John Rambo's close Burma shave

Land mines are a popular weapon in Rambo, but nobody sets them off like Sylvester Stallone’s ultra-violent 1980’s action hero.

Everyone else’s mines blow off body parts or release blood gushers. Post-traumatically stressed Vietnam vet John Rambo sets off a single booby trap to nearly nuclear effect, completely with mini-mushroom cloud and a blast wave toppling trees for a hundred yards.

Why does that happen? Because the mine knows it was set by Rambo. Not even Chuck Norris can compete with his intimidating reputation.

After creating a suitable swan song for Rocky Balboa, director and co-writer Stallone does the same for Rambo. Keep in mind that this character isn’t as interesting, so “suitable” doesn’t mean the movie is as good. But after seeing horror flicks cornering the gore market for years, it is vaguely refreshing to see mutilating violence used for insanely justified good.

Rambo has been laying low since 1988’s part 3 in Thailand’s jungle, making ends meet by wrangling cobras for snake shows and bow fishing. He still hasn’t acquired any social skills, so Christian missionaries asking to be taken upriver into genocidal Burma get the cold, muscular shoulder. Then Rambo accepts a crucifix from Sister Sarah (Julie Benz) and away they go.

The Samaritans are dropped off then captured by homicidal Burmese troops, some killed and others offered to wild boars as snacks. Rambo gets the grisly news and joins a pack of hired guns in a rescue mission: mercenaries saving missionaries. “When you’re pushed, killing is as easy as breathin’,” may be Rambo’s longest spoken sentence, summing up the rest of the movie.

Hoo, baby, this is a violent mission, laced with lacerations, decapitations and enough Rambo arrows shot through heads to make Steve Martin an unofficial technical adviser. When no weapons are handy, Rambo simply rips out the throat of someone planning to sexually assault Sarah. That’s how a brute shows that he cares.

Rambo’s close Burma shave has no intentions of being topical. First Blood and its sequel at least had something to mumble about treatment of Vietnam veterans, and part 3 battling Russians in Afghanistan predated the fall of the Berlin Wall.

This one is entertaining strictly for the cheese factor that Stallone denied two decades ago and now seems comfy with. But Rambo isn’t merely cheese; it is a muddy, bloody brie.

Comments

[Kennedy]

In an interview on Howard Stern Thursday, Stallone claimed that he contacted the UN and Soldiers of Fortune to find out where the worst civil unrest is in the world that goes unreported. He went on to say that the government there spends millions on NY PR firms to keep the situation hush-hush. My question is, do you really think he made this film to highlight the situation in Burma, or does having a "cause" justify the level of violence? Maybe its good to have a war film where the sides of right and wrong are clearly defined.

[Steve]

I think he went wherever is cheaper to re-create for a movie (I can get you a river and a jungle near Ocala), and avoid alienating moviegoers on whatever issue (hired p.r. guns or not). This movie doesn't make any situation clearer except for who needs to be killed for this story. Make the bad guys Iraqi/Iranian/whomever doesn't noticeably like us in general and Rambo's actions could make somebody avoid buying tickets. Good question. Thanks.

[Tonka]

Steve,
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. I did as well. I assumed, however, that everyone would butcher it - because it's Stallone. I wasn't alive when the first one came out, so I don't know how First Blood was received. That really is the best one though. In this one, I really enjoyed the ending. It had something to do with what Sarah said to Rambo earlier in the movie, but it also brought the film full circle. It ended just about the same way that First Blood began.

Oh, and that "mini-mushroom cloud" wasn't just set by Rambo. When it exploded, it blew up an English bomb that never exploded when dropped by the English in WWII. Weren't you paying attention?! Ha Ha.

[Steve]

Paying attention??? I was hoping the Times would pay me back for my ticket stub. No, I missed that English bomb thing. Must've had spatter in my eye.

I'm stunned at the moment by someone -- not you, but a 20-year-old post-golf contact -- who wonders who Steve Martin is, and why he shot arrows at people.

But she didn't like Cloverfield, either, so maybe there's hope.

[Deecal]

It's no less than confusing to have a Stallone movie autopsied and dissected for gratuitous violence while "No Country for Old Men" is acclaimed as a work of "art" by many professionals and insiders. One form of snuff movie is just like any other snuff movie - except some are more entertaining than others and try to make a point while others simply focus on a deranged, supposedly super human robot.
Krikies it's even been nominated for an Oscar!
Anyone who saw "No Country" and observed the audience leaving the theater got a strong sense of their distaste and that this kind of gratuitous violence adds nothing to the world of entertainment.
For example, mindless, indiscriminate murder and mayhem with a weapon that is easily recognized as more than strange and yet no part of law enforcement picked up on it. Hello? Or maybe they did but how would movie goers know that when you are unable to understand the mumbling which passes for dialogue.
Is it possible that the science of forensics has not yet reached today's Texas?
Oh, that's what passes for "art"?
Why the obvious double standard on the part of those who claim some form of artistic expertise?
My take is that the time may have arrived for Tommy Lee Jones to accept the fact that movies are no place for some old men.
Finally, it will be interesting to compare the box office numbers of both of these films when they are available.

[Steve]

Glad to have you aboard, Deecal. When I get a chance, maybe I'll post our e-mailings and encourage the discussion.