Review #1275: Rambo.
Cast:
Sylvester Stallone (John J. Rambo), Julie Benz (Sarah Miller), Paul Schulze (Michael Burnett), Matthew Marsden (School Boy), Graham McTavish (Lewis), Rey Gallegos (Diaz), Tim Kang (En-Joo), Jake La Botz (Reese), Maung Maung Khin (Major Pa Tee Tint), Ken Howard (Father Arthur Marsh), and Supakorn Kitsuwon (Myint) Directed by Sylvester Stallone (#047 - The Expendables, #277 - Rocky II, #340 - Rocky III, #597 - Rocky IV, and #1163 - Rocky Balboa)
Review:
It is interesting to come back to this series, which sprung to life with the adaptation of David Morrell's novel First Blood in 1982. In changing the nature of the character and his fate to make for a film like that one, sequels followed in the later part of the decade. Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) was a pretty ridiculous experience, but it was a good adventure for what it was worth. Rambo III (1988) proved to be a hollow experience, but at least one didn't find themselves with a lingering taste of tiredness, silly but passable in the right circumstances. Two decades passed before a new film came out, due to Stallone not having a compelling story idea to return to the role, one that he felt was one of a man lost in the world and wandering it while hating the very thing he is. This isn't so much a curtain call for Stallone and his character as much as it is a revitalization of what made him such a compelling force to be reckoned with in the first place. It is a grim movie with plenty of (fake) blood that uses the real world conflict in Myanmar (Burma) for effect, if only because it just gives Rambo reason to just go all-out on faceless bad guys in his rescue mission once again (whether it happens to be POWs, his military commander friend, or this film with missionaries). There are two ways to look at this film: it can be pretty riveting with its action, dreary but watchable with Stallone at the helm that at least hasn't become a neutered shell of itself. On the other hand, it can be thought of as a brutal, ugly film that becomes more and more cynical before it decides to reward itself with cheap thrills that satisfy the basic need to see a whole bunch of blood and not much else. To me, each resulting sequel gets more and more ridiculous in their attempts at depth when compared to the original, but at least they stay watchable. Stallone stands his ground this time around, a burnt-out warrior who doesn't say much but doesn't really need to say anything that he can't do with a trusty weapon and a reason to persist on. With the passing of Richard Crenna five years earlier, who does one turn to as the main supporting character? The film pretty much leaves that empty, whether intentionally or not. Sure, you have scenes with Stallone speaking with others (which can be pretty much counted by an old stopwatch), but I never really seem to care about anybody other than the lead. It isn't so much a problem of likability as it is more a problem of them seeming more like composites than real people to go along with. In that regard, the acting is just okay all around, with Benz and McTavish making the most impression The most memorable adversary, supporting character, and impact all still come from the same film - the first one. The most interesting sequence in the whole film is the bloodiest, involving a big machine gun, which complements the idea that these films only get rougher with age. Perhaps the sequence at the end where he goes to see his dad would've been the top one, if it didn't segue into the closing credits. On the whole, this is a film that just goes with the flow of what it think people want from a new 91 minute installment of a burnt out hero done by Stallone - brutal, with plenty of roughness to go around, for better or worse. I shrug my shoulders (and a coin) in the air, because some films really do just fall in the middle. In this case, I recognize the film for doing the basic requirements for an action film, give the film mixed credit for its surroundings, and then say that it would do just fine on the shelf with the other films. In other words, it's fine.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.
