Indy.com
Today:
Rambo
Posted: Jan 28, 2008 in Movies
Tags:
I definitely have mixed feelings about "Rambo." As an action film, it is intense, loud, and dirty, as Rambo and a gang of mercenaries are tracking a group of missionaries who snuck into Burma looking to help the downtrodden and provide medical attention.
On the other hand, star/writer/director Sylvester Stallone has gone on record saying he wanted to make a movie that highlights the plight of the Burmese people and the horrible atrocities they have to live through. He does, and he depicts this unflinchingly on the screen, with women and children being slaughtered indiscriminately by cruel soldiers. Young boys are forced into military service, women are raped, men are murdered.
The story: Rambo lives a relatively solitary life in Thailand, when a group of missionaries approach him wanting a ride into Burma so they can deliver supplies and help to people who need it. Rambo hesitates, then begrudgingly agrees. When they're captured by Burmese soldiers, Rambo and a group of mercenaries has to extract them.
The film toes the line between respectfully presenting the material and exploiting it for financial gain. Of course Stallone is going to profit from the film, and I don't necessarily begrudge him for that, but the question has to be raised: did he make a Rambo film to highlight the plight of these people, or is he taking advantage of their situation to make another Rambo movie?
The film is brutal, and the onscreen deaths are depicted similarly to those in "Saving Private Ryan," where bullets, mortars and grenades have more savage consequences than the usual "shoot and fall" action films. Body parts go flying, heads literally roll, and blood and guts are delivered by the bucketfull.
There are two diverging schools of thought for that process: on one hand, Stallone isn't glorifying violence and gunbattles, because the consequences are so messily shown. On the other, is he pandering to a more bloodthirsty fan base who is more used to ultraviolent films like "Ryan" and others of its ilk?
I have to give "Rambo" a mixed review. Stallone isn't the most gifted writer in Hollywood by any stretch of the imagination, and where he was able to mask some of the flaws of "Rocky Balboa" with a loving sense of nostalgia and likability, "Rambo" can't do, mostly because the character isn't nearly as interesting.
And while he toes that line between respect and exploitation, he manages to never venture into that latter category.
Stallone looks like a wax figure of himself in that picture.
Remember when Stallone did "Copland" and it seemed like he was taking a turn toward respectability? That was obviously an aberration.
Unlike "Rocky Balboa," which Stallone had been wanting to do for years, he was contractually obligated to deliver a "Rambo" sequel.
I'd vote for him to go the Kevin Costner route, doing leading roles in smaller movies and supporting roles in good ones, a la "The Upside of Anger." It's not like he needs money, so follow your inner muse.
Surely that wasn't a contract from the 80s, when all the other Rambo movies were made. Stallone must have signed that contract relatively recently -- definitely after "Copland."
Anyone know if Frank Stallone made any soundtrack contributions to either of these recent Stallone films?
Surely that wasn't a contract from the 80s, when all the other Rambo movies were ...
Ha. Doubtful. Speaking of contractually obligated, I'm still waiting for my sequel to "Over the Top."
I still put my baseball cap on backwards before I armwrestle. It doesn't work out as well for me as it did for Sly.
I could use a "Cobra" sequel myself.
Unlike "Rocky Balboa," which Stallone had been wanting to do for years, he was contractually ...
I think Stallone IS following his inner muse. He's always struck me as an educated guy, but not necessarily a smart one. He knows a lot of big words, and uses them to try and make himself seem smarter than he really is.
stallone needs to STOP IT and go sit DOWN! the only remakes should be son of rambo or son of rocky.....stallone is a steroided wax ,botox,cartoon of his former self.............lol
He definitely needs to stop...would have been better off leaving well enough alone without this last one....very disappointing.
There is this Lady that works at a restaurant I go to, she has been working there for like 25 years and needs to stop. She should not longer be a waitress anymore. I know she wants to make some money but screw her, she is not as fast as when I first went there like 10 years ago. She would have been much better off stopping when she got my order totally correct years ago.
There is also this local radio station that plays crappy music all the time. Every time I turn it on it is crap.I turned it on last month crap. I had it on today, crap, even 6 months ago it was playing crap. Wait, I'll turn it on right now.... ahhh crap.
It was hilarious, on The Soup he called it Stallone's Bucket List
I saw this movie to a packed house on friday night. I think Stallone is smart enough to know that people aren't going to be going into a Rambo movie expecting to see the friggin' 'Piano.' I thought it was hilarious that someone in a review of the movie actually listed a body count. I lost count within the first 25 minutes! I think Stallone delivered what most people would expect from a Rambo movie. Yeah, the plot was minimal but I've seen Oscar-winning movies where I've scratched my head there too. You just know that when Rambo shows up and starts shooting people in his over-the-top manner (do human skulls REALLY explode like THAT?)you get what you've paid for.
Joe,
My only mild disagreement with your review concerns whether Stallone intended to make any type of moral statement. More to the point, this movie had to be in production long before the recent military crackdown in Myanmar (Burma). Any attempt by Stallone to try and wrap this movie up as some type of tribute to those poor people is disingenuous at best.
Even given all of the gore, I thought the movie was pretty good if one just analyzed it as an action film. War is filthy, cruel and in many ways dehumanizing, and I have a bigger problem with it being presented in some artificial manner.
As a critic of George Bush in general and the Iraq War in particular, I have always been revolted by the fact that the Bush Administration has forbidden any pictures of the returning dead. Everyone knows why, as it is intended to hide the costs of this needless conflict from the American people. What is wrong with a movie that refuses to sanitize the realities of war?
While Stallone's "Super-Rambo" turn at the machine gun was clearly futuristic (not to mention a tad over the top), the special effects concerning the deaths of the soldiers was stylistically real. It reminded me in a way of the poetic violence seen at various times in "The Crow" (1994).
Finally, the thing that bothered me most about "Rambo" was the fact that there were several families who brought their children to see this movie. Simply put, there is no way in hell that any kids should be watching this. Let them hold on to their innocence a while longer.
"Finally, the thing that bothered me most about "Rambo" was the fact that there were several families who brought their children to see this movie. Simply put, there is no way in hell that any kids should be watching this. Let them hold on to their innocence a while longer"
Welcome to the 21st century. I see things like this happen at the movies all the time. We all know that it obviously takes no intelligence in conceiving kids. Raising them, that's ANOTHER story...