Rambo

Title: Rambo
Director: Sylvester Stallone
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz, Graham McTavish
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated R for strong graphic bloody violence, sexual assaults, grisly images and language.
Date of Review: January 26, 2008

I honestly had no idea that the character of “Rambo” had such a rabid fanbase, until I went to see Rambo last night at the local theatre and ran into several pre-teens dressed in full Rambo costumes, accompanied by their parents who were also dressed with army fatigues and red headbands. I guess I was always more of an Arnie guy than a Stallone guy - growing up, my parents gave me the Terminator movies to watch, and when I discovered Predator a few years later, I felt like I had discovered the Holy Grail of cinematic manliness. First Blood is a movie I actually didn’t see until about three years ago, and I really enjoyed it, but never bothered to see the sequels. So perhaps I was a little too virginal in the world of “Rambo” to truly appreciate what this latest installment had to offer, but I left with this question burning in my mind - was this a joke?

We enter the story in present day, and we watch John Rambo - who has retired to a peaceful life of bow-hunting fish in Southeast Asia - as he goes about his business, doing ridiculously manly stuff like forging his own steel and...well...fishing with a bow-and-arrow. Scenes like this feel like stuff that was left on the cutting-room floor from 300, another recent film trying to break the Manliness Meter - but the difference is that 300 definitely knows its comic book routes, and doesn’t try to trick the audience into giving them a serious movie experience. Rambo, on the other hand, has just enough badness in it to make one think they were trying to make a serious movie here, and just screwed it all up.

The script has the sincerity and subtlety of a Uwe Boll movie. I understand the defense that one should not go to a “Rambo” flick looking for a good script, but come on, I saw and loved the “Bourne” films - and they are strictly action-based, but have well-written scripts. Even First Blood had a great script, and some surprising sociopolitical relevancy. So saying that this type of movie doesn’t warrant or need a good script just doesn’t cut it. Nor do the layers upon layers of racism injected into the film with a turkey baster full of prejudices. It seems that the idea of Burmese soldiers tearing apart villages and kidnapping and killing innocent people wasn’t enough of an “evil” element to justify Rambo’s coming onslaught, so these soldiers have just about every characteristic you can think of which could be associated with the word “bad”. They’re rapists, child molestors and murderes, they execute people without a second’s hesitation, and none of them are ever shown doing anything that isn’t just about cringe-worthy. Obviously this is all an effort to justify Rambo’s inevitable assault later in the film, because Rambo certainly needs to be seen as the “good guy” through all of this, no matter how many people he mows down with a truck-mounted machine gun.

But the film’s morals are all mixed up - if there are any even there. These characters who come in and convince Rambo to help them in their cause of bringing peace and Christianity to the people of Burma are portrayed as naive, arrogant and dorky - the anti-Rambo’s. But then the film’s climax and enormous bloodbath lead one to believe that the film really is trying to say something about violence and its place in the world. When these missionaries are kidnapped and Rambo needs to come in and save them using brutal violence, is it saying that violence may not be morally “right”, but sometimes it is necessary? Or is it saying that violence is wrong no matter what - whether you’re a corrupt Burmese soldier or John Rambo himself? Or maybe it’s not really saying anything, and it’s just another big, dumb action movie?

Considering how good Rocky Balboa was, I guess I was just expecting something a little more along those lines. Stallone has proven that he’s a great writer, actor and director, so for him to come out with something like Rambo (where he once again occupies all three jobs), is it wrong to expect that there would be a little more to it than shameless violence and ridiculous racial slurs? I just can’t help but still feel bewildered by the film’s political stances and opinions on violence. It sort of seemed at times like it was going down the Hostel route, giving people a criticism of themselves and their love of violence and gore as entertainment. But this semi-satirical philosophy just doesn’t fit with moments in the film which seem genuine, but are just executed very poorly and create large amounts of cheese.

Then again, even with all these elements which I saw as flaws, adults and kids alike cheered and screamed in the theatre quite literally every time Rambo killed a baddie, and the slaughterhouse of a finale was met with standing applause. Maybe that’s the film’s commentary right there.

4 / 10

Cloverfield

Title: Cloverfield
Director: Matt Reeves
Cast: Lizzy Caplan, Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman
Year: 2008
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images.
Date of Review: January 18, 2008

So, how to possibly describe Cloverfield? I’ll just get it right out in the open - the movie is uneven. It has some occasionally annoying characters going through horrifying situations made to seem as realistic as possible despite the fact that they’re inherently unrealistic, and they make some ridiculous decisions through all of this which can’t really be covered by the “they weren’t thinking rationally because they were in shock” excuse. The effects are well done, and it has some surprisingly iconic images. And let’s not forget to mention that there are points throughout which are - get this - actually, genuinely scary. But it just feels so unsure of its own motives that I can’t possibly say it’s “brilliant”, but at the same time can’t deny it has moments of brilliance.

Of course, for the past few months everyone has either been salivating to see what the monster looks like, or wanting to save the surprise. The viral marketing campaign for this movie has been insane, with videos and pictures being leaked to whet peoples’ appetites, and also disorient them with regards to what is and isn’t real. Is the monster visible in the clouds in the film’s poster? Or is it in the smoke? Was that a leg we briefly saw in the trailer, or was it a tail, or some other appendage? Or maybe it was just rising smoke? Then all of those news reports which were leaked not too long ago featuring hand-help footage of an ocean science facility being destroyed by something under the water raised even more questions. Is the monster a government project? Is it perhaps an alien? Did that science facility even have anything to do with the origin of the monster, or is it just meant as a red herring from the oh-so-clever J. J. Abrams? And then, perhaps the biggest question of all - will we even get to see the monster? Well, to set one thing straight without spoiling anything for you, we definitely see the monster in all its glory, and it’s very well done. Looking at how the film was made with a $30 million budget would lead one to believe much of that money was spent simply on the design and execution of the monster effects. And it certainly paid off, because it is something we have never seen before, and even if you wanted me to spoil it for you - which you don’t, trust me - I don’t know that I could describe what it is. Rest assured, it’s a great design.

But how good is the actual movie? Well, this is like the celluloid equivalent of someone with multiple personality disorder. Part of the movie thinks it’s a serious and frightening depiction of the mayhem which would be caused by such a monstrous attack on New York City. The other half is an almost unintentionally funny and satirical look at American vanity. Of course the 9/11 parallels are the first thing everyone’s going to look at, but that’s really not a huge part of it. There are some obvious images meant to evoke memories of that attack, but the entirety is played out more as “a general foreign body attacking American soil”, instead of a strict recollection of that event. The shot of the head of the Statue of Liberty being thrown by the monster and then landing in the street is literally showing America having its liberty thrown back in its face. And to add to that, there are a few parts with obviously placed American flags being destroyed that just seem like too ham-handed a way to show that this is an attack on America’s soul and way of life, not just buildings and streets.

Most of the problems which arise are in the characters, though, who are all divinely good-looking rich people engaged in an almost soap opera-like existence where everyone’s gossiping and trying to find out who’s sleeping with who. That’s fine and good, but when the film’s biggest shtick is that it’s trying to show “realism”, this type of life just doesn’t connect with very many people - not to mention the characters’ apparent invincibility and the presence of the most durable camcorder ever made. But to then have the characters go on and make some incredibly ridiculous choices - like choosing to scale a toppled over building - just doesn’t make much sense at all, regardless of the honorable reasons behind these actions. Later on in the film, there is a scene (which was briefly shown in the trailer) where the main character is talking into the camera saying how “he has no idea what’s going on”. This also makes no sense and doesn’t excuse his stupidity, since the film we have seen has consisted of footage compiled entirely of situations in which he was involved, and he definitely saw and knew enough that he should have been trying to get as far away from the city as possible.

Getting away from the negatives, though, there is a lot of good stuff to be seen in Cloverfield. Considering this is a PG-13, advertised up the arse, sell as many tickets as possible money-maker, there are enough moments of terror and tension (not to mention some excellent design ideas) which manage to make it a pretty good and very entertaining movie. And considering it’s not even an hour and a half long, it never overstays its welcome. While the film has been made with handheld cameras, it’s done strategically enough to never feel nauseating like the internet videos it is mimicking, and we get a great build-up to the explosive finale. I could actually see more comparisons being made between this and The Mist, than something like Godzilla or King Kong, because of its more personal scope and emphasis on our anxiety towards the unknown. It looks for the fear that would be felt down on the ground during a situation so horrible, and it often finds that and makes us feel helpless and vulnerable. But it can’t be denied that it’s deeply flawed, and these characters just aren’t likable or relatable enough to really feel the emotional impact that the film also occasionally strives for. If I could only use two words to sum this movie up, they would be “effective misfire”.

7.5 / 10

I Am Legend

Title: I Am Legend
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Will Smith, Alive Braga, Dash Mihok
Year: 2007
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi and action violence.
Date of Review: January 3, 2007

The “last person on Earth” scenario is not exactly new, so it seemed the general feeling with most movie-goers going to see I Am Legend was apathy. Of course, Warner Bros. spilled a lot of money into its production and advertising, since it was their big release of the season - but with the wave of zombie films over the past half decade, coupled with the generally tired “one/few people left alive” plot device, “rehash” was the word on everyone’s minds. And they were partly right.

I Am Legend is the third adaptation of Richard Matheson’s cult classic short novel of the same name. The first version, released in 1964 under the name The Last Man on Earth, starred Vincent Price and was an Italian production. While it remains the most faithful adaptation of the book, it suffers from some needless narration, and a lot of hoakiness due to the dubbing-over of the non-English speaking cast. The second adaptation, released in 1971, was titled The Omega Man and has become somewhat of a “Saturday at Midnight” classic. Stylistically influenced by the emerging blaxploitation scene, it was a cheesy affair but with some great elements. Now 2007's I Am Legend has come around and is arguably the most unfaithful to the source material of all three films, but it’s also the most effective, and upon my second viewing of the film I left the theatre wondering exactly how they managed to do this.

Richard Matheson’s story may be my favorite book. It’s easy to see how Stephen King was inspired by a book like this, as it takes a horrific surface story and creates something more out of it. It’s a story that stands the tests of time, due to its themes of loneliness and isolation which everyone in the world can derive something from. In the story, Robert Neville is the last man left alive on Earth, which is now a wasteland populated by vampires - though the word “vampire” is never used, it’s safe to say that’s what they are, since they have fangs, drink blood, burn up in sunlight, and are allergic to crucifixes and garlic. But despite these horrible conditions, the real depth in the story occurs in the scenes without monsters, when Neville spends his days all alone, searching the city streets for possible survivors. He wrestles with his past and personal demons, and must fight horrible urges, such as the sexual desire he feels when he sees a female vampire’s naked body - though she is rotten and disfigured, Neville has been alone a very, very long time. Neville is the hero of the story, but he is not a knight in shining armor, or some weapon-clad deadshot - he’s just the man who happened to survive. By night, he holds up in his house and listens as the vampires outside call out his name, taunting him to give up his hopeless crusade and just become a vampire like them.

It’s a beautiful story, and for the film, they threw it all out the window. Only the base concept remains - Robert Neville is the last man on Earth, and everyone else is a zombie...er, vampire...er, thing. And I apologize for my digression, but I must ask a question - why on Earth do we have three different adaptations of the same novel about vampires, and not one of these films contains a vampire? In The Last Man on Earth they’re zombies who are allergic to garlic (because THAT makes sense); in The Omega Man they’re freaks leftover from nuclear fallout; and now in I Am Legend they’re...I don’t even know what they are. If you’ve seen the 2005 British horror film The Descent, then imagine those creatures, but without the pointy ears. It really doesn’t make sense to me why vampires would be so hard to create on the screen, since they have so much symbolic value in the story - they suck out the lifeforce of other creatures, and while Neville is the only human left, he lost his humanity and his own lifeforce long ago. But I suppose in the final product we have here, what the creatures are doesn’t make much of a difference.

Which is why it’s a bit of a double-edged sword - they’re not vampires, which is a disappointment to fans of the book (like myself) - but what the movie got right is that the story is not just an action-horror with lots of shooting and blood and guts. It’s the story of a man overrun by loneliness, and the ways he tries to cope with day-to-day life in a world where nature has regained control. By day he hunts deer in the streets of New York, plays golf on an aircraft carrier, and has conversations with mannequins. It’s all done surprisingly well, and director Francis Lawrence showed good self control with these scenes, as he doesn’t fill them with narration or bombastic special effects - this is the world as it has become, and this is how one man is trying to keep living.

It really feels like they had something special here - something beyond the typical Hollywood fare. Will Smith gives a strong performance as the Legend himself, and his friendship with his dog, Sam, feels genuine. In fact, Sam could be argued to be the strongest character in the film. Loyal to a fault but naive, Sam gives added emotional weight to scenes where another human character would no doubt have hammed things up and tried to tug too hard at the heart strings. Simple shots such as Sam curiously eyeing a butterfly while Neville gathers ears of corn had a soft touch in them which made it seem believable that Neville would want to continue living, even if only for the friendship that Sam provides him.

Unfortunately, the film really falls apart about 2/3 of the way through, when the character of Anna appears. Claiming that she heard Neville’s radio broadcasts (which were begging for any survivors to come to New York City to be with him), she says that “God told her” there was a survivor camp in the mountains, and she would like him to accompany her there. But her character raises too many unanswered questions, and by the end of the film it seems kind of pointless for her to have been there in the first place. When you consider that Robert Neville has had trouble surviving - a man with military training and weapons, and who is in physical condition which would make the Spartans feel envious - then how could this young, sickeningly skinny woman armed with a pistol and escorting a young boy possibly have survived this long? It just doesn’t add up. And while her statements about “God’s messages” allude to a new message in the film about faith, it just doesn’t fit with the rest of the film’s substance regarding loneliness. While the rest of the film remains solid despite how untrue it is to the book, the character of Anna and the ending of the story would have benefitted greatly from the material found in Matheson’s story - especially considering the fact that the actual title, “I Am Legend”, completely loses its meaning without these events.

Of course it would be wrong of me not to mention the poor CGI used on the vampiric zombie demon beasts, but anything I could possibly say about it has been covered already by many others. The effects are, quite simply, unconvincing. They fail to evoke much fear of these creatures, especially in the case of the “Alpha Male”, whose monotonous stretchy-mouthed roaring into the camera almost becomes funny by the second or third time it’s used. It was completely unnecessary for these creatures to be created with computer graphics, especially in scenes when they are standing completely still, or simply lumbering around. As I mentioned before, they are almost identical to the beasts from The Descent - they’re basically bald people with sickly-pale flesh. If you ask me, make-up and animatronics will always be better than CGI, until they can create something which is truly photo-realistic.

It’s been a polarizing film, and not without reason. I Am Legend attempts to please fans of the book, fans of the recent zombie craze, and teenagers looking for the next big epic action movie all at once. But these audiences are so, so varied. Considering that the book was written in 1954, many of its greatest fans are surely well into middle-age, and aren’t too keen on seeing Will Smith romp through a bunch of zombies like a stylized music video. Luckily most of the movie isn’t like this, but the last half hour is enough to leave a bit of a sour taste in your mouth. It’s far better than a lot of the stuff being churned out by the Hollywood machine, and the scenes involving Will Smith and Sam are downright inspired and occasionally beautiful. Perhaps a “director’s cut” DVD will allow us to see the ending that was originally in store for us before the rushed re-shoots just a couple of months ago. As it is, it’s worth seeing for Will Smith’s best acting to date.

7.5 / 10