action speaks louder than word

totally off topic, but what the hell.

im entitled to indulge every once in awhile. friends of mine may remember that im a bit of a horror film fan. hantu film to be more specific. heh. i finally got around to watch Hannibal last night. i had been avoiding it because i figured it would be bad. it wasnt that great but at least somewhat better than i thought it would be. so here is my question for you the readers: can the depiction of graphic violence for the sake of violence have any real merit ?

i admit that i found the film is quite entertaining. but i wouldnt recommend it, and i have no need to see it again, but it wasnt a terrible way to waste an evening. is this enough to redeem what was a brutal and nasty film ?

i could try to argue artistic merit and claim that the film needs no social merit because it functions as art. this seems a bit week in this particular case. i have seen many films which were far more violent and disturbing but that genuinely worked as art. this wasn't really up to the standard where it could be considered art.

did it have any virtue? no, not really. the violence was sufficiently predictable and over-the-top that it didn't really accomplish anything emotional langsung.

maybe movies like this do not need to have any social merit, any redeeming qualities. well maybe the fact that someone finds them entertaining, i think is enough kot. i dont know. i dont mind graphic violence when i feel that there is some point to it. in the absence of any such point, it seems to accomplish little more than desensitization. ahh peduli ah. its just that im not sure this is a good thing. chow.