Local Weather Forecast
Today: Current:68	Friday: 88/66	Saturday: 91/67
Complete Forecast for  Sep 05 2008

TOP JOBS

By STEWART SMITH
TylerPaper.com

If “Rocky Balboa” was intended to be Sylvester Stallone’s wakeup call to Hollywood that he’s ready to be back in the spotlight again, “Rambo” is him walking into your bedroom, dumping a bucket of cold water on you and then tossing you and your mattress out the door as he fires an M60 machine gun into the air and lets out a hearty yell.

“Rambo” was a complete surprise. You see, after “Rocky Balboa” was a bonafide great movie, I almost expected him to drop the ball on this, his revival of one of the most iconic action heroes of all time. Would Rambo still be a relevant character in today’s world? Does Stallone still have it in him to keep the pathos of the original character and deliver on the action?

The answer, in short, is: Absolutely. Stallone (who both co-wrote and directed here) has produced an action movie that is visceral and doesn’t even pretend to pull its punches, but also has something to say.

It has always seemed that Stallone uses his Rocky and Rambo characters to portray different facets of his personal id. Rocky lets him bring out his optimistic, philosophical side, whereas Rambo is more of a catharsis for his pessimistic, angry side. That might seem like a bit of an over-analysis for most people who just want to see a guy shoot the snot out of faceless, genocidal soldiers, but it’s true.

The “Rambo” movies have always (at their core) been stories about a soldier who has been abandoned and forgotten by his country and who has nothing to fight for except himself. All he wants is to be left in solitude, but circumstances beyond his control always seem to drag him back into the fray. This most recent entry is no different.

This time we find John Rambo in Thailand, silently living out his days catching snakes and operating a riverboat for hire. A group of Christian missionaries want him to transport them upriver to Burma where they intend to bring medical assistance to villages caught in the middle of the violence erupting in the area. Initially refusing to help them, Rambo finally agrees and transports them, though after dropping them at their destination he expects to never see them again. Until, that is, the pastor of the Colorado church they came from shows up and implores him to help find and rescue the missionaries who never made it back home. So, like any good action hero, he teams up with a group of rough-and-tumble mercenaries and sets out to bring the missionaries home.

And that’s pretty much it as far as plot goes, but that’s all that’s really needed. Much like “Rocky Balboa,” Rambo is an incredibly lean film with a brisk pace and almost nothing in the way of a traditional second act. There’s not much in the way of character development as Stallone more or less assumes most people who really care about Rambo’s character are already familiar with him. The missionaries are mostly just faces, but they are portrayed very sympathetically and quite brave.

Rambo doesn’t want to be responsible for letting them walk into a war zone and thinks them foolish as their efforts, in his words, “won’t change nuthin’.” But they are fully aware of the rampaging violence they will be walking into and soldier onward out of dedication to their mission. To them, every life is worth saving, even if they lose their lives in the process of trying to save others’.

The lack of a traditional second act is a little jarring but it works just fine, really, as everything is set up and the story doesn’t waste time on extraneous details and hurries along to what most people will likely be looking forward to: The action.

It’s clear that Stallone wants audiences to know just how brutal the genocide going on in Burma is. No punch is pulled when it comes to the violence on display. Entire villages are mercilessly wiped out. Women are abused, children are shot and the soldiers carrying out these acts barely even blink in the process of it all. It can be difficult to watch at times, especially when you realize that this isn’t just some fantasy that a filmmaker has cooked up. This kind of violence is real.

It’s important, then, that the audience feel outraged and emotionally sucker-punched by the violence enacted on the innocents because it makes the action scenes at the end of the film act as a sort of catharsis. These monsters are given their comeuppance by Rambo and company and you’re almost happy to see the tables turned.

And while Stallone attempts to make people aware of the violence going on in Burma, he also seems to want to educate on just what will happen to people who happen to be on the receiving end of sniper rifles, claymore mines, machetes and .50 caliber machine guns.

In other words, the action on display here is not for the feint of heart. It makes the opening 15 minutes of “Saving Private Ryan” seem tame by comparison. It’s honestly more than a little jarring how brutal the violence is, especially after recently re-watching the first two “Rambo” movies. They were violent, sure, but lacked any significant gore. The same certainly can’t be said for this.

Once the smoke clears, though, it’s evident that Stallone is trying to say that sometimes violence is necessary. But it also laments that fact, acknowledging that violence really only ever begets more violence regardless of its necessity.

In all, your mileage with “Rambo” will entirely depend on what you’re looking for in a movie. If you want a deep narrative with intriguing characters you’ll be pretty much out of luck. But if you’re looking for a tightly wound action flick that doesn’t pull any punches, you’ll be right at home here.

Stewart Smith is a copy editor with the Tyler Paper as well as a burgeoning film critic and aspiring film historian. He may be reached at simplystew@yahoo.com.