van Damme's acting is awful. He never was much of an actor, but here it is worse.He was definitely better in his earlier movies. His screenplay part for the whole movie was probably not more than one page of stupid nonsense one liners.The whole dialog in the film is a disaster, same as the plot.The title "The Shepherd" makes no sense. Why didn't they just call it "Border patrol"? The fighting scenes could have been better, but either they weren't able to afford it, or the fighting choreographer was suffering from lack of ideas.This is a cheap low type of action cinema.

Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles (2008–2009)

If you wanna watch this you will have to ignore the fact that T1 and T2 ever existed

[4/10 · 23 February 2008]

This show is an attempt to bring a story back to life, the story that died with Terminator 2.The T2 movie had a great ending:John Connor survived, all terminators destroyed, humanity saved, end of the story!Have you seen T2 Director's cut?In the final scene we see Sarah Connor at the age of 60 in a park, playing with her grandchild and John Connor who has become a senator!THERE NEVER WAS A JUDGEMENT DAY!!SARAH CONNOR NEVER DIED OF LEUKEMIA OR CANCER WHATSOEVER!JOHN CONNOR NEVER BECAME THE LEADER OF SOME HUMAN RESITANCE!It all ended with Arnie melting.That is how James Cameron wanted the story to end.And now they named a female terminator in a TV show after him:Cameron!!! Yes, they just can't let it be! I have seen all six episodes of the show so far and I agree with all the negative reviews here.What's with those female terminators?Since T3 there seem to be a new trend.Do feminists organizations have to do something with this, like "we wanna be terminators too" kinda thing? But now to the show:its simply low budget.The special FX suck.I don't understand this, its not like FOX doesn't have the money and they have already put on the screen some expensive shows like "24" and "Prison Break" so why not do this with the Terminator. This is an action story that requires cash if you wanna make something watchable out of it.Its been six episodes now and there was not a single explosion, only a house burned. In the show there are Terminators at every corner, resistance fighters who traveled back from the future. Time traveling is like a walk in the park! So why watch the show?I'll keep watching it because: 1. It has a very good "what will happen next?" value especially after the sixth episode. 2. There will never be another Terminator movie with Arnold so this is as close as you can get to the development of the story 3. There are two names involved with the show: Mario Cassar (produced T2) and Andrew Vajna (produced T3)

Loose Change: Final Cut (2007 Video)

Very well done

[10/10 · 19 February 2008]

Every coin has a flip side.This is the flip side of a story the American government has been selling to its citizens and the world for the last 6 years:the war on terror. Selling the war in Iraq and Afganistan of course requires propaganda.For instance,when you watch FOX news, you're watching propaganda.Everything nowadays is propaganda.It tries to influence you, to persuade you, to blind you from the truth.Propaganda affects very easy stupid people who take everything for granted, people who would swear that Lee H. Oswald shot J.F.K. Smart people on the other hand don't trust propaganda, they first look at both sides of the story before building an opinion.There is no right and wrong propaganda, there is good and bad propaganda.Bad propaganda is superficial and noneffective and good propaganda makes you think. Following what I said above,"Loose change" is also propaganda.And it is good propaganda because it makes you think and ask questions. I don't say I buy what "loose change" claims, and I don't say I don't.I just say this is an astonishing documentary with a lot of detail and excellent argumentation. This is a must see film especially if you are an American and have an IQ over 90.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007)

A part of American history presented in a genius way

[10/10 · 15 February 2008]

This is an excellent example of a modern western movie.The new type of western began with Clint Eastwood's "Unforgiven" and now we have "The assassination of J.J." There were two western films 2007 worth seeing:"3:10 to Yuma" and this one(I don't consider "There will be blood" being a western).But TAOJJ outperforms 3:10 to Yuma in any possible way.

The movie is very realistic and sticks to the true story of Jesse James.Even the decor for the house he lived in was a 1:1 reconstruction.The performance of Pitt is outstanding as well as Casey Affleck's. Too bad for Affleck that he will have to wait for that Oscar. Javier Bardem was definitely better in "No country for old men"

I usually write larger reviews when I hate a movie so I'll keep this one short.

One more thing...Can someone in the world explain to me how they nominate crap like "Juno" for best picture and leave masterpieces like TAOJJ out of the race??!?!? TAOJJ is a must see for every sophisticated moviegoer!!!

Deadly Weapons (1974)

Can stupidity be fascinating?YES!

[1/10 · 14 February 2008]

I really didn't know hot to rate this "film".You either give it a ten, or a one.Since I would give a ten only to a good movie that contributes to the art of making cinema I have to rate this one a 1. I saw "Deadly weapons" after reading all the reviews here, and I tell you only a masochistic movie freak would do that to himself.I consider myself one, and if you are one too YOU HAVE TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!! The whole movie is like a big car accident:can't look at it, but can't look away either.Chesty Morgan is the worst actress ever, most of the time the camera is focusing on her monstrous bombs, than on her face.She is unerotic, acts like she's been on drugs all the time.A robot would act better.Same with the rest of the cast. Everything in this movie is so bad, its just the story that keeps it alive.And its a hell of a story!:A woman with huge boobs revenges the murder of her fiancé killing the two responsible with those same boobs.The plot is a disaster: instead of straight poisoning the two mobsters Crystal first gives them a pill which paralyzes them so she can then smother them with her breasts. While smothering them she has a kind of orgasm(at least that is how it looks like).The best scene is the big finale.Here I'm gonna spoil the end(who cares?):it turns out that her dad was the mob boss who ordered the murder of her boyfriend.The ending is so ridiculous you would laugh you **ses off. So the dad kills his daughter(Crystal), who AFTER DYING somehow manages to KILL HIM after a magic gun appears out of nowhere in her hand.So in the end everybody dies( hey, this could have been a Scorsese movie!!)See this movie!!!

The Warlords (2007)

Good Chinese cinema

[10/10 · 13 February 2008]

I read all the reviews here (there are only 21 by this time)and there were just 2 reviews that didn't come from Asia. Here is a third one. "The Warlords" is a great epic war movie based on historical events:the last decades of the Qing dynasty, in particular the years of the Taiping Rebellion (1850-1864) that cost the lives of 70 000 000 people (that's 10m more than World War II, but who's counting). I agree that this is the best Chinese movie 2007, though Ang Lee's "Lust.Caution" is very good too. The Warlords movie budget was $ 40 million(after seeing it you will ask yourself "How did they do that with so little money?!?")A production of the same caliber would cost in the US at least $ 100 million. But this movie is the proof that cheap stuff that comes form China isn't always bad.Same with the outstanding performance of Jet Li(out of the $40m budget he received $13m payment)who was worth the money.There is a lot of drama in the movie, but also a lot of action.If you like battle scenes like in "Braveheart" this movie will deliver.If you liked "Crouching Tiger, hidden dragon" and "Hero" you will like this one."The Warlords" though is not a fairytale like those two, it is very realistic and if you are expecting to see people flying around,kung fu fighting or something like that, you will be disappointed.There is none of this here.But the movie is good. ten stars.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Will it be enough for the Oscar, friendo?

[10/10 · 12 February 2008]

Second best movie that Hollywood has produced in 2007!It is great to see that there are still people in the most powerful film industry in the world, who understand the art of making good cinema!"No country for old men" is definitely a masterpiece!Everything in it is made great so that even Woody Harrelson seems a perfect actor(last time he was perfect was in "The people vs.Larry Flint").In this movie you will see also outstanding performances by Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem(I think he will get the Oscar) and Josh Brolin (did also great work in "American gangster") Yes, I said this is the second best movie...wanna know which is the best movie of 2007? Of course it is "There will be blood", and this is where the Oscar for the best picture goes to.Wanna bet?:))

Juno (2007)

Who nominated that for an Oscar?

[1/10 · 12 February 2008]

Normally I would rate this movie a 3, but i'm rating it here so low, because it IS NOMINATED FOR AN Oscar (BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR)and this is pissing me off!When I saw the nominations I thought they were joking. C'mon guys!!!Those people at the academy must've gone totally crazy!The story is OK, but very bad presented, very unrealistic. It's like a 16 year old says to her parents:"Mom,dad, I'm pregnant!" "Oh,really?That's OK." I tell you those are dream parents, most of them would have reacted this way in real life...yeah right! Juno is definitely the worst Oscar nomination in years.I consider myself a movie freak, watch every year about 100 flicks, lots of crap(like "Juno"), some good, some average.

Among this years nominations there are two masterpieces:"There will be blood" and "No country for old men".I'm not sure which one of those two will get the Oscar, but I would bet my money on "There will be blood".

"Atonement" and "Michael Clayton" are OK, but way far from calling them "best picture" and giving them an award. But "Juno"..."Juno" is crap!If you want to watch a story about getting pregnant, watch "Knocked up", its at least funnier.The only reason you could possibly have, to go and see Juno, is if you are desperately in love with Jennifer Garner(good acting, beautiful as always).Otherwise don't waste your money on this.Here is a list of 10 movies(have seen them all) from 2007 that are much better than Juno and could have been nominated instead.If you wanna watch real cinema, watch these: 1.American gangster 2.In the valley of Elah 3.The assassination of J. James.. 4.Gone baby gone 5.3:10 to Yuma 6.Eastern promises 7.Elizabeth the golden age 8.Charlie Wilson's war 9.Things we lost in the fire 10.The kite runner

So it is not like Hollywood doesn't have something to offer.It remains a mystery to me how "Juno" got nominated.Nor can I explain how Ellen Page(who?) got nominated for an actress in a leading role. Life is full of surprises... I think the people who write the good reviews here are either on Diablo Cody's payroll or seriously retarded.

Rambo (2008)

This is not a Rambo movie

[6/10 · 9 February 2008]

I was waiting for this movie for a long time.I love the Rambo movies, especially Rambo II and III. But to me Rambo IV doesn't fall into that category.If you want to see top quality on-screen violence you should see that movie, but if you are expecting the magic of a Rambo movie you will be disappointed.Stallone is too old and too fat(you wont see Stallone with a naked upper body here) for this.He is doing not much of the action in the movie himself, because this time he has the help of mercenaries.So I would say that the good old days when John Rambo killed his enemies all by himself, mean and quietly, are over.In this movie Stallone only fires a couple of arrows and a machine gun.Another important thing that makes out a Rambo movie is the score. I was again disappointed to hear the famous Rambo theme only at the beginning and the end of the film.The lenght of the movie is something above 1h 20min, which I find pretty short in the era of the 2 hour film. On the other hand the movie compensates with unseen brutality:children murdered, women raped, heads chopped off, body parts flying around and so on.So I think Stallone hit the right spot with the expectations of the audience.But it takes more to make a real sequel than just to follow the main idea of showing violence.Stallone did good with the last Rocky movie, it was authentic, which I cannot say of Rambo IV.