Stallone Returns As Rambo

In 1982, Sylvester Stallone introduced the character John J. Rambo in the film "First Blood."

Within six years, two sequels were introduced: "Rambo: First Blood Part II" and "Rambo III." After those three films, John Rambo was put to bed for two decades.

Now, in 2008, Sylvester Stallone has decided to bring John Rambo out of retirement for one more mission.

In the film "Rambo," we find the eponymous hero living a solitary life as a snake catcher in Thailand when he is asked to take a group of missionaries into war-torn Burma.

After some convincing, Rambo agrees to take the group upriver.

Once in Burma, the group is quickly captured by the corrupt military and held hostage in a camp.

Rambo then joins up with a group of mercenaries to rescue the missionaries and, of course, take out a few corrupt militants on the way.

"Rambo" is, first and foremost, incredibly violent. It cannot be put into words how absolutely, intensely violent this film really is.

Every bullet fired packs a visceral punch as it is shown ripping through the body of a soldier, innocent villager or mercenary.

At almost every point in the movie, the violence shown is over the top.

If you have a weak stomach when it comes to violence, avoid this movie at all costs.

It isn't possible to count the number of deaths in the film; however, if I had to make a guess, I would estimate the number is around 100-150.

The film itself is only 90 minutes long. That means the movie averages over one death a minute.

Included in those deaths are at least five beheadings. Possibly more--I may have blinked at one point in the film.

Included in all of the violence is perhaps one of the most disturbing massacres that I have ever seen on film. A small Burmese village is completely destroyed and just about every inhabitant is killed. Bullets fly from every angle, people are beaten with guns and there is an explosion about every five seconds.

At one point I actually turned to a friend and asked, "Did they just throw that baby into a fire?" Yes. They did.

Now comes the million-dollar question. Does all of this violence actually have a point to make?

Not really.

While real-life footage from Burma is shown during the opening credits of the movie, anyone hoping that this film may actually make a statement about what is happening in the far east will be sadly disappointed.

In reality, this film doesn't have much to say at all. It almost sets itself up to have a commentary on the necessity of violence--whether killing is right or wrong in certain situations.

But it falls woefully short of actually following through on these points.

One certainly does have to marvel at the size of the muscles of the 62-year-old Rambo star. Stallone's biceps are about the size of his head. Unfortunately, the acting isn't in as good shape as Stallone.

While Rambo is typically a silent character without much to say, the cast surrounding Stallone certainly had a lot to say, and none of it was good.

Just about every actor in the film overacted their role. The worst offenders were the married missionaries Sarah and Michael, played by Julie Benz and Paul Schulze, respectively.

Neither uttered a single believable line.

While you may not learn anything about the situation in Burma, or see any Academy Award-winning performances, you will get an incredibly intense experience.

If seeing John J. Rambo take on the bad guys one more time is all you want out of your moviegoing experience, then "Rambo" won't disappoint.

If you are looking for something a little deeper in the way of a cinematic experience, though, look elsewhere.

---