The landscape of action cinema shifted dramatically from the 1980s into the 1990s. This era was defined by the rise of “Big Dumb Fun” action movies – films celebrated for their over-the-top action sequences and cheesy one-liners, prioritizing entertainment over intricate plots. While action movies are still prevalent today, and often maintain the “Big” and “Dumb” aspects, the “Fun” element is frequently missing. A significant factor in this change is the pervasive use of computer-generated imagery (CGI). When digital heroes and excessive CGI replace the tangible presence of action stars like Chuck Norris, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Steven Seagal, a certain authenticity and excitement is lost. Furthermore, the scale of action scenes has inflated; smaller, enjoyable action sequences are rare, overshadowed by the demand for massive, multi-location spectacles.
Whatever the underlying reasons, and it’s more than just CGI, modern action films often fail to capture the pure enjoyment of their predecessors. However, 2007 and 2008 saw attempts to revive this classic genre. Following the release of Live Free or Die Hard, which successfully brought back the Die Hard franchise, Sylvester Stallone returned with Rambo in 2008, resurrecting his iconic action series after nearly two decades since the last installment. Yet, despite its lineage, Rambo (2008), while aiming for the Big Dumb Fun action movie title, often veers away from being truly fun.
The Rambo film series has always carried a degree of seriousness. First Blood, arguably the best film in the franchise, transcends typical action fare. It delves into the drama of a Vietnam War veteran struggling with PTSD and societal reintegration, resorting to violence as a response to perceived threats. Rambo: First Blood Part II became a symbolic representation of Reagan-era conservatism, offering a cinematic redo of the Vietnam War narrative. Rambo III even touched upon the geopolitical landscape of Afghanistan and the Mujahideen. Interestingly, each of the four films in the series boasts a distinct title format, a potential point of confusion for audiences and retailers alike.
The initial Rambo trilogy intertwined global issues with action fantasy, portraying scenarios where American military intervention could decisively resolve international conflicts against antagonists ranging from the Vietnamese to the Russians and leftist ideologies. Rambo (2008) distinguishes itself by advocating for American intervention, but in a less conventional location: Burma. Burma, now Myanmar, was not a region typically at the forefront of American public discourse on interventionism. This shift makes Rambo (2008) less of a straightforward, jingoistic action film and more of an attempt to raise awareness about the dire situation in a distant nation. While this educational intent is commendable, it clashes with the core tenets of a Big Dumb Fun movie, as genuine political messaging can undermine the lighthearted escapism typically associated with the genre.
The film opens with a stark montage of news footage, largely from British sources, documenting the brutal atrocities committed by the Burmese military junta against the Karen people, a predominantly Christian ethnic minority. Later, Rambo (2008) graphically depicts the violent destruction of a village inhabited by farmers and missionaries. This sequence is directed with a disturbing effectiveness, showing just enough of the brutality—including harrowing acts like a baby being thrown into a fire—to convey the horror without gratuitous lingering on graphic details. It stands out as a powerful scene, arguably the most impactful directorial work in Stallone’s career, and undeniably memorable for any viewer.
However, the film faces a recurring challenge inherent to the Rambo formula: transitioning from geopolitical commentary to explosive action. Each Rambo film must navigate this tonal shift around its midpoint. First Blood Part II essentially restarts its plot to achieve this, while Rambo III relies on a nonsensical first act to preempt audience expectations.
In Rambo (2008), the transition is attempted through a plot progression. Act I sees John Rambo, now living a secluded life in Thailand, reluctantly agreeing to transport a group of American missionaries into Karen territory. Act II escalates the stakes when these missionaries are captured by the Burmese military, prompting Rambo to lead a team of mercenaries on a rescue mission. While First Blood Part II and Rambo III used real-world conflicts as mere backdrops, Rambo (2008) invests heavily in establishing the brutal reality of the Burmese civil war. The film succeeds in portraying a near-hellish scenario, making it difficult for the audience to simply disregard the preceding atrocities and fully embrace the subsequent action sequences. The graphic violence of the film’s opening casts a long shadow, contrasting sharply with the more conventional, movie-style violence that follows.
This tonal dissonance is unfortunate because the action sequences themselves are reasonably well-executed. They surpass the chaotic finale of Rambo III and embrace the escalating absurdity characteristic of 1980s action cinema, particularly in a scene where Rambo employs a weapon that, while not explicitly nuclear, possesses the destructive power to obliterate a substantial area of forest. Blood and gore are plentiful, satisfying a visceral craving for over-the-top action. Stallone, despite his age, convincingly embodies Rambo with his imposing physique and gravelly voice. While the CGI is noticeable, lacking the seamlessness of the fourth Die Hard film, the action provides guilty-pleasure entertainment and arguably represents the most intense mayhem in the entire Rambo series, especially considering the relatively low-key violence of First Blood and the uneven pacing of First Blood Part II.
Despite the visceral action, the film’s initial tone makes full immersion difficult. Rambo (2008) becomes a guilty pleasure, but one heavily weighted with guilt. Perhaps this was intentional on Stallone’s part – a commentary on the problematic nature of enjoying movie violence amidst real-world brutality. However, the film’s final act doesn’t fully support this interpretation. It is rousing and celebratory, with moments of enemy deaths designed to elicit cheers and applause, typical of action movie conventions.
Just over a year prior, Stallone successfully revived another dormant franchise with Rocky Balboa, considered the best entry since the original Rocky. However, the Rocky films always possessed a depth that the Rambo series lacked. Rocky Balboa explored themes of aging and legacy, a different thematic animal than Rambo. Rambo (2008) ultimately functions as a Big Dumb action movie, possessing the necessary ingredients for success but ultimately undermining itself with its tonal inconsistencies. While exceeding low expectations, “a great Rambo movie” remains a qualified compliment, and Rambo (2008) leaves a lingering sense of unease, rather than pure exhilaration.
