The highly anticipated fourth Rambo movie came out on DVD last Tuesday, May 27th. I was fortunate enough to catch this one in the theaters when it first came out in January, even if it was the first Rambo I had seen. It was enough of a thrill ride for me to blind buy the last three and watch them all, and I have to say, this one stands on its own. It doesn’t have shirtless Stallone running around in a bandanna shooting an army of people with a big ass gun, or any cartoonish elements found in parts two or three. Rambo is darker, grittier, meaner, and a lot bloodier than the last two (I’ll get back to that). It brought back what made the first Rambo good, and combined it with what made the second and third good, creating a sort of hybrid that breaks away from the others and changes the tone completely. So why does it have to be John Rambo prancing around the jungle pursued by the bad guys? It might as well be anybody, since it has nothing to do with the rest of the movies. However, I will answer my own question with another question: Who else can tear a guy’s throat out with his bare hands?
The story is this: Basically, some peace group has Rambo take them up the river to assist poor and hurt innocent tribes caught in the midst of a raging civil war, and they get captured, and it’s up to him and a team of about 5 or 6 to save them. That’s it really, the story’s very thin, and doesn’t matter because it’s typical Rambo, in which he has to take on an entire army of bad guys. It’s simple and satisfying.
The acting is, well, bad. Sylvester Stallone returns as John Rambo, and puts on a chilling performance. His cold stare was chilling, and there was one speech he made before he left with the squadron that was especially memorable as one of the most chilling monologues from a film. Of course, it’s action, and we’ve got our typical action babe played by Julie Benz, and she has some rough dialogue that may induce eye-rolling, but towards the end, she gets better. This goes for every actor involved, that is, except for Stallone, who’s good throughout the whole thing.
So as I said before, the new Rambo is not like the others. The first Rambo movie, called First Blood, was about a Vietnam war veteran that snaps, and runs into the forest and goes on a cop-killing spree. The second ships him back to ‘Nam, and it’s nothing like the first. Instead, this one has, well, shirtless Stallone running around shooting an army of people with a big ass gun. The filmmakers found that this method was ridiculously successful, and decided to make one more sequel where they ship the shirtless warrior out to Afghanistan, which was equally as entertaining. This is the reason I’m comparing it to parts 2&3 and leaving First Blood alone. The violence in 2&3 was just silly, while in part 1, it was darker. This one is over the top, while being frighteningly realistic at the same time. It’s like if they took the first half hour from Saving Private Ryan and combined it with the last half hour of First Blood pt. 2, and multiplied the violence and flying limbs by 6. It’s so violent that critics use it as a subject of complaint, which is not fair to the movie, but you can’t say that they’re wrong. It’s nitpicking, which I only reserve for things that truly piss me off.
For the fans of the Rambo series that missed it in theater and decide to rent it, don’t expect a goofy action romp complete with, again, shirtless Stallone running around in a bandanna shooting an army of people with a big ass gun. You’re either into it or your not. Overall, I would recommend it to anybody with a strong stomach and can ignore everything bad about Rambo and just enjoy a movie. It isn’t perfect, but what is?
