Action films nowadays are more violent and bloody than they used to be. One example that shows this progression is the movie First Blood, made in 1982, as compared to the movie Rambo, which came out in 2008. The violence and bloodiness demonstrated in the most recent movie release of Rambo far outweigh what was presented in “First Blood,”the first in the series of Rambo movies. Some viewers may feel that an increased amount of violence and gore makes for better entertainment, but they cannot deny the fact that this upheaval has gotten worse. There is definitely a difference between the two movies, and it is clear that these are two different “animals” we are dealing with. To illustrate this, in First Blood, the violent scenes are present, …show more content…
The movie starts with the showing of a real-life documentary where there are soldiers slaying innocent people, there are views of severed heads, and of mangled bodies being buried. Rambo shoots a pirate in the head and the blood splatters all over the camera. There is a long scene of a military unit which massacres a whole village using assault rifles and flamethrowers. Civilians are shown entirely blown to pieces with their remains showering everywhere. Some villagers and children are shot at close range with much blood spray. Rambo vividly cuts a man's head off with a machete and again blood splatters all over. The increased slaughter in this film proves that it is definitely more heinous than the first version. In conclusion, this comparison illustrates that action movies have changed for the worse. The movies of today leave a lot less to one's own imagination. The realistic nature of violence and gore in the movies today are desensitizing viewers and making moral decline acceptable. One can choose to watch a PG-13-rated movie rather than a R-rated action film, but this change for the worst seems to be pervading more and more R-rated