Comments on: “Revolutionary” Rambo vs Burmese atrocities

By: Thai Chat

Thai Chat — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 06:59:59 +0000

One may criticize the movie feeling it’s not art, but anyway,
it sheds light on the state of Burma.

A movie such as Rambo is likely to have a wide public.
So we may hope that it will raise people awareness of
the poor state of Karens and other minorities in Myanmar.

By: aiontay

aiontay — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:51:53 +0000

You’re right Grasshopper, the Bush administration is rather surreal.

By: Grasshopper

Grasshopper — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 12:54:09 +0000

But Aiontay!, I must protest! If one were a surrealist and envisaged why a bush would call a person a terrorist, it would undoubtedly mean Rambo is one; because of his machete wielding jungle clearing antics!

By: aiontay

aiontay — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:36:37 +0000

Grasshopper,

Haven’t you been paying any attention?!? You’re not a terrorist unless Bush says you are, and Bush isn’t going to declare “Rocky” a terrorist.

By: Grasshopper

Grasshopper — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 10:33:43 +0000

Aren’t revolutionaries tewwowists? (or is there an exemption if theres also a revolutionary diversification contained in a power point presentation!?)

Has the Junta created any propaganda films?

By: Tara

Tara — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 00:47:11 +0000

Wait, but, doesn’t Rambo go into Burma to save the white people? His comments would seem to imply that he thinks obliterating a man with a truck mounted machine gun is ‘beleivable’.

By: amateur

amateur — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:47:35 +0000

I wonder how Stallone defines “action” and “revolutionary” as to the viewer it looks pretty much the same. And neither case is believable.
In the politically very incorrect corner of the mind though, it is a (illicit) pleasure to imagine one guy smashing the Tatmadaw.