what exactly do you mean? What is violence measured by in movies? Do you count the gore factor? Like in those zombie horror flicks? Are they the most violent films? Or is it more realistic urban street violence? Anytime I hear people talking about violent movies they bring up horror films and I just don't consider those to be violent per se because they just rely on gore? So, my question is How do you measure violence in films?

I think fighting, shooting, murder, stabbing, killing, and rape all qualify. Someone getting eaten by a posessed garbage disposal isn't really violence so much as gore, but the MPAA probably lumps that in there as well since it's visually disturbing. Violence, however, usually just encompasses acts of physical aggression.

I personally don't consiter lots of blood and gore as violence, now if we see how all of this happens, then its violence, like I don't think pulp fiction and reservoir dogs are as extreme violent as critics have said.

I never thought Reservoir Dogs was all that violent either; but perhaps they're judging it by quantity... I mean, Tim Roth does bleed through the ENTIRE movie! . Also, I think they're pretty hard on any movie with a "torture" scene.

Something like "Once Were Warriors" has scenes of extremely disturbing and violent acts, but gets the same rating (R) as some goofball action movie like "True Lies". I guess that's why the descriptions after the rating are actually more useful than the rating itself...

the ear scene in Resevoir Dogs was violent,

the biting the curb scene and the shower scene in American History X was violent

the beating of Blondie in Fight Club was violent

i classify violent as something more real than gore in monster movies. anything that carries a brutalness to it. someone getting their head cut off by a sword to me is not violent. someone getting beat about the head with a blunt object that requires a certain ammount of rage to keep it up to me is violent

People often confuse blood and guts with violence. I think violence is any act of physical aggression from one person to another. This could be gory, or not. But gore in itself is not violence.

Yes, I think it was The New Yorker that said PF seems more violent than it really is.

The Reservoir Dogs torture scene is violence.

Rape scenes are violent.

It's all about context moreso than content. There's the John Woo style where all the bullets flying are framed in an entertainment content, while a Saving Private Ryan shows the gritty reality of combat. The "dinner scene" in Hannibal is so absurd and over the top to be considered violent, even though it's disgusting and disturbing.

Then you have the likes of Robocop and Total Recall which seem to go overboard on the blood and body parts.

Shooting someone = non-violent. Poking someone in the eye = violent. Kicking someone = non-violent. Cutting someone in half with a chainsaw = violent.

For me, the level of resultant gore determines the "violence level" much moreso than any act unto itself.

Realistic violent acts to me are way worse than fantasy horror gore

e.g. BrainDead aka Dead alive - NOT violent

Last house on the left - Violent

I think gore is to violence what Keaneu Reeves is to acting. It can be considered, and technically maybe violent, but it really isn't.

Nice quote.

Violence is something believable, which means it has to be well-acted, which excludes virtually all horror movies and a lot of other movies! You have to be able to cringe and feel it.

Pulp Fiction and Reservior Dogs both have loads of violence, the difference is that they don't show much of it explicitly.