A History of Violence is powerful and gripping, with great performances all around. There were times when I though to myself "this is the best film of the year". From Maria Bello's sexy little cheerleading outfit tease (she also has a full frontal nudity shot), to the final scene, my attention was clearly focused on the screen. There where times that it felt like it was a Clint Eastwood film, while other parts hinted of Quentin Tarantino, especially the powerful use of violence. I felt that A History of Violence had the best use of graphic images I've seen. It looks like how it would look if somebody got their head blow off. If you have a weak stomach, some of the images could be disturbing.

Where the film comes up a bit short, and only a bit, is in the final act, and that may have something to do with a running time that could have benefitted a bit from 15-20 more minutes. Perhaps a bit more should have been explored concerning past events and character relationships. William Hurt getting more screentime would have been very welcome, as well as Ed Harris.

"How do you fuck THAT up?"



(you'll know what that means when you see it)

I definitely recommend it.

B+

I was pegging this as the film to kick-off what I hope to be a quality fall season of movies, but I came away disappointed. My main issue with the film was its somewhat schizophrenic nature. We start with these two psycho criminals and then shift abruptly to the (seemingly) perfect family and then to a crime thriller and finally a comedy. William Hurt's character just completely spoiled any sense of mystery and intensity to those final scenes where Tom confronts his past. Everything was building to this resolution and I felt it was totally inappropriate and a pretty damn glaring tonal shift that left me a little frustrated.

What really bothers me though, is that we never get a sense of what is behind mild-mannered Tom, or any sense of who Joey was other than the fact that he could certainly take care of himself. Viggo really seemed like he was sleepwalking through the role and while I was buying it for awhile as being his personality trait, once his background was revealed I was expecting a little breakthrough, expository-wise or emotionally, but it never came. Also, I am not too sure what kind of message this film is trying to convey. I must say I don't completely buy the reaction of Edie to what has happened and there is a truly bizarre scene on the stairs that I just couldn't come to grips with. The son was also clumsily handled I thought and I could have done without the cliched bullying scenes.

Apart from that though, there was much to appreciate about the movie. I thought Maria Bello gave the best performance in the movie and Ed Harris had a very cool, but all too short-lived character. There are some intense situations and scenes that are well presented and perhaps I'm a sicko, but I would have liked to have seen more of those two guys at the beginning. I would have really liked to have gotten into their heads. But without a more thorough examination of Tom's character the movie was just unable to take off.

Oh, and did anyone else notice that Howard Shore's music at the ending credits was quite reminiscent of the Shire theme from Lord of the Rings? Yet another wacko tonal shift to really cement my WTF reaction.

C+

I heart William Hurt.

I really liked it. Incredibly directed and paced; not all that well written. Extremely well done as far as the violence went. And all of the relationships, especially within the family felt real. I kinda feel the same way as Benny, insofar as the film doesnt go nearly deep enough into Tom's past. I've read the novel so I kinda was able to fill the story in myself. Not that this excuses the film, and it would have been so much better had they not changed the treatment of the past so much from the book...but it just didn't bother me as much as it might have. So the only thing that really bothered me was much of the dialogue. Probably second only to Batman Begins this year.

I loved it.

Some of the audience members agreed with you mav, that it should have been a little longer. But I'm not so sure there was anything that needed to be said. It didn't go down conventional paths, there wasn't a "scene" where the son cried about having to kill the guy, there wasn't too much emphasis on the separation between Tom and his wife after the reveal. It's like they skipped all of the generic movie garbage and got right to the heart of the matter.

I think the end of the film plays in well with this. It's not unresolved, it's just that family crisises aren't solved rashly and that for better or worse, it's harder to break up a family unit than most would imagine, especially one that appeared this close.

I wish it would have said more about who the characters that Hurt and Harris played were. We had these two great performances, but for characters that had underdeveloped backstories. A bit more depth could have been added to Richie's (William Hurt) motivations. A bit more depth could have been added to who exactly Ed Harris' character was, and what prompted Joey Cusack to take barbed wire to his face. Those two characters, the main protogonists of the film, needed to be fleshed out better. An extra 20 minutes would have served those characters very well, and it would have added some needed drama to the past events and the final scene between the two brothers would have been more powerful if we knew a bit more about what happened and why it happened.

I'm not so sure that it was really necessary. The whole last act really is about Tom going to get rid of any loose ends that Joe left behind. He knows going to Philadelphia what's at stake and I think that's the POV of the story definately. Tom doesn't want to necessarily remember anything, his focus is on protecting his family. Looking at it that way, I don't think the other characters really matter so much.

I also kind of like the fact that the character's motives were defined by their actions, not by what we knew about their pasts.

Since the story is fictional, I feel a little free to fill in the story's background how I see fit, just like how the end.. although leaning in one direction, is not really tied up in a perfect bow.

I have just read a synopsis of the end of the novel and I think the movie would have been a steaming pile of turd with that ending.

What happens is SPOILER (for novel) is that it turns out Joey was this guy who hunted down mobsters and killed them. The graphic novel makes it out so that Joey's actions are more justified therefore the contrast between Tom and Joey is lost.

Bleh. The film plotline seems better. Kypade can you confirm this?

Okay, I heard this one is almost as violent as Cronenberg's The Fly which is hard to imagine...

Is that true?

SPOILERS ABOUT THE GRAPHIC NOVEL

That synopsis is not quite true...but kinda is. Here's much more detail (note - I suck at this kinda stuff...but this IS the gist of the plot) In the novel, Joey and his best friend are shown as teens...17 or so. Joey lives with his grandma, and is best friends with Richie. Richie's brother gets in with the wrong guys - namely, Johny Torrino, a local mobman. (there's also a bigger mob guy, Louie Manzi, who I can't remember what he does). Somehow, something goes wrong and Steve (Richie's bro) is murdered. Richie starts to go kinda bad...he decides he wants to rob the mob of a couple hundred K, and tries to convince Joey to go along with him. Joey says no at first, but his granny gets sick and needs 10k to pay some bills or something. So he agrees. Joey and Richie go into these woods and meet this guy, and buy some machine guns and a couple smoke granades from him, and tow gas masks. They come up on the restaraunt, pull the guns, kill the people outside, throw the smoke granades in, kill everyone inside, and steal the money (do it on a Tuesday, that's delivery day). As they're leaving, Torrino shows up...they ditch out the back, and think they're home free. Richie gets sloppy with his money. Mob finds him. Presumably Torrino goes after him with an axe. Mob finds Joey...Torrino has him cornered. Raises the axe, covered in blood (richies). Joey grabs some barbed wire, swings it at him rips his eye out and gets away. He had left a note for his granny, saying he'd see her when he could (never).s

Flash forwardto present. Torrino's dead, his thugs are dead, everything is fine, until, Tom gets a call from Richie. And a note threatening his family. NOW he goes back to Filly, and after some stuff, finds Richie - decapitated, totally torn up, nasty almost dead, hanging there, tortured. In walks Manzi Jr. Looks like Tom's a goner. Manzi comes at him with a chainsaw, tom grabs a chain, chainsaw bounces of chain,into Manzis forehead. Now all ties with joey are cut, and he can be happy or whatever.

Honestly, though, besides all that stuff, a LOT changed from the novel...no way they coulda kept it similar without losing pretty much everything it was...but I think they could have shown SOMETHING of his past. What is shown is much more powerful and direct than the novel. I think...but...I dunno.

And i HIGHLY recommend everyone look for the book. It's only about 10 bucks, and a very quick read, but its really good, and much more in depth and intense than the movie. Funny how it plays out kinda like a film, then you see the movie and it's so totally different than whats in your head, yknow.

This is one of those movies that really doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done, but the film is gripping and somehow manages an odd combination of being unsettling and entertaining at the same time. Viggo Mortensen never misses a beat as Tom Stall, newfound hero and possible past criminal. It is because of Mortensen's performance that we are never really sure if Tom is who he claims to be (himself) or this thug from the past named Joey Cusack, even as we receiveindications leaning towards either possibility. Ed Harris oozes sliminess in a villainous role, while William Hurt gives a marvelous performance that works on about five different levels, despite not being on screen for more than 5-10 minutes. The best performance of the film belongs to Maria Bello (who deserves Oscar consideration for this film), wonderfully showing a woman who is torn by love and suspicion of the same man she knows better than anyone else - her husband. A History of Violence raises interesting questions about the nature of violence in our lives, as well as crises of identity that Tom's family go through. What happens when you realize the man you have known to be the patriarch of your family turns out to not be who he claims? Although the first 2/3 of this movie are nearly perfect, the final act is a bit sluggish because of the need to end the movie. Most movies are usually too long, but this one could probably have used another 20 minutes to add clearer explanations. By the way, this movie? Not for the faint-of-heart or easily offended. There is a whoooleee lot of violence (duh) and surprisingly explicit sexual content. Overall, I felt A History of Violence was a compelling look at the dark side of human nature and establishments of identity. B+

Except for the daughter. Her whole character should have been either dropped or fleshed out to have similar content as everyone else in the movie. I found her presence grating, and one of the only reasons I gave this film a B+ instead of an A-. She was freaking oblivious beyond reasonable comprehension.

The fact that she was there didn't annoy me, but I wouldn't disagree with you. She really had no purpose.

It may have been about him getting rid of loose ends that Joey left behind, but where HE may know what's at stake and why, we, as the audience, don't feel it, because not enough information has been given to care very much about Richie. What do we really know about what happened and why? The backstory would have added a great deal, and they missed a great opportunity by leaving those details out. In fact, if William Hurt didn't give such a deliciously wonderful performance (and I can't believe I actually used such a description), then we wouldn't have cared about Richie at all. As it was, we were engaged because of the performance, but not because of him being a particularly interesting character, because he wasn't.

20 more minutes to properly develope the drama, and to delve into why this killer decided to disappear and start life over as the poster boy for what a good citizen should be, long standing ties to the community, business owner, family man, etc... That's a little too sharp of a contrast for the movie to completely diregard the "why" as important, and waiting on and never getting the "why" was what kept this from being a surefire Oscar contender, I believe.

Oh, I do have a question for everyone. Does anybody else think it would be in Viggo Mortensen's best interest to grow his Aragorn beard back? Maybe it's just me, but that cleft chin of his looks too much like it's a tiny little ass sitting under his mouth? Anybody else find it a bit distracting or is it just me that sees it.

The movie is as good as I thought it would of been although the ending seems more subtle and seems to suggest that the whole family deminure has changed from them feeling comfortable with Tom around to treating Tom(now Joe) as the alpha male instead. It wasnt really as graphic or gory as I thought it would of been but I like Viggo's performance to recommend the movie highly. Viggo doesnt play his character over the top like most actors do, he tries to keep the character very low key and with an extreme cautious low profile. I hope the academy does nominate him because in the hands of someone else, it would of turned into another Steven Seagal/Van Damme action movie
I also love William Hurt's cameo, you have to look closely to recognize him

A-

Nah.

Beards distract from acting I feel.

The Fly was more violent although HOV does have some disturbing images of a guy's nose being half blown off or one guy's jaw half blown up too

I think it's more violent than the fly. It's much more realistic, that's its impact.

The Fly is gross in a "free-flowing-puss" sort of way.

I would rather have my face blown off and looking like Michael Jackson as opposed to being thrown up with acid on by the Brundle Fly or microwaved into a skinless baboon

Either way there is death!

The ex-boyfriend in the Fly lived but as an amputee in the second sequel

Not canon!

A (maybe an A+, need to see it again). Brilliant film.