Tarantino and Private Ryan has *nothing* on this film between the roasted dog, the hanging and decomposing corpses, brains falling out, severed tongues, broken hymen, suicide by running into a wall with a sword, etc. This is truly one of the most violent movies of the last 20 years with a lot of top grade actors, but hardly anyone has heard of it.
share> Tarantino and Private Ryan has *nothing* on this film [...]
Now you know why I always laugh at these ppl who say Tarantino makes violent movies or "SPR" is so 'gritty* and 'hard to watch'.
Tarantino just brought this into the mainstream and made it "accecptable". But even he just barly scratces at the surface.
These ppl just havn`t seen enough movies.
"F&B" is a real 'childrens movie' compared to some others that are around. ;->
--
"I used to be Tommy Verceti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
Yep, I agree with Tank. Flesh and Blood is a good movie but is fairly tame on the violence scale compared to movies with portrayals of realistic violence like Saving Private Ryan.
share> [...] with portrayals of realistic violence [...]
Both portray violence very realisticly - just in two different centurys. "SPR" however is much to stylised and episodly, while "F&B" violence is much more a surpirse and thus much more realistic. In "SPR" you always get a warning, a buildup, much like a falshcard with a warning or one of those stupid disclaimers they always put in front of 'violent' TV-shows.
"F&B" just hits you.
That's something Tarantino is also very good at. His 'violence' is never expected or if it comes with a warning its always something else then you expect. Still, he's painting with creons while Verhoeven uses a thick brush.
--
"I used to be Tommy Verceti, now I'm Phil Cassidy."
Tarantino
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]