When you’re trained to be a killing machine, it doesn’t take much to nudge you back into action. At least that’s what Rambo, Sylvester Stallone’s fourth movie starring as John Rambo, makes clear to viewers. If you’re Rambo, you might demur a bit, but when a pretty missionary goes missing -- and may be the victim of sadistic soldiers -- you take out that trusty bow and arrow as well as all the firepower you can muster, hoping to save the day. The result? One of the bloodiest action movies of all time -- or so I’ve been told. Because I closed my eyes during most of the gory scenes, I’m not sure about that last statement. However what I did see made me wonder if Quentin Tarantino, not Stallone, directed the film, and while on speed. I’ve always maintained violence should be depicted as graphically as possible on screen to show how horrible it really is. But now I wonder about that.  Many people like me probably avoid looking at those kind of sequences anyway.

Director/co-writer Stallone, who claims he made this movie to draw attention to the need for aid in the war-torn country of Burma (Myanmar), sets the stage for all the action with a group of missionaries from a Colorado church asking Rambo to take them to a Burmese village. This means Rambo would have to leave Thailand, where he’s been working as a longboat driver and selling cobra snakes. He would also have to sail his boat into dangerous territory in the midst of the Burmese/Karen civil war, so he turns down the request. Sarah (Julie Benz), one of the missionaries pleads with him, explaining that the supplies and medical help are needed by the Karen people. “Are you taking guns?” Rambo asks. No guns, of course, so Rambo declares, “Then you’ll change nothing.”

Still, the iconic Vietnam War veteran agrees to take the group up river to their disembarking point. Later, after Rambo learns these missionaries have been kidnapped, he leads a band of Dirty Dozen–type mercenaries on a daring mission to rescue the captives. And that’s the bare-bones plot. Granted, it’s not a bad plot, having been used in such films as Tears of the Sun (2003) and probably most successfully in The Sand Pebbles (1966).

The big problem here -- or the best part of the movie, depending on your point of view -- involves so much time spent showing how many ways a person can kill another and how much bloody carnage the big screen can take. Whatever happened to character development? The top Burmese bad guy just yells and screams as he wreaks havoc everywhere. Generally, whether playing a missionary or a mercenary, actors only have one or two lines to let us know something about the individuals they’re portraying here. Naturally, Stallone needs little to say as the strong, silent John Rambo. After all, we know him from three  previous films. But I wish Sarah’s role had been expanded so that Julie Benz (the talented actress from TV’s Dexter) had more camera time. Although Benz does a fine job as Sarah goes toe to toe with Rambo in the early part of the movie, she doesn’t appear again until fairly close to the end.

Stallone fans will be happy to know he still looks terrific, and he even manages to engage us in Rambo’s introspective moments. Also on the plus side, the music by Brian Tyler (The Greatest Game Ever Played ) and cinematography by Glen MacPherson (16 Blocks) add considerably to the movie’s emotional and visual appeal. In addition, I appreciate the issues raised by this film concerning violence (when is it appropriate, how much should be used, etc.). 

Here’s hoping Rambo accomplishes Stallone’s goal of raising awareness about the need for aid in Burma, but I can’t help thinking it may frighten away many people who would like to help.

(Released by Lionsgate and rated “R” for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language.)          

Listen to Betty Jo's interview with Julie Benz by clicking here.