History of Violence
Added 1/24/2010
Viggo Mortensens' acting is primo. What is amazing as he plays this Jekyll/Hyde character is how he changes his entire persona, the tilt of his head, his walk, his arm positions, the tilt to the neck, I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his ankle angles as well. I find this movie so compelling that I've seen it several times already, and I know I'll atch it again. That's the joy of owning your own blu rays and dvd's. And this recomnendation is coming from a white-haired old lady!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Excellent family drama
Added 1/16/2010
I found this movie riveting, the acting and action scenes are excellent, and I thought the sex scenes were well done and probative. This movie is not a morality tale and is not intended to be one. It is largely, as filmed, focused on the relationships betweeen Tom and the other members of his immediate family. I found the Philadelphia scenes of the movie to be the weakest, but not enough to downgrade it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
History in retrospect...
Added 1/13/2010
When I first saw `A History of Violence' it was being toted as one of the best studies of human behavior of the year, and so I was really anxious to experience it. When the film ended I sat there in odd amazement. The film opens and closes so spectacularly that I think I was struggling to really identify what my true feelings were on the film.
Much like Haneke's `Cache', which was released the same year, `A History of Violence' is a study of how violence relates to human interaction, and how the very idea of the act infiltrates our every action to the point where the lines our blurred and the violence is a part of us. As a study I find that `A History of Violence' only gets it half right. In fact, on almost every level I find that this film is teetering on greatness, but never really falling completely over into something truly monumental. `Cache' is undoubtedly the superior film (it truly manages to be about so much more than you think), but that doesn't mean that `A History of Violence' isn't profound in its own right. I think that there could have been something truly remarkable here though, and so it irks me a little to know that this has been raved as one of the smartest social commentaries out there, yet it pales in comparison to a film that tackles similar themes that was released in the very same year.
The film basically follows a mild mannered man named Tom who owns a diner. When he foils a robbery and kills some men he gets all kinds of attention, some good and some bad. The bad comes from a scared face named Carl who claims to know Tom, and his accusations paint Tom to be anything but mild mannered. The question then arises; does anyone really know who Tom is?
As I mentioned, the film opens and closes flawlessly. The open and close remind me much of Anderson's '07 masterpiece `There Will Be Blood', just in reverse. Here, the film opens with a sadistic and brutal act of violence and closes with a quiet and defining calm, and much like with `There Will Be Blood', the brutality carries with it a strange calm, while the quiet sequence offers the audience a dread and almost haunting presence. To say that Cronenberg doesn't completely own this film would be a lie. My issues with the film do not have anything to do with the open or the close, but with the interior.
For me the biggest complaint I have is that the film is not as resounding or as memorable as some make it out to be. I remember feeling a vague feeling of blandness as I was watching the film the first time, and while it has redeemed itself in some degrees upon recent viewings, the fact still remains that as a film it just doesn't hit as hard as it could. I love Cronenberg's ability to layer this film with a haunting atmosphere, but that creepy air is really all we are left with when the credits start to roll. There are also, in my opinion, some odd plot points that don't mesh well with the film and wind up feelings rather awkward. The side-plot involving Jack, Tom's son, seems like a wasted opportunity to me. Maybe it was Ashton Holmes' performance, but the whole idea and execution of that point took me out of the film, in a bad way. I know that it built an important message that the film was trying to get across (about the inheritance of violence), but to me it comes across forced and out of place.
I also found William Hurt's hamming it up to be more of a distraction than anything else (and the big reveal feels like a letdown to me). That ending felt like it was a generic effort to express violence. I think that is why I appreciated `Cache' so much, and find it to be so much more expressive and poignant, for it found a way to make the travesty of violence accessible and relatable (and all the more shocking and haunting because of it).
I could just tell that this film was `trying'.
I know it sounds like I'm ripping this apart, and I don't mean to. There is a lot to really enjoy and or gain from this film too. I actually found that when the film was concentrating on the relationship between Tom and his wife Edie, it was very powerful and poignant. In that frame it shifts into a very complex examination of marriage and the tiny seeds of doubt and or concern that can eat at the fibers of that relationship. I also found that the violence Cronenberg inserts into that marital arrangement (the love making on the stairs for one) were the best examples of violence making an impact in the way Cronenberg desired it to. Those scenes, for me, say far more about that ambiguity of violence and the instinctual and almost sensual idea of violence than anything else within this film.
A lot of people I know rave Mortensen's performance here, stating that he gave one of the best turns of the decade. I actually found his Oscar nomination turn in `Eastern Promises' to be far better. For me, Mortensen comes across almost too somber, too controlled, to the point where his character reveal makes little sense. He handles some of his scenes with a great deal of effective emotional transcendence, but for the most part I found him teetering on bland. Instead, it was Ed Harris and Maria Bello who completely stole this film for me. Harris is not an actor I am very fond of. I often find him to be, well, boring. Here he really sunk his teeth into the intensity of his character's sinister edge, without every falling into that hammy caricature that Hurt gave us (Oscar nominated the wrong supporting player here). Bello is a picture of brilliance here. Her natural gut reaction to her surroundings and the unraveling of her marriage is flawless. I love the hospital scene especially; the panicked reaction she gives, the vomiting that comes so instinctually and so suddenly. She really understood how to develop this character, giving her a truly layered and realistic identity.
In the end I find that `A History of Violence' is a good film. I'm giving it a B-. It definitely has something to offer, and Cronenberg's direction is so inspired and so layered that one has to stare in awe of how well he weaved this films inner dread (the film carries an air of anxiety even when it isn't really progressing). I just don't think this film is as effective in its efforts as so many critics and fans have claimed it to be.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
This is a riveting thriller that holds an edge of creepiness throughout. I was completely engrossed for the duration of this 95 minute film.
Though this isn't one of Mortensen's best performances, he plays his role convincingly enough. Ed Harris gave me chills. William Hurt was a treat. Both played their roles with excellence.
There is some gore, but I didn't consider it overdone. The sex scenes and full frontal nudity however are over the top and completely not needed, especially the scene on the stairs. For me it cheapened the film.
As you can see by the reviews, you will either love this film or you'll hate it. Don't let us sway you. Rent this movie and judge it for yourself. It is at least worth the price of a rental.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I KNEW I should have gone to Denny's!
Added 12/28/2009
The legacy of vigilante justice movies like Death Wish lives on for one primary reason: we love to cheer for the everyman and we are sick of the scum never being visited by karma. Nobody wants to see the captain of the football team bed the cheerleading captain in the back of his rich lawyer father's BMW. Similarly, there is no desire to learn about a complete social leech preying on others and never receiving a comeuppance. All of this is why History of Violence is so awesome.
As a hard working, small business owner in Millbrook, IN, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is, outwardly at least, a humble American whose work ethic is the foundation on which the country succeeds and progresses. He lives a quiet life with his wife Edie (Bello), his son Jack (Holmes), and his young daughter Sarah (Hayes). When a few thugs with intentions of senseless violence walk into Stall's diner, the world of Millbrook changes. Immediate media notoriety transforms Stall into an unwilling hero, putting his face on televisions nationwide, and unravels a mysterious past tied to Philadelphia organized crime.
In this first pairing of director David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen, a combo that would later produce the awesome Eastern Promises, we are presented morality lessons in a seldom seen world that is teeming with ruthless killers. A world where men like Carl Foggerty (Ed Harris), a scarred villain, ostensibly the scariest hitman that could be sent, are sent to tie up loose ends like those in Millbrook. Little does anyone know, Foggerty isn't in town for revenge; he's in town for Stall...except he keeps calling Stall by the name Joey Cusack.
The levels of violence in this film are deeply intertwined. Not only is the aspect of revenge present, an idea that violence can and should be used to solve disputes (especially when confronted with a situation that restricts diplomatic approaches) but also the Darwinian "survival of the fittest" concept. How violence begets violence, and lives are molded by the acting violently as well as being placed in a violent situation. Mortensen is brutal as Stall, changing from mild-mannered to savage in an instant; although, the depiction of his transformation is spliced with reluctance. With Stall's somber, conclusive act, Cronenberg gives resonance to the positive importance of family, and provides hope that a history of violence can be overcome by a recent history of love (and an entrancing bedroom scene between Viggo and Bello).
This movie is critically acclaimed, full of tension, and highly recommended!
Jason Elin
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
History of Violence
Added 1/24/2010
Viggo Mortensens' acting is primo. What is amazing as he plays this Jekyll/Hyde character is how he changes his entire persona, the tilt of his head, his walk, his arm positions, the tilt to the neck, I wouldn't be surprised if he changed his ankle angles as well. I find this movie so compelling that I've seen it several times already, and I know I'll atch it again. That's the joy of owning your own blu rays and dvd's. And this recomnendation is coming from a white-haired old lady!!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Excellent family drama
Added 1/16/2010
I found this movie riveting, the acting and action scenes are excellent, and I thought the sex scenes were well done and probative. This movie is not a morality tale and is not intended to be one. It is largely, as filmed, focused on the relationships betweeen Tom and the other members of his immediate family. I found the Philadelphia scenes of the movie to be the weakest, but not enough to downgrade it.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
History in retrospect...
Added 1/13/2010
When I first saw `A History of Violence' it was being toted as one of the best studies of human behavior of the year, and so I was really anxious to experience it. When the film ended I sat there in odd amazement. The film opens and closes so spectacularly that I think I was struggling to really identify what my true feelings were on the film.
Much like Haneke's `Cache', which was released the same year, `A History of Violence' is a study of how violence relates to human interaction, and how the very idea of the act infiltrates our every action to the point where the lines our blurred and the violence is a part of us. As a study I find that `A History of Violence' only gets it half right. In fact, on almost every level I find that this film is teetering on greatness, but never really falling completely over into something truly monumental. `Cache' is undoubtedly the superior film (it truly manages to be about so much more than you think), but that doesn't mean that `A History of Violence' isn't profound in its own right. I think that there could have been something truly remarkable here though, and so it irks me a little to know that this has been raved as one of the smartest social commentaries out there, yet it pales in comparison to a film that tackles similar themes that was released in the very same year.
The film basically follows a mild mannered man named Tom who owns a diner. When he foils a robbery and kills some men he gets all kinds of attention, some good and some bad. The bad comes from a scared face named Carl who claims to know Tom, and his accusations paint Tom to be anything but mild mannered. The question then arises; does anyone really know who Tom is?
As I mentioned, the film opens and closes flawlessly. The open and close remind me much of Anderson's '07 masterpiece `There Will Be Blood', just in reverse. Here, the film opens with a sadistic and brutal act of violence and closes with a quiet and defining calm, and much like with `There Will Be Blood', the brutality carries with it a strange calm, while the quiet sequence offers the audience a dread and almost haunting presence. To say that Cronenberg doesn't completely own this film would be a lie. My issues with the film do not have anything to do with the open or the close, but with the interior.
For me the biggest complaint I have is that the film is not as resounding or as memorable as some make it out to be. I remember feeling a vague feeling of blandness as I was watching the film the first time, and while it has redeemed itself in some degrees upon recent viewings, the fact still remains that as a film it just doesn't hit as hard as it could. I love Cronenberg's ability to layer this film with a haunting atmosphere, but that creepy air is really all we are left with when the credits start to roll. There are also, in my opinion, some odd plot points that don't mesh well with the film and wind up feelings rather awkward. The side-plot involving Jack, Tom's son, seems like a wasted opportunity to me. Maybe it was Ashton Holmes' performance, but the whole idea and execution of that point took me out of the film, in a bad way. I know that it built an important message that the film was trying to get across (about the inheritance of violence), but to me it comes across forced and out of place.
I also found William Hurt's hamming it up to be more of a distraction than anything else (and the big reveal feels like a letdown to me). That ending felt like it was a generic effort to express violence. I think that is why I appreciated `Cache' so much, and find it to be so much more expressive and poignant, for it found a way to make the travesty of violence accessible and relatable (and all the more shocking and haunting because of it).
I could just tell that this film was `trying'.
I know it sounds like I'm ripping this apart, and I don't mean to. There is a lot to really enjoy and or gain from this film too. I actually found that when the film was concentrating on the relationship between Tom and his wife Edie, it was very powerful and poignant. In that frame it shifts into a very complex examination of marriage and the tiny seeds of doubt and or concern that can eat at the fibers of that relationship. I also found that the violence Cronenberg inserts into that marital arrangement (the love making on the stairs for one) were the best examples of violence making an impact in the way Cronenberg desired it to. Those scenes, for me, say far more about that ambiguity of violence and the instinctual and almost sensual idea of violence than anything else within this film.
A lot of people I know rave Mortensen's performance here, stating that he gave one of the best turns of the decade. I actually found his Oscar nomination turn in `Eastern Promises' to be far better. For me, Mortensen comes across almost too somber, too controlled, to the point where his character reveal makes little sense. He handles some of his scenes with a great deal of effective emotional transcendence, but for the most part I found him teetering on bland. Instead, it was Ed Harris and Maria Bello who completely stole this film for me. Harris is not an actor I am very fond of. I often find him to be, well, boring. Here he really sunk his teeth into the intensity of his character's sinister edge, without every falling into that hammy caricature that Hurt gave us (Oscar nominated the wrong supporting player here). Bello is a picture of brilliance here. Her natural gut reaction to her surroundings and the unraveling of her marriage is flawless. I love the hospital scene especially; the panicked reaction she gives, the vomiting that comes so instinctually and so suddenly. She really understood how to develop this character, giving her a truly layered and realistic identity.
In the end I find that `A History of Violence' is a good film. I'm giving it a B-. It definitely has something to offer, and Cronenberg's direction is so inspired and so layered that one has to stare in awe of how well he weaved this films inner dread (the film carries an air of anxiety even when it isn't really progressing). I just don't think this film is as effective in its efforts as so many critics and fans have claimed it to be.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
