A History of Violence

9

DanieleO.Jan 22, 2006

One of the very best of the year, a brilliant reflection on violence, and a reflection about america too.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

DaveF.Mar 19, 2006

There was nothing predictable about this, clear up to the end we still don't know for sure where's Joey. Seeing the ultra violence might have led some reviewers to make a knee jerk reaction about the movie, not giving full credit There was nothing predictable about this, clear up to the end we still don't know for sure where's Joey. Seeing the ultra violence might have led some reviewers to make a knee jerk reaction about the movie, not giving full credit to the complexity of this story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

EvanS.Mar 20, 2006

Richly layered character piece wrapped around brief bursts of action and violence. Sets up the viewer to root for the violence and then when it is all over graphically shows the mangled results to show audience just what it was rooting for. Richly layered character piece wrapped around brief bursts of action and violence. Sets up the viewer to root for the violence and then when it is all over graphically shows the mangled results to show audience just what it was rooting for. One of the best films of the year but don't go in expecting a Hollywood action movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

AlApr 23, 2006

A disturbing and emotionally arousing film. Not for the faint at heart. Ed Harris and William Hurt are delightfully perverse in a strangely honest way. Even though Mortensen's multiple-personality like transformations are not entirely A disturbing and emotionally arousing film. Not for the faint at heart. Ed Harris and William Hurt are delightfully perverse in a strangely honest way. Even though Mortensen's multiple-personality like transformations are not entirely convincing from a real world perspecitve, he does a very fine acting job.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

EvanSApr 26, 2006

"Ther are so many plot holes in this movie." I have seen this on all of these user reviews and i would like to say that there are NO plot holes. The movie is leaving us with questions we cant figure out. That's what makes it so good."Ther are so many plot holes in this movie." I have seen this on all of these user reviews and i would like to say that there are NO plot holes. The movie is leaving us with questions we cant figure out. That's what makes it so good. It's a --psychological--- movie. Duh! And now i dont understand why everyone is talking about the sex scenes, and how that it is uncomfortable. It has meaning to it. Both times they do it, it has meaning. Everybody is so simple minded and apathetic at really how this movie is executed. Damn good movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JohnBbartonMay 18, 2006

I see a lot of films and don't really like that many. This was, in my opinion, the best film of 2005. My business partners both have good taste in film, and both loved the film also. After seeing so many extremely negative viewerI see a lot of films and don't really like that many. This was, in my opinion, the best film of 2005. My business partners both have good taste in film, and both loved the film also. After seeing so many extremely negative viewer ratings on Metacritic, (although there are also many very positive) I decided to put it to the test by having my son in law watch the film. He has the absolutel worst taste in movie history. He loves everything really bad ( he saw40 First Dates 15 times!) and hates everything really good. ( walked out on Junebug and hated Matchpoint) I was very relieved to get his rating-he hated it! My film rating confidence is now fully restored. I'd like to hear what the amatuer reviewers who hated this film thought was a good film. War of the Worlds is probably on their top film list for 2005, and I'm sure they just love those fascinating and complex Steven Segal movies!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

RodericR.Jul 9, 2009

A very solid movie. Worth watching, well made, and despite a few minor flaws, holds your attention and makes you think. What I will *NEVER* understand is the people who give movies, especially ones like this that got multiple perfect ratings A very solid movie. Worth watching, well made, and despite a few minor flaws, holds your attention and makes you think. What I will *NEVER* understand is the people who give movies, especially ones like this that got multiple perfect ratings and was objectively *at the very least* a decent movie, a 0. There is no way this movie gets less than a 5 if you are being objective. It would take a hauntingly bad movie to get a 2 or 3, a 0 would mean I would rather have been beat up or my wallet stolen than see it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JaneA.Nov 19, 2005

A brilliiant depiction of the current socialised status that violent acts have in western communities. A triumph for Cronenberg and great work from his team.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

Rev.RikardNov 5, 2005

This movie is destined for Oscar nominations. The movie, in my opinion, offers the premise that the true history of violence lies somewhere deep in the human psyche. It is such a fundamental aspect of who we are that it is as basic to our This movie is destined for Oscar nominations. The movie, in my opinion, offers the premise that the true history of violence lies somewhere deep in the human psyche. It is such a fundamental aspect of who we are that it is as basic to our existence as sex, and so universal to the human condition that even a family can "accept it," its consequences and move on. The movie ties violence vividly to the instinctual reality of sexuality and its passion; especially as is revealed in the life of the teen son. Violence dwells within him but he chooses to remain a "virgin," not acting on its impulse for reasons of moral values and fear until "peer pressure" forces him to drop his defense mechanisms and beat the "alpha male" of at school to a pulp. Once he becomes … Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

dannyOct 17, 2005

I really dont understand the bad critism by some of the guys here . great movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

TracyB.Dec 21, 2005

Beautiful film- great acting by the leads.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

VincentV.Nov 18, 2005

I wouldn't listen to those who give it horrid reviews. The truth is, this was a great, well written film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

j30Nov 15, 2011

Fantastic performances all around, Viggo Mortensen is one of the best actors around today. There's no corny one-liners from the bad guys, it's all raw and violent. There's almost something poetic about it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

jsp41Dec 16, 2011

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is incredible. The sudden bursts of extreme violence, the acting, the raw sex scenes, everything is top notch. The story amazes, and the ending at the dinner table is one of the most tense and thrilling scenes I've ever witnessed.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

YoursTrulyJul 22, 2013

This is a top-notch film. It is paced very well and the story is great. I was continuously waiting for the next development to find exactly what was going on. Combine all of this with great acting and you've got something really good.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

RachelH.Oct 9, 2005

Great movie overall. The only thing I really questioned is the ending.....the plot twists were excellent, they kept you wondering the whole way through. Especially good performance by Mortensen.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JonD.May 6, 2006

This movie was really really good. It was very different which is probably why so many people give it such a low rating. its either a love it or hate it movie. Let me say one thing GRAPHIC NOVEL. The violence is over the top because of this This movie was really really good. It was very different which is probably why so many people give it such a low rating. its either a love it or hate it movie. Let me say one thing GRAPHIC NOVEL. The violence is over the top because of this have you seen other graphic novel movies? Sin City perhaps or maybe Road To Perdistion ... the violence is over the top for a reason. That is why some people dont understand it, because they dont know that its a graphic novel. The story is a little different as well and it probly wouldnt happen in real life but its not supposed to. Overall a very well done movie and most people will either love it or hate it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

megw.Oct 10, 2005

Liked it rather a lot, almost strangely so. Saw it last night and still musing on it. Very violent bloodshed interspersed with serious erotic moments, gorey but not mindlessly so. A couple of laughs, but definitely not a comedy-no idea where Liked it rather a lot, almost strangely so. Saw it last night and still musing on it. Very violent bloodshed interspersed with serious erotic moments, gorey but not mindlessly so. A couple of laughs, but definitely not a comedy-no idea where people got that impression- and not one to take the kids to, least not smallish kids, older teens maybe, if you're comfortable with them viewing blood and sex. Not terribly predictable, enough twists and turns, done without beating one over the head with some moral perspective, which is refreshing. Worthwhile, different, not for the squeamish or easily offended.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JonziOct 12, 2005

To appreciate this movie you must view it as part of the revisionist western genre like Peckipah or the "urban revenge" movies like Dirty Harry. Lacking in humanity, cold and certainly doing nothing for Cronenbergs feminism credentials - I loved it!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

russw.Oct 3, 2005

Gripping at times, very entertaining.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

MichaelS.Jan 3, 2006

A gripping comment on the subversive power of violence. A film that hangs the negative results out to dry along with the emotional sympathy generated by Tom/Joey. This is a must see for our adult generation.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

BarryW.Mar 31, 2006

Great Story. Fight scenes are nice and violent and a great performance from vigo.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

LeeG.Oct 10, 2005

Well, this film was not great the first time you watch it, in fact it is awful, that is, if you go in watching it not having know anything about it in the first place! However, apon watching it again, and reading directors and producers Well, this film was not great the first time you watch it, in fact it is awful, that is, if you go in watching it not having know anything about it in the first place! However, apon watching it again, and reading directors and producers notes, i must say this film is one to watch. It can be very easily misunderstood, but it is, and will be for a long time, a masterclass at showing the hidden secrets in everybody - and not just the violent past of this ex-mobster. It wasn't perfect by a long way, for example the girl they used as viggo mortensen's daughter was terrible, and the son had his moments of good acting - but they were few and fair! It was horrifically violent, but then that was kind of the point of the film too! See it, but maybe see it twice before commenting!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

PatridiaG.Oct 17, 2005

I'm usually one who canno watch a violent movie; however, even tho 13 paople meeet grisley deaths, the acting in this movie kept me glued to my seat. The tension was palpable and I loved the non-hollywood ending. You are allowed to make I'm usually one who canno watch a violent movie; however, even tho 13 paople meeet grisley deaths, the acting in this movie kept me glued to my seat. The tension was palpable and I loved the non-hollywood ending. You are allowed to make up ;y;our own or realize that life goes on and doesn't end with the credits of a film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

sMOct 9, 2005

Very similar to the Coen bros.' "Blood Simple". Not as good.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JohnB.Sep 29, 2005

Fine acting. Cronenberg both gets under the skin and forces viewers to think a bit more than most films. Unnecessarily graphic but worth the price of admission. Wonderful side characters and superb performance by Mortenson. Plot a bit thin.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

JoshCNov 20, 2006

Wow! I am shocked at how many people hated this movie. I do think the film was slighty overrated by the critics, however it's still a very good film.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

2roadsJan 24, 2006

Excellent movie and not to be missed as it has an accurate statement to be made in the father son relationship. David Letterman was right, it grabs the audience and won't let you go...then resonates afterward.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

ChazG.Mar 17, 2006

A history of violence hits hard at the climactic scenes. The film also gives a decent character analysis and demonstrates how an individual can change. Overall a good movie.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

DavidT.Mar 19, 2006

Its amazing how so many people just dont get it - yet they appear to be quite articulate and perceptive from the quality of their writing. A Western dressed up as a small town thriller. Over the Top but delightful performances from Ed HArris Its amazing how so many people just dont get it - yet they appear to be quite articulate and perceptive from the quality of their writing. A Western dressed up as a small town thriller. Over the Top but delightful performances from Ed HArris and William Hurt. Viggo demonstrates that he remains a moderately skilled actor but in so many ways its hard to imagine anyone else playing the part. He had this effect in he LOTR Trilogy. This is a fun romp with some seriously tense moments.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

IgnatzM.Apr 5, 2006

The most incredible and shocking aspect of this movie is its ability to dredge up individuals whose only pleasure in viewing the film is their thrill in the violence. I would not suggest this movie to everyone looking for something to watch, The most incredible and shocking aspect of this movie is its ability to dredge up individuals whose only pleasure in viewing the film is their thrill in the violence. I would not suggest this movie to everyone looking for something to watch, but it was well executed and good at what it is, which is a visceral action movie about a man who is very hard to kill, very good at killing, and weary with both. I would first suggest Straw Dogs for a film about a man pushed to viciousness, or The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance for an exercise in misplaced hero worship, but this movie does well enough to rate close to these movies in whatever list might exist in the minds of those who care. You know who you are.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

S.PackardMay 5, 2006

Is Pulp Fiction, or Terminator great for it

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

RussellS.Mar 21, 2006

A blistering, Jekyll & Hyde self-examination into the duality and casual savagery that permeates every aspect of life in the good ole' USA. Not to make a mockery of our day-to-day, but bring into closer view those ties that bind can A blistering, Jekyll & Hyde self-examination into the duality and casual savagery that permeates every aspect of life in the good ole' USA. Not to make a mockery of our day-to-day, but bring into closer view those ties that bind can also explode in happenstance. The enemy and terror is not some turbaned, robed desert ghost, but we in our permissive tolerance of weapons and their use as the necessary tools of the layman.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

tonyGreenJul 15, 2011

The Cronenberg trademark gore SFX are here, but so too is a great drama, characters and a story. If it kicks off feeling a little too made-for-TV (a little too saccharine on the domestic bliss angle?) , it pays off later in the adrenalineThe Cronenberg trademark gore SFX are here, but so too is a great drama, characters and a story. If it kicks off feeling a little too made-for-TV (a little too saccharine on the domestic bliss angle?) , it pays off later in the adrenaline rush of sudden, brutal realistic violence.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

beingryanjudeAug 25, 2014

A History of Violence is raw and compelling. This film will make you question everything, absolutely everything. And for good reason. By the end, you'll understand why Viggo Mortensen is much more than Aragorn.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

SpangleJul 25, 2014

This one is definitely a slow burner, but the pay off is great and as a film, it is certainly something to marvel at. Firstly, the direction from David Cronenberg is great and as this was the first film of his I have seen, it certainly makesThis one is definitely a slow burner, but the pay off is great and as a film, it is certainly something to marvel at. Firstly, the direction from David Cronenberg is great and as this was the first film of his I have seen, it certainly makes me want to continue going through his filmography. In terms of acting, Viggo Mortensen is great, as are Ed Harris and Maria Bello. The only actor whose performance was iffy was Ashton Holmes as Mortensen's son. He struggles at times, especially when on screen with heavyweights like Mortensen and Harris. In addition, the film is filled with tension. The film may be a slow burner and all, but once it kicks into high gear, things are very interesting thanks to these very well developed characters and their interpersonal relationships. While at the end of the day, this is a movie, everything felt very authentic and you really believed these people were who they said they were thanks to great writing, acting, and direction. The film has a smalltown feel as well, which is awesome. The violence is a tad graphic, but it never feels like it is too much, which is also a big plus for me personally. Overall, A History of Violence is a good film that really highlights what a thriller should be like.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

Compi24Mar 29, 2014

While exploring richly thematic ideas of harm, family, and the troubled past, David Cronenberg and the case of "A History Of Violence" ultimately craft a fantastically thought-provoking and thoroughly intriguing thriller.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

ReelViewsJun 14, 2015

David Cronenberg, the director of such films as Dead Ringers and The Fly, has a reputation for being a little "out there." It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that his latest, A History of Violence, is almost mainstream in the wayDavid Cronenberg, the director of such films as Dead Ringers and The Fly, has a reputation for being a little "out there." It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that his latest, A History of Violence, is almost mainstream in the way it tells a linear story and curtails freaky images. The movie, which is at its heart a meditation upon the meaning of identity, is not perfect. Although there's little wrong with the first two-thirds, A History of Violence slides onto a tangential path during its final act, and this misstep reduces the production's overall effectiveness. Nevertheless, there's a lot to admire here.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a model citizen, ideal father, and loving husband. His two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes), trust him, and his wife, Edie (Maria Bello), adores him. The fun hasn't gone out of their marriage, as Edie proves when she dons a cheerleader outfit to seduce Tom. One evening, while Tom is working behind the counter at his diner, two thugs come in with rape and robbery on their minds. After a brief struggle, Tom gets the gun away from one of the robbers and uses it to dispatch both intruders. He is hailed as a hero, and there is blanket news coverage. And it's on TV that Carl Fogaty (Ed Harris) sees a familiar face. Based on the evidence of his eyes, the man who calls himself Tom Stall is actually Joey Cusack, an ex-killer from Philadelphia. So, with henchmen in tow, Carl heads for the town of Millbrook, Indiana.

Central to the film's success is the uncertainty about Tom's past. When confronted by Carl, he not only denies being Joey, but claims to have never been in Philadelphia. Neither the script nor Viggo Mortensen gives us a clue whether Tom and Joey are the same person, or whether Tom is the victim of an unfortunate coincidence. As the Stalls must deal with the new, dangerous presence in their life, they must grapple with questions of identity. What makes each of us who we are? Is it our face, or something deep within?

Cronenberg weaves a spell for over an hour, but he proves unable to sustain it for the entire running length. The need for a conventional resolution pulls him off course during the movie's final third. Some of the most interesting characters and relationships are taken off the screen to allow A History of Violence to move in a different direction. Since the screenplay is based on a graphic novel, I suspect that the filmmakers may have had little choice about the trajectory.

The children have their own mini-stories as well. Sarah is afraid of monsters in her closet, and is comforted by her father (who says there are no monsters) and brother (who asserts that monsters are afraid of the light). Meanwhile, Jack has problems with a school bully. At first, he backs down but, in the wake of his father's "heroic" actions at the diner, he decides that confrontation may be the better course of action. Has the wimp become an avenger? Once again, it comes back to a question of identity.

Mortensen finds the perfect pitch for Tom. In this performance, we see a good, simple man who cares about his family and community. But we also see hints of something else - a darker, more decisive personality. During the film's first hour, I changed my mind several times about whether Tom was Joey, and a lot of that had to do with the way Mortensen plays the role. Opposite him, Maria Bello is a firecracker, the kind of actress who draws the camera's attention. Not since The Cooler has she been given this juicy and demanding a part. And, as the villain, Ed Harris is nothing short of despicable.

A History of Violence can be seen as a thriller, but in many ways it works best during its quieter moments. As the title indicates, this is not a sedate art film. It contains moments of sharp, vicious mayhem and there is a body count. But the strength of the movie lies in its psychological complexity and depth. And, while I wasn't enthused about where A History of Violence takes the audience during its waning moments, it at least offers a sense of closure, and, in the final scene, hope. Left unresolved, however, is the perhaps unanswerable question about whether the nature and identity of a person are fixed or fluid.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

kyle20ellisMar 29, 2022

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 orDavid 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.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

8

EpicLadySpongeMar 6, 2016

What's this? The last feature film made by Hollywood to be released on VHS? RIP - VHS'es. No longer relevant after 2006. A History of Violence is seriously one of those violent movies that actually works.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

timoneJun 6, 2019

A History of Violence has had it's aspects when it comes to body horror by David Cronenberg which does not have anything to do with body horror. It's based on the graphic novel. So when I had heard about A History of Violence, I've heard thatA History of Violence has had it's aspects when it comes to body horror by David Cronenberg which does not have anything to do with body horror. It's based on the graphic novel. So when I had heard about A History of Violence, I've heard that it's going to be violent and yeah, I was right. It had some violent scenes that are bloody and will keep you on a big impact. Viggo Mortensen plays an diner owner, Tom Stall, who lives with his wife and kids in the small town of Millbrook, Indiana. One night, two robbers attempt to rob the restaurant but Tom saves the day by killing them in self-defense. After this, Tom is at hospital while the news went worldwide making him a hero. Then the next day, Carl Fogarty played by Ed Harris visits Tom in the diner calling him Joey Cusack who Tom says he's never been to Philadelphia so now Fogarty stalks the Stall family and he'll kill him if he doesn't come back to Philadelphia with him. When it comes to David Cronenberg when he is known for making body horror flicks about changing bodies, this one is not about that. Actually, that reminds me. I saw a deleted scene which is known as "Scene 44" for some bizarre reason which features a dream sequence in the diner, where Fogarty tells Tom he will kill him and his family which leads him to kill him with a shotgun and then he shoots back. While the director was amused by the idea he then rejects by leaving it out of the movie. I enjoyed this film even if it's not your typical film by David Cronenberg. I like the acting in this which is something that grabbed your attention. Viggo Mortenson and the other cast did good. Viggo's character is a regular guy who used to kill people back in Philadephia and now goes on with his life and doesn't want his wife and kids to know about his past. He's a great character who knows what he's doing and living his normal life. William Hurt is also great in this but he's only in the film for eight minutes considering that he was nominated for an Academy Award. And the ending just leaves you in emotion where it's all silent when Tom returns home. If you haven't heard of this movie or won't understand what it is about then I suggest you check it out and then you will understand it. Give it a try.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

daviddelnorte23Apr 12, 2017

Esta película me parece maravillosa. La presentación tanto de todos los personajes como de la trama y como hacen que todo encaje en un mismo punto es genial. Aunque cuando parece que la película se va a estancar y necesita un empujón, loEsta película me parece maravillosa. La presentación tanto de todos los personajes como de la trama y como hacen que todo encaje en un mismo punto es genial. Aunque cuando parece que la película se va a estancar y necesita un empujón, lo tiene con un espectacular giro de guión. A partir de ese momento parece que va a caer, pero se mantiene bien hasta el final. Y es que ese es otro de sus puntos fuertes, lo rápido que llega el final. Indicando que está bien escrita y muy BIEN montada, lo que hace que tenga un gran ritmo toda la película.

Los personajes están bien construidos y te crees que los protagonistas son una familia. Muy interesante el personaje de Viggo Mortensen e interpretado de manera sensacional. Mención aparte para la valentía de la mujer del protagonista. Ole.

Otro de los puntos fuertes de la película reside para mí, en la crudeza de las imágenes en la mayoría de las ocasiones. Una cámara que no rehuye de nada, ni de las consecuencias de la violencia ni se priva de mostrar las escenas de sexo, como si de una serie de la HBO se tratase.

En resumen, película fácil y rápido de ver pero no por ello menos buena. Todo lo contrario. Me ha dejado muy satisfecho y con un final muy 'agridulce' que la eleva más si cabe como una propuesta valiente. Genial. Un PEDAZO de 8.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

8

amheretojudgeSep 17, 2018

mannerism foliates its space and crowdedness equally..

A History Of Violence A History Of Violence is a character driven dramatic thriller about a guy whose hidden past haunts him back to his family after he leaves his street credit behind.mannerism foliates its space and crowdedness equally..

A History Of Violence A History Of Violence is a character driven dramatic thriller about a guy whose hidden past haunts him back to his family after he leaves his street credit behind. The feature is surprisingly fast and utterly exhilarating to the core with its street ruggedness and raw brutality that grounds this stunning craft. The range of its narrative is fascinatingly wide and it excels on each peak moments that it dares to achieve. It is sharply calm with a jagged script behind the screen that is slowly ticking along with it which when hits its allotted frame, it explodes emotionally that leave an everlasting impact on you. The background score is decent, the sound effects are sharp and aptly loud, the art designing may not be in its A game, the cinematography is stunning and so is its fine editing. Despite of resonating tremendously with practicality, it glorifies its malleable mythological characters with such panache that leaves the audience in an awe of it. Mortensen is poised, reserved and profoundly calm in its horrifying portrayal with Harris supporting convincingly as always and Hurt giving some of his career's best work in here. Olsen's adaptation tells a compelling gritty tale whose mannerism foliates its space and crowdedness equally. And armed with a script as such Cronenberg executes the anticipated vision on screen with his finesse and a bit of pepper added in it, that makes it raunchy. The short screenplay enfolding characters and eye popping decisions which is also justifying to the core as much as entertaining it is, along with a stellar performances by a cast of such caliber are the high points of the feature. A History Of Violence has a plethora of emotional distress in here to keep the tense environment alive among the characters and the hook that binds them all.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

FedericoSierraMar 26, 2019

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Cronenberg presents us a genuinely lovable guy with a very peaceful life; this serves to allows us to sympathize with Dr Jeckyl before we get to meet Mr Hyde.
Once Tom's past comes into light we judge him for his actions instead of his intentions. Violence begets violence, and Tom's history of burying his past to reinvent himself in order to break away from this vicious cycle might be the most heroic aspect of this complex character.
But violence, regardless of the motive, is violence nonetheless. The real question we should ask ourselves after watching this tale of the American dream is:
can violence be forgiven?… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

8

Exigent93Jun 4, 2021

$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,$,
●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》●》

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

7

LingX.Oct 6, 2005

A walking teapot that boiled and went on a killing spree. that's just about it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

SebaD.Feb 1, 2006

well done Maria Bello, beautiful performance you did. Now tell me if there s someone who really believe that Mortenesen was like "the carmelita descalza"?

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MarkB.Oct 15, 2005

Despite the cold, clinical feel that David Cronenberg often brings to his horror and other films (and a similar reputation that he seems to enjoy cultivating in print), his best work includes a large dose of humanity to drive home his rather Despite the cold, clinical feel that David Cronenberg often brings to his horror and other films (and a similar reputation that he seems to enjoy cultivating in print), his best work includes a large dose of humanity to drive home his rather morose scientific themes and obsessions in ways that his more distanced work (Dead Ringers, eXistenZ, Spider) can't always do no matter how creepily fascinating or technically accomplished it may be. His adaptation of Stephen King's The Dead Zone has as much loss, poignancy and heartbreak as any movie made in the last 25 years; his all-time masterpiece The Fly wouldn't be nearly so resonant if it weren't as much a tragic romance as a gross-out horror classic. Not surprisingly, these two were his biggest box-office hits ever, and A History of Violence, which effectively jettisons the supernatural or science fiction elements while still dealing with many of Cronenberg's pet concerns, looks to join them. Small town family man and business owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) gets into more than he expected when he violently but understandably derails an attempt to rob his diner; nationwide notoriety, reporters and gangsters appear to threaten his perfect family life and maybe expose some less-than-savory truths that he'd vastly prefer remain submerged. (It's tough to discuss a film like this without tiptoeing into spoiler territory; on the other hand, if you've seen the trailer, you can probably guess the difference between a potential full-length movie and a 15-minute short subject.) Much of Cronenberg's previous work has dealt with, as a major theme or a subplot, parasitic invasive physical or mental forces that take over, dominate and often destroy their hosts; in Tom's case, said unwelcome elements could have been there all along, which is why I was less moved by his situation than that of his gentle, sensitive high-school son Jack (affectingly played by Ashton Holmes), who may or may not have inherited certain violent tendencies that he neither chose nor wants to have. Despite gripping (and often funny) supporting performances from Ed Harris, William Hurt, Maria Bello as Tom's wife (three cheers and an 'amen' for actresses who don't place any limitations on the sexual demands of the scripts they want to do!) and especially Mortensen himself, in a fascinating, career-redefining, coiled-spring performance that lends real ambiguity and danger to even the movie's early scenes, this effort is perhaps too linear and straightforward to fully engage Cronenberg's most devoted followers or to inspire repeat viewings as readily as his best mainstream work. But there's still plenty to absorb, appreciate and admire, although I have a feeling that the biggest discussion and debate--both among the film's surviving principal characters AND its audience--will inevitably occur after the closing credits have rolled. And it's impossible for me NOT to respect a film that questions the basic ethos of the action-film resumes of Charles Bronson, Steven Seagal, Jean-Claude Van Damme and pre-1980 Clint Eastwood by asking whether the so-called heroes of these films prevail because they have the forces of good and right on their side--or maybe because they're just a little bit better and more skillful at marshalling the forces of bad and wrong?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JudyT.Sep 30, 2005

Undecided whether or not I really liked this movie, but the acting elevated the predictable story. It's an incomplete movie with an unsatisfying ending.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

JordanM.Mar 21, 2006

Man, narrowmindedness is a bad thing. But as always, some people hate things and some people love things. This movie, i felt was a much needed break from the norm of films today with a realistic feel and a great plot that made you interested Man, narrowmindedness is a bad thing. But as always, some people hate things and some people love things. This movie, i felt was a much needed break from the norm of films today with a realistic feel and a great plot that made you interested in all the character's thoughts. Although the shootout scenes are short, they are VERY satisfying. Also, the ending is a bit unsatisfying, some apologies were in order from him.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

NK.Apr 19, 2008

Absorbing and well made. I agree with critic, it do agree with some critic it does not add any great understanding. I guess my expectations were incorrect.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

HenryM.Oct 7, 2005

This is movie is not for children. As far as adults are concerned, it has plenty of gore and several sex scenes that made everyone in the theater feel shy about. This movie is an entertaining movie but during the second act of the movie This is movie is not for children. As far as adults are concerned, it has plenty of gore and several sex scenes that made everyone in the theater feel shy about. This movie is an entertaining movie but during the second act of the movie several scenes take place that lead the audience to believe the movie is coming to an end. Because of this the final act seemed anti-climatic. When we left we were not sure if we liked the movie or not. We felt unsatisfied if you will. Nevertheless, it was entertaining.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

MarcK.Oct 8, 2005

Very interesting and unique, and probably one of the Year's Best 10, although this has been one of the most horrendous years for hoping to watch good movies. Ed Harris is great as always, but am clueless as to why people are raving Very interesting and unique, and probably one of the Year's Best 10, although this has been one of the most horrendous years for hoping to watch good movies. Ed Harris is great as always, but am clueless as to why people are raving about William Hurt. His scenes seemed like an add-on...I would have ended the film before his call. Also, if you're going to put a William Hurt in at the end, don't run the cast stars until the end of the picture. You know William Hurt is going to be in the picture, so you know the film can't be ending until he appears.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

KarryD.Jan 17, 2006

Nice concept, well acted (by the leads anyway), but pourly executed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

HalB.Dec 31, 2006

Wow, I guess a lot of recent "users"/viewers of this film just didn't get it. It's a pretty good film, and actually quite subversive in that it will appeal to many as a revenge/action film, yet is obviously making an extremely Wow, I guess a lot of recent "users"/viewers of this film just didn't get it. It's a pretty good film, and actually quite subversive in that it will appeal to many as a revenge/action film, yet is obviously making an extremely valid comment about our culture's obsession with, and championing of, violence. Viggo M, Ed Harris and William H are outstanding. I agree that maybe it's been overly praised, but it's still quite a good film. As with most forms of art and entertainment, some people just don't get it. And as always: there's just no accounting for some peoples' tastes!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

KouroshA.Feb 15, 2006

It had an unusual story which made it somewhat unpredictable and interesting, but the action and acting was not all too gripping.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

KebbieB.Oct 14, 2005

An interesting movie and well-acted but nothing particulalry creative. Also quite implausible when you consider a guy out of the killing business for over 20 years is so effective against professional killers. I do agree with the critics An interesting movie and well-acted but nothing particulalry creative. Also quite implausible when you consider a guy out of the killing business for over 20 years is so effective against professional killers. I do agree with the critics that William Hurt was particularly good in this movie.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

7

CalibMcBoltsMay 30, 2016

David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' starts off slowly, then changes into a brilliant sprinting marathon, but tumbles before the finish line. That's the best i could describe this film. The beginning is slow, the middle is trulyDavid Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' starts off slowly, then changes into a brilliant sprinting marathon, but tumbles before the finish line. That's the best i could describe this film. The beginning is slow, the middle is truly incredible, but the third act (after a certain turning point, i wont say which, but anyone who's seen the film knows what i'm talking about) falls falt on it's ass, and it loses all of its momentum which is such a disappointment, if the ending kept the same momentum as the first and second act, it would've totally been a 5/5 star movie.

As for the writing. I feel like it's a script written by the Coen brothers, but they had to hand it over to a serious director who doesnt like comedy so he deleted all of the light moments from the script to make a serious thriller. That's basically what it is, and it's remarkable. Also for a movie directed by David Cronenberg, this movie is surprisingly easy to watch without crazy disgusting imagery or practical effects, it's a pretty straight forward film which was interesting to see. The movie does have lots of explicit violence and 2 sex scenes, but you need to see something of Cronenberg's style in this film.

Except for the disappointing third act, David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' truly is a remarkable thriller. (The slow build up is dismissive)… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

Onlyclassicvg1Jan 23, 2021

C'mon people - METAPHOR! The look of the film, the performances and the story play with/twist standardized forms from the inside out. Its supposed to feel awkward and stilted, that's the idea! The film can feel uncomfortable to

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

KCOct 3, 2005

The bad acting, unbelievable circumstances, strange soundstage work, and predictable story make this just a watered down Cronenberg flick without anything strange to keep it interesting. Cronenberg's flicks often play out like a series The bad acting, unbelievable circumstances, strange soundstage work, and predictable story make this just a watered down Cronenberg flick without anything strange to keep it interesting. Cronenberg's flicks often play out like a series of disjointed events, and this one is no different. Too bad that style doesn't play to this type of movie as it does to the excellent (and disturbing) Dead Ringers. I actually winced at the bad acting in "A History of Violence".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JoeyT.Mar 20, 2006

Because of the rave reviews by the critics I was expecting more. The movie is entertaining but had little to offer in the way of story. The acting is good but you won't be moved by any of the performances. All in all I was midly dissapointed.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

GlenFOct 2, 2005

The violence is fun but the acting is laughable at times. Very surprised at the praise this movie recieved. It's also very predictable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

Chuck76Sep 27, 2005

I'm really surprised at the ratings this film is getting, I thought the acting was terrible at times and the plot as thin a cigarette paper. One of thoses movies you'll look back on and think "it wasn't that good actually". I'm really surprised at the ratings this film is getting, I thought the acting was terrible at times and the plot as thin a cigarette paper. One of thoses movies you'll look back on and think "it wasn't that good actually". Very average.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ErwinK.Apr 20, 2006

Overrated. I agree with most of the previous user comments. It is well acted and directed, but the story is weak. There is one plot twist near the beginning, which is already given away in the title of the movie anyway. And that's about Overrated. I agree with most of the previous user comments. It is well acted and directed, but the story is weak. There is one plot twist near the beginning, which is already given away in the title of the movie anyway. And that's about it. There is no pay-off of another plot twist at the end of the movie. That's it. Nothing special.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

AtkinsonOct 17, 2005

Spot on design, well shot and adequate to good performances, but the movie never sold me on the characters' internal conflict. Going into the movie, I didn't know much at all about the plot. But after the initial confrontation in Spot on design, well shot and adequate to good performances, but the movie never sold me on the characters' internal conflict. Going into the movie, I didn't know much at all about the plot. But after the initial confrontation in the diner, I could see the path laid out before us; Tom was going to have to confront the past he tried so hard to put behind him; his wife would reluctantly succumb to the love for the man he'd become; and his teenage son would rebell but ultimately respect his father for what he had to do. In all, the plot seemed too contrived with the stereotypical conflicts you would expect from a past-that's-come-back-to-haunt-you story.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

MichaelD.Oct 2, 2005

Hugely overblown. It has a great story but it develops far too quickly and nonsensically. Nothing is natural or real in the dialogue. Cliches abound. I believe it tries to be too many things. For example, it seems like an unhappy marriage of Hugely overblown. It has a great story but it develops far too quickly and nonsensically. Nothing is natural or real in the dialogue. Cliches abound. I believe it tries to be too many things. For example, it seems like an unhappy marriage of an earthly thriller and a "Kill Bill"-style thriller, that leaves you feeling detached from either aspect. Still, interesting and worth the rental.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

ClintM.Mar 25, 2006

Not a bad movie by any means and definitely interesting to watch, but still wasn't quite all that I had hoped or expected.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

PatC.Jun 30, 2006

Slow to develop, builds up steam, then fades away spent. Some interesting subtleties, but mostly unsatisfying.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

JustinK.Jan 29, 2006

Another overrated films. It's good, but great--No. Not worthy of any Oscar recognition in any categories other than Maria Bello for her wonderful performance.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

DanC.Mar 16, 2006

Unsatisfying and strange, at times the writing, dialogue, and even acting are weak. I'm a fan of all the main actors and expected to really like this film, but instead found it off-putting and so peculiar that I had trouble becoming Unsatisfying and strange, at times the writing, dialogue, and even acting are weak. I'm a fan of all the main actors and expected to really like this film, but instead found it off-putting and so peculiar that I had trouble becoming emotionally involved in what should have been a very compelling story. Much of what the main character does in reaction to events makes little sense. The son is badly miscast (not because he's a bad actor, but because he's too tall and obviously athletic to be the target of a high school bully in the real world). The professional critics seem to all love this one, but based on the overall user rating, it doesn't work nearly as well for real filmgoers. I agree.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

LK.Apr 11, 2008

This movie kept me entertained, yet it was predictable and had little message. The acting was good, the plot nothing special.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

6

TokyochuchuJan 6, 2013

A History of Violence has it's plus points (a good story, some cool over-the-top murder action and some kinky sex) but they're offset by some ham-fisted scripting, flat direction and too many sub-plots that don't come together. The movie endsA History of Violence has it's plus points (a good story, some cool over-the-top murder action and some kinky sex) but they're offset by some ham-fisted scripting, flat direction and too many sub-plots that don't come together. The movie ends up being decent entertainment but still feels somewhat half-baked.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

imthenoobNov 9, 2016

The run time is rather short and doesn't offer much dialogue nor real plot progression. We see it visually advance in the plot but we don't really experience it. I think it could have been a much deeper film if that add a bit of dialogue andThe run time is rather short and doesn't offer much dialogue nor real plot progression. We see it visually advance in the plot but we don't really experience it. I think it could have been a much deeper film if that add a bit of dialogue and really explored the characters, Who could have been very compelling. I mean this is a family who is finding out that their father/husband isn't who he says he is and it shatters the mold of the perfect small town family that they built through out their lives.

I also think it wastes a very talented cast and doesn't really make much use of it them as well. Harris is always fun to watch and I loved Mortensen as the lead. Maria Bello is solid as well. Yet again they don't really make sure of them. All in all it's not a terrible movie but there's a lot of wasted potential.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

Trev29Jul 19, 2013

I wonder how a movie can go from suspenseful and absorbing to seemingly worthless and uneventful. By the end, the storyline was pathetically simplistic. I hated the ending. It was as if everything that kept me entertained disappeared and wasI wonder how a movie can go from suspenseful and absorbing to seemingly worthless and uneventful. By the end, the storyline was pathetically simplistic. I hated the ending. It was as if everything that kept me entertained disappeared and was replaced by some peculiar straightforward garbage. However, that shouldn't diminish the fact that the majority of the film was very solid.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

bigjon1958Jul 24, 2015

Great start to the movie through the first hour and then the last 30 minutes got kind of wacky and the personality of the main character did a 180. Overall a good movie, but surprised the critics rated it so highly.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

SowarAug 7, 2023

Incredibly overrated. The dialogue is so corny and the acting is ordinary. The character development is poor and there are plot holes aplenty.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

MarcR.Oct 1, 2005

I don't get to the theater as much anymore, but when I do I want my precious time, not to mention almost ten bucks a ticket, to be worth it. So I check out what the critics and others are saying and try to give the pros their respect I don't get to the theater as much anymore, but when I do I want my precious time, not to mention almost ten bucks a ticket, to be worth it. So I check out what the critics and others are saying and try to give the pros their respect and the benefit of the doubt. But every time I pass up a movie rated poorly for one that is critically acclaimed I wind up sitting there wishing I went to see the movie all the critics panned. This movie was slow, unevenly directed, cinematically washed out, predictable and ultimately not very entertaining. Next time I go to the movies I'm going to skip the due diligence and ignore the critics until after I've seen it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and get my money's worth.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

KristinaE.Oct 2, 2005

Bad. Boring. Repetitve. Bland. Unconvincing. Comic book and dramatic script at wrong times. Emotions were toyed with. Very drawn out, contained not much more than an exact replica of the trailer. Funny, to the point W.Hurt = A.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RobT.Oct 3, 2005

The story was not very interesting especially once the plot unfolded. Ed Harris, William Hurt, and Mario Bello did a great job acting; the others were below average probably due to the inconsistency of how their characters developed. Final The story was not very interesting especially once the plot unfolded. Ed Harris, William Hurt, and Mario Bello did a great job acting; the others were below average probably due to the inconsistency of how their characters developed. Final thought: A disappointing film that was loaded with potential.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

PhilMOct 9, 2005

It was OK. Entertaining but not the "great" movie the critics make it out to be. A little predictable and light on substance. More of a renter, don't pay full price to see it.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

rostokovaOct 10, 2005

A History of Violence is a simple film whos deadpan delivery, extreme violence and sexual aggression have elevated its critical status. The setup is simple and tailored to character development rather than narrative revelation, yet little A History of Violence is a simple film whos deadpan delivery, extreme violence and sexual aggression have elevated its critical status. The setup is simple and tailored to character development rather than narrative revelation, yet little depth in character is accrued during the film's course. Despite a fine performance by Viggo Mortensen, the script is far too spare in its treatment of his character, and lacks the psychogical tension and unease of Cronenberg's excellent Dead Ringers. The central implication that man can't change his nature, only suppress it, is explored superficially and mostly for gratification. Equally the ending's suggestion that violence may often be integral to the creation of the American dream is certainly subversive, but warrants further examination, rather than genre neatness. Blue Velvet also showed there was something dark beyond the picket fence; but it was assured, poetic and contained a subconscious as well as visceral threat. In comparison 'History' seems slight and hollow, its deadpan, off-beat delivery just a distraction from its vacuity.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JohnSOct 5, 2005

I have come to trust the MetaCritic Ratings as amazingly reliable. But I have to say that this movie, while entertaining, was flawed on so many levels. The formula that it was trying to achieve was very transparent, but it only occasionally I have come to trust the MetaCritic Ratings as amazingly reliable. But I have to say that this movie, while entertaining, was flawed on so many levels. The formula that it was trying to achieve was very transparent, but it only occasionally succeed at making it work. Watch it from the perspective of the relationships. Few of them had any authenticity to them at all. Watch it from the perspective of logic, a guy who has committed himself to a new life is not going to put his life in danger like that. The movie almost counts on viewers assuming that people actually think and act like they do on TV to make it work. Well crafted, but hollow and contrived.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

TonyB.Aug 1, 2006

This often extremely slow-moving and sometimes outright boring film has to be one of the more overrated ones of 2005. Its excellent acting by all concerned is its only significant merit. Despite the gushing of many critics who should knowThis often extremely slow-moving and sometimes outright boring film has to be one of the more overrated ones of 2005. Its excellent acting by all concerned is its only significant merit. Despite the gushing of many critics who should know better, there is definitely less here than meets the eye.

P.S. I wish Ruth R would share with us the tiny innuendo that obviously had such a great effect on her.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SusanM.Oct 11, 2005

I am disappointed in this movie...I thought I was really going to like it but actually it didn't move me at all. I don't HATE it, and I don't LOVE it. It was just another movie, forgettable at best. I give it a 5 because I am disappointed in this movie...I thought I was really going to like it but actually it didn't move me at all. I don't HATE it, and I don't LOVE it. It was just another movie, forgettable at best. I give it a 5 because that's a very neutral score and I am feeling very neutral about it.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

DanT.Oct 13, 2005

I'm a huge Cronenberg fan. I've enjoyed multiple viewings of all his films, but this time . . . The plot line does not serve the film's own themes. Cronenberg in interviews point to 3 ways to read "history of violence" : "(1) I'm a huge Cronenberg fan. I've enjoyed multiple viewings of all his films, but this time . . . The plot line does not serve the film's own themes. Cronenberg in interviews point to 3 ways to read "history of violence" : "(1) a man with a long history of violence; (2) the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and (3) the innate violence of Darwinian evolution." This is great, but I didn't see this film as the most effective way to explore these themes. --- And William Hurt sucked.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

TbushNov 6, 2005

I really wanted to like this movie more than I did...HONEST! It just didn't generate much in the way of excitement and was pretty predictable after about the first ten minutes. The characters were flat and unlikeable and, while I do I really wanted to like this movie more than I did...HONEST! It just didn't generate much in the way of excitement and was pretty predictable after about the first ten minutes. The characters were flat and unlikeable and, while I do enjoy a little boobage now and again, the sex scenes were more than a little stomach churning. I give it a '5' which I think is pretty fair.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

AlexOct 20, 2005

This movie does have so much potential. The plot was very slow to develop and in the end it seemed lacking. They could have done soo much more with it; some flashbacks or something, please! It did have some really good fight scenes, but they This movie does have so much potential. The plot was very slow to develop and in the end it seemed lacking. They could have done soo much more with it; some flashbacks or something, please! It did have some really good fight scenes, but they were too few and far between. It has some good acting, and some very interesting characters, despite being severly underdeveloped. The weakest character being the high school "bully". I would not call this a "bad" movie, although its miles away from a "good" movie. Dont waste your time going to the theaters, catch it on DVD.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JulienC.Oct 23, 2005

Very disappointing, I just love Viggo and I can't believe he is part of this flat story. I was expecting a real interesting story about our society's issues and it turns into a hollywood recipe... don't go thiere if you like Very disappointing, I just love Viggo and I can't believe he is part of this flat story. I was expecting a real interesting story about our society's issues and it turns into a hollywood recipe... don't go thiere if you like smart movies.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

MartinX.Oct 3, 2005

Interesting premise, but a huge disappointment. The themes and questions that arise are not dealt with in any substantive way. While many scenes are vibrant, many others seem plucked from an after school special. The teenagers are laughably Interesting premise, but a huge disappointment. The themes and questions that arise are not dealt with in any substantive way. While many scenes are vibrant, many others seem plucked from an after school special. The teenagers are laughably bad. Has Cronenberg been to a high school recently? Ever? Cronenberg has demonstrated a perverse sense of humor in teh past. I can't help but wonder if he's secretly laughing at people who take this film seriously.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

JohnL.Oct 3, 2005

This clunky script is much ado about nothing. The themes aren't explored at all. The pacing is uneven and the villains are inept and silly. Was Maria Bello's character supposed to be an attorney? Sure didn't act with much This clunky script is much ado about nothing. The themes aren't explored at all. The pacing is uneven and the villains are inept and silly. Was Maria Bello's character supposed to be an attorney? Sure didn't act with much wisdom or decisiveness. And the teenaged son's subplot was laughably cliche and contrived. This film reminded me of A SIMPLE PLAN, another overrated, tedious exercise in small town exposure to 'big city violence.' Ho hum.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

RoseS.Oct 5, 2005

Very disappointing dialog between the family members I expected more substance. The violence was handled very well. I was very disappointed. The ending???? it just comes full circle.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

MontySep 24, 2005

Intriguing but ultimately pointless yarn - about a small-town family thrust into a cycle of violence - is elevated somewhat by solid cast and the assured hand of director David Cronenberg. Viggo Mortensen plays gentle family man, Tom Stahl, Intriguing but ultimately pointless yarn - about a small-town family thrust into a cycle of violence - is elevated somewhat by solid cast and the assured hand of director David Cronenberg. Viggo Mortensen plays gentle family man, Tom Stahl, accused of leading a double life after he manages to overpower two killers who appear in his diner. Cronenberg, as usual, strives for profound themes but he never manages to get the plot or characters out of first gear.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

SilverOct 16, 2005

I love complicated, artful character sketches and nuanced thematic narratives, but am completely stunned by the hysterical rejoicing of mainstream critics. Quoting another civilian metacritic, the acting was brutally wooden. The plot was I love complicated, artful character sketches and nuanced thematic narratives, but am completely stunned by the hysterical rejoicing of mainstream critics. Quoting another civilian metacritic, the acting was brutally wooden. The plot was silly and the arcs overcooked. William Hurt was terrible. The disconnect between audiences and corporate reviewers has never been more stark. Cronenberg's film is emblematic of that rift more than any film I've read about recently.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

ShSchNov 7, 2005

[***SPOILERS***] This movie starts well and even mixes tension with some moral ambiguity. You have a diner owning father who appears to be an inexplicble natural killer and the "bad" guys who show up to say he's actually an ex-thug. This[***SPOILERS***] This movie starts well and even mixes tension with some moral ambiguity. You have a diner owning father who appears to be an inexplicble natural killer and the "bad" guys who show up to say he's actually an ex-thug. This leaves his wife & son and the locals quite puzzled. Parallel to this, his bullied high school son turns on his bullyer and puts him in the hospital. When there is a confrontation with the "bad" guys, you discover the "hero" is indeed an ex-thug and the son saves the day with a point-blank shotgun blast of death. At this point, the movie downplays the family issues and totally ignores the consequences of the son's actions. Instead, it degenerates into a pointless revenge flick with the "hero" returning to Philadelphia to settle a score with his brother. The murders of the brother and his gang are so over-the-top as to be laughable. In conclusion, I think the director started with a good drama but he let it devolve into a typical kill for fun film; a cheap imitation of Quentin Tarrentino.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

MattA.Dec 9, 2005

I agree completely with the Wall Street Journal and The New Republic's reviews. This movie was unbelievably predictable. There wasn't anything intriguing about the plot that kept me guessing or on the edge of my seat. It I agree completely with the Wall Street Journal and The New Republic's reviews. This movie was unbelievably predictable. There wasn't anything intriguing about the plot that kept me guessing or on the edge of my seat. It wasn't even the interesting social commentary on violence in our society that many people were prasing it as. The only real bright spots were the performances, all uniformally excellent but especially the two leads, Mortensen and Bello. They keep the movie from being a total disappointment. I just wish that I could ask SFHB: what are the curveballs? DId we see the same movie?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

5

FilmEqualsJoyNov 22, 2012

Was this a bad film? Not at all. Was this a great film? Not at all. Was this an ok film? Yes. A History Of Violence is just a so-so film. There are things that I really enjoyed about the film. However, I had a problems. I had a unfulfilledWas this a bad film? Not at all. Was this a great film? Not at all. Was this an ok film? Yes. A History Of Violence is just a so-so film. There are things that I really enjoyed about the film. However, I had a problems. I had a unfulfilled feeling in me watching this movie. I kept on expecting moments of greatness. There were several parts in this film that just lead you on, and the second you think something big is going to happen....... nothing happens. There is all this tension and conflict in the characters, but I feel so unfulfilled by the end of the flick. I really wanted it to expand on several plot points. I felt like I watched the beginning and the middle of the film. It was as if there was something else in store, but it wasn't shown. Now the title does live up to the film. There is much violence in this film, but the violence is not as interesting as many other great films. Watch this film if you want to. Watch it if you don't. Like I said, its not the worst or the best film. It is just ok.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

ExKingApr 2, 2014

A history of violence was the first movie ever that i realized that a one and a half hour movie can be painfully long.
i was completely shocked by the overall terrible performances, even from Viggo Mortensen and i was shocked again when iA history of violence was the first movie ever that i realized that a one and a half hour movie can be painfully long.
i was completely shocked by the overall terrible performances, even from Viggo Mortensen and i was shocked again when i knew that William Hurt was nominated for an academy award for his terrible awkward performance, and what made it worst is the directing.
Yes the directing was terrible coming from the director of Eastern promises. from the first 5 minutes i realized that the movie was slow, and i was kinda hoping for it to be like a cool directorial thingy, but it's not, it kept going like this making the movie painful to watch.
i just seen Eastern promises and i really liked it, Viggo Mortensen character was dark and the story had depth but here, we have a shallow character that just playing awkward to the point that even the connection between family members were awkward and unreal, i mean come on, a teenage boy kiss his mother good morning every day seriously ?
and i'm not against nudity in films but the wife coming out of the bathroom completely naked was pointless and stupid, it was like "hey, we can do this and that" and the sex scene on the stairs was awkward, i genuinely felt that i was watching a movie by M. Night Shyamalan.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

harvdog03Oct 31, 2018

I know I'm in the minority for this film but I just didnt think this movie was all that and a bag of chips. There is no reason why i shouldn't like it with the story being good and the cast was excellent. For some reason I just didnt like it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

BradB.Oct 17, 2005

Croenenberg's direction is uneven, slow, and prodding....he gets very little out of his actors, especially the five year old girl. William Hurt was miscast as Joey's "Philly" brother. D - movie from a B list director.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

ErikB.Oct 6, 2005

Awesome violent action scenes. Crap downtimes. I love how we spent 10 minutes at the beginning getting to know the bad guys who got killed in about 15 seconds.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

A History of Violence

User Reviews