Therefore, when there is an episode of violence caused by a female action hero it is not the same as what we see when there is an episode of the same kind originated by a male one. Like it was implied before, in the latter type there is usually more gore, more blood, more brutality, whereas in the former there is usually not so much of any of that. Gina Arnold explains it very nicely in her article “Bad Ass Girls on Film - Is it a Good Thing When Women Beat the Crap Out of Men at the Movies,” by saying that the violence that we find in a female action hero movie “lacks the viciousness we tend to associate with fighting [and it is] stripped of danger and cruelty and the ugly and mean competitiveness that taints the violent actions of the male world.” What is more, male action heroes happen to get hurt more often and more seriously than female ones: Bruce Willis' character in “Die Hard” lacerates his feet severely after having to walk barefooted over broken glass; Mel Gibson's one is tortured in “Lethal Weapon”; Brendan Fraser's one in “The Mummy” is sentenced to death by hanging and just as he is being hanged they revoke the sentence so they cut the rope and he lives, but he still went through the torture. We practically never see any of these severe wounds or acts of brutal aggression happening to female action heroes, but we do see it happening often to vulnerable or fragile female victims in many movies. However, when we do see things like these happening to female action heroes, the movies which includes them do not seem to receive the acceptance of the audience. Such was the case of the movie previously mentioned “The Long Kiss Goodnight,” in which Geena Davis' character, Charly, is tortured and also receives one too many punches which covered her in bruises and blood. We must wonder what the reason for this lack of acceptance is. Perhaps it is that we are still not ready to see a woman who appears to be so strong and fearless in such a vulnerable position, since this is exactly what we have seen for years in movies where women were the victims. The audience wants something new, and that is why they like female action heroes.

What we can conclude from this is that there is a noteworthy importance placed on the hero's body. Susan Jeffords claims in her book Hard Bodies: Hollywood Masculinity in the Reagan Era that “what determines a hero is the possession of a hard body. Though other characters may be quick-witted, charming, experienced, or clever, without the hard body to go with, they cannot be heroes.” Notwithstanding, this may be true for male action heroes, but it is certainly not the case for female ones, as has been already analyzed and explained. Female action heroes are all of what Jeffords mentions, plus they have the hard body. Moreover, they have the beauty and sex appeal that women naturally possess and they make it work to their advantage. And this beauty and their well shaped bodies are probably the equivalent to the focus on the body that we see occurring in male action heroes: the latter get hurt, and the former look pretty.

I'm glad I did. This is definitely one of the best action flicks I've seen in a long time. Why? Because it's probably the most realistic action flick I've seen in a long time. And not just with action, but with the way the characters are portrayed in a way you'd never expect from a “traditional” action film.

The film, which is the fourth in the series despite not having a number after its name (it was originally going to be called “John Rambo”, but director/star Stallone decided against it, to avoid comparison to the recent Rocky Balboa), starts with Vietnam veteran John Rambo still living in Thailand, working as a snake wrangler and charting out his boat. A group of missionaries approach him, wanting to hire him to take them into Burma so they can provide humanitarian aide.

Knowing that Burma is a war zone with the Burmese army terrorizing local villages and fighting with the local rebels, Rambo refuses. He eventually gets talked into it by Sarah (played by Julie Benz of Buffy the Vampire and Angel fame), one of the more idealistic members of the group. When Rambo learns that the group has been captured by the Burmese army, he goes with a group of mercenaries to rescue them, bringing him back into conflict once again.

What makes this film so good is that, as I've mentioned, is very realistic and very true-to-the-world. It opens up with actual news footage of the conflict in Burma, so you know right off that it works with real world events. Many of the characters, particularly the Burmese army and the mercenaries, are portrayed very realistically, instead of traditional movie villains and rogues with ideals they think no one else understands.

There's no fancy character names and no one's spouting one-liners that fans will be quoting for ages to come (Rambo does spout a few memorable lines, but that's more his character in this case than being an action hero). Rambo does use his trademark bow-and-arrow, but only for one scene and probably because that's all he's got, and save for a rather large gun used by the mercenaries' sharp-shooter, all the weapons are the type that probably more likely to be used in combat situations.

There's actually a bit of a theme here in realism versus idealism. You got Rambo, a realist in every sense of the way, having fought in Vietnam and later thrown into all sorts of world conflicts and battles in the previous movies. He knows what the world is like and that it'll take more than fancy talk and dreams to change it. So this puts him at odds with the missionaries, who are confident they can change things and are shocked at the brutality Rambo uses in situations.

But at the same time, Rambo is affected by them, particularly Sarah, whose words about life outside of fighting get him thinking. This sparks one of the more interesting scenes in the film, a dream/flashback sequence containing clips from the previous films, particularly ones with Colonel Trautman (played by the late Richard Crenna, thus enabling the character to appear in the new film in some way), where he says Rambo needs closure in his life.

To warn those of the faint of heart, Rambo does have some of the most violent and bloody action sequences ever in an action movie. People are very visibly and graphically seen ripped apart by bullets and/or blown to pieces by explosions in very graphic detail. No one is spared, not even children.

Heck, during the Burmese army's attack on the village where the missionaries are working, a child is actually thrown into a burning house by a soldier! While it's hard to tell just how much of the gunfire and their results is exaggerated, it's a safe bet that a lot of the other things that happen are very close to the actual goings-on in Burma, which makes it even more disturbing. And you thought horror movies were bad.

In any case, ultra-violence aside, Rambo is still a great film, probably the best in the series. And even you haven't seen the first three, you can still enjoy this one with little trouble. It's definitely worth checking out on the big screen.

Rating: 8 out of 10

Directed by Edward Zwick for Warner Bros. Pictures

Written by Art Monterastelli and Sylvester Stallone

Running time: 1hr 33 minutes.

Go see “Rambo”.

This is the best Rambo since “First Blood.” Hollywood has become rather annoying by trying to make a political statement with every film. First Blood actually accomplished that task before it was obligatory and did it more effectively. Part of the success of the first movie, which I feel was lost in parts 2 and 3, is that the actions were reasonable to the character. This film recaptures that quality.

Viet Nam was a huge hot button issue for the US. Like most sore spots you can't quit touching it though it hurts every time. With time we've begun to be OK with Viet Nam. As long as we support our troops this time we can have more political, unpopular “conflicts.” The scary, ugly side of war; the non-surgical kind of fighting that makes us feel helpless as Americans dropped off our radar. In reality this has been going on somewhere in southwest Asia for hundreds of years, and we should be aware of it.

What about the “R” Rating? Extremely violent. This is on a par with many of the Viet Nam flicks or the more recent “Saving Private Ryan.” I think it's appropriate.

What if I hate Sylvester Stallone? Some people do. I can't figure it out. Most of the time it's pretty obvious why, but of the many stars in Hollywood who are clearly obnoxious in real life he seems like a regular Joe. Either way it's not a good category for this review since its Rambo and he's Sly.

Larger Story? This movie makes a statement we might remember from the Godfather series. “I try to get out but they keep pulling me back in.” It's a fascinating parallel. Is war to a hardened soldier like being in a mafia? Can a life of violence keep someone trapped?

At the surface they are similar. Don Corleon is trapped into running a criminal empire because it will be mishandled by someone else. Rambo is “forced” back into killing because he finds inaction impossible to reconcile with his self identity. The difference is that Corleon is trying to leave crime and become an honest man. Rambo is struggling to go straight in a way also, but the life he leaves is one we value. He strived to be a hero but he was told he was a murderer and he's been living under that banner ever since. In First Blood it didn't seem like he had much talent for a straight life because of the contrast between his killing prowess and his earning potential. By the fourth movie Rambo has learned to eek out an existence, but he can't hide from his calling.

The question here is identity. Is he a hero for defending the weak or is he just a killer with better ideology? Only he can answer that question.

“Y'know what you are, what you're made of. War is in your blood. When you're pushed, killing's as easy as breathing.”

“Live for nothing, or die for something.”

The film has been rated "R" due to the gore seens shown in the film. This means it is recommended for viewers over the age of 18.

This entertaining film will be directed, produced & starred by Stallone, and also stars Julia Benz and Sam Elliote.

The 62 year-old Sylvester Stallone recently released the final of the Rocky Balboa series, which, according to raters "did not disappoint."

The movie is based in Thailand, John Rambo (Stallone) gathers a group of mercenaries and leads them up the Salween River to a Burmese village where a group of Christian aid workers allegedly went missing.

The movie is proving to be an action that will be the best of the series. From trailers seen, you shouldn't be worried it won't provide any action. The movie will be released on the 21st Feburary 2008 in Australia.

It will be produced by Lionsgate Entertainment.