Review: ‘Rambo: Last Blood’ should be the end of the line for the character | TribLIVE.com
Movies/TV

Review: ‘Rambo: Last Blood’ should be the end of the line for the character

1696150_web1_ptr-RamboLastBloodB-053119
Lionsgate
Sylvester Stallone stars in “Rambo: Last Blood,” set to hit theaters Sept. 20.

Can someone please put John Rambo out of his misery?

The 1980s franchise has long-since grown cold, but in an era of reboots and sequels, it’s no surprise that some might try to squeeze one last money drop out of this title.

But in this haggard, sorry state, here’s hoping “Rambo: Last Blood,” lethargically directed by Adrian Grunberg, is the end of the line for Sylvester Stallone’s once-iconic character.

Rambo lumbers to the finish line in the flaccid fifth installment, which is a Frankenstein’s monster of badly photocopied references to the previous movies, limply strung together with the laziest of screenplays.

This time, it’s not Vietnam, Burma, Afghanistan or even the United States that has drawn John Rambo’s ire, but Mexico.

John’s living a quiet life on an Arizona ranch, keeping a protective eye on young Gabrielle (Yvette Monreal), an adopted niece of sorts. When Gabby runs away across the border to find her birth father and ends up trafficked into sexual exploitation (a turn one can see coming from a mile away), woe upon the gangsters who kidnapped her.

Rambo’s gonna rip their collarbones out one by one.

“Last Blood” is deeply, topically xenophobic. And while, obviously, the “Rambo” films aren’t exactly known for their international diplomacy, the hackneyed, poorly executed racial stereotypes and sexual violence to which Gabriella is subjected is just offensively lazy screenwriting. The whole script is lazy. It’s barely a script at all.

Writers Stallone, Matthew Cirulnick and Dan Gordon trade on charged imagery rather than, you know, actually writing characters that fully express the spectrum of human morality. “Good vs. evil” is an idea John, who articulates himself like he’s endured one too many traumatic brain injuries, is obsessively hung up on, in that sometimes he monosyllabically grunts about “bad guys.”

You have to feel for him.

And we might be able to, if the film at all explored the PTSD he tries to treat with fistfuls of mystery pills, obsessive horse training and wholly unnecessary blacksmithing.

Rather than exploring the interior world of an aging Rambo, “Last Blood” is preoccupied with the “Home Alone”-style traps John sets up in the tunnels underneath his farm in an extended montage that becomes ludicrously outlandish as it progresses. A spike! More spikes! Lots of shotguns! And knives. A rake! Hay bales rigged to explode! Even more spikes, if you can believe it.

There’s a glimmer of hope that maybe, just maybe, the leaden affair will lighten up with some lighthearted bloodshed, but no. As soon as Rambo lures the Mexican sex traffickers into his underground lair, the traps merely slice and dice bodies grimly, joylessly, splattering the saddest pixels of digital blood.

Everything about “Last Blood” so perfunctory, it makes the film something to be slogged through, rather than enjoyed. It’s right there on Stallone’s face, rendered uncannily unexpressive. He seems the most tired of anyone, going through the motions, trudging through what might hopefully be this character’s last ride.

If only anyone involved had made a modicum of effort to make it memorable.

Categories: AandE | Movies TV
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.