Rambo and There Will Be Blood

Rob and I were at an impasse on Friday night. We knew that this would be our one chance to see a movie together on the weekend, but he wanted to see "Rambo" and I was set on "There Will Be Blood". So we compromised and saw them both. At 7:45 it was Sylvester Stallone's "Rambo". Stallone directs and stars in this version, and like his most recent take on "Rocky" this was obviously an effort to revisit the character with a focus on purpose. I have a lot of respect for Stallone, recognizing that his earlier portrayals tended to slide towards mindless entertainment in a medium that so easily can be used for good. Now the "Rambo" message is simple; if you're going to go into the jungle and kill a bunch of people with knives, explosives, bows (arrows) and your bare hands, it might as well be for a good cause. So Stallone sets up his film in Burma, where the government is savagely murdering it's own people. Then he adds in a dash of Christian missionaries, in case we couldn't quite relate with the locals. Now we're ready for the action... As the end credits rolled, I told Rob that this movie should have been titled "There Will Be Blood". It was bloody. Now, since this is a "Rambo" movie, that was to be expected, and in a way it was good to see a true action movie after all this pseudo-action, techno, sensitive-male, mindless, unoriginal dribble Hollywood has been putting out since "The Matrix" changed everything. At the same time, the mixture of shocking us with the brutal reality of an evil government rule, with 80's style over-the-top stylized action violence kind of was unsettling to me. Sure I wanted to see the bad guys get what the deserved, and John Rambo dished it out nicely, but maybe this would have been better as two separate movies. So in conclusion, I thought it was a great action film, but maybe Rambo isn't the best person to send in to help spread good in foreign countries. "Rambo" ended at 9:40, and we had five minutes before the lights went down and previews started rolling at the 9;45 showing of "There Will Be Blood". I was a good thing I did my homework and both of these movies were at the same theater. Where should I begin with a film like "There Will Be Blood"? Obviously the title is a great one. Is it a warning or a promise? Then there's Daniel Day Lewis. Is it possible to be disappointed by one of his performances? I tried to avoid any information about this film before I went in, so it was very unexpected from start to finish. Ralph Fiennes plays a monster in "Schindler's List". He does things and orders things done that are beyond comprehension in their wickedness. He is a monster that we can't relate to. In this film Daniel Day Lewis plays a character who is even scarier, because we see it from his perspective, and it touches a little too close to home. This man is selfish to his core, his heart is black. Yet he knows what's right, he knows how to be a good father, and how to talk to people. I've never hated a character in film as much. Yet it was captivating to watch. He was such a smooth, manipulative talker, and he only spoke when it was to his benefit. The first twenty minutes of the film he doesn't say a word, there's no advantage for him to. His son adores him, and he adores his son. Does he adore his son because of his son's adoration? Does he love his son, or is it just nice to have someone around who loves you? In the final scene with his son I believe his true heart is revealed, which made me hate him even more. Then there's the town's young, charismatic pastor (played by Paul Dano). He is the antagonist to Lewis' character, and what a way to compare and contrast two characters! Paul Thomas Anderson's probably has good reason for in using and oil man and a pastor to represent American greed. Personally I thought it was a great film, yet I sense a jab at Christianity that is not representative of my faith. Yet from an outside perspective the comparison that Anderson makes is justified, and I find that to be sad.