Reviews May 27 2008 @ 07:52 am
REVIEW: Rambo
Directed By: Sylvester Stallone
Written By: Art Monterastelli and Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Paul Schulze
Running Time: 91 minutes
Rated R for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language
61 year old Sylvester Stallone brushes the dust off of his bandoleer and joins the ranks of borderline geriatric action heroes of yesteryear (Bruce Willis at 52, Ahnold at 55, and Harrison Ford at 65) determined to prove that yes, they still have what it takes. And, unsurprisingly, he does. Whether the equally geriatric franchise that (along with Rocky) gave him his start deserves to be resuscitated is another matter.
"War and bullets and severed limbs are just so scary, Rambo......hold me!"
John Rambo is living the hermit’s life in Thailand, capturing snakes in quaint rice paddies, contemplatively molding hot metal in his makeshift smithy, and spearing fish with his iconic bow and arrow, all to Bryan Tyler’s obscenely sentimental score, telling us that Rambo, for all the blood rage worked up over the previous 3 films, is really just a peace loving monk at heart. In step a group of Christian missionaries dead set on making it into war ravaged Burma to minister to the suffering, and they need Rambo to take them. Rambo doesn’t think they can make a difference. Sarah (Julie Benz of TV’s Dexter) thinks they can. Clichés ricochet off Glen MacPherson’s attractive cinematography like the thousands of bullets Rambo will be pumping into the stuntmen later in the film. Here’s a sample:
SARAH: We have to stop this war!
RAMBO: War can’t be stopped.
SARAH: But we have to save lives!
RAMBO: Life is death.
SARAH: But we can change things!
RAMBO: Only guns make change.
It took me all of two minutes to write those lines, and they are virtually indistinguishable from the finished script. But who watches Rambo for the delicate turns of phrase and pithy dialogue? We’ve come for blood and viscera, and by golly we’ll have them!
So Rambo takes the missionaries in against his better judgment, they get captured by the nasty Burmese army, he has to conquer his inner demons to save them, yada yada yada, you know where this is going. The real question is how high does the body count get? The answer? Astronomical.
Even at 61, I really would not want to be stuck at the wrong end of a dark alley with ole' Sylvester here.
It has been a long time since I’ve seen a film as violent as this one, but never have I seen a movie so confused about the violence it chose to put on screen. Stallone (who also directs) vacillates between preachy anti-violence treacle and hysterical glorification of gore with such speed that it becomes impossible to figure out what he’s trying to say (and he is definitely trying to say something, which is part of the problem—this is Rambo after all). One moment Rambo is wrestling with guilt, the next he’s sticking arrows through eyeballs. If you can believe that it was an intentional choice to paradoxically condemn and glorify violence, then Rambo might even be a postmodern masterpiece. Given the quality of the script, I’m going to go with ‘not so much.’
Stallone also goes to obscene lengths to vilify the Burmese army, who serve as Rambo’s raison d’etre this time around. When they storm the missionaries’ camp, they not only blow men apart, they also gang rape women, stab little boys, and chuck infants into the fire. It’s Schindler’s List level violence, and while I have no doubt that awful things like this have really happened over there, because it’s in service to what amounts to gun porn it feels offensive and exploitative. The violence in these scenes is so extreme that it accomplished what Michael Haneke’s Funny Games intended (and failed) to do: made me detest violence as entertainment. This, of course, can only be inadvertent coming from a movie that features one man ripping another man’s throat out with his bare fingers.
So, yeah, I'm kinda gonna rip your throat out. This may, uh, tickle a bit.
Things culminate in an orgasmic display of violence that can’t be adequately described with words. Rambo hops behind a gatling gun and proceeds to singlehandedly justify the budgets for the makeup and stunt departments. As hard R action goes, this is visceral, thrilling stuff, and while Stallone’s directing suffers in the subtlety department, the man knows how to whip together a decent set piece. His apparent love/hate relationship with the violence, however, bogs things down in unnecessary moral confusion, and you keep wanting him to make up his mind already. As a friend astutely put, it’s what would happen if Die Hard went for an Oscar. We all know that the Academy won’t be shortlisting Rambo anytime soon, but it isn’t clear if Stallone does.
on May 27 2008 @ 12:42 pm 1. Sean Comeaux said …
So… what is the sparse 2 1/2 stars for? Yes, the script is terrible, in fact just enough sheets of script to piece the movie together really. Fortunately Stallone had maybe 2 pages of lines – nope, scratch that – 1 page of lines. The acting, reflects the bad directing. And the premise of the movie is the same as always: reluctant violence [well aside from II. That was a mission].
The issue was civil war torn Burma which is based on true facts and events that happen daily over there. Stallone actually did his research. I felt like he dealt with the material fairly. Killing is in his blood, he admitted that. He wrestles with his demons the same as you and I. Except your demons are watching episodes of Dragonball Z that you probably own on DVD and mine are getting sucked into Metal Gear Solid.
So, Rambo for me gets 3 1/2 stars automatically for being Rambo, and hey, admittedly I’m a Stallone fan. And then another 1/2 for good old fashioned violence, the good old fashioned way. NO CGI, all stunt men, makeup and props.
The Gatling gun scene was a visceral bloody masterpiece in my mind[and you don't want to know what goes on in my mind]. However I wanted him to do more stealth kills and one-on-one hand-to-hand combat. Even setting traps was missed. The jungle was the perfect setting for that too. Oh well, there’s always the chance that Shia Leboeuf can show up in the next one as a side kick and take over the franchise like in Indiana Jones. :]
Remember, Rocky Balboa and Rambo are his homage to his personal pet projects that threw him into international fame. He was closing those chapters of his life’s work. I saw Rambo two or three times in the Theater. Personally, I could go for one more where Rambo dies and the passage “He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword” rings true. And then Shia comes in as the new guy.
on May 27 2008 @ 12:46 pm 2. Sean Comeaux said …
Just joking about Shia, that’s me mocking what all these old franchises seem to be doing… just in case you didn’t catch the saracasm.
on May 27 2008 @ 1:14 pm 3. Evan Derrick said …
Sean, the script wasn’t the sticking point for me, it was all the genocidal killing. Because Stallone doesn’t attempt to give the Burmese people any kind of real voice, he doesn’t deal with their suffering in a legitimate way. If this was a movie about Burma and the atrocities that have been committed there, I wouldn’t have a problem with the graphic depiction (it is the truth, after all). But Stallone could care less about Burma (at least in regards to his film). It doesn’t matter if he’s done his research, its frickin Rambo! He only cares about Rambo getting to slaughter bad guys, and the Burmese people simply become a backdrop to Rambo’s gung-ho violence. Do you see the disconnect there? It would be like watching Hotel Rwanda where the point wasn’t to tell the story of the Rwandan people, but to justify Don Cheadle getting to open up a can with a machine gun.
I understand that Stallone probably thinks he’s highlighting a terrible chapter in history, but he’s not, he’s simply using it as an excuse to toss as much gore and body parts onto the screen as he can. A film needs to be made about Burma, but it can’t be a Rambo film.
Don’t get me wrong, the action is top notch here, probably better than all 3 previous Rambo films. There is no lame CGI – its all guts and stunts, and I can respect that. What I can’t respect, and why I ultimately gave the film only 2 1/2 stars (which I still felt was pretty generous), is Stallone’s exploitation of Burma.
Also, it seems kind of disingenuous for the premise to be ‘reluctant violence’ since there is nothing reluctant at all about the gore on display.
But I’m sure we can agree to disagree, Sean. As always, love hearing your thoughts, even if they do conflict with mine (I’m right, of course, and life will be easier for you the sooner you realize that).
on May 27 2008 @ 2:06 pm 4. Evan Derrick said …
Just did some reading, and as I suspected, Stallone really seems to have a heart for Burma.
Interview about filming Rambo
He also said on Leno that he plans to release a directors cut of the film and send all the profits to the Burmese people, which I think is fantastic.
Here are some snippets from the interview:
I think his heart is in the right place, but I just don’t think he gets it. He’s talking about the need to show reality, but he’s making a Rambo film, which is as far from reality as you can get. There is a disconnect somewhere in there.
on May 27 2008 @ 3:28 pm 5. christian said …
I cop to the jury. I liked the film for its exploitive bloodthirstyness. In fact, I’ll cop to something right here. I sent in the very first review to AICN. Ssshh.
on May 27 2008 @ 3:32 pm 6. Evan Derrick said …
You have officially been excommunicated from MZ, Christian. Go hang out on some AICN talkbacks or something. They’re always good for some intellectual discussion.
on May 27 2008 @ 4:18 pm 7. Sean Comeaux said …
You slightly contradict yourself by saying that there wasn’t anything more to Burma than it being a “backdrop” for a Rambo movie and then saying you suspected that Stallone has a heart for Burma. In your first response you gave no real indicator of that. You did use the word “might” I think.
In my opinion, Rambo represents an American Ideal. The American savior if you will. The hero that requires no thanks. He just selflessly does what is right to help the weak and hurting. Take that, add a hurting 3rd World country, cue innocent people and you’ve got the classic battle of good and evil. It does as much as the comic book heroes like Superman and Captain America did during the great depression era. [if you watch the old superman cartoons they actually have Superman going in and terrorizing the Japanese in "The 11th Hour" which is the moral boost this hurting country needed at the time.] Rambo is not politically correct. It’s not even feasible, it’s just an ideal that is molded into a flesh and blood hero who has near super human prowess to defend and defeat. There is that humanitarian angle in it and even a little messianic correlation. It’s not Shakespeare,its not Scorsese, but it is the blood and guts of the warrior pioneering spirit that’s present in all of us as Americans. It’s got the strength, determination , philanthropy and benevolence that this country [should] represent(s).
I realize that the background could have been crafted a little better. In watching the opener and in watching the scene where they come in and brutalize an entire village [and reading the interviews of Stallone on this movie] I felt like that was telling enough. I suppose it was rather one sided but like you say, its a Rambo movie. All you need to know is 1) bad guys do bad things 2) and good guys kill them
Now for my contradiction: I agree with what you are saying, for the most part, but to boil it done to nothing but a prop engine is a little harsh. Rambo has Heart.
I actually didn’t hear about the proceeds going to the Burmese. That’s awesome.
on May 27 2008 @ 4:31 pm 8. Evan Derrick said …
You’re right, I gave no indication in my review that I thought Stallone might have a ‘heart’ for the Burmese. From what I’ve read of the guy, I tend to think pretty highly of him (as a human being), but in the review I was approaching the film on it’s own merits, and the film itself gives little indication that Stallone actually cares about Burma.
Good points about Rambo being an American icon. I can go with that. I just don’t think he earns the right to show the genocidal stuff in such graphic detail, seeing as that isn’t what he’s primarily interested in. You want to show genoicde? Ok, I can handle that. But spearing small kids and chucking babies into the fire? You have to earn the right to go into that kind of detail. I just don’t think that has any place in this film.
But you’re right, Rambo does have heart, although you have to forgive the film a lot of its faults in order to find it.
on May 27 2008 @ 4:34 pm 9. Evan Derrick said …
I will say I never expected to have such an engaging conversation about Rambo.
on May 27 2008 @ 5:01 pm 10. Luke Harrington said …
I think there’s always been a moral tension within Rambo, between the ideals he theoretically holds and the things he actually does (which, at least early in the series, were blamed on severe PTSD). As a product of the Vietnam War, Rambo is very easy to read as an expression of the tension between lofty American ideals (brought on primarily by a romanticized understanding of WWII) and disillusionment with despicable American practices (Vietnam, et. al.) Whether or not these themes were effectively communicated or explored in the films (and/or the book) is another matter – but there’s no denying that they’re there. (In any case, that’s what I’d say if I had to write a master’s thesis on Rambo.)
As a side note, what is up with the titling of this series? First Blood –> Rambo: First Blood Part II –> Rambo III –> Rambo. Weird. If he makes a fifth film, he should totally title it Rambo II, just to confuse people.
on May 27 2008 @ 5:09 pm 11. Evan Derrick said …
The directors cut that he’s planning is going to be called John Rambo, preserving the inconsistent titling.
on May 27 2008 @ 5:23 pm 12. Craig Kennedy said …
This is my candidate for worst movie of the year so far. It made me embarrassed that I’ve ever enjoyed violence in movies before…and I have.
The strange thing is that I still haven’t fully pieced together why it bothered me so much. Surely I had to know what I was getting when I went into it?
on May 28 2008 @ 12:13 am 13. Sean Comeaux said …
@ Craig Kennedy: GASP! Perish the thought. Besides, I’m pretty sure that there are far worse movies to have been released this year. Rambo is… well Rambo. It delivered what all the other Rambo’s delivered for me personally. Granted we all have widely different views but Craig, with all due respect (and if you’ve seen Ricky Bobby that means I can now say whatever I want:) either you haven’t seen many movies this year, or you made a snap decision considering there aren’t many movies in discussion here. Certainly Rambo was better than this 2008 flop:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0804492/
I mean come lets be reasonable here.
@ Christian: Ahh a man after my own heart.
@ Luke Harrington: You are spot on. I agree wholeheartedly, and in a very winded way was trying to communicate most of that idea in remark.
@ Evan Derrick: Okay, very true. That is very sensitive material and needs to be handled with kid gloves. Undoubtedly. Given the film itself, on it’s own merit, not having any background on the views and ambitions behind the film it does feel like the movie started 45 minutes before you got there. There’s this huge plot happening and it felt like you needed to tap the person next to you to find out what happened that got these Burmese Guerrillas so pissed. I felt that when I first saw it. Being a biased Stallone fan, I think I had my auto-forgive pilot on. I still think it’s at least 3.5 stars. He was bold and brave to bring us another Rambo at his age and deal with the subject matter as controversial as it is.
Anyway, great and fair discussion about an all-American hero.
on May 28 2008 @ 9:50 am 14. kristena said …
[Spoiler Alert]
I was in the room for this one, and I have to say that the dialogue was insipid enough to warrant the loss of a star or two. But every time I looked up at the screen, I was blown away by how pretty the film was. Maybe it was just the location, but I consistently thought it looked way better than it sounded.
Anyway, I don’t know much about Rambo except that culturally he isn’t taken very seriously. I’ve never seen the first 3 films, but I laugh at the thought of someone dressing up like Rambo and acting all tough and stuff. For that very reason, I had a very difficult time with the level of violence in the film. I stopped looking when I saw limbless bodies flying across the screen. But as indicated here, it only got worse from there.
And then the missionaries… I wondered when the film was going to show us that they were just a bunch of fools. Just a bunch of idealists trying to help the needy and preach peace. We have Rambo saying “Go home,” over and over without explanation. He thinks they’re a bunch of idiots, and the violence that ensues only further proves his point. But what is the point exactly? To not attempt to help people who are innocent and hurting unless you’re armed and ready to blow everyone away? Hmmm… And then there’s the moral dilemma of the fella who exhorted Rambo earlier for killing kills someone in the end. But this moral issue is never addressed. It does seem to uphold violence, however.
Again, I’m no Rambo expert. But Rambo doesn’t seem like the proper sounding-board for drawing attention to the needs of Burma. Then again, we’re having this discussion which could somehow be Stallone’s secret, genius plan to get us interested.
on May 28 2008 @ 10:25 am 15. Rick Olson said …
It’s a dominant narrative in our society, and in the West in general. It’s called by scholars “The Myth of Redemptive Violence” and it goes like this:
Our hero is a peace-loving man. He just wants to live peacefully, to be left alone. But bad guys invade his world. They take over his beloved town/jungle/village, they become a law unto themselves. They do despicable things, but the hero is not a violent man, he hates violence. But eventually he has enough. He sees that, in the end, it’s necessary. They push him just one step too far, he doesn’t want to do it — have I said he’s a peaceful man, no matter what his violent past has been? But they go too far, and in the end, violence is the only way. It is redemptive, it brings peace and order back to society.
This is a dominant narrative of our culture; the most pure examples are perhaps the classic westerns, but it’s seen everywhere. It helps legitimize our foreign policy: war is always seen as a last resort, that was even given as a rationale for the one we’re in now.
on May 29 2008 @ 11:29 am 16. Craig Kennedy said …
Sean, I’ve seen 52 new releases so far this year. Is that a little or a lot? I didn’t seen the Paris Hilton film because I don’t go out of my way to see movies I know I will hate.
Rambo is easily the worst movie I’ve seen this year. I’m sure worse have been made, but I hope I never have to sit through one.
First Blood is a terrific action picture and I hoped that Rambo might be a return to form. It was not. It was a flimsy excuse for a bloodletting and a poorly executed one at that.
on May 29 2008 @ 9:01 pm 17. Colleen said …
52 films in 5 months… for a avid film buff, thats probably on par. I have only seen 30 so far this year (some are last year releases). I am a little low for the number of films , but festival season really heats up sept. on. Between Vancouver film fest, and TAD I will probably see 30-35 films in less than a month.
This is the first year I have kept a logbook on film. The DVD’s watched list is the one that shocks me. Over 200 dvd’s seen so far. I don’t think it helped matters that I now have 150 films in three box sets on the to be watched pile.
As for Rambo. I just can’t handle old Sly. I find most actors can get away with alot of the “I’m still in top form…now where is my pension cheque” but Sly just seems to not have it. Rather watch geriatric Indie, than Pensioner Rambo.
on May 29 2008 @ 9:23 pm 18. Evan Derrick said …
Colleen, did you watch this one? Amoral questions of violence aside, the guy is completely believable. Never once did I not believe that Sly couldn’t eat everyone around him for breakfast. The guy is cock diesel, and there wasn’t a single oh-look-at-how-old-he-is moment.
on May 29 2008 @ 10:47 pm 19. Colleen said …
Yah, I’ll admit I haven’t seen this one yet. From the trailers I just couldn’t get up enough enthusiasm to see it in the theatre. I will end up renting it.
Short of Death Race 2000, I never got all that into Sly’s work. The whole Rambo phenomenon was so over kill were I lived growing up, I think it kind of tainted the franchise on a certain level. Standing on my back deck I can see one of the locations from first blood.
on May 30 2008 @ 11:42 am 20. Craig Kennedy said …
You must be from the great Northwest Colleen?
My total movie count is actually down so far this year…more new releases but far fewer DVDs. The bad part about blogging is that it’s cutting into valuable movie watching time.
on May 30 2008 @ 1:32 pm 21. Colleen said …
Hey Craig,
Yes I come from the GNW. More specifically Outer Suburbia (Vancouver BC). Film & Television central for all of Canada. You can’t throw a stone around here with out hitting a film crew. I get in arguments with teamster’s on a weekly basis. The Film Studio behind my work, always ends up parking trucks in our lot. Grrrr.
The only advantage to having the film community so close is we get alot of stars and directors at opening night screening. That and Uwe Boll lives here. Go Uwe!
on May 30 2008 @ 2:05 pm 22. Craig Kennedy said …
Vancouver is a fabulous city. I ask because I’m originally from Seattle. Yes, I miss the rain.
on Dec 29 2010 @ 4:29 pm 23. Blog de JARIO ARAUJO said …
Um pouco de poesia “cai bem”…
Um descanso, um cochilo curto quase pesado, estrelinhas cintilantes que se explodem a meio metro do olhos. Uma brisa de fogo ardente invisível queimando por dentro e por fora…….
on May 29 2011 @ 2:24 pm 24. Vanessa Supplee said …
What i do not understood is in reality how you are not really much more well-liked than you might be right now. You are so intelligent. You know thus significantly in relation to this topic, produced me in my view believe it from numerous various angles. Its like men and women aren’t interested until it¡¦s one thing to accomplish with Woman gaga! Your own stuffs nice. All the time deal with it up!
on Dec 06 2011 @ 5:52 am 25. dugendads said …
casino online casinos online casinos cassinos casino online pokies online