History of Violence

[theintensifier 0]

Watched it tonight on DVD. I was impressed. I actually enjoyed the movie. The ending was a little confusing, and aburpt, and didn't make a ton of sense, but I may just be missing the hidden meaning.

 

Any thoughts on this movie ?

[Guest fanofcoils]

Well I thought it sucked..

[theintensifier 0]

Very insightful, in-depth review there, thanks.

 

Seriously, why'd you think that ? Anything in particular that you didn't like ?

[Guest fanofcoils]

Well I did post a review and multiple posts about the movie on this forum before in another History of Violence thread.

[theintensifier 0]

Well I did post a review and multiple posts about the movie on this forum before in another History of Violence thread.

 

That's rather odd. I looked ten pages back, and did a forum search on it, and had zero results. Care to re-post, or link me to your review, I am interested in your review.

[Guest fanofcoils]

There has been a The History of Violence thread on here before and I do not care to search for it as it takes awhile to find and I don't feel like taking up the time for it.

[DMann2003 0]

I wrote it if it helps you search

 

Film rocked in my opinion btw

[Hank Kingsley 0]

Yeah, I saw it yesterday too, and loved it.

 

I liked the ending because it left things open.

I took it as Tom looking in Edie's eyes and being shocked to still "see the love" as they said earlier, despite all that's happened to the family.

 

Viggo was great and I loved William Hurt's brief performance.

 

"Jesus, Joey."

[Guest Fook]

It was a good movie up until

we found out that he really was Joey

. The entire Philadelphia part felt like it belonged in a different movie. I know they did it like this to show the difference between Tom and Joey, but it felt too cartoonish compared to how the small town in Indiana was portrayed.

 

I too liked the open ending because

it's not said if it's Tom or Joey that shows up at the end and sits at the dinner table.

[spiny norman 0]

I thought it terrible.

 

Ridiculous plot, average acting (aside Hurt, who was decent), terrible dialogue. Gratuitous sex which added absolutely nothing to the movie.

 

I liked the opening scene over the credits. It was all downhill from there.

[dubq 0]

Well I thought it sucked..

 

Yeah, and we all know how valuable your opinion is around these parts when it comes to movies.

 

I can only imagine what it must be like for you to read a book. "This book is awful! It makes no sense and I've read five pages into the first chapter and I can't tell what's going to happen at the end! It's horrible!"

[dubq 0]

I thought it terrible.

 

Ridiculous plot, average acting (aside Hurt, who was decent), terrible dialogue. Gratuitous sex which added absolutely nothing to the movie.

 

I liked the opening scene over the credits. It was all downhill from there.

 

That was hardly a gratuitous sex scene, buddy.

[LivingLegendGaryColeman 0]

I watched it yesterday on DVD too. I really enjoyed it. I didn't know a few things about it. What I had heard had me thinking it was like non-stop crazy violence, which isn't really up my alley, so I wasn't offended that it wasn't that way. I had heard Hurt had a small part for an Oscar nod. I see both ways now. I was shocked he didn't even come into the movie until so late, but then, I do see why he was nominated also. Very good movie though. I had some expectations going in, but I'd still say I was slightly surprised on how much I enjoyed it.

[Ripper 0]

I think it was one of the most beautiful goddamned films I have seen in a while.

 

A lot of people complained about the slow pace. Fuck them; they obviously know nothing about having a story in a film. In the short time that it was there, it did a remarkable job of setting up the quiet Indiana small town and family life.

 

A lot of people said the sex was gratuitous and pointless. Fuck them; they don't know what they are talking about. The first sex scene was showing a real couple having real couple sex and showing the intimacy that they had between them. They knew what the other liked and it was closeness to it. It was there to show in comparison to the animalistic, angry sex that occurred later in the film. It was the type of raw sex that a couple of people who don't really know each other have and in truth, Maria's character didn't know who the fuck Tom/Joey was.

 

The realism of the violence...great...just fucking great. It didn't need a lot of it, just needed to show the truth of violence. None of that guy gets shot and falls and that’s it for him...the camera moves on. The result of every action was shown in the movie. It made the violence actually mean something and not trivialize it. That is what stopped it from being that cartoonish violence that occurs in most action movies.

 

The only weak performance in the Movie was the little girl. Besides her, everyone did a GREAT job in their parts, small or large. A lot of people were torn on William Hurts performance. I personally loved it.

 

The Philadelphia part of the film looked like a different film because it was supposed to. It was in every way the polar opposite of the small town Indiana. From the natural lighting of the Indiana scenes to hard lighting in Philly. From quaint homes that served as background to the characters, to huge homes which were so grandiose they swallowed the characters whole. It was showing the polar opposite of Tom and Joey. One life and the other.

 

I LOVED the open ending because honestly, that’s the only way it could end. Realistically, she has loved him for damn near 20 years. That is the only father the kids know. No matter what he was, they can't just cut and dry deny that the only man they have ever known is/was Tom Stall. Who knows what happens, but I do know what ever happened...it would have realistically started there.

 

I also think that not enough love is shown to that open sequence. Everything that the film was going to be about was shown in the scene. The small town scenery, the big city car, and the transition from everyday life (the two characters conversation) and the realism of violence.

 

The only thing I didn't like about the film was the subplot with the son. I don't like the idea of his son having this violent streak because his daddy is Joey. Still, the scenes were done very well, the acting was pretty damn good, and once again, the realistic results of violence was on display so I can't say I hated it.

[cabbageboy 0]

Ripper, I actually do think stuff like violent streaks can run in a family. Maybe it's not scientifically proven (or maybe it is?) but it's more of a common sense type deal.

 

The ending was great. I mean, what exactly is she supposed to do? I personally think that at some crucial point her love for him, be it Joey or Tom, took over and she stayed.

 

I am going to watch it again tonight on DVD...saw it in the theater and loved it. I'm not going to get on anyone's case who didn't like it though. It's Cronenberg. Not for everyone.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

Just finished watching it, really liked it but wasn't blown away.

 

What Ripper mentions about the violence being realistic and meaning something is 100% truth but I think that's where people began to overrate the film. Sure, they showed the consequences of violence and it was all legit and looked as such. But that's it. It ends there, except for the people who chose to believe that the violence was something beyond a plot device, which it wasn't.

 

Great performances all around though I'm not sure how William Hurt managed to garner an Oscar nod for barely 10 minutes of work. That's the type of shit I expect from Judi Dench. All of the supporting cast of Syriana and Munich did better work and had lengthier roles.

 

As for the sex scenes and the "gratutious" label, I'm torn. The cheerleader scene was well done and as Ripper pointed out it showcased the intimacy of the two. The stair scene was awkward and pretty out-of-the-blue but I think what Cronenberg was trying to get at was that even when things are stripped away there is still the animalistic side of humanity left over and that's what Tom and Edie's characters surrendered themseleves to at that particular moment.

 

Or they were horny.

[bob_barron 0]

I liked it, but after

Ed Harris died

I stopped caring about it.

 

William Hurt was way too over the top and cartoonish, and the last 20-30 minutes just felt so tacked on.

[bob_barron 0]

Here's the thread:

 

http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...topic=73892&hl=

[Ripper 0]

Sure, they showed the consequences of violence and it was all legit and looked as such. But that's it. It ends there, except for the people who chose to believe that the violence was something beyond a plot device, which it wasn't.

 

 

I think it was. It was a way of preventing the violence from being cartoonish and having no impact at all. When you watch alot of movies, when evil henchman number 32 dies, he goes "AH!!" and falls and dies. Thats it. If there was time taken to see pieces of the guys face on the ground for every death in your average action movie, trust me, it would be a lot less of a enjoyable experience.

 

One thing I laughed at in the original Austin Powers movies were the deleted scenes where after Austin would kill a henchman, they would cut to parts of their life (one they cut to his wife getting a call about her husband getting killed at work and having to tell her son and the other, there was a party for his birthday I think where all his friends and family was waiting to suprise him, and one of his friends(Rob Lowe I think) got the call about him dying). The joke was about how people don't usually think of these guys as actual people in movies, but more of just another guy that went down. I think the explicit violence that was shown with each of their deaths brought a certain human aspect to them which didn't allow the viewers mind to drift into that familiar territory.

 

Or it was really cool to see a guys face blown open. One of the two.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

One of the gulliest moments in a movie full of gully was when Viggo did a full-on trachea stomp.

[theintensifier 0]

Hell yeah, here we go, a big discussion has started.

 

I thought both of the sex scenes were good, not only for viewing pleasure, but for the story as well. It's already been pointed out about the first one, so I won't go into detail about it. But the second sex scene fits almost perfectly into place. It's the rough, and forceful but wanted make-up sex that leads imediatley to an akward silence and regret. They're both consumed with so much raw emotion, and confused by each other, they don't know what else to do when they find themselves in each other's arms. It's only human nature.

[Red Baron 0]

The actual dialouge killed the movie and the Philidelphia scene put the nail in its coffin of what could have been a great movie.

 

I know its suppose to be all shocked and stuff, but c'mon FIVE FUCKING MINUTES (or that what it seems to be) of nothing but blank looks, not shocked...blank looks.

 

The Phili scene was not believeable at all, and it seems to be in a whole other movie.

 

5/10.

[reign 0]

Well I thought it sucked..

 

I have to say that after reading the drilling that myself and others have been giving you in The Hills Have Eyes thread this was actually quite funny...it's clear that you have some wit my friend but your never say die attitude in the other thread was quite pitiful...I just wonder how you EVER made it through the oh-so-slow build in the opening minutes of this movie...

[bob_barron 0]

It was a way of preventing the violence from being cartoonish

 

The whole William Hurt part seemed like a cartoon

[theintensifier 0]

The fighting and bickering on this board is usually funny, but lately, it's gotten ridiculous. People just can't get along I guess.

[NoCalMike 0]

I will be picking this up at hollywood video next time I go. With a review and comments to follow.

[Special K 0]

Ridiculous plot? I can understand some of the acting gripes, though I disagree, but this was one of the most realistic and simply-plotted thrillers I've ever seen. The only unrealistic thing is how much of a badass Viggo was, but it was realistically done.

[Ripper 0]

It was a way of preventing the violence from being cartoonish

 

The whole William Hurt part seemed like a cartoon

 

 

How? Had Hurt's character not tried to be all symbolic and choke Joey like he did in the story he was telling, they could have killed him. And "Jesus, Joey" was a great line. You know you loved it barron.

[bob_barron 0]

I just thought William Hurt was too over the top for my tastes.

 

I loved the first hour and Ed Harris' character and then as you said- it became a totally different movie, and I didn't like it at all.

 

I will admit to laughing at Jesus Joey.

[Guest Fook]

Aside from "Jesus Joey", Hurt's character was too cheesy. I mean, how can you keep from groaning during "No Joey, I expect you to die."