[QUOTE=RoOsh]
How do you feel about Sin City’s levels of violence, same with Planet Terror (one of the most gruesome movies out there, certainly not mainstream though, but it did well in the box office, and its quite violent without really being torture porn (the doctor scenes alone were quite intense, and there’s not really any violence there, just pictures). But Sin City’s always been the big one for me in terms of violent blockbusters that’s NOT torture porn
[/QUOTE]
Another good example. Sin City’s violence certainly equals Rambo’s in both intensity and duration. But I wonder if the comic-bookness served to soften it somewhat? Still, I think it belongs in any list we come up with.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
Rambo I’d put it alongside films like The Condemned (which wasn’t that bad, though Battle Royal the Japanese film is WAY better)- where they’re mindless action movies starring a highly visible actor trying to cash in on that guys popularity (yes, in my book, Stallone is equal to Stone Cold Steve Austin, take it as you will).
[/QUOTE]
Hmm. Condemned has some of the intensity, but not really the duration. But a worthy addition to the list nonetheless.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
I would nominate a film like *The Passion of the Christ *as well, as that’s quite violent to where I have NO desire to actually fully see it all.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, so far this movie is the closest, IMO. However, though the intensity and duration certainly give Rambo a run for its money, the body count surely doesn’t. Still, the onslaught-ness of Passion puts it near the top of the list, IMO.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
And I can honestly say I was more disgusted by the Rape scene in A Clockwork Orange than by anything in Rambo, just because of the psychology of the film. But I have no idea if ACO counts as a blockbuster film or if it was a niche film when released- I would put down Clockwork at the head of any list though of disturbingly violent films, but it was made before my time so I don’t know how successful it was.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, although the violence in ACO was almost entirely psychological; I was mostly talking about the clinical, anatomical, vivisection-by-bullets splatterfest of Rambo.f
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
Same with Pan’s Labyrinth- another movie that disturbed me MORE than Rambo (Though I admit it was more for the googly Hand monster than the Face Scenes, but still).
[/QUOTE]
The Face scene equals Rambo in intensity. For me Rambo was The Face Scene stretched to, what, a 30 minute sequence.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
For me the violence is in did it bother me, or did I remember it- now when I think back at Rambo- I have nothing really disturbing that stood out in the film for me, it felt like mindless action, and cartoonish violence, because of WHO Rambo is. He stands for something, sure, but by his presence he “dumbs” down the violence content of the film.
[/QUOTE]
An interesting point. But his very seriousness (no parting oneliners from Rambo; he’s definitely the strong silent type) added to the seriousness of the violence for me.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
Meanwhile, a scene like the Curb-Stomping Scene from American History X- that’s the sort of film scene that LIVES ON in my mind as just being HORRIFYING. It was unexpected by me, it was done by a person who at that point in the film I knew nothing about, and it felt REAL to me. That’s whats more violent and disturbing in movies- when even though I know its a FILM, I am still disturbed by it. Pan’s Labyrinth- Creepy, sure, and violent, but at the end of the Night, I can sleep knowing it’s just a movie, and that’s just silly special effects. Same reason why NO *Die Hard *movie had ever caused me to lose any sleep. I can tell its stylized, and that sort of thing isn’t Real.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, the Curb scene from AHX definitely belongs in any list of Most Violent Moments in Film History.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
Rambo falls into that category of “silly violence” by the very character of Rambo being in the film. The acts perpetuated by him may be violent sure, but anything he does, it doesn’t bother me as much because I’m jaded to his character.
If i saw Superman beat up a bad guy, and then kill him. I’d be surprised, and it’d be odd, but it wouldn’t freak me out. However, if I saw my NEIGHBOR beat up and kill a person- it’d disturb me MUCH more. That’s the issue I have with Rambo- the context destroys the violence factor.
It’s one reason why the “Torture Porn” category of films are successful, Saw I and Hostel both were done not really using “evil villains” but ordinary characters. So the violence perpetuated by those characters was MORE intense and violent than something else (Saw did this particularly well with the main characters being forced to react to the scenes as ordinary people in extraordinarily horrific situations). That’s what STARTED the torture-porn genre HERE in the US and got it to the semi-mainstream status that it enjoys.
[/QUOTE]
That’s an interesting point; Funny Games works on a similar principal, IMO. Making it that much more disturbing. You can’t get away from context.
[QUOTE=RoOsh]
I understand you’re trying to point out a film as being violent, but to me that film will never be as violent as other films simple because the context of the film dilutes the horror/violence (same with Starship Troopers- a gory film, but not one that stood out as violent, but it’s been a LONG time since I’ve seen it unedited, so my memory fails me there).
That may be not what you’re looking for, but it’s just my opinion and how I view “violence” in films- because without context and meaning, a violent scene can be violent but come across as nearly harmless and forgettable to me, and perhaps that may be the issue others have with Rambo as well. :shrug: YMMV, and it probably does.
But there ya go. Mine 2 cents, yours for free.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the seriousness of the political context of Rambo added something to the context. But Rambo is of course Rambo.
