John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) rides a horse through smoke, gripping a pistol
Film review

Rambo III

1988 · Directed by Peter MacDonald · 1h 42m

In a sentenceRambo has a friend to fight for and a screenplay that thinks this makes him a saint

John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) fights for a friend. Personal loyalty supplies his reason to go into battle, rather than his own needs or those of his country. The war adventure features Trautman (Richard Crenna), Coronel Zaysen (Marc de Jonge) and Griggs (Kurtwood Smith), alongside Masoud (Spiros Focás), Mousa (Sasson Gabai) and Hamid (Doudi Shoua). Fighting drives the story, with Rambo at the centre of the action. The film runs for 102 minutes and carries an 18 certificate.

Fi1m review

Rambo III delivers forceful action but makes John Rambo so righteous that the fighting soon becomes tiresome. Richard Crenna brings some welcome interest; weak dialogue and relentless hero worship leave him too much to repair.

Rambo III has a simple reason for sending John Rambo into action: he is fighting for a friend. That should be enough for an action film, but Peter MacDonald directs it with such extravagant hero worship that the people become difficult to care about. The fighting has force, and some of it can still startle us. It is nevertheless a poor war adventure, too pleased with its hero to make his struggle interesting.

Sylvester Stallone and Sheldon Lettich’s screenplay is weakest where it most needs to be persuasive, in the dialogue that supplies motives between bouts of violence. The characters have so little complication that there is scarcely anything to discover about them once their loyalties are established. We know how we are being asked to feel about Rambo, and the film keeps asking anyway. Affection for a friend could have given him something ordinary and recognisable; the writing makes even that feel like an announcement of his importance.

Sylvester Stallone is fully committed to this version of John Rambo, which helps explain the film’s force and its faintly ridiculous air. There is no embarrassment in the performance, even when the presentation of the hero becomes almost religious. That conviction can carry a piece of action, but it cannot supply the uncertainty missing from the character. Richard Crenna, as Trautman, is a welcome presence because he gives us another performer to take an interest in amid all the admiration for Rambo.

Peter MacDonald gives the battle scenes enough explosive force to make their appeal clear. John Stanier’s cinematography helps make the violence imposing, while Bill Kenney’s production design contributes to the scale of the spectacle. These are useful qualities in an action film, and the impact sometimes survives the absurdity of what surrounds it. We were worn out by the succession of battles, though, because the film keeps asking us to applaud destruction without giving us enough reason to fear for anyone.

The editing is a more immediate problem. O. Nicholas Brown, Andrew London, James R. Symons and Edward Warschilka are credited, and the awkward cutting makes the plentiful action less enjoyable than it ought to be. A film this dependent on fighting needs a sequence to build tension, with each fresh threat changing what its characters can do. Too often, another violent incident arrives before the previous one has made much of an impression.

Jerry Goldsmith’s music works to give the material weight, but the shallow characterisation leaves it carrying too much responsibility. Once every display of strength receives such reverence, another invitation to admire Rambo has little effect. The film’s camp qualities offer some amusement, although the weak dialogue rarely makes us confident that the joke is deliberate. At 102 minutes, it is not extravagantly long; the repetition makes it feel longer.

Measured against the needs of a straightforward action adventure, the disappointment is how little pleasure follows from so much exertion. We do not need a complicated account of war to enjoy a story about loyalty, but we do need to care about the people doing the fighting. The explosive passages and Richard Crenna provide reasons for the committed action enthusiast to persist. For anyone looking for suspense as well as destruction, there are better uses of an evening.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

45
Positive
1
Mixed
1
Negative
4

Most critics take a dim view of Rambo III, though the reviews acknowledge its plentiful action. Praise is limited and scattered rather than shared across the six reviews. Variety supplies the clearest endorsement, finding the battle scenes effective and often terrifying, and treating Stallone’s messianic performance as a strength. Den of Geek finds a smaller consolation in giving Richard Crenna more to do.

The reservations centre on mindless violence, hero worship and thin characterisation. Empire also faults the editing, while the Los Angeles Times delivers the harshest dismissal, seeing the war spectacle as an absurd exercise in glorifying Stallone. The spread is wide, but weighted towards disapproval. Even the comparisons with the previous film diverge: Empire finds this instalment less entertaining, whereas Den of Geek considers it marginally better. The central divide is over whether the carnage works as action or simply becomes unpleasant.

Variety
31 December 1987 · Variety Staff
80*

The review sees the film as giving Rambo a more righteous cause and presents it as intensely effective action. It singles out the explosive, often terrifying battle scenes and Stallone’s messianic performance.

Read the full review →
Time Out
· BC
64*

The page identifies this as a review, but the review text is unavailable. The metadata mentions a debate about the unwisdom of something, but does not establish the critic’s verdict or specific praise or complaint.

Read the full review →
Radio Times
★★ · John Ferguson
40

Ferguson calls it probably the worst film in the series, criticizing its mindless celebration of carnage. He notes that the cartoonish action is plentiful, but leaves a nasty taste.

Read the full review →
Empire
13 March 2007 · Kim Newman
35*

Newman finds the film less fun than its predecessor, despite its steady stream of action. He faults awkward editing and the shift toward patriotic, one-dimensional character portrayals.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
25 May 1988 · MICHAEL WILMINGTON
10*

Wilmington pans the film as an absurd, self-aggrandizing spectacle that turns war into a showcase for Stallone. He singles out its extravagant hero worship and campy imagery as especially ridiculous.

Read the full review →
Den of Geek
10 September 2008 · ★★ · Mark Pickavance
40

Pickavance judges Rambo III marginally better than its predecessor, largely because Richard Crenna has more to do. He criticizes its mindless violence and poor dialogue, while finding the Blu-ray transfer acceptable and the extras dismal.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is Rambo III worth watching?
Rambo III is a poor war adventure that we score 39/100, with enough forceful action to interest only committed action enthusiasts. Richard Crenna offers some welcome interest, but weak dialogue, awkward cutting and relentless admiration for Rambo make the succession of battles tiresome rather than tense.
How long is Rambo III, and what is it rated?
Rambo III runs 1h 42m. It is an action and adventure film.
Where can I watch Rambo III in South Africa?
Rambo III is not on any streaming or rental service in South Africa at the moment. It is available in 21 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is Rambo III, and is it suitable for children?
Rambo III carries a UK 18 certificate and is not suitable for children, with repeated violence and forceful battle scenes driving the story. The fighting can startle, and the succession of explosive confrontations makes it a poor choice for the squeamish, even though we find the suspense weak.
How does Rambo III compare to First Blood?
Rambo III is louder and more devoted to its hero than First Blood, which we recommend as the better, tighter thriller. The earlier film gives Rambo enough vulnerability for the violence to matter; this instalment favours repeated battles and destruction, making it chiefly an option for those who want action rather than suspense.
What should I watch after Rambo III?
After Rambo III, try First Blood (1982, Fi1m 74): A more vulnerable Rambo gives the violence a reason to matter. Then Hard Boiled (1992, Fi1m 86): Extravagant action with spatial clarity and characters worth following through the gunfire; and Southern Comfort (1981, Fi1m 81): Armed men discover how little their weapons help them understand hostile territory.

Cast

Awards

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor, 1989

Won
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actor

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director, 1989

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture, 1989

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay, 1989

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Screenplay

Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award, 1989

Nominated
Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Supporting Actor - Razzie Award

If you liked this, try…

  1. First Blood (1982, Fi1m 74)A more vulnerable Rambo gives the violence a reason to matter.

  2. Hard Boiled (1992, Fi1m 86)Extravagant action with spatial clarity and characters worth following through the gunfire.

  3. The Train (1964) · not reviewed yetWartime action built around practical problems, physical effort and competing human loyalties.

  4. Southern Comfort (1981, Fi1m 81)Armed men discover how little their weapons help them understand hostile territory.

  5. The Battle of Algiers (1966, Fi1m 93)For war stripped of heroic reassurance, with political stakes kept painfully clear.

Free account

Know what to watch tonight

Two lists that know where things are streaming, collections you can share, your own score beside ours, and Discover that remembers what you have seen.

  • Want to see, sorted by what is streaming now
  • Seen, with your score out of ten
  • No adverts, ever