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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anyway, great and fair discussion about an all-American hero.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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:

He has faced criticism for his choice of location. “I was being accused, once again, of using the Third World as a ‘Rambo’ victim.

“The Burmese are beautiful people. It’s the military I am portraying as cruel,” he said.

“This is full scale genocide. I want the violence in there because it is reality. It would be a whitewashing not to show what’s over there,” he said.

“I think there is a story that needs to be told,” Stallone said.

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.

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).

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.