Friday, February 01, 2008

Rambo (2008)



Not bad. Not bad.

But it should've been so much better.

The plot is simple, as any Rambo plot should be. John Rambo reluctantly takes a group of missionaries upriver from Thailand into Burma. When they don't return as expected, he feels guilty and takes up a bunch of mercenaries the church has hired to extract the team. There will be blood.

Oh wait. That's another movie.

The violence is always the first thing that gets talked about with this movie, so I'm bucking the system by talking about the plot first. I'm radical like that. But the violence does need talking about so let me just say that I think I get what Stallone was trying to do.

In order to research the combat scenes, Stallone watched YouTube footage shot by soldiers in Iraq. He says, ''When you're hit with a 50-caliber gun, you are literally emulsified. It's not like a little bullet hole -- 'ouch, that hurts.' You're gone. Violence is horrifying. These characters aren't slightly wounded with little designer cuts. I wanted to show how brutal violence can be.''

The Rambo movies have always had some kind of political point, whether it's a complicated one like America's treatment of returning VietNam vets, fairly simple like how it blows that we left a lot of POWs there when we pulled out, or just plain stupid like how Russia totally sucked. I guess the point of this one is that war really sucks, which is a message I can get behind. The problem is that Rambo isn't really clear about communicating that message. That's why I had to go track down an interview with Stallone in order to figure out why he went so over-the-top on the blood and guts.

Rambo is the ultimate American soldier. The reason that First Blood and Rambo: First Blood, Part II (remember when we could just refer to it as Rambo? Sigh.) worked was because Rambo represented what American soldiers felt about VietNam: that it sucked that the US treated them so poorly, not only by leaving a bunch of them over there, but also by looking down on them when they came home. The reason Rambo III didn't work was because it there wasn't this mass of American soldiers wishing we could all go over and kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan. So, what does this new Rambo say about American soldiers today?

That's confusing. I don't hear a lot of soldiers today talking about how great it would be to provide relief to the persecuted Burmese. Not that I think soldiers would be opposed to that mission if we sent them on it; just that it seems like they have other things to think about right now what with the war and all.

But when I look at how the character of Rambo is presented in the new movie, I get another piece of the puzzle. When the movie opens he's still just as angrily defeated and disconnected from humanity as he's always been. He absolutely does not care about taking a bunch of (in his opinion) stupid missionaries up into a war zone. Not until the cute one says something about being willing to give your life so that someone else can live.

I totally get that part and it's an interesting comparison, the willingness to be a martyr for your faith and the willingness to die for your country. I understand why she changes his mind. She's reminded him of who he is. He hasn't acted like one in a long time, but he's a soldier. And as odd as it is, he connects with her because in her own way, she's a soldier too.

Maybe that's the point. That American soldiers, despite the horrible brutality of war, do what needs to get done. They put their lives at risk so that others can live. That jives with a short speech that Rambo gives the mercenary team when they're thinking about turning back in the face of overwhelming odds. "We're soldiers," he says. "This is what we do."

It also, I think, helps the ending make more sense. SPOILERS FOLLOW. I won't tell you what it is, but I didn't like it at first. Okay, actually, I still don't. Not that I hate what happens at the end, but I don't think it goes far enough. If this is the last Rambo movie, I want more closure to the character than we get. But what we do get fits into that "ultimate American soldier" mentality. It's the ending I think most American soldiers want for themselves. END SPOILERS.

But back to the closure issue, even though I think I get what Stallone's trying to say with this film, there's this whole other level at which it fails and that's as the raucous adventure flick that I wanted it to be.

'Cause even though First Blood (both parts) had points to make, they were still cool as hell action films. They were freaking Rambo for cryin' out loud! Rambo goes out into the woods chased by a bunch of prejudiced sheriff's deputies and he gives 'em what for! You don't f*** with John Rambo. You need someone to go in and rescue a bunch of POWs from an active camp full of vicious guards? You send in John Rambo. He sets traps, he hides in mud, he wraps freaking impossible to carry guns around one hand and blows his enemies to kingdom come. He kills with guns, he kills with knives, he kills with bows and arrows, and he kills with his bare hands. There is no military action hero cooler than John Frickin' Rambo.

Unfortunately, I didn't see enough of that guy in this movie.

Oh, there are moments. I won't spoil them for you, but there are some really cool moments and the middle half-hour of the movie is full of them. There's one scene that nearly made my head explode from how awesome it was. Again, I won't ruin it, but it starts with the words, "Give me the claymore." You'll know it when you see it. I peed... my... pants.

I wish there was more like that. MORE SPOILERS. I wish that after that scene he hadn't spent the rest of the movie standing in a truck behind a frickin' machine gun. Boring. END OF MORE SPOILERS.

It's kind of like what I was talking about in my Kill All Monsters! update below. Rambo has a good point to make and all, but it's just not as awesome as it should be. Not by a long shot.

Three out of five claymores.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

*spoilers*
I think the film works best when you don't think of Rambo as the ultimate American soldier of the 1980's. This Rambo is essentially the one that David Morrell created in his novel. It's an approach that also makes sense within the context of the series.

Rambo was screwed over by his own government once again in Part 2. He likely has mixed feelings about how things ultimately went down in Afghanistan. And it's entirely possible that Trautman is dead and he's aware of it. Trautman was always portrayed as his one link to humanity, so what would happen once that snapped?

We'd probably find him living where he feels most at home- right next to a warzone. This aspect reminded me of Christopher Walken's fate in The Deer Hunter.

The film's real battle is within Rambo himself, with Burma just serving as little more than a playing field. At one point, Rambo has a flashback in which Trautman shoots him. This is a deleted scene from First Blood, and is utilized here to suggest that Rambo feels he should've been destroyed long ago. He basically hates himself for being a killer.

Stallone apparently wanted to give a realistic view of Rambo at sixty years of age. So he downplays Rambo's superheroic feats, and allies him with a team of younger mercenaries. It's interesting to note that no one in the film seeks out Rambo for his combat skills. He is basically just that mythical character which can ferry them all into Hell.

Also interesting is the fact that Rambo is isolated even during the final battle. You could argue that he never actually joins the others in their fight and simply unleashes the rage that is within himself. I believe the entire finale was intended as an homage to the shootout in The Wild Bunch. There's also a nice ambiguity to the battle's aftermath: Do the missionaries feel triumphant or demoralized?

Overall, I was very surprised to find myself enjoying this film so much. But I think it works best when viewed as a work of minimalism- which is one reason why I hope there's no "extended version" released on dvd.

Michael May said...

VERY insightful review. Thanks!

I'd forgotten about how the US had screwed Rambo personally in Part 2. That adds another element that I hadn't thought of. And his actions in that last battle also make a lot of thematic sense from the viewpoint you're presenting.

I certainly appreciate the thought that went into these decisions and I'm not saying that they were necessarily bad decisions, but a big part of me went to the movie for nostalgic reasons and I just wish those had been fed more.

My dad asked me if Stallone acted like a 60-year-old man or tried to pretend he was still in his 30s. I was pleased to tell him that while the movie didn't make an issue of his being old, it also didn't try to disguise his age either. But man I would've loved to see that 60-year-old man do more at the end of the movie like he did in the middle of it.

Anonymous said...

I can understand that, and you're certainly not alone. I've noticed a lot of people expressing a similar view online.

It's slightly ironic, since Stallone's age was always an issue leading up to this film. But now that it's out, no one seems to notice that he's playing Rambo in his sixties. I've even seen fans asking, "Why doesn't he run around shirtless like in Rambo 2?" LOL

Stallone may have toned down his portrayal a little more than necessary, but it will probably benefit the movie in the long run. 10 or 20 years from, audiences will not have the same sense of nostalgia, and the film will have to stand on its own.

Michael May said...

I can't argue with that last paragraph. Not that I'd want to. :)

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails