Am I mellowing with age?

[NightTrain]

The other night, I was channel surfing and came across a film I had seen on HBO several years ago: "Broken Arrow" with John Travolta, Christian Slater, and Samantha Mathis. Back then, my reaction was, "For a mainstream action film, that was pretty damned good!" Seven years later, though, my reaction was, "Does it have to be so goddamned violent?"

Several weeks ago, I'd had a similar reaction to another violent action film that I had seen years ago and found entertaining. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of it now.

I really don't know why I've developed this apparent antipathy to gratuitous film violence. Perhaps it's a sign of, god help me, maturity? :shrug:

[Pale Blue Dot]

1. Nah.

You probably just see so much of it on CNN and the Nightly News that you've had your fill.

[zanana]

2. People never stop learning.

You've improved with age!

[Loonman]

3. First Blood was on cable a while ago

I saw it in the theater when it came out, and just said "wow, cool action flick", and forgot about it.


Then when when I saw it again just recently, I thought "wow, none of the violence is that excessive, and is actually needed to tell the story"

After a while, action films started to follow the formula that "First Blood" started, where after a brief introduction to the characters, it goes full tilt to the end.


Not even as jingoistic as the other "Rambo" movies, because Rambo got fucked over by the military, and that backwoods cop had a grudge against him for pretty much no reason.


I don't even like Stallone.

[NightTrain]

4. "First Blood" was adapted from a novel.

The two sequels were not. That undoubtedly explains the first film's devotion to character development and storyline.

[DS1]

5. Hardly anyone dies in First Blood