Movie Information

The Story: Headband-sporting John Rambo decides to come out of hiding to free some Christians from a Burmese army encampment. The Lowdown: Violent, dumb, poorly made and pointlessly gory. It's exactly what you expect from a Rambo movie.
Genre: Action
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Matthew Marsden, Graham McTavish, Paul Schulze
Rated: R

After both the financial and critical success of 2006’s Rocky Balboa, Sylvester Stallone has decided to drag his other cinematic touchstone, John Rambo, kicking and screaming back into theaters. According to the new film, Rambo has been hiding out in Thailand for the past two decades. For Stallone’s sake—at least from a critical standpoint—he should have left him there. But from a box-office point of view, there’s enough ‘80s nostalgia going around to make a small fortune out of Rambo and at least have Stallone considering making Over the Top 2: More Overer.

And I guess in some ways, the existence of this latest John Rambo opus is even a tiny bit my fault, since I was one of those critics who liked Rocky Balboa. It’s not a great film by any means, and it’s barely a good one, but it was a pleasant surprise at the time in that it actually had something on its mind, which is even more surprising when you realize Stallone made it. Where Balboa is about Stallone’s stalled career, Rambo isn’t about much more than ultraviolence. There’s an obvious right-leaning, pro-war tinge to it all (it is a Rambo movie after all) that has conservative pundits like Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh ready to give Stallone a Medal of Honor. But at the same time, Rambo can’t seem to figure out what its message is. After all, it gives us a group of naïve Christian missionaries who start the mess to begin with, not to mention that they end up being the pansies who are taught that killing is necessary on occasion. But looking for purpose in a Rambo is probably a fool’s errand in the end. No matter how confused a movie Stallone might have made, one thing about this film is certain: It is firmly and unequivocally pro blowing stuff up.

The film itself is one of the most—if not the most—over-the-top, gratuitously violent action films of recent memory. The only film that even comes close is Robert Rodriguez’ gore-a-thon Planet Terror (2007), but that flick also doubles as a horror. The biggest mistake Stallone makes is taking this whole mess seriously. Rambo himself walks around with the look of a man in serious need of a kitten and more bran in his diet, while the rest of the cast is just as humorless. The only laughs are of the unintentional kind, such as when Stallone steals his own device from Rocky Balboa by inserting black-and-white footage from previous Rambo movies to show the audience what the character’s been through, and maybe to remind everyone that he was once young enough to walk around shirtless. In Balboa, it fit with the overall purpose of the film; here, it’s laughable.

I’m sure Stallone was attempting to show the grim reality of war, but the action scenes are done in such an absurdly far-fetched manner that it undermines his whole point. By the time the movie kicks in, Rambo becomes nothing more than a parade of explosions, automatic weapons fire, maimings, stabbings, decapitations, guttings and attempted rapes, with one gratuitous Patrick Swayze-style throat removal à la Road House (1989). To top it all off, the bloodletting is created with the most obtrusive and obviously fake CGI this side of the Sci-Fi Channel, while Stallone, despite decades of action movies, doesn’t have a clue how to direct an action scene without spiraling into muddled shaky-cam confusion.

Sure, the film has a plot in-between all the gunfire, involving a now-retired Rambo who’s hiding out in Thailand as a snake farmer. When some Christian missionaries—who Rambo himself took into the war zone of Burma—are captured by the evil Burmese army, it’s up to Rambo and a group of mercenaries to free them with the highest body count possible. And while Stallone has never been a good actor, the film’s “amateur night in Burma” cast of no-names makes the man look like Laurence Olivier. But all of this is inconsequential in the long run, since the violence is the film’s main selling point, and no audience for Rambo could be looking for anything else. Rated R for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language.


Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

5 thoughts on “Rambo

  1. John

    Pointlessly gory? Exactly what we’d expect? YES! Perfect. Not everything is made in some odd pseudo-melancholy standard artistic form. Sometimes stuff needs to just f#&^@ing blow up. It’s fun, that’s it. Thats the point. Hopefully he’ll make a few more. Maybe he and Bruce Willis will have a “Die Even Freakin Harder Rambo” where they’re throwing cupcakes at old ladies at the nursing home, spearing people with canes. Sweet. I’ll buy its DVD w/ the extras just for the sake of it.

  2. Justin Souther

    “Not everything is made in some odd pseudo-melancholy standard artistic form.”

    No one ever said it did, though I must have missed what was supposed to be fun about this movie, since the whole thing took itself way too seriously.

    I have no problem with gore, just try and not be so humorless about it, that’s all.

  3. Ken Hanke

    Well, I only saw about 10 minutes of the early part of RAMBO, but I did see the last 30 minutes. Now, I did think it was humorous, but certainly not in any way that was intended.

    There’re good junk movies and bad junk movies, and I’d put this in the latter category. But then I’ve never actualy subscribed to the theory that sometimes stuff just needs to blow up. I have no actual objection to it in and of itself, mind you, I’ve just never felt a need for it.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.