I'll admit that I found the film entertaining. I wouldn't recommend it, and I have no need to see it again, but it wasn't 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 cathartic value? No, not really. The violence was sufficiently predictable and over-the-top that it didn't really accomplish anything emotional.
Maybe movies like this do not need to have any social merit, any redeeming qualities. Maybe the fact that someone finds them entertaining is enough. I don't know. I do not 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. I'm not sure this is a good thing.
Subscribe to Atheist Revolution