# A History of Violence



## ravenus (Mar 13, 2006)

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]*A History of Violence - David Cronenberg*

This was a fairly decent film, although it's rather light on substance (the second half of the movie generally meanders around and comes right back to where it left off after the showdown outside the Stall house) and never carries the kind of visceral wallop that the more typical Cronenberg movies have. *Viggo Mortensen* gives a nice understated performance in the lead role as an ideal small-town family man who may have a more sinister side and Maria Bello gives able support as his loving wife who has to come to terms with some the issues that arise. Everyone else is just about adequate in their never particularly demanding roles.

What do others have to say about this movie?
[/FONT]


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 13, 2006)

I thought the performances by William Hurt and Ed Harris were wonderful, but I have to agree after the initial plot twists it did get to be rather pedestrian.


----------



## rck_svg (Mar 22, 2006)

anyone seen it. not read the book so im going into it with an open mind but wouldnt mind hearing a few opinions first


----------



## direghost (Mar 22, 2006)

It's a love it or hate movie, I think.  There are some shocking scenes, graphic violence, and despicable characters.  

So I loved it, but be forewarned that unless you like that sort of thing it might be off-putting.


----------



## ravenus (Mar 22, 2006)

This was a fairly decent film, although it's rather light on substance and never carries the kind of visceral wallop that the more typical Cronenberg movies have. Viggo Mortensen gives a nice understated performance in the lead role as an ideal small-town family man who may have a more sinister side and Maria Bello gives able support as his loving wife who has to come to terms with some the issues that arise. Everyone else is just about adequate in their never particularly demanding roles.

My main issue with the film is that it has a plot that's really short story length, so having things stretched out to fill feature length running time makes it that much weaker and diluted.


----------



## ravenus (Mar 22, 2006)

And, er... the *Film Club *section is devoted to discussing films/themes selected by a monthly poll. Other stuff goes into the *General Media Discussion* forum


----------



## rck_svg (Mar 23, 2006)

ravenus said:
			
		

> And, er... the *Film Club *section is devoted to discussing films/themes selected by a monthly poll. Other stuff goes into the *General Media Discussion* forum


 
i ll consider myself told off then shall i  . cheers for the reviews though


----------



## ravenus (Mar 23, 2006)

Redirected to the *General Media Discussion* thread, and let the discussions continue


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Mar 23, 2006)

The violence in this move is done very well.  It is real and gritty without any hint of glamour.  However, the film lacks a narrative.


----------



## genisis2 (Mar 23, 2006)

Thought the film was better than Ok, meaning on a scale from 1-10 it was a 7 or a 7.5. Never read the book. Thought the sexual content was unnecessary.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Mar 23, 2006)

The sexual content was meant to show the fine line between sex and violence.  At least from a male perspective.


----------



## genisis2 (Mar 23, 2006)

Lacedaemonian said:
			
		

> The sexual content was meant to show the fine line between sex and violence. At least from a male perspective.


 Thank you for that.Totally missed it -  LOL went swoosh over my head when I watched it.


----------



## Lacedaemonian (Mar 23, 2006)

Otherwise it was just a chance to see what Peter Jackson failed to deliver.  Shame she did not have pointy ears though....


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 24, 2006)

Nobody mentioned William Hurt and Ed Harris. Both performances were very interesting and bizzare.


----------



## Highlander II (Aug 22, 2006)

Two threads on the same topic merged.


----------



## manephelien (Oct 15, 2006)

This had some decent performances by Mortensen, Hurt and Harris, although I did find the storyline limped a bit. I'm not all that keen on movies that glorify organized violence anyway.


----------



## steve12553 (Oct 16, 2006)

Highlander II said:
			
		

> Two threads on the same topic merged.


 
That explains my two essentially same comments. Thank god, I thought it was the onset of dementia. (Not that we can entirely rule that out.)


----------



## steve12553 (Oct 16, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> That explains my two essentially same comments. Thank god, I thought it was the onset of dementia. (Not that we can entirely rule that out.)


 
Wow, that's just what I was thinking.


----------



## carrie221 (Oct 16, 2006)

steve12553 said:
			
		

> Wow, that's just what I was thinking.


 
You're not funny really you're not...

I liked the movie, it was okay but nothing wow... okay I just watched becuase of the actor but I mean he is hot


----------



## Tau Zero (Oct 17, 2006)

Loved the movie. I thought the story was excellent although the graphic sex was unnecessary.  Things happened that i wan't expecting and resolved itself to my satisfaction.  Harris was dangerous and menacing while sounding intelligent.  Nice change from the usual "gangster" role.  Thank god he didn't have a Brooklyn or Italian accent.  And the hero was perfect.  An apparently regular guy dishing out brutality with efficiency. I love movies with a good guy who can't be beat.  Great film.


----------



## Nesacat (Oct 17, 2006)

The movie had a good premise and some very good acting from William Hurt and Ed Harris. Viggo Mortenson did a pretty decent job as well of playing a regular man in a small town facing some highly irregular circumstances.

However, I thought that the movie went on for way too long. After a while it felt like they were just filling in the scenes to make up the required number of hours. Some of violence and quite a bit of the graphic sex could have been edited out without taking anything away from the movie.


----------



## Shoegaze99 (Oct 27, 2006)

manephelien said:


> I'm not all that keen on movies that glorify organized violence anyway.


"Glorify organized violence"?

With all due respect, I think you missed the point


----------



## infinite (Nov 10, 2006)

I like the way it just ended. Then you were left wondering if it was deeper than it first appears - but its quite simple I guess. A nice little movie I guess


----------



## roddglenn (Nov 10, 2006)

Thought there was some top notch acting from Mortensen, Hurt, Bello and Harris with a gritty and intelligent storyline.  Some particularly good scenes were the opening scene at the motel with the two robbers - very well done and set the scene for the confrontation perfectly.  The coffee shop robbery was brilliant - the build up and rapid climax were shot and acted superbly.  Ed Harris was suitably menacing and William Hurt was suitably sick and twisted in almost an incestual way with Mortensen.  And Bello was good in her both tough and terrified supporting role.


----------

