A History of Violence
New Line Cinema | Release Date: September 23, 2005
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 898 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
648
Mixed:
98
Negative:
152
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
0
ElieOct 1, 2005
This was the worst movie I have ever seen. The writing was the biggest bunch of hack tripe I have ever heard. I cannot believe even one critic liked this. Don't see this. It will make you angry.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
2
BruceL.Oct 28, 2005
Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Unfortunately it contains some of my very favorite actors. Goes to show that even great actors can come across as incredibly bad actors with the right script and direction. A real family Quite possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Unfortunately it contains some of my very favorite actors. Goes to show that even great actors can come across as incredibly bad actors with the right script and direction. A real family wouldn't react the way characters in the film acted once they found out the truth about Tom Stall's past. I mean c'mon, Edie had to throw up in the toilet when she found out. That was not only ridiculous but a bad piece of acting as well. I don't even want to waste anymore words on this extreme disappointment… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
3
JoshT.Apr 16, 2010
At one point, Ed Harris says something like "You're trying to hard to be this other guy; it's painful to watch." I think that summed up most of the movie. There's a message there, and it's deep, no doubt, but morals At one point, Ed Harris says something like "You're trying to hard to be this other guy; it's painful to watch." I think that summed up most of the movie. There's a message there, and it's deep, no doubt, but morals don't need to be this horribly communicated. Utter junk - I can't believe the critical response this received.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful
1
SchmidtFeb 8, 2011
It really does believe in itself. Really. Which is tragic, because it is a totally unnecessary and ridiculous mess that I am, to this day, ashamed to ever have seen. Most annoyingly of all, however, is how grossly overrated this sack ofIt really does believe in itself. Really. Which is tragic, because it is a totally unnecessary and ridiculous mess that I am, to this day, ashamed to ever have seen. Most annoyingly of all, however, is how grossly overrated this sack of over-confident, half-hearted nonsense is. If you are into films, please do not listen to what you hear, and AVOID this film. Utterly shameful.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
csw12Jul 18, 2013
A History of Violence is not bad its disgraceful. The movie is made in such an uninteresting way with its poor dialogue, below average acting, and a pace that will leave you with a headache. The ending is predictable and frankly a joke.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
oDjentoSep 29, 2015
The Scores for this film truly bewilder me as this is possible one of the worst films I’ve seen in a while: and I love Viggo Mortensen!
The film has a simple premise but doesn’t seem to really build up to anything from it. Viggo’s characterThe Scores for this film truly bewilder me as this is possible one of the worst films I’ve seen in a while: and I love Viggo Mortensen!
The film has a simple premise but doesn’t seem to really build up to anything from it. Viggo’s character saves a community from criminals in a violent fashion and gets called a hero, but also attracts the Mob’s attention who think they know him. The premise never fully goes anywhere and the direction is all over the place, as in one scene where Cronenberg uses a panning shot that descends onto a boy at a baseball game. WHY USE THAT THERE? There are also far too many cuts in some scenes for instance, when Viggo returns home and it has a shot of everyone in his family in turn over and over and it was just too painful.
Then there is the “acting”. Viggo does an alright job of speaking quietly and then bursting into violence but nothing really is noteworthy about it. Maria Bello is awful in her role and is difficult to watch and the young teenager goes from doing an alright job to becoming worse as the film goes on. Then the 2 villains in the film hardly get enough screen time to really develop or become interested in or even really enjoy watching.
Then there are plenty of scenes that are just kind of unnecessary, one scene in particular being a perceived rape scene (which would’ve added controversy yes but really shown more about Viggo’s character) and turns it into a consensual and erotic staircase sex scene that just comes out of the blue and seems completely absurd. The directing of it is pretty shabby also, at one point cutting to a shot or the bottom of the stair case where you can see on leg moving slightly. Hmmm, such a vital shot. Straight after this they then also add in some unneeded nudity just to hopefully gain viewers interest for a few seconds again.
I really, really, really struggled to even attempt to enjoy this movie. The violent scenes are pretty unexpected and gruesome but they can’t give this film a better rating when the majority of the rest of the film is a trainwreck. Please try miss this for your own sake and money.
2.5/10… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
aidanfitz19Jun 16, 2017
After reading all of the good reviews for this movie, I can not believe that I watched the same movie as all of these other people writing good reviews. The movie was just flat-out boring. There were maybe 3 events that happened in the entireAfter reading all of the good reviews for this movie, I can not believe that I watched the same movie as all of these other people writing good reviews. The movie was just flat-out boring. There were maybe 3 events that happened in the entire movie, and the rest was just filler in order to make it a normal length for a film. It didn't help that the acting was terrible, which if had been good would've made the movie a little more bearable. In the beginning, I was willing to give the movie a chance, after reading the summary it seemed like it would be an alright movie. As I kept watching I kept waiting for something exciting to happen, and the only interesting parts of the movie were the fights and the killing. If you're thinking about watching this movie I have one message for you: Don't waste your time.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
MonicaFOct 3, 2005
Are you guys kiddding? This was a HORRIBLE movie. The plot was horrible, the pace was horrible, the idea was horrible. It was slow and predictable. When we left the theater EVERYONE was saying how bad it was and atleast 15 people got up and Are you guys kiddding? This was a HORRIBLE movie. The plot was horrible, the pace was horrible, the idea was horrible. It was slow and predictable. When we left the theater EVERYONE was saying how bad it was and atleast 15 people got up and walked out DURING the movie. The ONLY saving grace in this movie is William Hurts 5 minutes on screen.. YES 5 MINUTES!!! Do not see this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AdamOct 3, 2005
Just a horrible movie. How could the critics be so wrong on this? How could they almost unanimously support such a horrible movie?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeremyK.Jan 10, 2006
It's funny to see how either people absolutely loved or absolutely hated this movie. I, obviously, did not care for it -- and no, I'm not illiterate or oblivious. Yes, I got all the metaphores -- they were only delivered with a It's funny to see how either people absolutely loved or absolutely hated this movie. I, obviously, did not care for it -- and no, I'm not illiterate or oblivious. Yes, I got all the metaphores -- they were only delivered with a lead pipe. For example, he lived a "white bread" life in Millbrook... Millbrook is a brand of white bread. Gee, how clever. Cinematically, I found the lack of background music, while it augmented the slow pace of small town life particularly annoying after awhile. And, can somebody PLEASE explain why, just because some ex-thug knows how to fire a gun he can instantly turn into Bruce Lee when confronted with several well-armed opponents. Think about it... the guy has a teenage son so we can assume he's been flipping burgers in the diner working 14 hour days for at least 10 years. When's the last time you saw Mr. Olympia working at Mel's diner? If they wanted to make the story at least a "little" believable he should have been at least a "little" overweight and out of shape. Finally, with respect to the sex and violence in the movie -- I'm in no way prudish, but I found that neither did much to further the plot. Was it really necessary to show the blown apart skull of one of the victims while he lay twitching on the ground? All in all, I found the movie a HUGE disappointment and I'd be very suprised if this walked away with any major awards come Oscar-time.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JustinTOct 3, 2005
Bad acting, bad dialogue and writing, unsympathetic characters. Inexplicably changes direction and themes halfway through the movie, and the scenes of violence seem randomly punctuated throughout the film. Every predictable plot twist plays Bad acting, bad dialogue and writing, unsympathetic characters. Inexplicably changes direction and themes halfway through the movie, and the scenes of violence seem randomly punctuated throughout the film. Every predictable plot twist plays out exactly as expected. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenen give especially bad performances, but they may not have had much to work with in the beginning. The threadbare story was excruciatingly drawn out and uninteresting. The scenes with the high school bully seemed particularily contrived and stale, and the sex scenes definitely don't have the intended effect. And talk about product placement.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FantasyOct 5, 2005
There are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. It starts out in dramatic syle and gets your attention immediately. From there the story unravels before your very eyes with more holes in the story than Carter has little liver There are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. It starts out in dramatic syle and gets your attention immediately. From there the story unravels before your very eyes with more holes in the story than Carter has little liver pills or Swiss Cheese? But the ending is even lamer than War of the Worlds which I had previously thought was the worst ending ever. The audience filed out of the theater shaking our collective heads.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ScottM.Oct 6, 2005
If I ever see another Cronenberg Movie again shoot me please.He really is the most overrated Director ever his films are at best okay.But his choice of poor actors and bad scripts is key to confusing the audience along a really offbeat If I ever see another Cronenberg Movie again shoot me please.He really is the most overrated Director ever his films are at best okay.But his choice of poor actors and bad scripts is key to confusing the audience along a really offbeat journey.If you think this is good you best start watching some decent films please this is rubbish of the highest order!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnstonOct 8, 2005
This film is so bad it is not even worthy of a score of 1. The first 5 minutes are predictable and from there it disintergrates before your very eyes. It loses all credibility after 30 minutes from which there is no escape. It just becomes This film is so bad it is not even worthy of a score of 1. The first 5 minutes are predictable and from there it disintergrates before your very eyes. It loses all credibility after 30 minutes from which there is no escape. It just becomes more awful by the frame. The ending is so preposterous it is not even worth commenting about. The director needs a reality check? Avoid at all costs.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChadBJan 4, 2006
TERRIBLE. I'm not usually bothered by violence in movies, but this was just random extreme violence and uncomfortable sex scenes. I was about to walk out and ask for my money back when the movie inexplicably ended.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RadCompanyDotNetFeb 7, 2006
A thinnly veiled action flick dressed up as a hypocritical P.S.A. I am so tired of this phony intellectualism seeping into movies lately (Capote). Cronenberg is a good director, but the script is garbage. And don't EVEN tell me I justA thinnly veiled action flick dressed up as a hypocritical P.S.A. I am so tired of this phony intellectualism seeping into movies lately (Capote). Cronenberg is a good director, but the script is garbage. And don't EVEN tell me I just didn't "get it". Stop patting yourself on the back for understanding a movie a tween could comprehend. There are issues in eXistenZ that are far more engaging.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
IsabelC.Mar 20, 2006
I've seen worse so I can't give this film anything lower than a 3, but wow, what a disappointment. And I'm seeing the same comments from other reviewers - how could the professional reviewers have possibly liked this? I've seen worse so I can't give this film anything lower than a 3, but wow, what a disappointment. And I'm seeing the same comments from other reviewers - how could the professional reviewers have possibly liked this? It's actually a very silly and childish movie, filled with plot holes. Whoever wrote this understands nothing about psychology as the characters reactions to events were preposterous. Parts of it were actually quite embarrassing. Not good.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JoelMar 9, 2006
Bad acting, bad writing. Nothing thrilling, no big plot twist to be had, just random violence and unneccessary, uncomfortable sex scenes. Horrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
IanK.Apr 2, 2006
I promise, I am not exaggarating when I give this a rating of 1. I should actually give it a 0 because I believe it may possible be one of the worst movies I have -ever- seen (including TV movies), but I gave it a 1 figuring some people may I promise, I am not exaggarating when I give this a rating of 1. I should actually give it a 0 because I believe it may possible be one of the worst movies I have -ever- seen (including TV movies), but I gave it a 1 figuring some people may appreciate the soft-core p orn and brief moments of violence. The action in this movie was sooo slow and more comical than intense. I rented this based upon the Critic Review rating on this site, and I am now convinced the Critics were paid off (and that more money went to the Critics than the budget). The only reason I even sat through more than half this movie was because I was expecting it to get better, or waiting for some incredible twist at the end to fulfill the Critic Rating. I'm being serious. If you don't believe me, watch this. Horrible acting, horrible directing, the most generic cliche script, slow, and the situations were impossible to believe in. Even the sets were impossible to believe, nothing felt or looked remotely real enough to engage in the movie. I encourage anyone to watch the movie if they want to see just how poor the critic rating can be on this website.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AaronS.Jul 24, 2006
You've got to be kidding. This is a dopey, unrealistic, wooden movie that thinks showing a few scalps blowing off makes it a dangerous, deep look at violence. That scene on the stairs or in the locker room. If you thought that was an You've got to be kidding. This is a dopey, unrealistic, wooden movie that thinks showing a few scalps blowing off makes it a dangerous, deep look at violence. That scene on the stairs or in the locker room. If you thought that was an insight into the human condition, or even marginal acting, you should stick to Scary Movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SP.Jun 8, 2007
A History of Violence is, no holds barred, the worst movie I have ever seen. Every part of the movie (writing, directing, producing, camera angles, acting) appeared to have been fulfilled by the equivalent of a high school student attempting A History of Violence is, no holds barred, the worst movie I have ever seen. Every part of the movie (writing, directing, producing, camera angles, acting) appeared to have been fulfilled by the equivalent of a high school student attempting to complete his end-of-the-semester project the night before it was due. Case in point: The horrendous cheerleader love scene. Whoever wrote that part of the script can feel slightly less bad about his lack of talent by comparing himself to the lumpen who shot the scene.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DavidS.Feb 15, 2010
This was hilarious. but that's not necessarily good. the final scene had me in tears almost. the highschool son subplot was so incredibly over the top. it was like leave it to beaver. oh man, and the gratuitous dress-up cheerleader sex This was hilarious. but that's not necessarily good. the final scene had me in tears almost. the highschool son subplot was so incredibly over the top. it was like leave it to beaver. oh man, and the gratuitous dress-up cheerleader sex at the beginning. classic. reviewers are bought and sold man. i can't believe this. seriously, only watch this movie if you just got some dank.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JerrryS.Oct 1, 2005
The movie was done halfway thru and it kept going on. They add a main charater with no background near the end just to kill him. What was with the last scene where the passed the meatloaf and then it ends. Just like meatloaf, this movie was The movie was done halfway thru and it kept going on. They add a main charater with no background near the end just to kill him. What was with the last scene where the passed the meatloaf and then it ends. Just like meatloaf, this movie was plain and a was of a meal. Not even worth a DVD rental.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DannW.Oct 1, 2005
I am absolutely stunned that people love this movie. The film is resoundingly terrible from the first scene in which the family speaks dialog that is laughable with pacing which is excruciating. Both child actors are so bad they are hard to I am absolutely stunned that people love this movie. The film is resoundingly terrible from the first scene in which the family speaks dialog that is laughable with pacing which is excruciating. Both child actors are so bad they are hard to watch. On exiting from the theater, I heard another patron say, "This is a whole new breed of terrible movie," and I agree. Both Viggo and Bello are good enough actors that they are able to give some credibility to their unspeakable dialog, but they cannot save this film. The pacing is slow, the "suspense" is tedious, and there is nothing "deep" to be had.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ElaineM.Oct 15, 2005
The dialogue was so awful I was embarrassed for the actors. Mortenson gives a good performance, given what he had to work with, and Hurt is great. All in all, a huge disappointment. How the movie critics do fawn over Cronenberg!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DudDOct 15, 2005
People in the movie burst out with laughter at the supposedly dramatic points of the movie. Contrarily, I wanted to burst out with rage at the stupidity of the movie. A real flop.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
NicMOct 10, 2005
I am not quite sure why this is getting such strong reviews. The film is very cliche and despite Viggo's amazing performance, I found the script to be flat. The critic's are getting shabby lately.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MikeDOct 10, 2005
I was a big believer in the metacritic system before this. I can't understand how it gained an 80+_rating - truly a horrible movie and a waste of some good acting talent. The movie went in 10 different directions but didn't bother I was a big believer in the metacritic system before this. I can't understand how it gained an 80+_rating - truly a horrible movie and a waste of some good acting talent. The movie went in 10 different directions but didn't bother do any of them the justice they deserved - like a bunch of non-connected post-it notes on a director's refrigerator. Most disappointing (and disappointed).… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LibbyF.Oct 10, 2005
Extremely disappointing after all the hype and great reviews I've read/heard. The pace, which could have been artfully slow, was painfully slow, when we knew exactly what was coming. Just get on with it, already. Viggo and Bello did Extremely disappointing after all the hype and great reviews I've read/heard. The pace, which could have been artfully slow, was painfully slow, when we knew exactly what was coming. Just get on with it, already. Viggo and Bello did their best with the stilted dialogue, but William Hurt was laughably unauthentic in his role. Thank god it was short lived. There were so many inconsistencies and holes in the story I lost track. Nice try, but this one could have been done much better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChrisC.Oct 2, 2005
I'm a big fan of Viggo Mortensen & Ed Harris, but I thought this movie stunk big-time. I too am amazed it's getting great reviews. I'm usually a very forgiving movie goer, but this one literally had me shaking my head several I'm a big fan of Viggo Mortensen & Ed Harris, but I thought this movie stunk big-time. I too am amazed it's getting great reviews. I'm usually a very forgiving movie goer, but this one literally had me shaking my head several times. I feel the acting was sub-par by the minor characters, like the town cop (I've seen soaps with better acting). And the dialog was so contrived & stiff. It sounded rehearsed. Plus, the worst part was the family reaction to the big secret. They loved their father dearly, then they turned on him (on a dime)? C'mon, now. He saved their lives, and he's been a loving husband for over 15 years. This is simply retarded.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarkC.Oct 22, 2005
I want my money and time back. The acting was beyond wooden, the story was pointless, and the writing was horrible. The people who think this movie is great are the ones who think that's what the "cool" people are saying.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
CraigA.Oct 24, 2005
This just wasn't a very good movie. Graphic violence and inappropriate sex scenes aside, this could just be any run of the mill television movie of the week. There really isn't much going on here. And who had the bizarre idea to This just wasn't a very good movie. Graphic violence and inappropriate sex scenes aside, this could just be any run of the mill television movie of the week. There really isn't much going on here. And who had the bizarre idea to cast William Hurt as a tough gangster? I understood this movie a little better when I read that it had been based on a cmic book. That really helps to explain the one-dimensional characters, the contrived plot, and misogyny.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RamonaCOct 25, 2005
Starts out sensational and self destructs. Overrated and overhyped trailer trash of a movie. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RichardCOct 29, 2005
Terrible. Random sex scenes and enough violence to make Sin City look like Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood combine to make the most pointless and disturbing movie I've ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MorganM.Oct 3, 2005
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. In a movie every scene is supposed to relate to either the end or the charactor or a turning point to either the postive or nagative. To have sex scenes with none of the above criteria is at This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. In a movie every scene is supposed to relate to either the end or the charactor or a turning point to either the postive or nagative. To have sex scenes with none of the above criteria is at less bad writing and is more then likly titlation(SP) for it's own sake. Unfortuneatly, even sex for sex sakes they don't manage to do well. Mortensen and Bello are just not attractive.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LisaR.Oct 3, 2005
Graphic violence and nudity thrown in to distract the viewers from a predictable movie headed towards stupidity as soon as Stall runs (hobbles) home to protect his family. Just plain stupid. The only worth-watching part was when William Hurt Graphic violence and nudity thrown in to distract the viewers from a predictable movie headed towards stupidity as soon as Stall runs (hobbles) home to protect his family. Just plain stupid. The only worth-watching part was when William Hurt entered the picture. Amazing how many people claim it's the best picture of the year. Tell me what's it like living with the mentality of a character in THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES? Learn to open your eyes and think for yourselves.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BettyW.Oct 3, 2005
This was a really bad movie, do not even waste your money to rent it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
OwenDOct 3, 2005
This movie has replaced Alexander the Great as the worst movie I've ever seen. Poor acting, poor directing, and poor photography. After reading all of these glowing reviews, I persuaded some of my friends to see this movie with me. Now This movie has replaced Alexander the Great as the worst movie I've ever seen. Poor acting, poor directing, and poor photography. After reading all of these glowing reviews, I persuaded some of my friends to see this movie with me. Now I'm contimplating suing my city's newspaper for recommending this film. I've suffered inrreconsilabe damages, for the loss of my two hours that I will never get back. BAD MOVIE!!!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PeterGOct 3, 2005
I agree with Chuck 76, except that I think it wasn't even worth a 6. Pointless story, dragging pace (96 minutes felt like 180), gratuitous violence (that just didn't WORK), sex scenes that lent almost nothing to the story (and I agree with Chuck 76, except that I think it wasn't even worth a 6. Pointless story, dragging pace (96 minutes felt like 180), gratuitous violence (that just didn't WORK), sex scenes that lent almost nothing to the story (and could have been cut by about 90%), amateurish plot twists, wretched character development, completely expected and uninspired opening. Not even good (not great, but reasonable) performances by Mortenson, Bello, and Harris are worth much. William Hurt is utterly laughable. The children are utterly forgettable. The villains are utterly ridiculous. And before you say "You just didn't get it", I had no trouble enjoying Sin City (which was chalked full of violence) or "getting" something like Requiem for a Dream (which dealt with a weighty subject much more intelligently). A History of Violence is disgusting not for its treatment and demonstration of violence, but for its offense to the senses and sensibilities of its audience. I couldn't wait for this to be over.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveN.Oct 3, 2005
Action scenes were very good, sex scenes were laughable, entire audience was booing at the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RachelI.Oct 4, 2005
There's no denying it: this movie's bad. A completely unsubtle, predictable piece of trash. Acting so bad it hurts. An action-drama with training wheels.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MarkOct 4, 2005
This movie was perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen to date. I have no idea what the critics were thinking when they rated this movie well. I guess if one can accept that everyone in this movie was incredibly irrational and made This movie was perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen to date. I have no idea what the critics were thinking when they rated this movie well. I guess if one can accept that everyone in this movie was incredibly irrational and made unrealistic decisions then perhaps it could be enjoyed. That is only if one can look past the disturbingly violent sex scene, the B-movie killings and the sub par acting (exepct William Hurt). I walked away from this movie hating Viggo Mortensen.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LoriK.Oct 6, 2005
This was quite possibly the worst movie ever made - no character development, no plot, terrible - disappointing - acting, horrible script, and basically no point. I laughed all the way through this ridiculous film and I don't think it This was quite possibly the worst movie ever made - no character development, no plot, terrible - disappointing - acting, horrible script, and basically no point. I laughed all the way through this ridiculous film and I don't think it was supposed to be a comedy...ooops. The only parts that were not difficult to sit through were the fight scenes and the graphics.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JuniorB.Oct 7, 2005
I subscribe to the KISS principal so I'll keep this quite brief.....THIS MOVIE SUCKS!!!! Read all of the other comments that trash this flick and there is no more to be said.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SriV.Oct 8, 2005
This is among the worst movies I've ever seen. It is basically composed of a few scenes of graphic violence + some scenes of sex + lots of garbage. I don't know how it got such high ratings here.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JesseJ.Oct 8, 2005
The only thing "beautiful" about this movie, is that I will never, ever have to see it again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MichelleS.Oct 8, 2005
The screenplay is inauthentic and the acting is laughable. The movie stinks.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
HollisH.Oct 8, 2005
This was absolutely dreadful. Honestly, I cannot remember the last time I saw a movie that I would consider this horrid in a long, long time, especially one that I saw in the theater. This movie was laughable with it's half-boiled drama This was absolutely dreadful. Honestly, I cannot remember the last time I saw a movie that I would consider this horrid in a long, long time, especially one that I saw in the theater. This movie was laughable with it's half-boiled drama and silly writing. There was no point to the ending violent spree, it didn't propel the narrative forward whatsoever. If you want to see Viggo at his best, you MUST see The Indian Runner, but stay far away from this drivel.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JaneOct 9, 2005
In a word - Awful!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JackM.Oct 9, 2005
Okay script but very weak directing that seemed downright amateurish at times. This is definitely a case of "The Emperor's New Clothes."
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KevinK.Jan 3, 2006
This movie was a complete joke. I saw it because it got good reviews and the trailer seemed thrilling. Oh was I surprised, not with a killer plot and precise dialogue, rather with laughable violence, raunchy nudity, and foreshadowing so bold This movie was a complete joke. I saw it because it got good reviews and the trailer seemed thrilling. Oh was I surprised, not with a killer plot and precise dialogue, rather with laughable violence, raunchy nudity, and foreshadowing so bold that a blind person could see it. Don't even rent this movie. Your time's better spent reading a good book.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
molotovMar 15, 2006
The great trailer and critics' raves made this a must-see. But, in reality, it just ain't so. Badly written; badly directed. There's just no depth to the thing, resulting in an incredibly empty viewing experience. Almost The great trailer and critics' raves made this a must-see. But, in reality, it just ain't so. Badly written; badly directed. There's just no depth to the thing, resulting in an incredibly empty viewing experience. Almost laughably bad.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
c4logicC.Mar 19, 2006
The problem with this movie is that it is a comic book. The story is completely contrived. I can hear the hollywood pitch in 25 words or less. It hinges on a central improbable conceit, that someone who grew up in a dog eat dog culture can The problem with this movie is that it is a comic book. The story is completely contrived. I can hear the hollywood pitch in 25 words or less. It hinges on a central improbable conceit, that someone who grew up in a dog eat dog culture can remake himself into his exact opposite. I just can't suspend my disbelief. Tom's skills are not the skills of Mob muscle, they are the skills of black ops, commandos, special forces, ninjas. The whole thing is an ill-conceived adolescent fantasy. I don't know what the critics were thinking!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MikeP.Mar 19, 2006
The only "history" worth noting in this overrated, almost unbearable film is the 1 hour and forty minutes of mine I wasted watching it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
PhengY.Apr 21, 2006
Truly repulsive and inane. My little brother can produce and direct a better movie of the same name if it were a contest. Am I missing something that the critics are seeing.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
BradK.Apr 3, 2006
Awful acting. Trite story. Awkward script. The only redeeming factor is the visceral thrill of the violence, which only takes you so far. I have never disagreed more with the critics than on this one. The dialogue between the high school Awful acting. Trite story. Awkward script. The only redeeming factor is the visceral thrill of the violence, which only takes you so far. I have never disagreed more with the critics than on this one. The dialogue between the high school students deserves special mention for its gag-inducing powers.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LanceC.Jun 4, 2006
I am the kind of movie snob that usually agrees with critics, but I really dont see how this film got any acclaim whatsoever. It was downright boring. The dialogue was laughibly sophmoric and dumb - there is really no other way to say it. We I am the kind of movie snob that usually agrees with critics, but I really dont see how this film got any acclaim whatsoever. It was downright boring. The dialogue was laughibly sophmoric and dumb - there is really no other way to say it. We are suppose to feel an affinity for this wierd Norman Rockwell take on small town life. The film starts out with an after school special bully thing with the son. The resolution doesnt really make any sense - nor is there ever any tension.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
David.S.Aug 4, 2006
Starts off great and goes nowhere from there. An unbelievable disapointment. All of the subplots were absolulely pointless. What the heck was the point of the son being bullied at school and the intense sex scenes with the wife. Neither had Starts off great and goes nowhere from there. An unbelievable disapointment. All of the subplots were absolulely pointless. What the heck was the point of the son being bullied at school and the intense sex scenes with the wife. Neither had any place in this movie and no connection was ever made. The last straw was the poor ending. In summary another great concept sqaundered in a meandering journey to nowhere. Shame on each and every critic who touted this movie so highly. These critics are an absolute disgrace to the public at large.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
IHJun 6, 2007
Oh God. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it scored 81 here. And so many 100s. Incredible. Personally, I think it's.. well... not crap, but pretty dran close. Sure, it might try to tell something about our culture and violence, Oh God. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw it scored 81 here. And so many 100s. Incredible. Personally, I think it's.. well... not crap, but pretty dran close. Sure, it might try to tell something about our culture and violence, but really, it does in an awfully painful way. The plot of this movie is about as predictable and uninteresting as it gets, bloody hell, first and only time I saw it I guessed the ending within the first quarter of the film. And yes, terrible dialog, not that good acting (great actors though, just.. not in this movie), and it's terribly obvious it's only made to make money on the juicy violence. Hypo-bloody-critical, that's what it is.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DannyDec 9, 2008
Pretty bad movie, expected a lot better from the initial critics responses. Could have been a TV movie alright. The family just seemed so fake, I couldn't relate with them. Overall I 'd avoid this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RebBOct 11, 2005
Truly amazing that with such a great cast (and not a bad script) that this film has been awarded with such a high rating. This film was so slow that it overrun at my local cinema, one word for Cronenberg 'Editor', obviously and fan Truly amazing that with such a great cast (and not a bad script) that this film has been awarded with such a high rating. This film was so slow that it overrun at my local cinema, one word for Cronenberg 'Editor', obviously and fan of Tarrantino and the Coen Bros (as I am) but the movie never felt like it was moving at all, no shocks (seen it all before) no thrills and quite frankly no good. Sorry will keep open mind for your next project David.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
nigelOct 10, 2005
I agree, it was totally awful. Worst movie to get good reviews ever.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
LarryOct 13, 2005
This movie was so hyped that I couldn't wait to see it? By now I should know better. It was awful with a capital A. The acting was terrible; the plot preposterous;and the ending was so unrealistic that it gave the dysfunction Tom Cruise This movie was so hyped that I couldn't wait to see it? By now I should know better. It was awful with a capital A. The acting was terrible; the plot preposterous;and the ending was so unrealistic that it gave the dysfunction Tom Cruise and War of The Worlds a run for its money as the worst ever. This movie is a total bomb. And please if we want to see soft porn we can rent it. No need to see Maria and Vig do their thing on the stair case. I wanted to puke.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AlexO.Oct 14, 2005
Possibly the worst movie of the decade. This movie is so bad it hurts to even think about it. I paid $7.00 to see it and walked out halfway through it. The movie is schizophrenic, it goes from Gory (showing vivid images of a mans jaw being Possibly the worst movie of the decade. This movie is so bad it hurts to even think about it. I paid $7.00 to see it and walked out halfway through it. The movie is schizophrenic, it goes from Gory (showing vivid images of a mans jaw being shot off) to sexually explicit ( the husband and wife apparently enjoy 69 as a position) all the while breaking stride and providing useless scene after scene. The story had potential but the constant breaking of stride between scenes and the endless plot twists, along with the wooden and robot like preformances of all the actors involved....it is just too painful to keep writing. This is a movie you recommend to your most hated enemies. Garbaggio.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
CherSNov 5, 2005
Pop some corn at home and skip the lines. Silly movie, and some things just don't add up. No crowd at this movie, the word must be out.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JessK.Nov 8, 2005
I don't know anyone who liked this movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KurtS.Oct 18, 2005
I
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JosephF.Dec 17, 2005
Good premise. horrible execution, acting and dialogue. So over the top, it was laughable at times. The actors were so aware of how dramatic the situation was supposed to be that they forgot to actually live it. You could feel them praying Good premise. horrible execution, acting and dialogue. So over the top, it was laughable at times. The actors were so aware of how dramatic the situation was supposed to be that they forgot to actually live it. You could feel them praying for oscars nominations as they spoke. I didn't believe a word. And lets not forget the random full frontal nudity, as if cut and pasted from another film. Horrid.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CesarOct 2, 2005
Just saw it, and generally unimpressed. Although the performances are very good, the pace is broken and the violence gets so its laugh out loud funny. Not so good for a psychological drama.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
tedb.Oct 22, 2005
WAY WAY WAY Overrated.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JohnMOct 29, 2005
This movie made me angry. I was so disappointed. It was slow. The plot,"a man's past comes back to haunt him" has been filmed a jillion times and they added nothing new to this genre of film. No stylish visuals, nothing. Not enough This movie made me angry. I was so disappointed. It was slow. The plot,"a man's past comes back to haunt him" has been filmed a jillion times and they added nothing new to this genre of film. No stylish visuals, nothing. Not enough character background to give them some depth. The movie focused too much on establishing what a loving family I was watching and what a lovely life they had. I kept thinking to myself, "I get it movie, I get it now move on!" With proper editing this movie could have been 45 minutes long. It wasn't like I was expecting action, action, action and didn't get it.There isn't much. I was expecting more of a character study. I got none. The acting was good, but still don't see this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SharonF.Oct 30, 2005
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The dialog was terrible, the scenes were choppy, the female character was overly emotional and some of the action didn't may any sense. We made fun of it all the way through, whoever This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The dialog was terrible, the scenes were choppy, the female character was overly emotional and some of the action didn't may any sense. We made fun of it all the way through, whoever wrote this script needs to take some lessons from Tarantino.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
BrianNOct 3, 2005
I walked out on this movie, first time I've done so in 15 years. We were laughing through the first 20 minutes. One of the most contrived, cliched character developments in film in a very long time. The only thing missing in the I walked out on this movie, first time I've done so in 15 years. We were laughing through the first 20 minutes. One of the most contrived, cliched character developments in film in a very long time. The only thing missing in the film's first act is a paper boy throwing the paper in the front lawn and a milkman dropping the bottles off to the missis. Sorry and pathetic.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
DWOct 4, 2005
Another film foolishly overrated by the critics, I suppose out of some clouded deference for Cronenberg. From the in-B-movies-only unfeeling bad guys of the beginning, through V. Mortenson's bad performance (that only serves its tricky Another film foolishly overrated by the critics, I suppose out of some clouded deference for Cronenberg. From the in-B-movies-only unfeeling bad guys of the beginning, through V. Mortenson's bad performance (that only serves its tricky purpose) and poorly executed action sequences, the movie is both inhuman and a stylistic mess. An idea squandered.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
EricK.Oct 7, 2005
The movie starts out with not one but two horrific performances by child actors (if you can't get a kid who can at least act a teesny little bit, DON'T put them in your movies) and goes downhill from there. Everyone in the movie The movie starts out with not one but two horrific performances by child actors (if you can't get a kid who can at least act a teesny little bit, DON'T put them in your movies) and goes downhill from there. Everyone in the movie was purposefully ugly...if I wanted to see that much ugly, I'd have stayed home and looked at my family for free. The violence was over the top, the acting was horrific (everyone in the film seemed to be using a different dialect of English, for some reason), and the story was just....a huge chunk of pointlessness. Critics are raving. Critics are clueless.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveOct 9, 2005
Not sure what film the critics were watching. It was pretty much average as far as movies go--nothing special. I had such high expectations after reading some of the reviews that I was thoroughly disapponted, and thus the especially low score.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DavisNov 13, 2006
Any acclaim hurled at this pathetically boring, overwraught, contrived movie is nothing more than an overreaching attempt to partake in the intellectual or artistic. The script is atrocious, with tremendously shallow dialogue and sub-stories Any acclaim hurled at this pathetically boring, overwraught, contrived movie is nothing more than an overreaching attempt to partake in the intellectual or artistic. The script is atrocious, with tremendously shallow dialogue and sub-stories that go nowhere and add nothing to the plot development. The sex scenes are contrived and forced. Viggo's acting is pretty convincing, and Ed Harris and William Hurt make the most of their cleche'd, ridiculously comical "villain" roles. But the supporting acting is flat and lifeless, and their characters lack any development whatsoever. This is probably one of the worst films I have ever seen. I put it right above "The Dukes of Hazzard", only because of the occasional interest scene of violence that prevented me from falling asleep.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JeffB.Jan 16, 2006
this movie uses every cliche in the book to drive the plot, and is so unoriginal, i found my self laughing out loud at parts that were supposed to be serious. and the acting is pitiful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AdamJan 27, 2006
Dear God, this has to be the most overrated movie of the year. I don't understand why the critics all love it so much. I definitely felt like my intelligence was insulted watching this movie; all of the "subtle" details were beaten intoDear God, this has to be the most overrated movie of the year. I don't understand why the critics all love it so much. I definitely felt like my intelligence was insulted watching this movie; all of the "subtle" details were beaten into my head with a lead pipe. One of my friends who loved the movie tried telling me that I just didn't get the point of the movie. I got the point, I had no choice but to "get it." Cronenberg was practically dangling the plot in front of the audience, like they couldn't figure it out on their own. The acting was decent, but the script absolutely sucks. Some of the dialogue was so bad, people in the theater were actually laughing out loud every five minutes like they were watching Wedding Crashers instead. Also, there's a big twist halfway through the movie that, I believe, kills any philosophical steam the movie might have picked up and sucks all the life out of the movie way before the ending, making it absolutely boring to watch.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JamesL.Mar 15, 2006
Proof that I will never take the 'expert' reviews seriously again. This was crap in its finest form. I just finished watching it 10 minutes ago; Ed Harris is the only memorable actor. The rest of them are melodramatic waste of Proof that I will never take the 'expert' reviews seriously again. This was crap in its finest form. I just finished watching it 10 minutes ago; Ed Harris is the only memorable actor. The rest of them are melodramatic waste of space. Don't do it! Save your $ or suffer crap in its finest form ever.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MarcM.Mar 15, 2006
Aside from the enjoyable melodramatic musical score, I thought this movie was horrible. Reasons: Forced acting: e.g. the daughter and son acting overly compassionate towards their father displaying out of context facial expressions. Weak Aside from the enjoyable melodramatic musical score, I thought this movie was horrible. Reasons: Forced acting: e.g. the daughter and son acting overly compassionate towards their father displaying out of context facial expressions. Weak love scene between husband/wife. Whether it's the director, script or just weak actors is hard to tell. I feel robbed at paying for a new release video rental. In fact, it is not even worth $1.00 to see. Minor positive aspect: Robert Duvall and your friendly neighbourhood policemen were the only ones worthy of 'acting'.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
markMar 16, 2006
I normally just come here to read reviews and never comment but I'm moved on this one to say how completely shocked I am this movie got so much hype. This was absolutely terrrible. Worse than most made for TV movies, I'm floored I normally just come here to read reviews and never comment but I'm moved on this one to say how completely shocked I am this movie got so much hype. This was absolutely terrrible. Worse than most made for TV movies, I'm floored that big name critics liked it and shocked that it didn't go straight to video. It was poorly written, lazily produced, ultra-cliche. It'll make me tune into Morgenstern and Edelstein more who had enough integrity or insight to stay off of the bizarre bandwagon that carried this movie as far as it went.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
KiwiClayMar 19, 2006
Absolute Rubbish. Marketed as a violent art house rumination on violence and identity, but really all it was at the end of the day was a hamfisted, ham-acted, poorly written comic book movie. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RizzoMar 31, 2006
People are trying to pass this film off as intellectual. I agree that it may have a deeper meaning; however, as pessimistic as it may sound, most Americans do not get it upon watching the movie. Most just like the violence and the sex. The People are trying to pass this film off as intellectual. I agree that it may have a deeper meaning; however, as pessimistic as it may sound, most Americans do not get it upon watching the movie. Most just like the violence and the sex. The deeper meaning of the movie did not outweigh the fact that I found it unrealist and cheap.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
VictoriaH.Apr 12, 2006
I only watched this film, because I liked Viggo in "Hildago." This movie is a clunker. It is no better than a stupid Steven Segal flick. Watch this only if you like Cronenberg's fatalistic, dark view of existence where the I only watched this film, because I liked Viggo in "Hildago." This movie is a clunker. It is no better than a stupid Steven Segal flick. Watch this only if you like Cronenberg's fatalistic, dark view of existence where the 'hero' goes from a corn-fed Jimmy Stewart wannabe to a Steven Segal killing machine.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
CarolynB.Apr 16, 2006
The "professional" reviewers must be blinded by Cronenberg's reputation; otherwise, why the 81 ranking? We "users" are much closer to the mark, although I obviously think the ranking of 5.9 is still too high. This story has as many The "professional" reviewers must be blinded by Cronenberg's reputation; otherwise, why the 81 ranking? We "users" are much closer to the mark, although I obviously think the ranking of 5.9 is still too high. This story has as many holes in the plot as it has holes in the bad guys' heads.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
B.V.Apr 4, 2006
Conspiracy I say! There has to be. This is one of the most inane, idiotic, over the top, brain dead movies I have ever seen. The secret message that only smart people are supposed to get is ridiculous. Oh wait I guess I am not intelligent Conspiracy I say! There has to be. This is one of the most inane, idiotic, over the top, brain dead movies I have ever seen. The secret message that only smart people are supposed to get is ridiculous. Oh wait I guess I am not intelligent enough to understand. The acting is so bad I wanted to laugh out loud. The violence was okay and that is the only reason it even got a one. I didn't realize that mafia hitmen were also navy seal ninja's able to disarm other hitmen with drawn weapons. The only way an intelligent person could think this was a good movie was if he was being paid to say it. Junk, garbage, crap...etc.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KCJun 21, 2006
Do not expect to see anything special with this movie. The storyline is mildly interesting however its been told so poorly its cringing. The attempt to show the family as close was totally overdone. The bullied son story was so predictable Do not expect to see anything special with this movie. The storyline is mildly interesting however its been told so poorly its cringing. The attempt to show the family as close was totally overdone. The bullied son story was so predictable and its resolution ridiculous. The entire movie plods along at a rather pedestrian pace, a slight twist and its over. The critics are in danger of loosing their credibility if they continue to give films like this good reviews.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PJW.Aug 19, 2006
Awful. Easily the most lame portrayal of evolution and sociology of violence. Terrible script and horrible acting. Awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
KevinAJul 17, 2007
Metacritic needs to get an "Incomplete" rating. I watched 15 minutes of this and turned it off - the writing, the acting, everything was so unbelievable, so unbelievably lame (yes, lame) that I could not even get to the first turning point. Oy.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
IanC.Jan 16, 2008
Despite a good concept, this movie is an absolute trainwreck. It trundles along at an excruciatingly sluggish pace, it suffers from awful writing, and an all too predictable story. The few fight scenes were misdirected and laughable. They Despite a good concept, this movie is an absolute trainwreck. It trundles along at an excruciatingly sluggish pace, it suffers from awful writing, and an all too predictable story. The few fight scenes were misdirected and laughable. They were reminscent of the awful Rambo sequel in which Rambo stands in plain view of several armed enemies and picks them off one by one with a bow while they somehow miss him with automatic weapons. And someone needs to alert Cronenberg that throwing Kill Bill-esque amounts of gore in there doesn't distract from the belief-suspending choreography nor does it make the violence shocking or have any real effect on the audience. Even the bizarre and overly lengthy sex scenes had the audience looking away and flinching more than the violent sections of the movie. It's a story that could've been told in ten minutes. Half an hour at most, but this movie stretches it out to over ninety minutes. It doesn't help that it reeks of made-for-TV already. Trainwreck.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
TazD.Oct 26, 2008
The only reason I'm giving it 1 is because it starts off so promisingly. After the first 20 minutes or so we get gratuaties sex scenes, over the top violence and terrible special effects. One of the worst movies I have ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JamesH.Feb 25, 2008
Boring dull film - you think something may happen then it just ends - absolute tosh.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
WackoOct 11, 2005
This movie is so overrated that it sucked. Just awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
MichaelC.Oct 11, 2005
Every once in a while, Metacritic grossly overrate a movie, giving it a score that is usually 40-50 points higher than it deserves. It happened in 2004 with "Million Dollar Baby" (86), in 1998 with "Shakespeare in Love" (87), and most Every once in a while, Metacritic grossly overrate a movie, giving it a score that is usually 40-50 points higher than it deserves. It happened in 2004 with "Million Dollar Baby" (86), in 1998 with "Shakespeare in Love" (87), and most notably, in 2001 with the God awful "Gosford Park" (90). Unfortunately, this one tops them all... A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE (currently sitting at an 83) - Directed by David Cronenberg, starring Viggo "Strider" Mortensen, Maria Bello, William Hurt, and Ed Harris. My friend Tonya and I just caught a 2:05pm showing at The Grove in Hollywood. And, let me tell you folks, this baby made "Predator 2" look like "On the Waterfront!" I was a huge fan of "Spider," (Cronenberg's last pic), so I was expecting big things from this one, especially with the cast, the reputation, and the phenomenal reviews. From the opening scene, you are wrapped up in the characters. The long takes and limited dialogue give it this creepy, western kind of feeling. However, it never really pays off. When used to advance the plot, the dialogue is amateur and forced, making it seem more like an after-school special than a suspense-thriller. The shot selection is rushed and unorganized, almost like Cronenberg was randomly choosing different things to cutaway to during a particular scene. If the audience can tell that they are watching a movie, it's usually a bad sign. Furthermore, the movie has three different villains! THREE! Imagine if you were watching a movie like "Batman," and The Joker died in the first twenty minutes of the movie. Then, as soon as he dies, another villain comes along. After he dies, a third one pops up out of nowhere... Would that make any sense? Where is the build-up? Where is the conflict? Finally, to top it off, the film is scored by none other than Howard (effing) Shore!! Not only did it not fit well with suburban Indiana, it more importantly found me humming out loud to the music from Helms Deep. All in all, don't waste your money on this one. The audience was actually laughing out loud at times. The worst part of all is that my friend Tonya happens to be a lesbian... ...so, now we have to go see that Jake Gyllenhaall movie about the gay cowboys... - 17 / 100… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AdrianNov 16, 2005
Laughable in every way imaginable. At the end it become a cartoon. This film is a total joke. Avoid at all costs.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ReggieNov 18, 2005
Nothing could be this bad or could it?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
dickOct 12, 2005
This movie was bought and paid for by the Hollywood propaganda mill. It is awful. Self destructs before your very eyes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
PeterS.Oct 12, 2005
Oh Metacritic.........an 81really.....beacuse this film is supposed to be artistic. If artistic means having a ridiculously implausible storyline and some of the most wooden acting this side of the Anakin Skywalker then yes i gues it is Oh Metacritic.........an 81really.....beacuse this film is supposed to be artistic. If artistic means having a ridiculously implausible storyline and some of the most wooden acting this side of the Anakin Skywalker then yes i gues it is artistic. Please keep all art far far far away from me. Rent Sin City, thats what a gaphic novel should look like.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
tuffmanr.Oct 12, 2005
The User ratings says it all!! This movie was dull, it had bad acting and it had horrible dialogue. There are many unnecessary parts in this movie. When is the point when movies start to be pornographic? The only reason why the critics rate The User ratings says it all!! This movie was dull, it had bad acting and it had horrible dialogue. There are many unnecessary parts in this movie. When is the point when movies start to be pornographic? The only reason why the critics rate it so highly is because it has a strange ending and it chooses not to give any clues what it is talking about. The packaging is terrible. THE ACTING IS BAD! Now I want to read some of the pretentious people who gave it a high rating just because the critics messed up.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
prev
Page:
More From This Movie

82 Critic Reviews

7.4 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 71 The Sheep Detectives
5 68 Crime 101
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL