Lying at the heart of my love of the cinema is the simple fact that I am admittedly easily entertained. While I have been unfairly (at least from my point of view) criticized over the years for "liking everything", it is difficult for me not to find some redeeming value in almost any film.

For example, though many of you thought "The Mist" and "Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story" were borderline nonsense, I truly enjoyed both. While I would never argue the point that either was anything close to a great film, and while both were seriously flawed, the former was genuinely scary and the latter had moments where it was flat out hysterical.

On the other hand, I do have standards, as low and minimal as they may be. With the exceptions of "Spanglish" (2004) and "Punch Drunk Love" (2002), I won't go near an Adam Sandler movie. I simply can't find any entertainment value in a film starring a man I find totally insipid, not to mention gratingly irritating. Larry the Cable Guy? Forget it. And while violence, blood and gore don't bother me in the slightest, I have previously written enough about my disgust for films like "Saw" and the "Hostel" series.

It is with that background that I wrestled over going to see "Rambo." While "First Blood" (1982) was a surprisingly complex emotional thriller with a depth that I would have never given Sylvester Stallone credit for, each subsequent sequel became increasingly more superficial and absurd. How could another "Rambo" picture possibly have anything left to say, particularly given the fact that Stallone is now 64 years old?

Well, I did go, but I insisted that "Z", my often referred to Saudi exchange student, go along. I needed a backup plan in case this movie went left on me, and I felt I could count on a 16-year-old boy to enthusiastically embrace the action in this movie.

Surprisingly, we both liked it. Sure, Stallone as John Rambo looks almost as freakish as the caricature of him in "Meet the Spartans." His features have become so Michael Jacksonesque that he makes Barry Bonds look like Don Knotts.

Strangely, those features work for him as "Rambo", due largely to the fact that this ex-Vietnam era marine killing machine is so emotionally damaged. It is almost as if Rambo's torment has altered him physically, much the same way as occurred in the "Picture of Dorian Gray" (1945).

The story is extraordinarily sparse and Stallone says little, most of which is mumbled. Both are a good thing, as this film is all about the attempt of the Rambo led mercenaries to free some missionaries from the clutches of the Burmese Army and their completely amoral leader. As Stallone rides to the rescue, the battle scenes with their special effects are really pretty extraordinary.

I have always felt that Stallone was an underrated genius. Possessing minimal acting ability, he is able to make an effective movie like "Rambo" by consistently allowing his character to battle villains that are, by every definition, worth killing. Like Schwarzenegger's "The Terminator", this movie is largely one long adrenalin rush unencumbered by any subplots. There is no moral to "Rambo." In his own words, "You either live for nothing or die for something."

It's not a bad movie, particularly if you can watch it through the eyes of a teenage boy.