Movie Review
Movie Review: Rambo
Posted by Kevin Carr (kevin@filmschoolrejects.com) on January 26, 2008
Sylvester Stallone may be eating at the 4:30 buffet and paying with his AARP card, but he can still make one hell of an action flick.
Rambo is the fourth movie in the popular franchise, and it is easily the bloodiest and most vicious of the bunch. But it’s also the best sequel by far. Like last year’s Rocky Balboa, this is a remarkably fresh take on an old storyline.
The movie follows a retired John Rambo who reluctantly escorts some missionaries into war-torn Burma. When they are attacked and kidnapped, it’s up to everyone’s favorite Vietnam vet to spring them from this third-world hellhole.
Prior to watching Rambo, I rented the other two sequels. I didn’t re-watch First Blood because while it was the original, it was an entirely different film.
The general story for any Rambo sequel is to have John Rambo get dropped into some backwater pit (whether it be Vietnam, Afghanistan or now Burma) to rescue people from a rustic, horrific jail. He breaks them out, kicks the crap out of the bad guys and escapes – often in a helicopter.
Rambo hits all these marks, save the helicopter. But the difference in this film is that it’s been 20 years since a Rambo film has hit the screens. Today is a different cinematic world. There’s a hell of a lot more grit, Sly keeps his shirt on throughout the film (thank God) and there’s no cheesy synth music in the soundtrack.
In a world soiled by torture porn, Rambo gets away with so much more. But while it has been criticized for being exploitative, I’ll defend what happens in the film. The violence in Rambo is deserved, either to characterize the villains or give the audience a sweet sense of revenge when the hero comes knocking at their door.
Watching the atrocity footage is difficult – but this stuff happens, people. And it also lets John Rambo rise above the brutality as an American soldier (although he has been forsaken by his country). The movie show s what we often forget, that the American military is superior on a moral front to many others because it does not stoop to institutionalized atrocities.
Yes, you will find occasional aberrant behavior in soldiers, but no matter how many films Brian DePalma makes on the subject, it is not the standard – or even the acceptable – practice.
Unlike some regimes (including former enemies like World War II Japan), the American military does not teach or practice rape, beheadings or genocide. It seems at times, we are the only ones who stand up against this. And John Rambo epitomizes these goals and ideals.
It’s not an easy film to make it through, and while the build-up is nauseating, it is also frighteningly eye-opening and realistic. But the best part is the last half, which has Rambo and company blowing the holy snot out of the legions of bad guys.
Yes, Rambo can be hard to watch, but it’s almost necessary for some to see. And it might just help us remember what our enemies are capable of.
The Upside: Finally, an R-rated action flick that fucking rocks.
The Downside: The atrocities are a bit hard to stomach in the build-up of the film.
On the Side Stallone claims to have used the human growth hormone to get buffed up for this film.
Read more articles by Kevin Carr
22 Comments
January 26th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Dude, you GET it. I agree with your review completely and I had about the same to say about it on Screen Rant.
Vic
January 26th, 2008 at 7:33 am
I FIND YOUR STATEMANT ABOUT THE IDEALS OF THE US ARMY AND THE GOODNESS OF THE AMERICAN SOLDIER VERY INTERESTING.
IN HOW MANY CONFLICTS HAVE YOU BEEN TO STATE SO CLEARLY THAT THE U S ARMY DONT EVER HAD PRACTICATE ANY ACT OF ATROCITY TOO.
WAR PER SE IS CAPABLE TO TURN A YOUNG BOY INTO TERRORIST AND A GOOD MAN INTO A VISCIOUS KILLER .
DONT DO A STATEMENT LIKE THAT AGAIN ,IN RESPECT OF MEMORY OF THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE OR EVEN IN A MORE RECENT CASE THOSE WHO HAD BEEN TREATED LIKE ANIMALS IN GUANTANAMO.
January 26th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Give me a break. The prisoners in Gitmo are treated better than convicts in U.S. prisons.
Why is it that people like you never look at the atrocities commited by the other side? Al Qaeda sawing off the heads of innocent civilians, or to use your example the two MILLION people who were murdered in Vietnam AFTER the US left.
Vic
January 26th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Read about the Rape of Nanking, and then tell me any instance in U.S. history where the American military has done anything remotely close to that.
January 27th, 2008 at 12:48 am
It’s amusing seeing some posters here cite particular instances where deplorable actions were taken by some US servicemen (please don’t insult anyone’s intelligence by quoting Gitmo, those prisoners are treated better than inmates in US prisons, and dont’ forget, most were caught fighting for an organisation that wants to kill as many Americans as they need for publicity and social upheaval). The review writer already acknowledged these things do happen. He also correctly stated, it’s not accepted or sanctioned practice of the US military(Kosovo, Congo, Darfur anyone?) to comitt atrocities. Take the anti-administration chip off your collective shoulders and realise, that on the overwhelming whole the US Military forces behave honourably in time of conflict. They are the most litigated armed forces in the world (Abu Graib anyone?), one wrong move, it’s on every newpaper and TV in the world. I have a dear friend who served in the first Gulf War and saved Iraqi lives (combatants trying to kill him). US medical personell treat enemy combatants as well as their own people. If you can, without fabrication, “embellishment” or bias show me an instance where combatative Iraqi forces have returned the same honourable behaviour you have my fullest attention (kidnapping service people and denying them adequate medical attention doesn’t count). Great review of a way overdue good action movie…and thank you for having the intestinal fortitude to state the facts as they are and not filtered through the “romance” of faux revolutionary platitudes.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:16 am
P.S……The last 3rd of this film would being a tear of joy to Sam Pekinpah’s eye. The 80’s defined the modern action film (as cheesy as they may have got, they still hit a note with audiences that doesn’t get hit anymore). We’ve lost those dynamics in favour of gloss, merchandising and career promoting, in short, we’ve forsaken a good yarn for the bottom line..money…and that strategy has been a resounding failure. It’s taken an action icon of the 80’s in his 60’s to remind us of what a good action film is meant to look like. Great job Sly, if you’ve got one more in you…let’s have it.
January 27th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for not taking the typically Hollywood critic approach to this movie. While on my blog I have hacked the critics for canning this movie, http://greyfoxden.blogspot.com/ (Shameless Plug, you get the golden pass. I saw the movie on opening night and the house was packed. People clapped and cheered when Rambo stepped in when people either were to afraid or powerless to stop the Burmese soldiers. I too agree it was nice to see an American not portrayed as an arrogant warmongering pig who comes to doubt everything. I also like the fact that the movie did not comment or take the stand that old warriors have no place in the world and its better to have them just die like some dog in a fighting pit rather than take the chance and say yeah we need these guys because not everything gets settle by Amnesty International or singing Kum By Ya around a camp fire. I also have to applaud Stallone for not beating us over the head with a political message like Lions for Lambs did, also for keeping Rambo fun and keeping to the myth of the one man army without seeming like a cartoon.
Regards,
Grey Fox
January 27th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
P.S. Could someone send TTaka a hooked and phonics spelling book. As for the Vietnamese they used to set up loud speakers near Fire bases and broadcast the torture of and mutilation of U.S. servicemen. They used children as human bombs like the Islamic terrorists do and beheading was not uncommon for those who did not side with the communist forces. Are there bad soldiers, yes in any army you look. But does the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Canada green light their troops to conduct torture, rape, theft, arson, summary executions as an acceptable combat doctrine or doctrine of military conduct the answer is no. Do the Islamic, Burmese, Vietnamese, Bhutanese and Chinese military forces allow this, yes. I would be happy to direct you to Amnesty International or United Nations annual reports on human rights violations as actual factual evidence of an unbiased 3rd party. Really who is the monster here TTaka and anyone else taking TTaka’s stand, think carefully you are on the verge of being a complete idiot.
January 27th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Good to see there are still some dinosaurs out there that actually believe the US hasn’t done anything despicable. You would think after 50 years of abuses and atrocities some of those would have sunk into to even the thickest of nazi-wanna be skulls. Does anyone here really think that because other countries have done horrible things (sure, there are lots) that that some how negates what the US has done? Not to mention the hilarious comments from Grey Fox about the Vietnamese, what nonsense. What Faux-news source did you drag that dribble out of.
The review was fine, but that laughable comment about the moral superiority of the US military will have me laughing for days.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
AC - I repeat…. look up the rape of Nanking, and tell me when in the country’s history has the military done anything like that.
January 27th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Well AC when I was in High School I did volunteer work at a VA hospital were Veterans can get health care and physical therapy some of them just happened to be Vietnam veterans who opened up about some of their experiences. I would suggest for further study you read up on the Khmer Rouge, if you are not the book reading type the movie the killing fields is fairly accurate in its account of what went on in with that group.
Also the U.S. does not condone atrocities from its own soldiers, the ones who do are tried for their war crimes. The U.S. has prosecuted Vietnam Veterans guilty of massacres even in 1995 when enough evidence was available. The Oliver Stone bullshit about every U.S. soldier a psycho murderer is shallow and pedantic for his attempted overview of the war.
You also seemed to ignore that I mentioned that bad soldiers can be found in an army but the U.S. does not make a habit of allowing the kinds of abuses that other militarizes, like the Burmese or NVA allowed. Speaking of the NVA and Vietnam I think you should go there and ask to see the burial grounds for the South Vietnamese soldiers, the ARVN, from the Vietnam war. There are none because the communist forces bulldozed the cemeteries they were in with no regards for the remains all the bodies were left out in the open and the burial markers destroyed.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:49 am
Saying the US military is good compared to Nazi Germany and imperial Japan is not a great endorsement. Yes, there are true institutionalized atrocities and the US military does not appear to be behind it.
But you say “It seems at times, we are the only ones who stand up against this.” On the face of it, you appear oblivious to the dozens (upon dozens) of countries that not only stand up against ‘this’ (genocide, rape, etc) but also against many other horrors (landmines for example, which hurt many incidents long after wars and are also depicted in this film) that the US military refuses to join in their banning. The US still gets a pass on nuclear weapons, horrific though they are, because of their indeed exemplary stance on their non-use.
Clearly the US is not the only one that stands against the atrocities, in word and in deed. But maybe there is something deeper to your comment; that the US is the only one that will stand up AND GET IN THE FACE of the evildoers. In fact the example of Bosnia is a great one, where European countries deplored the despicable acts happening there, but weakly stood by until the US successfully backed, deployed and led a liberation force that by all accounts did some real good in the world.
Through this lens, yes even the invasion of Iraq is justified in that the US would not stand by while Saddam was being a dick.
But this ignores real atrocities, backed or covered up institutionally by the US government. Let’s put aside the huge covert (and blown covert) operations by the CIA and US military: Contras, rendition, etc. There are documented atrocities where those who caused them were never prosecuted by the US. The evil doctor at Auchswitz who tortured prisoners (Morgenthau, I believe) and his counterparts in Japan who did similar acts were never brought to justice, and by reasonable accounts aided the US in their chemical weapons programs.
OK, so focusing fully on the US military, what institutionalized atrocities have they perpetrated or covered up? In short, look at every conflict the US entered but Canada did not, and you’ll find places where the US has gone beyond human decency. It may sound jingoistic on my part, but it’s damn true.
January 28th, 2008 at 8:39 am
JD - “every conflict the US entered but Canada did not” is not a specific instance. And it doesn’t give us any examples of atrocities perpetrated by the military as a whole or something that was ordered from the top down.
And I never said that the US is the only one. I said the US is superior to many.
I think it’s good to remind ourselves that we are better than Imperialistic Japan because they did some horrible things, and they taught institutionalized atrocities. But it’s not just Japan. When we the last time US freedom fighters publically beheaded anyone?
January 28th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Kevin
Great review, but the comment
“Unlike some regimes (including former enemies like World War II Japan), the American military does not teach or practice rape, beheadings or genocide. It seems at times, we are the only ones who stand up against this.”
I have some objection to - I don’t think British soldiers (your ally remember) and the majority of the Western world behaves or condones such behaviour or practice, so its a little bit of a sweeping statement that lets the whole review down.
I can’t wait to see it over here when its released, I’ve been waiting for it since I fist saw the trailer last July!
There are other countries in the world with morals and standards though than the US!
January 29th, 2008 at 2:25 am
Robo10, thanks for the comment. I think I did exaggerate a bit with the last sentence in question in that there are plenty of other allies over the years that have taken a stand against some pretty awful regimes over the years. My apologies to the Brits and other allies of the U.S. Good point.
Hope you enjoy the flick when it opens in your neck of the woods.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
What you said about Japan is true, in WW2. Unlike Clint Eastwood’s film Letters from Iwo Jima, lol. kevin carr, were you hinting at that in your review? On Hollywood’s biased portrayl of foriegn events? if a mainstream Hollywood writer would of written this about Burma, I can’t see it being in the same light.
January 31st, 2008 at 8:53 am
here is probably the opposite viewpoint of kevin’s superb review.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080124.wrambo25/BNStory/Entertainment/home
The highlight is
“Rambo escorts the Christians upriver, where their boat is intercepted. One of Rambo’s charges, a pretty liberal (Julie Benz) is about to be raped and her male colleagues beheaded, when – quick as a sneeze – Rambo whips out an automatic handgun and saws the bad guys in half.
And so it goes: The militia rape boys and girls, and feed their pigs enemies of the state, cackling all the while. Never, not even in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, has Hollywood depicted Asians with more prejudice. To what end? With the thugs’ every foul deed, Rambo and a youthful band of vigilantes are aroused to a greater sense of fury, resulting in a final massacre that makes viewers feel as if they’re in a sprinkler park raining blood.”
Prejudice? Doesn’t this douche understand he was making the film against the Burmanese Militants persecuting the people there? What would he have preferred them treated as? Nice guys? political Correctness should never cover up the truth.
February 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
It is really nice to see that somebody in Hollywood still gets it. I wouldn’t say that 2007 was terrible year but nothing truly spectacular came from it even though I really enjoyed 300. As far as remakes go this really delivers on the past. It didn’t shake any of the things I loved about the old school movies. If only all re-introductions to past movies were this good. With Rambo and Rocky I think Sylvester really shows that he knows for what fans are looking. RAMBO ROCKS!!!!!!!!!
February 4th, 2008 at 8:34 am
Good review, and I’m looking forward to the film. But to paint Rambo as the figurehead of a morally superior American armed forces is a bit cute - as a nation who for a number of years now has deliberately run an internment camp in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, and flown prisoners to foreign countries so that torture can be carried out, this US regime is not exactly at the forefront of the human rights movement.
And lest we forget, the Afghans who Rambo fought beside in Rambo 3 are now the terrorists we fight so bloodily in Afghanistan now. “Good guys” and “bad guys” are often just labels dictated by foreign policy. Let’s hope the “bad” asians in this film don’t become allies in the “war on terror” in the next few years.
February 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
It`s curious that a film that was so turned down by critics starts such a debate about
human rights, war crimes in totalitarian regimes still in the 21st century, and other
topics that sometimes we tend to look the other side because it gets our “buttocks” out of the couch and makes us think, and talk about it. Despite all the violence and
gore that actually happens at war, if this film really started this kind of debate
I will sure go the theater and watch John Rambo when it lands here in Santiago
Chile.
By the way, Rambo movies kicks f&%$ng “buttocks”
February 25th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Great review. Bravo to you for having the courage to applaud it’s action and excitement. I also have to congratulate Terry for his Sam Peckinpah comment. Indeed I’m sure he would be very happy.
I thought the film was fantastic. Sly gets a lot of stick but he co-wrote, starred in and directed this film. He has managed to wrestle the title of most visceral battle scene from the likes of Steven Speilberg no less, yet will he get any credit.
No of course not. Nothing but sneering contempt from a bunch of chin rubbing liberals who find a comedy about teenage pregnancy far more entertaining.
Stallone showed courage in steadfastedly gunning for an R/18 rating and sod the impact on box office dollar, for giving his fans what they wanted (something George Lucas wasn’t capable of doing) and delivering a refreshing shot in the arm of action films that were stagnating in their own pomposity.
Nice work Sly, we still love you big guy.
February 25th, 2008 at 8:38 pm
NEVER BORING ACTION ALL THE TIME WANT TO WATCH A BRILL MOVIE WATCH RAMBO NOTHING COMPARES