QT movies, in general, are violent as hell. That’s true, and I completely understand that people sometimes don’t have the stomach for it. However, the way that he uses violence deserves a fair analysis, pleasant or not. I agree that sensational violence is a pretty old well that he keeps going back to, but I also believe that it is a story telling tool that he has mastered. To me, QT consistently uses the fantasy of violence to underscore its shadow- that is, true crime, historical/systemic and cultural violence. His movies are just movies, but our ideological reference for violence, death, tragedy, is also informed by reality. An example: in Django Unchained, what is the viewer intended to find more disturbing: the fetishisized blood bath of a finale, or the mosaic of suppressed memories of violent indentured servitude? Just my two cents. I’m not way into blood and gore either, tbh.