Before actually seeing Rambo, I was somewhat perplexed by the extent of the negative reviews from the mainstream liberal critics.  Yes, I know liberals have an aversion to Rambo for who he is (a hero who actual wins) and for what he is most associated (the USA), but in this fourth installment of the franchise Stallone is faithful to a central tenet of liberalism.  Rather than taking up a military cause which directly benefits the U.S. (think the containment of communism or the War on Terror), which liberals always seem to hate, he brings muscle to a pointless humanitarian effort, which liberals always seem to love (think Somalia, Serbia or, if it wasn’t for Iraq, Darfur). Still, critics largely savaged the film. After seeing the film, I now know why.

Simply put, Rambo makes liberals look like the fools that they are. And for that alone it is worth the price of admission.  

The liberal archetype comes through the character of Michael Burnett (played by Paul Schulze), the leader of a small band of U.S. humanitarians intent on providing aid to their fellow Christian brethren, the persecuted Karen people, in the war-ravaged country of Burma (for the political correct crowd, Myanmar).  As a quintessential liberal, he is piously self-righteous and enjoys lecturing Rambo at every opportunity with a nauseating air of moral superiority.  When Rambo skillfully save Burnett and his fellow do-gooders from a pack of menacing Burmese pirates, he preens to Rambo something to the effect of “no life should be taken for any reason”.  Rambo grabs him by the throat and delivers a dose of reality: his comely compatriot, Sarah Miller (played by Julie Benz), would have be gang raped and Burnett and the other males would have been decapitated and left for fish food.  But like all good liberals for whom reality is optional, Burnett remains steadfast in his delusion about the goodness of all humans.  Upon reaching the disembarkment point inside of Burma, Burnett tells Rambo that he is obligated to report Rambo for his actions against the pirates. That’s liberal gratitude for you.

It is at this point that I rooted for Rambo to cut Burnett’s throat ear to ear with a very dull, but menacing KA-BAR knife.  

But Stallone, as director of Rambo, has a better fate in mind for his prototypical liberal. It comes during the spectacular climactic battle, when Rambo, a band of supporting mercenaries and Karen rebels face off against the numerical superior, Burmese Army.  Amidst the chaos of the fight, Burnett is engaged in his own life and death struggle and brutally bashes in a Burmese soldier’s face with the only weapon at his disposal, a rock.  Nothing is sweeter than when self-preservation compels the liberal to become what he hates most, that is John Rambo. (It will take another viewing of the film, but I think Burnett might have actually enjoyed the act of killing his adversary.  This compared to the typical liberal reaction of trying to understand the enemy.)  

Which brings me back to the reviews. Rambo must have hit a nerve with liberal critics. So much so they can’t comment on anything of substance except bemoan the violence of the film. The scenes are graphic but this adds to the combat realism, rather than solely being gratuitous. (A man’s head, I am told, will explode like a watermelon when hit by .50 caliber round.). It is a better policy to trash the movie for its violence and pretend the movie is devoid of any merit than for liberals to face critical self-examination. 

As for acting, Stallone remains faithful to the Rambo character that became beloved by so many red-blooded Americans more than two decades ago.  Rambo embodies stoicism, a quality absent in far too many of the modern metrosexual male heroes, but which underscores his manliness and heroic appeal.  Come to think of it we could use a few more John Rambos today.

Go see Rambo. A rare Hollywood movie that points out liberal idiocy deserves support.