John Rambo has retreated to northern Thailand, living a solitary and peaceful life in the mountains and jungles. A group of human rights missionaries search him out and ask him to guide them into Burma to deliver medical supplies. When the aid workers are captured by the Burmese army, Rambo decides to venture alone into the war zone to rescue them.

One of the big questions that face movies like Rambo or rocky for that matter is whether Sylvester Stallone is too old to keep playing these iconic roles that made him so famous during the 1980's. With Rocky Balboa the film felt like the perfect ending to a story that had gotten off track and brought the movie back to its roots of the first film, not so much with Rambo. The problem is that First Blood is a totally different movie than any of its sequels and the films become almost ridiculous by the third installment where Rambo becomes Superman with an AK-47. The fourth installment tries to bring the movie back to its roots and install a message in the story about the horrors of war and what it can do to a man. But this is a thinly veiled attempt to make the movie seem more that it really is and that's an excuse for Rambo to one more time strap on a gun and blow things up. Is the movie a bad film, no, but neither is it more than just a really good popcorn flick.

The message this time around is live for something or die for nothing. Rambo has given up on the world and we are supposed to believe that one more journey into hell and a war torn Burma is going to give him faith in humanity once more. Again like I said it's a thinly veiled plot to try and give closure to a character that has been abandoned by his government and his country all the while having an excuse to give Rambo one more go around. The movie does go back to its roots a little more as this feels more like a sequel to First Blood than the other two films did as Rambo is once again reluctant to kill at first but when driven to it shows he is a master of the art. Lots of explosions, plenty of gunfights and Rambo wielding Bow and Bowie knife once more, what more could expect out of a Rambo movie.

I have to question though if the director, which just happens to be Sylvester Stallone himself has some ulterior motives as much of the first part of the movie, is dedicated to showing the horrors that are taking place in Burma. With graphic images that follow along like a newscast the audience is forced to watch one horrible atrocity after another. We are supposed to feel pity and sorrow to what is happening to these people and then all of sudden switch gears and cheer for Rambo to make things right once more. If even half the atrocities are actually happening in Burma that is shown on screen then I am wishing for a non fictional character to do something about it rather than having a fictional character make things right. This is a very confusing and mixed message, are we to care for these people and want to help them and if so why are we only doing it by showing a fictional character taking action.

I think Sylvester Stallone has answered the age questions with both Rocky Balboa and now Rambo, and the answer is no he is not too old to be revisiting these iconic characters. Both the sixth and fourth installments of their respective series were better than the previous installment before them. Sly still shows that he can pull off these characters and this kind of acting style even as he grows towards social security. And once again he wore multiple hats for the project as he not only starred in the film but also wrote the screenplay and directed it, which I really don't think he gets enough credit for. If you like Rambo and you like mindless action films this movie is a must see.

Grade: B