A History of Violence Reviews

David Cronenberg fascinates me, and his directing style and films are quite unique. Unique in how they really get under one's skin, explore complex and difficult themes not explored an awful lot by other directors without any sugar-coating or excessiveness and how many of them disturb and makes one feel uncomfortable. Films of his have shown some dark wit and have found myself connecting emotionally to others, primary examples being my favourites of his 'The Fly' and 'Dead Ringers'. His films are much more than horror.

As is evident with 2005's 'A History of Violence', which is as long away from horror as one can get. Instead a mix of thriller and drama, which for Cronenberg back then was pretty much completely different. As were the themes, those of violence and identity, explored again two years later in 'Eastern Promises' (which there is a marginal preference for). Although the audience reaction is evidently polarising, understandably too, 'A History of Violence' was critically acclaimed at the time and in my mind while it is not perfect rightly so. It is by some way one of Cronenberg's better and more interesting later films and towards the better half of his overall filmography. Do agree with those who say that it is one of his more accessible and mature films.

Not a perfect film, again from personal opinion. The first portion or so is on the slow side and doesn't draw one in straight away. Not everything felt necessary either, in particular could have done without the gratuitous staircase "hate sex" scene and the high school scenes which had very little tension or surprises and would have been more in place in a teenage comedy drama.

Heidi Hayes is very wooden and expressionless as Sarah. Some have slammed Ashton Holmes, personally thought he fared much better as there was more intensity and emotion from him and Jack was an infinitely more interesting character, at least the film actually tried to develop him whereas Sarah was more the stereotypical young daughter that contributes little to the story.

On the other hand, 'A History of Violence' as usual for Cronenberg looks great. The locations create a sense of foreboding as does the very atmospheric lighting and tight editing. In this regard though, the star is Cronenberg regular Peter Suschitzky's cinematography, which has the right amount of grimy grit and audaciousness. While there is a preference for more characters-of-their-own scores 'The Fly', 'Dead Ringers' and 'Eastern Promises' of his collaborations with Cronenberg, Howard Shore's score is still suitably dramatic and hauntingly ominous with no questionable placements. Cronenberg provides some of the most ambitious and tightest directing of all his later films, doing a great job pulling no punches and keeping the tension going, keeping it remarkably and uncharacteristically straight.

Some have criticised the script, personally found it thought-provoking, taut when needed, darkly satiric in places and subversively witty in others, failing only in the high school scenes. The story on the most part did grip me with its teasing tension and suspense in the atmosphere, loved the tension between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello, the unflinching and pretty frightening violence that really doesn't hold back and the unforgettable climax. Mortensen gives one of his best performances in one of his meatier roles and Bello brings a lot of heart to hers. Ed Harris chills the bone and to me he was more deserving of the Best Supporting Actor nomination than the still very good William Hurt who really livens proceedings up in his ruthlessly ripe turn.

A History of Violence is an amazing movie. All the artists perform their act so gracefully. I never get bored by watching it again and again.

A history of violence is the movie where i learned that one and a half hour movie can be painfully long, i was so pumped and existed to see it, because i just watched 'Eastern Promises' and i thought it was very good, and this movie had the same director and the same Viggo Mortensen, but they weren't actually the same, the movie was very, very slow, and i hoped that it would be at least stylist while slow, not slow for the sake of being slow, but i was wrong, it kept going like this making the movie impossible to watch.

With all this critical acclaim and the recommendations, i hoped to see one good quality about this movie, but i couldn't, the performances were absolutely terrible, the characters were unexplained, the story was weak, and what kinda name is Joey? when he was a bad-ass his name was Joey? seriously? isn't the name should be representing the character, even the family relationship wasn't real, it was really awkward, why would a teenage boy kiss his mother and say goodbye everyday? is this a 'perfect family', and it just didn't work, Viggo Mortensen performance wasn't deep enough so i can absorb the fact that he used to be a killer and now he retired and became a caring family man, i loved him in 'Eastern Promises', he looked criminal and each line he delivered was filled with so much darkness making the character very interesting, but here, his performance was very shallow and out of place.

Even more awkward was the sex scene on the stairs, was that like releasing the tension kinda thing? because it just made me feel more and more awkward, and i'm not against nudity in films, but nudity should be implied for a reason, but that's not the case with this movie, giving the fact that the wife (Maria Bello) came out of the bathroom fully naked and went to bed, i was literally like WTF was that, why the director was trying to force nudity in this movie? was that his way in outlining the R rating?

The story wasn't good, you can see it coming from a mile away, which not always a bad case but combined with such atmosphere, it looked bad, and what's worse was William Hurt performance, the character was so cliche, the only way that it can be more cliche if the guy had a writing on his forehead saying 'i'm this movie's bad guy', even worse that he was nominated for an academy award for his role.

Overall, it was bad, slow, and not interesting nor entertaining at all, which leads the final conclusion ------ extremely overrated.

After re-writing my review of "Appaloosa" to include a lengthy philosophical-- which is what classification is, IMO-- discussion of what tags the movie should get, (I eventually settled for historical: drama), I decided to write reviews for all of the movies of Ed Harris which I've seen, which is actually only three-- Appaloosa, Apollo 13, and A History of Violence. And, unlike "Apollo 13", this is certainly *not* a Tom Hanks movie, and, although it does include Viggo Mortensen, which made it more attractive, of course, to the Peter Jackson fanboy that I was when I saw this.... (I was actually planning on seeing "Hidalgo", and, uh-- "Van Helsing", out of basically the same motivation, but I was such a lazy sort when it came to movies-- I was more of a gamer-- that in the end I missed both of them.... Although I suppose that that's sorta indifferent to me now), It actually doesn't have any more to do with John Tolkien than, well.... Peter Jackson!

So-- Ed Harris, and Viggo Mortensen. It's interesting to think of who isn't in this movie: Tom Cruise. I think, from my limited experience of his work, that Tom wouldn't really want to be in a movie like this. It's not verbal enough for him; he likes to talk sometimes.... Whereas these guys, don't, really. I mean, Viggo--as King Arathorn!-- gives a battle-speech or two in the Peter Jackson movies, but that's not quite his thing, not really what he likes. But Tom Cruise has the *relish* for that sort of thing-- not a battle-speech, exactly, but the sort of speech that you give in an action movie, maybe. The dramatic flare, the mixing of words with deeds.... Like gunpowder in ale.

But Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen are both very quiet men.... They are quiet, physical men.... And I guess that they like to drink their ale straight.

.... I'm not sure what else to say about it, but I suppose that I probably learned something.... And I suppose that that must count for something, right?

Ok, just one more thing, to kinda geek out on you: a Tom Cruise movie, is a bit like a fighting RPG, a talking-and-fighting game, like "Jade Empire", where you do ninja tricks and combat and stuff, and then you stop and you talk with your dudes about what's behind you, and what's ahead of you, and then you walk to the next combat, to do more fighting and jumping and kicking, and so on. An Ed Harris movie, (or should I say Ed Harris & Viggo Mortensen? They're paired-- one way or the other, in two of the three movies of Ed's that's I've seen, and it's a certainly a more potent pairing than that of Harris and *Hanks*, you know....) It's more gritty-- it's more like "Halo": you shoot people, you run forward while getting shot at, you nab the ammo off of the corpse, and you reload and fire, and you basically just worry about where to shoot and what to shoot with-- you don't talk with your party members about why they left Japan or what it was like learning to be a samurai.... Does that make sense?

And I was always much better charting out my character's leveling-up upgrades-- *magical fantasy-y leveling-up sound*-- than I was at running from cover-to-cover, where the only reward was to end up with as much health and ammo as you started with.... I mean, I kinda sucked at running from cover to cover, to be honest.... I mean, I understood the *idea*....

Yeah, I probably learned something from this movie.

I learned to stay really far the fuck away from Ed Harris....

{Jack Nicholson: *neurotic bullshit joke* Ed Harris: *punches him* Julia Roberts: *covers mouth* *starts to cry* *thinks: I will --never-- recover from this!*}

(Maybe it really is better to have villains with fako names, like-- Sarris!)

(9/10)

I already saw this movie but since it was a while back, I thought I might as well check it out again. First of all, this movie marked the 1st collaboration between David Cronenberg and Viggo Mortensen. Apparently, they really enjoyed working together, the audience certainly did appreciate the end-results, and they recently made their 4th movie together, 'Crimes of the Future', which I should be able to watch hopefully next week. Coming back on our main feature, first of all, even though the story was intriguing enough, I enjoyed above all the directing and the acting. Indeed, back in the 80's, Cronenberg started his career with some rather sleezy horror movies which became eventually cult-classics but, decades later, he has became a much more subtle director and delivered here a really tensed thriller. Obviously, Mortensen delivered as well a very good performance in the sense that you could believe that this gentle man used to be a terrifying gangster but we shouldn't forget Ed Harris and William Hurt, two of the best and most underrated supporting actors at work nowadays. They were both terrific and their confrontation with Mortensen was pretty impressive. It's interesting that I experienced the ending completely differently the second time around. Indeed, the first time I watched this movie, I thought that, after all what happened, they tried to make us believe that he got back to his life with his nice little wife as if nothing just happened. However, the second time around, I thought it was more ambiguous after all, as we don't know at all if it will work out for them since it will never be the same between them anymore. Anyway, to conclude, it is a very well made and entertaining thriller and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you are interested in David Cronenberg's work.

A History Of Violence is like Mount Olympus. Instead of Gods gathering to argue, we have bad-asses pointing guns at each other. In this case we have Ed Harris (Fogarty) in the first half and William Hurt (Richie) in the ending with Viggo Mortensen (Joey/Tom) acting as the bridge. The latter is the younger brother of Richie and the enemy of Fogarty in this helluva movie about a once killer, Joey, who has assumed a new identity Tom Stalls and is married with 2 kids. His past catches up with him when he becomes a local hero by killing 2 psychopaths who also happen to open the film in a memorable way and attracts the attention of Fogarty. Every aspect, every detail is greatly shown and even though the violence is limited, is expertly described.

Now, this film is divided into 3 parts: Demanding, Discovering & Dominance. Don't get too excited, this is not 'official'. This is just how I saw the film.

Let's start with demanding and by demanding I mean Ed Harris - the modern Telly Savalas. From his introduction to his meeting with Sheriff Sam to his encounter with Edie in the mall to his death, Ed Harris gave a demanding performance, as he always does, and managed to upstage everyone sharing the screen with him. His absense only wants you to take another dose of the ol' syringe of bad-assery. A performance not to be missed!

Now we have discovering and that is Viggo Mortensen. Even though Viggo is the main actor in this, his performance skills are actually shown in great light when he re-discovers about Joey, the actual himself. His son, Jack, finds out who he is and the once calm Tom Stall disappears from their eyes and becomes Joey and he slaps him. Next, he almost strangles Edie to death but they start making love on the stairway. This was Viggo's, and his character, best moment.

The last we have is dominance and that is William Hurt. His mere 9-minute screen time is just about the time he needs to show off his bad-assery. He simply dominated the ending and even in his death, looked just about intimidating as he was when was alive and drinking! No wonder William Hurt was nominated.

In conclusion, this is solely for Cronenberg-fans or fans of bold, mature crime-drama movies or those who think that Ed Harris, William Hurt & Viggo Mortensen are one of the greatest actors on Earth. If you agree with the latter, then go ahead and watch this great - but not better than other Cronenberg films - movie and tell me what you think of it!

I can't believe what I just saw,and I don't say this in a positive way :/ Watching this movie,only one idea was crossing my mind-this is not Cronenberg.The scenes were just thrown on each other carelessly,with a desperate moments of 'profound' mesagges about family virtue,human psihology,so boring,useless and cheap,and all that followed by the most annoying suburbian-happy family-lame music I've ever heard.After classics such as Naked lunch,Videodrome,Crash,Fly...this movie should be erased from the minds of those who have seen it,and also from the face of the Earth .

''Why don't you ask "Tom" about his older brother Ritchie? Ask "Tom" how he tried to rip my eye out with barbed wire, and ask him, Edie, how come he's so good at killing people?''

Viggo Mortensen: Tom Stall

Brilliant cast and feel to this film. Love Cronenberg's recurring theme of mutation in his movies.
In HOV the medium in the spotlight is violence, be captivated as it mutates and alters everyone it touches. This man Tom Stall, played by the talented Viggo Mortensen who has a dark, mysterious side and how one incident brings out his sated violent tendencies and a dark side.



Some gory and violent scenes this film is a good look into how are aggressive animal instincts can take hold of us if given in too. Ed Harris as a man from Tom's supposed past is terrific as a vengeful hit-man while William Hurt making an appearance later gives an amazingly chilling performance.

One thing that I liked best was the changes and diversions that unfold during the film and layered story take. The differences in his son Jack who is quietly submissive to bullies at school who later after his father's change slowly becomes more aggressive, one example him beating the crap out of an annoying fellow pupil who hassles him.
Another aspect i found intriguing was Tom and his Wife Edie's sex life and how that alters from being cute and placid, conveyed in a lovely scene where she's got a cheer leading outfit on. Later a rough and aggressive sexual encounter on the stairs which erupts forth out of the swirling haze of violence that has descended upon all the people surrounding Tom's cracking showful persona.

A History of Violence is ultimately a character study, and Cronenberg has succeeded in some solid casting to drive the story. Viggo Mortonson is easily the best thing in the film - his conflicted character easily serves to win our sympathies, and succeed in making us turn away in disgust at others. Mortenson's powerful and genuine performance brings the troubled 'Tom Stall' to life in a truly believable fashion - it should be no surprise if he receives Oscar recognition next year. Maria Bello is also terrific as Stall's wife Edie, bringing genuine emotional hurt to the part. Ed Harris is suitably menacing as mobster Carl Fogarty, an effect greatly helped by his gruesome makeup, but in the end he still fails to escape the shadow of the stereotypical gangster. However, this is an aspect in which fellow mobster William Hurt succeeds, delivering a highly amusing and surprisingly comical performance. He doesn't seem to entirely fit in with the dark overtones of the movie, but so enjoyable is his performance that we don't mind in the least. However, newcomer Ashton Holmes as Tom's son Jack is a different story. Holmes shows promise for being an excellent actor, especially for one so young, but in many scenes in the film, he comes off as too emotional to really be believable. This on-and-off overacting is a shame, as he does give an impressive performance overall, and is essential to the story - including arguably the movie's most potent scene, where a distressed Tom argues with Jack over his fighting at school. Tom's argument being "We do not hit people to solve problems in this family!" Jack's angry reply is "No, in this family we shoot them!" after which he is quickly slapped by his father, to his own surprise.

A History of Violence is a bittersweet mix. The acting is exceptional and Cronenberg displays a strong and in control directorial sense throughout. But the stereotypical supporting characters and occasional gaps in logic come off as much more of a problem than they should - lending the film an uneven quality between the excellent and the unsatisfactory. But overall, A History of Violence is still an excellent and very strongly made film, enough so for us to forgive its few, but rather prominent weak points. Cronenberg has delivered one of the most powerful and thought provoking films, and it should be recognized as such.
A definite cult movie and classic, not to be missed with an ending that will leave you thinking and pondering your own conclusions.

I found this film, to be extremely entertaining, with a great story, and great acting. I do not recall, any cheesy scenes at all. The action, in this film, is great. Viggo Mortenson, is excellent, in "A History Of Violence". This is one of his better films, he has done.

i love this film. it's very literary. the conflict and the tension is so well handled. i like the complications. and everyone should watch out for viggo mortensen's fighting scenes. it's both violent and humorous.