Just a quick blog inspired by Sylvester Stallone. Weird, right?
I recently read an article where Stallone criticizes extreme violence in movies. He says that in order for violence to justifiably exist in movies, there needs to be a balance of heroism. I get that; however, after watching Rambo (2008) last night for the first time, I have to say that I had more issue watching that movie's violence vs. the type of violence you'd see in any of the so-called torture flicks.
Saw movies. At least with Saw, you can separate yourself from the situation. It's still fantasy -- and a bit over-dramatic.
To Stallone's point, there's no real heroism in the torture flicks; however, I don't care. Clearly, Stallone's violence is more justified because he does what he does for a reason; but nonetheless, it was far more difficult to watch the brutal village massacre in Rambo than sitting through a bloody, eye-gouging scene in a torture flick. With that said, I enjoyed both movies. I just find it hard to digest Stallone's criticism of violence in movies when his violence is far more upsetting.
I said my piece.