Violence In film

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.

Yes, we all know that John Rambo is heroic.  He's an action star.  A hero.  A do-right, stand-up guy who fights (and kills) for what he believe in.  With that being said, there is scene in Rambo where a Burmese village gets completely massacred by corrupt war criminals.  Everyone gets brutally slaughtered -- women get raped, children get shot and thrown into fires.  For me, this is far worse than watching the gory torture in, let's say, the 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.    

Thoughts?

-J