Extraneous violence is totally wrong. 'Robocop' was violence for violence's sake - you don't shoot somebody's arm off.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
The original 'RoboCop' was X-rated, and then they had to cut it down so it became R-rated, and Verhoeven claimed that actually made the movie more violent, because it's what you don't see that actually scares you.
Legitimate use of violence can only be that which is required in self-defense.
I intentionally shoot violence to make the audience feel real pain. I have never and I will never shoot violence as if it's some kind of action video game.
I'm very bad at violence in real life. I can't stand it. And I'm so fed up with crime novels that have too much violence. I can't really do it. It's unnecessary.
Physical violence is always a bore in films today. We don't see how much it hurts. We don't learn the true consequences of it.
It's not that the film is violent, it's that people have an issue with violence right now.
Violence is a very ugly thing. Violence is often so casual on film, and made to look so cool and so sexy, but violence is a repulsive, repugnant act that human beings inflict on each other. It shouldn't seem to be cool and sexy, ever really.
When I use violence in a movie, it's just to express the power, the impact of it.
Violence is used to portray what happens in a film. It only helps portray the actors and what they do. I think it is more about the story, when you have something to play off of.
Violence is a part of the world and life, and you shouldn't have to take it out of stories.
No opposing quotes found.