Yesterday saw the release of Sylvester Stallone‘s Rambo, and while it didn’t top the box office (the top slot went to the spoof comedy Meet The Spartans), it did come in second with a gross of $6.7 million, making it the best opening day for a Sylvester Stallone film.

Not bad considering 1) it’s a January opening (a month with notoriously poor box office returns); 2) it’s up against January record breaker Cloverfield as well as Oscar-nominated films; and 3) it’s violent as hell.

Is Rambo really violent? Yes. Too violent? Maybe. Too violent for me? Absolutely, and not because there’s blood and guts flying everywhere. It’s because the violence is based in reality — this violence is happening in the world right now — it’s not fake.

Rambo star Sylvester Stallone, who also directed and co-wrote the film, states that his purpose in setting this fourth installment in Burma (currently known as Myanmar) was to expose the mass atrocities of the lengthy civil war raging there. Well, consider me exposed. Unfortunately, I’m sure most of the people watching this film either thought it was just another bad-ass action flick or, rather, another over-the-top action flick.

And, at it’s heart, that’s what it is. When going to see a movie like this, you have to take it at that — simply, an ACTION flick. If you walk away with more from it, that’s great. Otherwise, don’t try to dissect it for its acting merits, don’t shred it for its seemly preposterous plot line, don’t knock it for all its graphic violence, and definitely don’t be shocked at the actions of its hero — there’s a reason he’s there: to save the day by any means possible!

Like I said in the beginning, it was a bit too violent for me — I don’t get off on seeing innocent people raped, tortured, and killed. It’s not my thing. But boy do I love it when a good-guy action hero opens up a can o’ whup ass on the baddies. (Hey, they had it coming.) It makes me wish there really was a one-man Rambo army out there to save the oppressed, tortured victims of the world.