a history of violence, how do i love thee?

this film was awesome. ed harris was brilliantly evil as Fogarty , and william hurt was great, but underused. this movie featured some of the coolest violent scenes i've ever seen. i can't wait to see the unrated dvd. ohyeah, and i love how he just randomly banged his wife on the steps

B+

You guys must have some kind of sex life as that seemed normal to most of you. I know I wouldn't have the balls to do it.

First choke her for about 10 seconds, then as she is climbing the stairs to get away from you. Grab her by the ankles and pull her down the stairs. As she is smaking you, you block and smack her back. Then you assume forplay is over, so you jump on top of her, prey her legs open and do her.

Life isn't functional and lines are blurry.

That's one of the themes of the films.

Wanna borrow my handcuffs!!

"Normal' is hardly the correct word for it - I would say it is more about the range of sexual expression, from the most tender caress to the most agressive consensual F'ing...


I don't think there was much praying going on, as a matter of fact, I believe she pulled her own panties off...

(None of this is to say that rape does not occur in marriage - it does and is abhorrent and criminal - but what happened here in this scene was most certainly not rape, and a critical part of this couple's relationship - without this they may have not been able to trust each other enough to carry on. This can be a couple's only/best form of communication in extreme emotional events - q.v.: post-funeral sex...)

B+

Great performances all around, but the plot is a little thin and rather simple. I was waiting for something more.

I don't think there was a plot per se Xia. I think it was just more an examination of individuals' abilities to become violent when under extreme stress. All of them...except the little oaf of a girl.

Yeah, the girl was a bit shit.

They should've killed her. Bashed her head in with a brick.

Personally, I see it alittle different. I don't think it was an examination dealing with extreme stress.

I think it was more showing that this present calm unviolent person had a history of violence and really had an unknown layer and was a different person underneath. Especially from the wife / son positions.

Heh, heh...

?

I thought it was brilliant, Croenenberg barely has an equal. A-

Seeing part of it again, the very last scene is very interesting.

and with no talking scenes ...........

The father comes home after his old self came out in the self-defense killings and is very apprehensive as he walks through the house not sure what to expect. The wife is a nervess wreck wonder what will happen. and it isn't to the little girl gets up and puts a plate out for the father and the son passes him the meatloaf that we have a scene / movie fadeout.

I took it that everything was going to be left unspoken about and they would try to go on with their earlier life before the interruption.

What? Didn't you ever see Beavis and Butthead? It's by the same guy that does King of the Hill nowadays, Mike Judge...

Really liked it too. I was suprised by the violence shown in this movie. It really made it more disturbing. Loved how Viggo was the hyper nice guy and the ex-criminal. Yeah Maria Bello was good but she cried too much for me. Ed Harris indeed looked creepy. Like everyone said the movie could have easily been 20 minutes longer. A-

A+

I really liked this movie only part that bothered me is Viggo looks like my ex.

Appy, you have great taste in movies.

A-


The movie is an excellent example of a great director coming out of nowhere after a fairly long absence and showing off his amazing directing skills in a movie that moves along the line between mainstream and offstream as well as only a very few movies nowadays do. This cinematic piece is not a masterpiece, but it is a great movie and it's Croneberg's second best only behind The Fly.

From the shocking and excellently shot opening sequence to the final shot in the movie this is superb filmmaking that captivates the viwers and sucks him into the movie. I agree that some characters could have been fleshed out more, but I suppose the intention of the movie was exactly not to do that, but just show a simple segment out of an "extraordinary" man's life. Viggo Mortensen is great by himself in the lead role as Tom Stall, but other members of the cast simply steal him the show, especially Maria Bello whose likely snub for a Best Actress nomination will be a shame. She was amazing. So was Ed Harris in his unfortunatly short appearance. I thought his character was a bit underused. William Hurt was good in his subtly crazy role towards the end and I wish we could have seen more of him as well. Last, but not least, the actor who played Mortensen's son delivered a very decent performance as well. As you can see the cast was simply brilliant and I would love to see it nominated for Best Ensemble at the SAG awards, but it won't happen.

The so much talked about violence is there in its full glory and while the violence scenes are very few and inbetween, they accomlish their task which is to shock the viewer. Being a horror movies fan and therefore quite a gorehound myself, I was simply (positively) stunned by the sickening realism of this movie's violence. It is not true that it is quite to The Fly's level, but you won't be disappointed.

The storyline seems rather thin, that is true but I think the plot was never meant to be the movie's strongest point. I think the movie is a great depiction of the nature of violence and it becomes even more obvious in the small subplot of Mortensen's son when he beats up his bully. I was somewhat disappointed that the sublot of his son was simply dropped at some point in the movie and that brought the whole movie down a notch for me as did the finale which seemed a bit...to fast paced and somewhat unrealistic. Why choking the guy from behind and risking anything when you could just shoot?

Overall it was a great movie, though and it entered my Top 10 of the year instantly. I am not sure if it will stay there by the end of the year, but it will still remain a very impressive picture. One of my favorite parts was Mortensen's line to Ed Harris' Foggarty when he finally reveals the truth. Great execution there.

Personally, I was glad the film didn;t show me flashbacks of what Joey was like...the movie introduces us to Tom we we get to know Joey via these moments when Tom turns violent..the look on Viggo face after his son kills Ed Harris, brillant. I know many people felt the backstory was thin, but I think having in the movie would have been distracitng. For me the film was not about Joey adn Tom, or even Joey becoming Tom, but Joey protecting this persona of Tom he came up with. Thing about whne his wife asked him how he got his name, he says "It was avialable." A conventional film would have flashbacked to Jpoey killing augy name tom and taking his identity...whereas the film just lets us infer how or why the name was available.

I do agree they should have droppd the little girl all together, but they needed her to create a reason for Bello to speak to Harris.

The book sounds interesting and I want to read it, but it sounds like adifferent beast..often movie adpations fo book stick to clsoe to the book, I think disgression is a good thing, as long as that digression makes for a good film.

One other interesting thing dealing with the violence scene on the stairs and the silence of the last dinner scene.

This last dinner scene would be the first time that Tom or Joey was coming home and the family probably didn't know who would be coming home.

Would it only be the Tom that they always know, would it be part Joey / part Tom or would Joey be the new daddy?

I think ultimately the femailt realizes that a part of Joey will always be there, they may call him Tom and hemay act as Tom, but Joey is seething underneath.

Really? I thought it was mostly self-inflective tears. I agree that she knew there would always be "Joey seething underneath," but I think it was more a breakdown over her own handling of the situation. Their son had similar conflict, and the two of them were hesitant to invite him back to the table, only because they had something to gain/lose in recognizing their own actions depending on if Tom sat down or was kicked out. Its why the daughter so easily made the first move. She didn't have any soul-searching to do before inviting the source of violence (source, but not only person) back into the family arms.

Was I the only one who thought the ending was just perfect? In fact, I felt the whole movie was fantastic. A thiller drama which grabs you from the first scene, perfectly-cast and acted. I found the best performance to be Maria Bello who should get an Oscar nomination. Viggo Mortensen is also very effective in a less showy part. A great film about the nature of violence. Touching as well, especially the final act. The best film of the year so far. A

nope!

I didn't have a problem with the movie or the ending. I thought it was fine.