Rambo, John Rambo or Rambo IV (take your pick!)

OK, this post could very well contain comments that would be seen as plot revelations, so consider this sentence a *** SPOILER WARNING ***, thanks.

after the rather brilliant revisionist return Stallone made to one of his characters in the magnificent Rocky Balboa, there were as many groans and sighs as there were sounds of people calling for him to "bring it on, dude!" when he announced a fourth Rambo film. the title seems to change country to country, so call it what you want - it's the one set in Burma, if that helps.

so who is in the right, those that feared the worst or those who are looking forward to this? oddly, both have grounds to say "i told you so", if they are of a mind to behave like that.

the plot, as such, covers ground that we saw in First Blood Part II and Rambo III. John is living a quiet, simplistic life, but gets a call to take some rather innocent people up the river into Burma to deliver aid. when the inevitable happens, he is called upon to help try and rescue them with a bunch of mercenaries. nothing new here, and this is pretty much where we get the moaners and groaners being able to say "i told you so" in a negative way.

what is "new" as such is an attempt to give the character some three dimensional definition, to try and define the character as something beyond a well trained, mechanized killing machine of a soldier. it's not all that new, it is easy to forget what an astonishing film First Blood actually was - a brilliant drama-thriller with some intense action scenes and, most importantly, a well crafted, well acted lead from Stallone. everything that you really needed to know of the character John Rambo was well laid out and defined in that first film, but it is great to see the who he is being returned to, rather than the what he is that was on display in parts two and three. nothing all that new is added as such, but the glimpses of how he lives with himself, how he justifies what he has become and is destined to remain are intriguing to say the least. the latter is debatable in regards of the ending, but more on that later.

one comment you should be aware of, though. i have seen many, many films in my life, and this is easily the most violent film i have ever seen. at some points disturbing, but mostly just, well, violent. no punches, shots, stabbings, slashings or decapitations are pulled when the inevitable battle with large parts of the Burmese army kicks in. the point is to show the brutality of battle and in this it well and truly succeeds. you have been warned - Stallone was not shy in the graphic side of this.

the ending is interesting. at a face value level it works, but i prefer to take a more symbolic reading of what's going on in it. i will leave you to watch it and draw your own conclusions.

so, do you go and see it or not? well, if you appreciated the first and found the next two somewhat lacking, then yes indeed, it gets somewhere close to returning to what the character was supposed to be. if you want to watch an entertaining and violent bloodbath, oh yes, go and see as soon as possible. if you do not wish to see any of that and a whole bunch of disturbing images, then avoid this one.

this is no masterpiece of cinema, but it achieves what Stallone set out to make - a slice of entertainment in cinema with a message, if you care to listen to it.


be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!