Well foxhot, thanks for considering this idea and thanks for not pigeonholing it as the 80's superhero Rambo of First Blood II.
First, let me say that Tarantino is awesome with or without my opinion. But in my opinion his approach, as illustrated in Death Proof, and Stallone's approach in Rambo IV both go off the charts in terms of raw, graphic violence. Personally I think Stallone depicted a greater scope of violence, from subtle personal characteristics/story to en masse wholesale meat grinding. Tarantino's violence is more of a thrilling time bomb you can hear ticking the entire time.
I wouldn't call Rambo IV quite the same species as Rambo II. IV depicted violence through a lens of humaneness - and even Tarantino does that for brief moments, such as at the end of Pulp Fiction, with Sam Jackon's speech.
I'm not sure how to define these differences. I'll try. Death Proof - Tarantino's "worst" as he put it, but still standing with the rest of his seminal filmography - reveled in objective violence. His characters are jaded and their motives selfish. The violence that stems from their experiences - seems meaningless.
Stallone's violence was more subjective. He used violence like a brush to paint something beautiful out of the gore. His characters are not the lovers of violence that Tarantino's are. Stallone's characters battle with violence and so doing are somehow lifted from it. Tarantino's characters sink with it.
This is all just how I took these films, I'm sure I missed some facets of these multilayered works.
At the end of Death Proof, I was grossed out (not by visuals, but emotions). At the end of Rambo IV, I was at peace and a better person for having seen it. Stallone used violence as a spiritual catalyst. I think few understand the franchise like he does. Maybe I just personally prefer the warrior's view of violence rather than the flickjunkie's.
To put it another way: just like a comedian can say almost anything as long as it's funny, a director can film almost anything as long as it's "internalizable."
It's not the gore. It's the reason behind the gore that determines if it's entertainment for some. Otherwise it's like porn with all closeup shots - just the plumbing, no pique. May as well watch paint dry. Still, Tarantino is required viewing, period.
By the way - I was extremely impressed with the visuals of Sin City as compared with Frank Miller's original comic. They freaking nailed it. Am I the only one who used to entertain himself redrawing pages from that comic?
