This "Rambo" is Too Realistic?
by Motte Brown on 02/27/2008 at 12:30 PM
The last time Burma made national news was in September 2007 when the ruling junta's security forces quelled mass pro-democracy rallies by killing hundreds and arresting thousands. Today, The Wall Street Journal released an editorial about the junta's efforts to silence yet another threat ... Sylvester Stallone's Rambo.
A few days after the film was released world-wide last month, Mr. Stallone reported that family members of two Burmese actors in the film had been arrested. The movie is banned from Burmese theaters and shopkeepers can be jailed for up to seven years for selling a copy of the DVD. Though this means there's no legal way to watch "Rambo" in Burma, last week the generals ordered all local media to run negative reviews of the movie.
It seems that these Burmese reviewers are panning Rambo for its excessive bloodshed like the American reviewers did. But not because it's gratuitous, but because it's too close to reality. As the Journal reports, Rambo's portrayal of government forces "plundering and raping their way through Karen villages don't match the regime's official script of a nation at peace."
It's dichotomic to think that a Rambo movie would be disliked for being too realistic. And what's weird is that I sort of want to see it now. But is it possible to enjoy its realistic commentary on Burma's junta while suspending my disbelief long enough to buy into Rambo singlehandedly killing a thousand bad guys? Probably not.
1. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:50 PM on Feb 27:
I'm sick and tired of all this sex and violence in movies.
I just want to see the violence!
After all, nothing ruins a perfectly good, violent kill flick like a steamy sex scene! ;)
2. Jerry said the following at 1:15 PM on Feb 27:
All I'll say is that it was very, very realistic... "Passion of the Christ" realistic (which means - gory like real life battle is).
As for Rambo singlehandedly killing a thousand bad guys... not exactly. He has help in the form of mercenaries who accompany him, and he also has a rather nice mounted chaingun to rack up the killcount. ;)
3. Sarah P. said the following at 2:14 PM on Feb 27:
I only recently watched the documentary Invisible Children, about child-soldiers in Sudan, and I found it haunting me when I saw Rambo. To think that people have to deal with that kind of emotional and physical terror every day is overwhelming. I think that it can be valuable to watch such truthful violence, maybe even because of the emotional impact it makes. Often, we here in America get too comfortable, and we have to be challenged. Challenge hurts.
4. Matthew said the following at 4:28 PM on Feb 27:
I think the point of Rambo, though, is that you're supposed to enjoy the brutal violence, not be sickened by it. The fact that it only happens to "the bad guys" makes watching it morally excusable in our minds. Am I mistaken in this assumption?
5. Brendan B. said the following at 4:39 PM on Feb 27:
I did actually watch this film. It was a spur of the moment thing and I had never seen a Rambo flick before and I was like "mindless action! my favourite!" Man, this film was rough to watch! I couldn't enjoy the action because I was so busy cringing, and usually I have a decent stomach for rough action films. I guess I prefer more of "The A-Team" style of violence...lots of shooting and explosions and car flips but no one really dies :P
But Rambo feels real, and that's what Stallone wanted. It does call attention to a crap situation that nobody knows about, so I guess it's good in that regard as well. Jerry's right, too...he doesn't kill everyone singlehandedly. I don't remember a vivid sex scene though there are some sexual situations.
My main beef other than the violence was the fact that the Christian missionaries were weenies. I've read about martyrs who stand up boldly in the face of certain death and proclaim Jesus, but these guys just kinda cower in their cells. Maybe this is too much for me to expect but I thought that was weak!
6. jj said the following at 5:06 PM on Feb 27:
According to the unofficial body count stats, Rambo himself kills 83 people in this latest one. The Rambo movies are interesting in that they are all set against a very serious and real world issue, yet obviously contain some very stylized, unrealistic action as well. Some might find this offensive, but I do prefer my movies to contain some level of thought-provoking content...even within an action movie such as this.
7. farmer Tom said the following at 7:22 PM on Feb 27:
After all, nothing ruins a perfectly good, violent kill flick like a steamy sex scene! ;)
AMEN
8. Nick said the following at 7:43 PM on Feb 27:
I have watched all the Rambo movies and while number 2 & 3 were not as good as the message in the movie First Blood, which is an actual great film. Rambo comes back with number 4 and while the violence was realistic and the body count of the bad guys was way more than Rambo and his companions. As for the Missionaries I think that their was a message that kind of got lost in the mix of violence. That in showing that peaceful resistance is one option sometimes violence must be met with violence which the Head missionary finds out when he is forced to kill an enemy or watch a friend die. The truth of battle is harder than many think, having served for 12 years in the Army I have had to struggle with these same options in various situations.
9. Jeff said the following at 11:38 PM on Feb 27:
I have heard some good criticism of this film, but I thought it was great and had a back handed Christian element to it.
A) Christians convinced Rambo to help them even though he didn't want to and later he felt compelled to give up his cynical ways and save the day.
B) It is a criticism of liberal theology by portraying First World Christians as naive "let's all just love one another" utopians and showing that you need to back it up with strength and sometimes force in the face of evil.
I have read that Stallone is a born-again since the late 90's. Not totally sure about that, but his recent films reflect something a lot more profound than Stop or My Mom Will Shoot!
10. Priscilla said the following at 1:06 AM on Feb 28:
Brendan B said:
My main beef other than the violence was the fact that the Christian missionaries were weenies. I've read about martyrs who stand up boldly in the face of certain death and proclaim Jesus, but these guys just kinda cower in their cells. Maybe this is too much for me to expect but I thought that was weak!
I say:
The makers of the movie obviously never heard of Adoniram Judson. (If you've never heard of him either, here's Wikipedia's account of his life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoniram_Judson).
11. Matthew said the following at 8:53 AM on Feb 28:
Jeff, I don't like point (B) because that's not a particularly, um, Christ-like thought. Jesus commanded us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us; if a movie shows that prayer and charity don't work but brutal violence does, then we're really going against the grain of the NT. (Yes, I recognize that the government is given the sword to defend the weak and punish evil, I subscribe to just war theory, and of course I know that Christ is coming back with a sword to judge the earth.) Keep in mind, though, that in this present age Jesus achieved His greatest victory by submitting to evil and being killed (and so have many missionaries throughout the history of the world.)
12. Khalil said the following at 9:13 AM on Feb 28:
some of my closest friends grew up during the Lebanese civil war and the conflicts that have plagued that country since, and I've been there during protests, elections, and bombings myself. As a result I have a difficult time watching many violent movies, period. If it is done "over the top", almost comic book style I can cope with that to a point, but the more realistic the movie is the harder it is for me to view.
Where we view this stuff as entertainment others are living it and viewing it outside their windows, daily. I agree with Sarah on comment #3 for the most part, but I don't see why we have to expose ourselves to it, unless there is a valid reason (excluding entertainment). Is there a point to subjecting ourselves to violence in this manner? Is is worth the entertainment value? Just asking. As far as a social commentary, it would be worth seeing stuff like this to help broaden our views and see that people to suffer in the world...I just don't know if Rambo is the messenger, kinda kills the deeper meaning I think.
13. sarah said the following at 10:49 AM on Feb 28:
I've been to Myanmar... I don't think I can watch it. We talked with a villager who had recently had to amputate his son's leg due to an injury. See, the hospitals are run by the government, if you are friends with a general, you can get aid, if not... forget it. The only people who get electricity are the government and tourist hotels. Children disappear if let play at night... from further research looks like they are typically turned into sex slaves. And this is NOT in the Karen area. And the people are so beautiful and wonderful... I definitely don't think I have the heart to watch this movie. Hits too close to home, especially when you know just how real it is.
14. CoRY said the following at 8:48 AM on Jul 29:
Movie, well, it doesnt compare to the feeling of the classics or maybe its just me. But the movie is pretty sweet. Although very unrealistic how a 50 cal sniper sends people flying back 3 meters. Those bullets explode the person on impact.
The movie is very gorey. Blood and guts sums it up. The story could of been explained better.
I Mean all of a sudden some guy comes up to him and wants to go up the river??? With some silly female, I mean where did that come from?
And whats with rambo going off in a warzone without a gun/weapon?