Seriously people,

Does anyone really need to see Rambo to know that it has nothing to do with Iraq? And yet, here's Dana, blabbering on about Iraq.

And does anyone need to see Rambo to know that the violence in a Rambo film has no meaning whatsoever. And yet, here's Dana, blabbering on about how "the moral meaning of the gore keeps changing."

Wise up Dana, this is exploitation cinema -- so-called because of it's low quality narrative designed to exploit popular stereotypes. Manly men (Rambo). Buxom women (blond haired missionary). Good guys (Rambo and pastor). Bad guys (faceless military junta). A total lack of moral ambiguity (the pastor can ask for the help of mercenaries because he's a good guy, get it?).

Oh yeah, and truckloads of violence. Early exploitation film wasn't as violent, but that's because new exploitation films don't satisfy unless they outdo their predecessors.

Maybe you like it. Maybe you don't. But Dana's review takes everyone in the wrong direction for that conversation.

Agreed. Dana knows she's not the audience for this type of film, and it looks to me like she's just trying to find an angle to make the review interesting for her as a writer. The appeal of Rambo (for those who liked him- not me) was never as a political foil. His appeal was always as an ass kicker, clearly. Hopefully this is the last Rambo film, but you never know. I don't disagree with Dana's dislike of the film- just the (usual) rambling, incoherent style of her writing.

...otherwise, why all that stuff about the Vietnam vets, and how badly they were treated by the army and the citizens of the US in First Blood?. If this one isn't political, why not just have some bad-asses kidnap somebody close to Rambo, and then he has to rescue them. No, Rambo has always had a political setting and hence an implicit political message. It may be heavy-handed, or a tad naive, but it is always there.

Two points LeoB (respectfully):

First, it's been a long time since I last saw First Blood. But I'll accept the fact that First Blood has a little more meat to it. That was young Stallone, the same man who wrote and starred in Rocky, the Academy Award winning Best Picture of 1976.

Second, what's happened to Rambo is the same thing that happened to Rocky (somewhere around the time he decided to defend America from a steroid happy Dolph Lundgren in Part IV). Whatever serious message existed in part one was twisted by subsequent films in order to exploit viewer stereotypes. It's not that a message actually exists. Or that anyone even tried to create serious, fully-formed characters. Instead, a very serious situation in Burma has been reduced to the most basic stereotype (American commando good, military junta bad) and then exploited. Violence ensues...and lots of if. But the violence has no message beyond "Hey, look at this mushroom cloud! How cool is this!!!"

"The problem is that the moral meaning of the gore keeps changing."

Dana, the problem with that statement is two-fold. First, moral meaning of violence does change depending on who visits it upon whom. Second, if you are looking for moral meaning in gore, you should not be watching "Rambo." If you must derive moral meaning from gore, please read Cormac McCarthy's "Blood Meridian."

Liberals always inject their political views into everything.

Thank you all for pointing out the annoying thread of Dana's review!

Christ, its getting you can't look for entertainment without someone injecting their position on Iraq/Bush/Clinton/the economy.

I love action flicks; I love the explosions, the bullets, the knives, the stunts, the kung fu. Its like a Shostakovich symphony. That's how you judge them.

And lets be honest, is there anything better than the A-Team? I can't wait for that movie remake.

It's no worse ( and definitely better than these silly "girl power" movies) than most movies that they make these days.

EVERYONE injects their political views into everything.

And just as Rambo ought to be judged on its own terms, so should Dana's review. And judged as a quickie writeup for a liberal online magazine, you can't get much better than this one.

Gobot, if what you are saying is that Dana's article is pretty good - for a piece of hackery and gratuitous partisanship - then I suppose I agree. Someone give the woman a medal.