Its Déjà vu all over again as the impressionable movies and television shows of my youth and teenage years have found new audiences by being revived (Star Wars Episode I-III), remade (Battlestar Galactica) or sequel-ized (Live Free or Die Hard, Rocky Balboa, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Star Trek) Joining that long list of sequels is the unlikely, yet welcomed return of ex Green Beret John Rambo, last seen twenty years ago in “Rambo III”, rescuing his former mentor Col. Trautman from his Afghan captors. The fourth and presumably last in the series, titled simply "Rambo," kicks off with an ominous voice-over showing us footage of the cruelty and evil perpetrated by the civil war in Burma (now known as Myanmar) going on for the last sixty plus years. We then see Rambo, older, wider, but still intimidating, living a quiet life in Southeast Asia making his living as a Snake wrangler until one day he is asked by Christian missionaries to take them up river into the war torn territory of Burma. Rambo warns them against it, but they insist and are eventually captured. Mercenaries locate the captured and soon enlist Rambo’s help up river. The team is soon ambushed dragging Rambo into yet another fight for survival. Stallone co-wrote and directed the film giving it a far more serious tone than the previous two flicks. He wisely eschews the comic book violence of Part II and the overall absurdity of Part III and injects Rambo with some much needed seriousness and reality. Pairing him with some mercenaries, they carry some of the load while Stallone mainly stands around to shot arrows and fires a huge gi-normous gun. To say this film is violent and graphic is like saying Tom Cruise is a little weird. “Rambo” is a curio if for nothing else that it represents a time I thought had passed; the lone hero action movie. Stallone doesn’t just resurrect an 80’s icon, but a mentality that he helped perfect in the 1980’s; these politically correct times have made audiences into wishy washy, squishy weak pussies where shades of gray are preferred over black and white heroics. Straight-forward tough guys taking on the evils of the day have been pushed aside for mealy-mouthed, whiny, hand-wringing, girly men; who on their best day couldn’t carry Stallone’s underpants. We’ve grown soft as action icons have been supplanted by comic book properties and characters based off theme park rides. America’s can do attitude and individualism has been replaced by the crybaby, big government heard mentality. “Rambo” attempts to revive that can do attitude and his status as action movie hero bringing along with him the gratuitous violence- so often attacked in the 1980’s from the watchdog groups- is a thousand times worse than anything that decade produced, the film earns its very hard R rating, how it didn’t get Unrated or an NC-17 is a mystery- brutal stuff. And to his credit, Stallone takes a no bullshit stance and makes Rambo the most violent movie since “Saving Private Ryan,” that is no exaggeration as the bullets hit and cause disgusting amounts of realistic damage; explosions that take off limbs and throw bodies, bayonets stab children and a soldier rips an infant from its mother’s arms and throws it into a thatch house and sets it on fire. No tricky editing or fancy cuts, Stallone the filmmaker does not linger on these gruesome atrocities for cheap thrills, but he doesn’t shy away from the evils of war and mans inhumanity against man. Unlike the two previous sequels, Rambo’s world has twisted political fallout and firing a gun is messy business. If the film has any political message(s) it’s that most of the time, the body politick is rotten and corrupt unable or unwilling to invoke substantive change. Right-wingers in the 1980’s (and today) liked to claim Rambo was/is a Republican, but that’s just not the case as it’s comical to think a guy like this has any use for something as tame and puny as politics. If anything, the film is anti war as described earlier being about as graphic as a non-historical film can be.
Writer Stallone wisely stayed away from what many would have thought the obvious choice of Iraq. Rambo from the 80's would have slipped in and out and resolved the conflict in 90 minutes, but the actor felt it insulting if he treated the conflict in a trite and simplistic way that seems to have no end in sight. Instead he uses the popular Darfur-like crisis and shines the light on the little known civil war in Burma.
It is not for the squeamish, it’s barely for the bloodthirsty fuckers like me, seeing children burned and stabbed with a bayonet is not a must see for anyone, but without such things, the films integrity about a true life civil war in Burma that still rages on would have been lost and open for mockery. Even though Stallone takes his message seriously, he’s not preachy or sanctimonious, he drops Rambo in the thick of it and through the carnage, lets the viewers make up their mind. Stallone emphasizes that Rambo doesn’t enjoy killing, its just one of the few things he’s really, really good at and we the audience are happy for it as the character has more creative kills than the last three Jason Vorhees flicks. As much as I enjoyed the flick, the films straight-forward approach surprised me as it will audiences; refreshing as it shows Rambo the character is not a mass murderer on an ego trip or Stallone the actor is not a politicizing hack; (Sean Penn, I’m talking ‘bout you!) just a guy who has no interest in the social reindeer games and wants to be left alone. Stallone the actor is just as good, as his I don’t give a fuck attitude shows a guy whose still wounded by the raw deal he’s gotten over the years., who believes in nothing anymore, but still clings to something because survival is the only thing left. The supporting cast is good, especially the mercenaries, but full of mostly unknowns except for the lovely Julie Benz of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer/Angel” fame, is the only one who seems to make a connection with Rambo as he accepts her plea to go upriver. She spends most of the time in a cage or screaming and actually doesn’t become mince meat since any person that John makes a connection with, Col. Trautman excluded, usually dies. “Rambo” is not nearly as exciting as the original, but Stallone is 61 so I think we can cut the guy a break. Better than it should, the film is a must see not just for the violent gore and the kooky nostalgia it inspires from lovers of 80’s action movies, but for Stallone’s excellent performance and an action flick the kicks ass and takes names. Also, it proves two important things, that Stallone has a few more good years left and that even past age 60 on his worst day he’s still more of a hard ass than anything starring Matt Damon. Props and Kudos to Stallone for having a vision and seeing it through, I’m interested in seeing where he takes his new found clout and popularity, rumor has it he wants to do a remake of the Charles Bronson classic, "Death Wish," interesting- however if he aims for an “Over The Top 2” or “Rhinestone Revisited,” I’m done.