Violence in movies or violent movies?

To me, violence in movies is a very subjective subject. There is a fine line between ac-
ceptable and bloodshed, and I believe that lies in purpose. I can only take some amount
of blood, gore, and fist-fighting when I'm watching a movie. However, that amount in-
creases the more useful those things are to the plot.

If the film is about war, for example, there is no avoiding violence, so the director might
as well make it as crude as possible. War is not pretty, and neither should be the films
about it. If the violence being shown is or was a reality, I see no problem in displaying it
like that, as harsh as it might be. What I would not want is for those films to romanticize
it, as if violence was some heroic, justified act.

In other movies, however, violence should not be as present as it is. Nowadays, we see
character development and plot structure being substituted by guns and fights to the
point where the weight of these violent scenes can't even be felt anymore. One of the
biggest examples of that is superhero movies, in which someone gets beat up every five
minutes and by the end of the film you can't even remember the name of the protago-
nist. All the explosions and punches and visual effects are nice to see, but once they get
overused they lose their appeal. At least that is what I think, although those are some of
the most successful films in the movie industry.

Therefore, as unpopular as this opinion might be, I do think that, overall, there is too
much violence in movies. Not because it is heavy, but because most of it has no pur-
pose and doesn't further the plot at all, being, therefore, unnecessary.