Review: First Blood (dir. by Ted Kotcheff)


“In the field we had a code of honor: you watch my back, I watch yours. Back here there’s nothing!” — John Rambo

You sit down expecting a brainless 80s action flick, and instead you get a meditation on trauma, bureaucracy, and the American wilderness. That’s First Blood for you. Directed by Ted Kotcheff and released in 1982, this is the movie that introduced the world to John Rambo, but don’t go in hoping for a body count or one-liners. What you actually get is a lean, gritty, and surprisingly sad drama about a guy who just wants to eat a hot meal and ends up accidentally declaring war on an entire small-town police force. And honestly? It holds up to this day. The film is adapted from David Morrell’s 1972 novel of the same name, but if you’ve read the book, you’ll notice some serious tonal differences right away. Morrell’s novel is bleak, brutal, and deeply nihilistic—a product of its era’s raw disillusionment with Vietnam. Kotcheff and Stallone sanded down some of those rougher edges, not to sell out, but to make Rambo a more sympathetic figure. The bones are the same, but the spirit is just a little warmer, and that choice changes everything.

Let’s break down the plot, because it’s deceptively simple. Sylvester Stallone plays John Rambo, a former Green Beret and Vietnam War hero who wanders into the town of Hope, Washington, looking for a fellow soldier he served with. He finds out the guy died of cancer from Agent Orange exposure. That’s the first gut punch. Rambo, already drifting and clearly struggling with PTSD, just wants to grab some food and keep moving. But the local sheriff, Will Teasle (a perfectly cast Brian Dennehy), takes one look at Rambo’s long hair, army jacket, and tired face and decides he’s a vagrant who needs to be run out of town. From a structural standpoint, Teasle isn’t a cartoon villain—he’s a classic dramatic antagonist: a rigid, small-town authoritarian who sees drifters as a threat to his orderly world. That realism makes the whole thing sting because you can almost see both sides. Almost.

When Teasle tries to escort Rambo to the city limits, Rambo walks back into town. That’s his big crime. He gets arrested, and at the station, the deputies start pushing him around. One of them, a veteran deputy named Galt (played with sneering menace by Jack Starrett), is the real problem here. Galt isn’t some young hothead. He’s an older, seasoned deputy who’s clearly been in his role for years, and he’s become entitled on the power of his badge. You can see it in the way he leans into the booking process, the casual cruelty in his eyes, the way he treats Rambo like a stray dog he’s finally allowed to kick. During the shaving scene, as deputies try to clean Rambo up after the arrest, Galt is the one who holds Rambo down, restraining him while another deputy wields the straight razor. He’s not waving the razor himself, but that almost makes it worse—he’s the enforcer, the guy who pins you in place while someone else does the dirty work. It’s a veteran cop who knows exactly how to exert control without getting his own hands bloody. That makes Galt far more chilling than some screaming bully. He represents the rot of unchecked authority, the way small-town power can curdle into casual sadism over time. And that whole humiliating process—being held down, having a straight razor brought to his face—triggers a full-blown flashback for Rambo. Then something clicks. Rambo explodes, beats down half the station, and escapes into the nearby mountains.

Now the hunt begins. Teasle calls in the State Patrol, the National Guard, and eventually his old mentor, Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), who knows exactly what kind of animal they’re chasing. Trautman warns Teasle that Rambo isn’t just a drifter; he’s a trained killer with a “purple heart, a silver star, and a congressional Medal of Honor.” And here’s the core irony: Rambo doesn’t want to hurt anyone. He just wants to be left alone. But the chase escalates, people die, and by the end, you’re not cheering for the hero to win—you’re hoping he gets some peace.

From an analysis perspective, where First Blood really earns its stripes is its restraint. The action sequences are tense but never escalate into cartoon violence. Rambo uses the forest like a ghost, setting traps, crawling through mud, and surviving on raw squirrel meat. He doesn’t mow down dozens of cops with a machine gun. In fact, the only person he kills is Galt, who falls to his death while hanging off a helicopter because Rambo throws a rock at the chopper. And Rambo immediately looks horrified. That’s the key. Even Galt, as entitled and cruel as he is, isn’t a villain Rambo wants to execute. The kill is accidental, a desperate act of survival. The movie takes its time showing how the very skills that made Rambo a hero in Vietnam—his survival instincts, his aggression, his ability to turn anything into a weapon—now make him a monster in peacetime America. The local cops are out of their depth, but aside from Galt, they’re mostly just scared men doing a job. Nobody else is pure evil. Just broken systems and broken people.

But let’s talk about that novel, because the comparison is crucial for understanding the film’s choices. David Morrell’s First Blood is a much darker animal. In the book, Rambo is more feral, less a wounded hero and more a walking death sentence. He kills multiple cops, not by accident or in self-defense, but with cold, tactical efficiency. The novel has no Colonel Trautman to serve as a moral anchor—Trautman is there, but he’s just as ruthless. And the ending? Devastating. In Morrell’s version, Rambo and Teasle essentially murder each other in a final, bloody standoff. Trautman finishes Rambo off with a shotgun blast to the gut. There’s no catharsis, no plea for understanding. Just bodies and regret. The tone is nihilistic to the core: the system destroyed these men long before the first page, and there was never any hope. Kotcheff’s film pulls back from that abyss. It keeps the violence lean and mostly off-screen. It gives Rambo that famous final monologue where he sobs about his friend dying next to him, about protesters spitting on him, about not being able to turn off the war inside his head. That scene isn’t in the book—not like that. The movie says, “This man is suffering, and maybe he can still be saved.” The novel says, “This man is already dead, and he’s taking everyone with him.” Both are valid responses to Vietnam, but the film’s slightly toned-down approach is why Rambo became an icon instead of a footnote.

From a performance standpoint, Stallone gives the work of his career here. Forget the grunting one-liners of later sequels. In First Blood, he barely speaks, and when he does, his voice cracks. Watch his eyes during that final monologue. After Trautman finally talks him down, Rambo dissolves into a sob. “Nothing is over!” he screams at Trautman. “You don’t just turn it off!” It’s raw, uncomfortable, and genuinely moving. You realize that the whole movie has been one long panic attack for this character. The Rambo that pops up in Rambo: First Blood Part II is a cartoon superhero. The Rambo here is a guy who needed a therapist and a hug about thirty years ago. That vulnerability is the film’s great deviation from the source material. Morrell’s Rambo never asks for understanding. Kotcheff’s does. And that small shift in tone—from nihilism to wounded humanity—is what elevates the film from a grim exploitation picture to a legitimate character study.

On the technical side, Ted Kotcheff’s direction is patient and atmospheric. He shoots the Pacific Northwest like a character—vast, wet, dark, and full of hiding places. The chase scenes are grounded, with long takes and practical stunts. When Rambo jumps off a cliff into a tree and lands with a thud that sounds real, it hurts. There’s no CGI safety net. Jerry Goldsmith’s score is mournful, with lonely woodwinds and a simple, haunting main theme that never pumps you up for a fight. It just makes you sad. The movie even has the guts to end on a downer—but not as brutal as the book’s. Rambo surrenders, crying in Trautman’s arms, and the final shot is him walking away in handcuffs into the rain. No freeze-frame high five. No sequel tease. Just rain. And yet, compared to the novel’s blood-soaked finale, that rain feels almost like mercy. That’s tonal balancing at its finest: the film acknowledges the darkness without drowning in it.

Of course, the cultural memory of First Blood has been completely buried by its sequels. Most people under thirty know Rambo as the muscle-bound machine gun guy from memes and video games. But the original is closer to a western like The Deer Hunter meets a paranoid 70s thriller like The French Connection. It’s a movie about a country that used its soldiers and then discarded them. Teasle represents the willful ignorance of middle America—“I don’t care about your war” is basically his attitude. And Rambo represents the bill coming due. Galt, as that entitled veteran deputy, represents the everyday cruelty of those who’ve held power too long and forgotten what it’s for—the guy who doesn’t need to swing the blade because he’s the one holding you still. That theme hits even harder today, decades later, when veterans are still fighting for basic support and stories of badge-heavy misconduct still dominate headlines. The novel took that theme to its logical, horrific conclusion: no survivors, no lessons learned. The film pulls back just enough to let you breathe, and that one small change turned First Blood from a bleak cult artifact into a mainstream classic. You can argue which version is more honest. But you can’t argue that Stallone and Kotcheff made the right call for the screen.

First Blood rules. It’s a rainy, sad, surprisingly smart action movie that will stick with you longer than any explosion-fest. It’s also a masterclass in adaptation, showing how a slight shift in tone—from nihilistic to wounded—can transform a story without betraying its core. Brian Dennehy is perfect as the stubborn but not evil sheriff. Jack Starrett makes Galt a quietly terrifying portrait of bureaucratic sadism, a veteran deputy who’s learned to love the leash and the privilege of pinning a man down while someone else does the cutting. Richard Crenna brings real weight as Trautman, a father figure who knows he helped raise a weapon he can no longer control. And Stallone acts his soul out. When he whispers “I could have killed them all” in the final scene, he’s not bragging. He’s confessing. That’s why First Blood is a classic. It’s not a recruitment poster. It’s a eulogy—just a little less hopeless than the novel that birthed it. Four stars, easily. Just don’t go in expecting explosions every five minutes. Go in expecting to feel bad, and you’ll leave feeling like you watched something real.

Review: Drive (dir. by Nicolas Winding Refn)


Danish filmmaker Nicolas Winding Refn has made just a handful of films with most staying under the radar of most of the general film-going public. He first caught the attention of indie film fans with his Pusher Trilogy over in Denmark, but he really caught the attention of these fans with his explosive collaboration with Tom Hardy on the Bronson biopic. He would follow that film with the violent existentialist Viking film Valhalla Rising. It would take another major collaboration with another rising star in Ryan Gosling for Winding Refn to finally have his major breakout film which has caught the attention of not just the indie film fans and cineaste crowd, but the general public at-large.

Drive was first screened over at this year’s 2011 Cannes Film Festival where it premiered “in competition” for the Palme d’Or. While the film didn’t win the top prize for best film at Cannes it didn’t garner Nicolas Winding Refn “Best Director” award and his work on this film more than merits such an accolade. The film would begin to screen at other major film festivals before landing at the Toronto International Film Festival before making it’s major public release in North America. Everywhere the film went the consensus reaction to the film has ranged from positive to calls for the film as one of 2011’s best.

So, it would seem most everyone has been quite positive with their reaction to Refn’s Drive. Is this film just another indie arthouse title which the elitist film fans have begun to hype up to levels that would border on cosmic? Or is this film actually as good as it has been talked up to be by such film fans and those of the general public who have seen it? I think the answer lies somewhere in-between.

Drive has been called an action-drama to crime-thriller to film noir and even an existentialist meditation of the film variety. Some have even called it a modern urban fairy tale from the many traditional tropes and themes inherent in fairy tales. The film actually seems to defy genre labels as it’s all those and even more. Nicolas Winding Refn has made a film with so much variety in its cinematic DNA from other classic films and storytelling styles that watching the film once is not enough to find them all.

The film makes a strong statement with it’s introduction of the character who remains nameless but could be called “The Driver” or “The Kid”. Ryan Gosling’s performance in this opening sequence will set the foundation for his character from beginning to end. His driver role is not much for chit-chat and unnecessary talking with those who have hired him to be their expert getaway driver. He’s meticulous with his equipment and intractable when it comes to the rules he has set down for his clients. He would be theirs for the five minutes they need him to drive them away from their criminal acts. Whatever they do before or after those five minutes doesn’t matter to him and he sticks to this rule explicitly. Another rule which he lays down is that he will not be carrying a firearm. These rules have had some audiences bring to mind Jason Statham’s Transporter character and they would not be totally wrong to say so. What Gosling’s driver has over Statham’s is the air of realism to the role. It’s a realism that borders on hyper-reality as the film moves on to it’s climactic conclusion, but real nonetheless. Gosling’s “driver” will not do extensive and elaborate fighting skills the way Statham’s would.

The film would move from it’s powerful introduction and into a much more calm and somewhat serene section as the nameless driver gradually gets to know his next door neighbor in the form of Irene as played by Carey Mulligan. Their relationship will form the core of the film’s narrative and it’s the driver’s growing affection not just for Irene but her young son that would dictate some of the decisions he would make right up to the end of the film. It’s a relationship built not on extensive dialogue banter but mostly on meaningful glances and silent understanding between two characters who seem to have found a kindred kinship between them. It’s this growing relationship between the two and Irene’s son which almost look like a familial unit forming until the return of Irene’s incarcerated and newly-released husband Standard. This is a character played by Oscar Isaac as a man desperate to take full advantage of his last chance at normalcy and redemption, but ultimately doomed to fail.

Standard doesn’t just become the only wrench in the happy life Gosling’s character seems to want to have with Irene and her son. Into the picture also happens to come in is his mentor and business partner Shannon (Bryan Cranston doing a great job as the good-natured, but opportunistic fool character many Shakespearean tragedies always seem to have) and Shannon’s even seedier acquaintances in Hollywood mogul-turned-mob boss Bernie Rose (Albert Brooks in a chilling performance) and his more boisterous, but not as smart partner in Nino (Ron Perlman).

The film seems to settle on the low gears for the first hour of the film, but it’s during a botched robbery attempt where the driver becomes embroiled in that Drive finally moves into the high gears and stays there until the very end. Refn’s decision to use the first hour to round out and build the characters in this film definitely pays off in the end. The audience becomes quite clear as to who the players are and what motivates them to do what they do the rest of the film. Even the most secondary and tertiary roles in this film has a part to play. Even Christina Hendricks in the role of a low-level moll to a gang of criminals gets to have her time to shine if just briefly.

Once the narrative shifts from character study to an almost Cronenbergian exercise in violence and brutality does the film finally able to hook in the last few audiences who may have still been iffy about Drive. Not to say that the final 45-minutes of the film was a non-stop action film, but it does move at a consistently higher gear pace than the first hour. We see the driver having to show to the audience that he’s not just an expert wheelman for Hollywood (stunt driver by day) and the criminal underground (getaway driver by night). It serves the film well that Gosling’s character has the barest minimum of lines of dialogue. We see all we need to know about this character through his behavior that brings to mind roles played by such past luminaries as Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood.

Most likely it would be in the second half of the film that should satisfy the action junkies. While the action scenes are not of the Michael Bay-type they do show that Refn has a fine grasp of what makes an action scene thrilling. Whether the scene calls for some of the most well-done car chase on film since Frankenheimer showed everyone how to properly do it in Ronin or scenes of sudden brutal violence which calls to mind similar scenes from Cronenberg’s last two films (A History of Violence and Eastern Promises). Both types of action were done efficiently with little to no glamour to gloss over things. The burst of violence actually adds to the mystique of Gosling’s “Man With No Name” role. One particular scene in the apartment elevator where Gosling, Mulligan and a goon sent by the mob makes for one of the best scenes in the film and of 2011.

As much as these scenes of action and violence will be the ones to get the most attention from the general film-going public in the end it’s the excellent screenplay by Hossein Amini of the James Sallis’ novel of the same name which really holds everything together in conjunction with some top-notch performances from everyone involved. The film makes or breaks itself on Gosling’s performance as the driver and he delivers on all cylinders. His performance was quite reminiscent of past performances such as James Caan as Frank in Michael Mann’s Thief, Steve McQueen also as Frank in Bullitt, but in my opinion Gosling’s work in this film brings to mind young Clint Eastwood as “The Man With No Name” in Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western trilogy. Both characters were the type to let their actions speak for them and were both full of quiet confidence not to mention restrained violence which would erupt when needed.

Much has been said about Albert Brooks’ turn as the mob boss Bernie Rose. how the role was quite the 180-degrees from people’s perception of the actor who usually did comedic roles. I say that Albert Brooks always had a dark side to his comedic talent. I mean he was and is megamaniacal villain Hank Scorpio from The Simpsons. In all seriousness, Brooks’ as the mob boss was the other pillar which held all the other performances focused. In fact, Gosling’s character and Brook’s Bernie Rose could almost be considered mirror-images of each other. They were characters who had found their place in the world and the role they would play and didn’t struggle against it. Everyone else in the film struggled against their lot in life. It was also these characters who had the bulk of the film’s dialogue.

Drive has been hyped (for some overhyped) since it first premiered at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, but it’s one of those rare films which has more than earned and surpassed the hype which has preceded it’s general release to the general public. It’s a film which bucks traditional genre labels by combining the themes, ideas and foundations from many different film and storytelling genres. For fans of action there’s enough thrilling action to sate them. For those who are fans of film noir this film definitely carries within it the DNA set down by the film noir of the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. For some who wish to watch a film which explore existential themes then Refn’s film has that too. In the end, Drive manages to be a film which caters to so many different audiences without ever pandering to them or dumbing the story down. It’s a film made by a filmmaker who continues to impress and who has made his best film to date.

Drive is a film that is not for everyone, but it’s also a film that everyone should see and experience at least once. It is also one of the year’s best films and, so far, my top film of 2011.