Hobo with a Shotgun, and the limits of cinema

I'd seen this film recently, but last night I saw it again. My interest in the film was re-invigorated by a trailer for the new Danny Trejo movie, BADASS, which is about a senior citizen who beats the shit out of people as a vigilante. MACHETE, another Trejo vessel, was spawned by a fake trailer, as was HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN. What all these films have in common is 1) a sense of intentional trashiness and 2) vigilanteism. However, I saw HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN as something that stood completely on its own, as an anomaly of the "rules of Hollywood", or whatever you want to call the conduct laws when you're making movies nowadays. What HOBO does is make me think that the days of any limits are coming to an end. In the film, Rutger Hauer plays a homeless man with crazed eyes and a vestige of morality, which causes him to care for a prostitute being beat up by the sons of The Drake, the King of ScumTown, where he's dropped off by a train. Hauer's Hobo quickly tries to clean up the place, adopting a shotgun to demand order. But unlike MACHETE, or any other number of films, HOBO ends with more cynicism that it began with. ScumTown becomes a devouring creature. A Sodom and Gommorah setting, filled with two of the most disgusting scenes I'll ever see. But the film doesn't turn away from anything, and that's a theme that should be effusing into the modern cinema. There are far too often too many films that play with a subject, and then retract into conventionalism.