#arachofilms

gaaah school can really suck but you gotta remember that all that drama and “hierarchy” and stuff are just made up things by kids and you are so above it. just be you, and I hope all gets better! xxx

To be completely honest with you,Not Another Teen Movie was the second worst movie I've seen in my life (first place goes to Meet My Spartans and a couple of Polish comedy films from 2000-2014),the humour is very low + the plots just sucks ass and it wasn't even funny for a bit. I know that it's that type of a 0/10 movie ,but as far I remember I never rated a movie 0/10 ,so i just kept 1/10 xd ....but then 1/10 is a pretty cool movie rating because there are soo many bad 1/10 movies that are really ,really funny like Titanic :The Animated Movie ,Santa and the Ice Cream Bunny ,Eega ,A Gnome Named Gnorm ,Sir Billi ,Saving Private Ryan ,The Fault in Our Stars  and of course The Room xd 

To be honest, I don’t know how to answer this question because I grew up watching violent movies and I think I have become desensitized to the violence I see on the screen. So, it’s hard for me to think of directors who are abusing the use of violence.

In general, I like violent movies that are realistic to the actual effects of violence and doesn’t reward those who use violence in bad ways. Gangster movies are a good example of there are violent films, but the bad guys usually pay the price for their actions. I don’t like violence for violent’s sake. Directors who I think use violence appropriately are- Martin Scorsese, Akira Kurosawa, and Stanley Kubrick.

I think that the director's approach to usages of violence, so long as it's in line with the aesthetic of the film is fine. Many people give director's like Tarantino or Fincher a lot of flack for their more graphic natures but their films oftentimes call of exaggerated or more serious displays of violence.

Tarantino's usage of violence is so greatly disproportional to it's contents that it always plays as though it's a parody of itself. It's a commentary all on its own and always falls in line with the sometimes campy or flamboyant contents of his films (i.e: In Kill Bill when the Bride fights the Crazy 88). Fincher's usage of violence is gritty, it drags you into the scene alongside the characters and the sound of crunching bones lets you know where you are and what exactly is at stake (i.e: Craig's torture scene in Girl With The Dragon Tattoo).

Sometimes I watch movies that don't use violence as a storytelling tool, to set the mood or the feel of the scenes or visual style of the film, that is when I take issue with it. It's not even on a director-basis it can usually go right down to the film. I think that people who incorporate violence or scenes that have severe ramifications such as rape only for shock value or to try to market their film as 'mature' or 'complex' is complete bullshit. 

is this about the kinks?

fuck no | no thanks | eeeh | not sure | I’d give it a shot | sure why not | omfg yes | there go my pants | holy fuck take me now

Wow, that is a really great question, and I must preface it by saying I generally dislike violence in films.  Well, dislike is perhaps a bit strong; have little stomach for it is more correct.  Basically, I’m a wuss and it takes a lot for me to watch film violence.  War films are my least favorite genre because they are so hard for me to watch - which they should be, they are depicting some of the basest evils of man, they cannot and should not be fun or easy.  

To get back to the question, I dislike directors who SHOW violence for violence’s sake. Film genres like torture porn and the directors associated with that are on my Never Watch List.  (again, I have such little stomach for it as well.)  I am not in any way desensitized to gore, so any time there is a substantial amount of gore and violence in the film, I have checked out and I will have a real problem with it.  Eli Roth ain’t exactly my cup of tea.  

Having said all of that, I will watch films with violence, of course I will.  Violence works best for me when little is actually shown but a great deal is implied, and any time a director manages to do that, I am on board.  Brian de Palma’s “The Untouchables” is quite possibly my favorite example of how to do movie violence WELL.  Many people call it a violent film, but very little is ACTUALLY shown; rather than show the violence, de Palma stylizes it, cutting away at just the right moment, often to a different scene entirely, which typically only serves to underscore the unsettling nature of the violence. By cutting directly from Capone going crazy to Eliot Ness’ home life, the violence is given a context as we understand just how much Ness has to lose and how precarious his domesticity is.  Bryan Singer’s “The Usual Suspects” is another great example of a fairly violent movie that shows precious little but implies a helluva lot.  That’s the sort of violence I like.

Now onto the elephant in the room: Tarantino. I don’t quite know what to make of Tarantino, because man, he loves violence and blood and gore, he really does. And yet… well, I really like Kill Bill. And Pulp Fiction. I have not seen Django Unchained or Inglourious Basterds (full disclosure) and I worry about watching them (because I have no doubt I will eventually see them) because I know I have a weak stomach for violence… but Tarantino has a way of playing up the comic book aspects of the violence, of making it seem less horrifying and more stylized that I like and respond well to.  

I know this isn’t quite your question, but to sum up, any director who can make the violence stylistic and smart is a director who I will enjoy when it comes to movie violence.  Any director who simply uses gore for gore’s sake, who shows me way too much, more than was needed, and I will be traumatized and very unlikely to ever watch the movie again.  

http://bryancranstoned.tumblr.com/post/93763168456