A History of Violence

[DMann2003 0]

I had been looking forward to seeing David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" since the buzz coming out of Cannes this year. Finally seeing it tonight I have to say given all the films I've seen in a theater this year it would be the top one so far. All the key performers (Mortenson, Bello, Harris, Hurt) are excellent. Now, I'm not very familiar with Cronenberg's previous work, I know what he's done but I've never really watched much of his stuff (in fact I turned Crash off half-way through, it bored me). But I loved the restraint in this film, there's a building tension riding throughout the film and when the key moments happen they stand out because what's preceeded them has been built up to ample effect. And there are great moments where the camera will linger on a certain shot or scene that will leave you a little uncomfortable (which is good I feel). The title is an accurate description of this film. Seriously, if this is playing nearby, see the film.

[NoCalMike 0]

Cronenburg is the man. I will be seeing this.

[Madmartigan21 0]

Firstly, the best movie so far this year is easily "Crash" (not to be confused with Cronenberg's "Crash").

 

I normally love William Hurt. However, I feel that his scene in "History of Violence" almost ruined the movie. Until his scene the movie plays very seriously. His performance is in sharp contrast. It's played WAY over the top. He's almost a cartoon compared to the rest of the characteres in the movie. Two days later I still don't know how I feel about this movie because of his scene. I want to love it, but I just can't.

[Guest fanofcoils]

I agree, it was a joke scene. And so were the scenes with the son and the bully, just pointless to include in the story.

[Madmartigan21 0]

And so were the scenes with the son and the bully, just pointless to include in the story.

 

Here I have to COMPLETELY disagree with you.

 

You seem to not realize that this is a character driven and not a plot driven movie. The scenes with the son are indeed very important. I'll use the following excerpt from Roger Ebert's review to illustrate why.

 

In "A History of Violence," it all comes down to this: If Tom Stall had truly been the cheerful small-town guy he pretended to be, he would have died in that diner. It was Joey who saved him. And here is the crucial point: Because of Joey, the son Jack, makes discoveries about himself that he might not have ever needed (or wanted) to make.

[Kapoutman 0]

I liked it all the way to the end. The ending just felt out of place and rushed. I loved the rest of the movie though, but it just feels like the introduction is 30 minutes, development is 1 hours and the ending is a whopping 2 minutes and a half.

 

I don't know. It was good, but not that good. I wanted more from the movie.

[cabbageboy 0]

Having seen the 2005 Crash and now History of Violence I personally think HOV is easily better. Crash has just WAY too much stuff going on in it and no one gets enough screen time.

 

The stuff with the son isn't pointless at all though. See, once he starts seeing his dad morph back into Joey and waste these guys he realizes deep down in his own DNA is that same sort of vicious nature.

[Guest fanofcoils]

Tom Stall may still have been a hero in the diner even if he wasn't Joey, then again he might not have been a hero, you just don't know (though I have my own thoughts in the next sentence). Keep in mind the bully referred to Tom Stall as a "hero" or something of that nature before that diner scene, so it wasn't unexpected what Tom Stall did when it happened. Joey's son making discoveries about himself because of Joey, is just speculation, there is nothing in your face in the movie to show this, and if they did they did a lackluster job because I didn't get it, so then the storytelling must have been bad if this was the case.

 

In the movie he beat up that bully because he was pissed at the bully and the bully's sidekick and the bully ended up in the hospital as a coincidence or because Joey's son wanted it that way, we don't know, there is nothing to definitely suggest one way or the other. The son realizing he is like Joey? That is speculation, there is nothing conclusive to say this is definite. I just want to say the introduction of this movie was very boring.

[Skywarp! 0]

I really hope most of you are kidding--this was one of the worst movies I have seen in a while. I felt it was terrible, except for Ed Harris. The rest of the actors turned in awful performances. I guess there was only so much you could do given those lines, however.

[reign 0]

Saw it last night...not very good...the acting was really lame...almost goofy...

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Worth bumping because I saw it tonight, and it's marvelous. If you think it's boring, your lack of attention span is stunning. If you're fanofcoils you're just hopeless.

 

Madmartigan was right to point to the Ebert review, which is one of his best analyses of film in recent memory.

[fairtoflair7 0]

Great, Great movie...I don't see how somone can knock this film. Everyone puts in quality performances and the directing is fabulous. William Hurt is great.

[Guest Vitamin X]

I was a little underwhelmed by this movie. Everyone outside of Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen were pretty bad, especially the little girl. Maria Bello's reaction to the truth behind Tom Stall's identity had to be one of the most unintentionally hilarious scenes of the year. It was so over the top, it was ridiculous.

 

I liked the premise, just the execution wasn't done well. I think Viggo will be like the new Bruce Willis, "average looking guy that somehow always ends up kicking someone's ass or shooting someone in every movie".

[godthedog 0]

eh. so-so movie. entertaining while it was going, but the conflict and the characters really didn't get thick enough to make it stick. it all felt pretty slight and inconsequential, too streamlined.