Bweinh! Goes to the Movies: Rambo

January 30, 2008, 11:50 pm; posted by
Filed under Articles, Djere, Featured, Movies  | 5 Comments

I’ll tell you one thing — Rambo is by no means Sylvester Stallone in the feel-good picture of the year. But he has his moments.

The story revolves around sexagenarian John Rambo and a squad of mercenaries who rescue missionaries from the evil clutches of a brutal, dictatorial, oppressive, homosexual, Southeast Asian general and his raping, pillaging, murderous goon-filled death squads. Overall, the plot itself is fairly standard for 1980s-level action films, just with a higher production value.

Rambo himself is as murderous a killing machine as he is inventive, eliminating enemy soldiers with knives, bows and arrows, pistols, truck-mounted machine guns, and even by attaching a Claymore to an unexploded WWII British bomb. Oh, and he also rips out a man’s throat. Wicked. But it’s all for a good reason, so he’s kind of a nice guy at heart, you know?

Other characters lack depth (unlike the ever-multifaceted Rambo’s two sides — kill and slur). The missionaries are presented as pigheadedly bent on complete nonviolence as they infiltrate the border of a war zone for “the greater good.” The mercenaries are completely off the handle, screaming and swearing at Rambo, one another, trees, boats, rain, missionaries, enemy soldiers… in this movie, just about anything that can be screamed or sworn at is.

The death squads are believably evil, but why Stallone chose to include a scene of a young boy’s private late-night visit to the general is beyond me. I mean, seriously. We just watched this guy order a village hacked to bits and pieces, we get that he’s kind of a bad dude. Why add that he’s also into little boys? Is genocide not bad enough? Will American audiences think, “I still see the good in that man, even past his 1970s sunglasses and creepy mustache — but now that they’re implying he’s gay, I think he deserved to be hacked in half with a machete by John J. Rambo.”

The action scenes at the end of the movie were intense, too intense. I had no clue who was killing whom or why, except when the head missionary avenged all the others by bashing a soldier’s head in with a rock. Very Cain and Abel-esque.

Overall, I don’t think anyone should be exposed to the violence of Rambo, but I’m not going to lie to you. I enjoyed it.

Yo, Adrian!!!


5 Comments to “Bweinh! Goes to the Movies: Rambo”

  1. Connie on January 31st, 2008 10:00 am

    I was torn

    (ha! this is funny because my word was salad which is made up mainly of -torn- lettuce)

    …because I thought I might actually write an article in response to your article instead of a comment – but hey who needs the hassle. I’ll just comment.

    Rush’s comments about this piece of garbage, mentioned the missionaries refused to kill anyone and criticized the killing of the bloodthirsty murderistic terrorists. You didn’t mention that. Not that I would have EVER seen this film or any of it’s five predecessors – but I would have been extremely annoyed at that portrayal if it was in there as Rush said it was.

    If it was, I’m sure the leftist writers that threw that pacifistical, religious characterization in there, are snickering as much as you are for being able to use the word sexagenarian. By the way God called. He wants to talk to you.

  2. Djere on January 31st, 2008 10:17 am

    One. Can you honestly tell me, mother, that you would shoot another human being, especially when you’re on a mission trip to southeast asia.

    Two. Stallone wrote the movie himself. It was just another vehicle for money and violence for him, though he claims he wrote it to let the world know what’s going on in Burma right now.

    Three. I don’t get the ‘torn’ joke.


  3. Connie on January 31st, 2008 11:16 am

    I debated making the little joke since nobody could see my little spam word and it wouldn’t be funny to anyone but me, but I went for it anyway. Like you – I’m “that guy”. Let’s hope I don’t end up in a psych unit on a 5150 like Britany…

    No. I prob wouldn’t shoot anyone myself, but I’d be packing.

    But my objections lies with the fact that they are insinuating that “we, Christians -none of us” do not ever support the taking of lives even when it’s necessary.

  4. Tom on January 31st, 2008 11:37 am

    My objections lie with your paragraph about the nocturnal little boy visit. Specifically,

    “…but now that they’re implying he’s gay, I think he deserved to be hacked in half with a machete by John J. Rambo.”

    Personally I think the word “gay” should’ve been replaced with “a pederast” or “into kids, you know, like THAT” would be a more accurate statement. Most people I know don’t think anyone should be halved for what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, but when you mix a minor (or miner – poor subterranean devils) into the situation feelings get a lot more visceral.

  5. Djere on January 31st, 2008 12:04 pm

    Tom, point taken, with the caveat that it was a boy, not just a child. So he’s into little boys.

Leave a comment!