A History of Violence

0

KRectorOct 23, 2005

This is a terrible movie - the plot was unimaginably slow and there was useless sex. I can take subdued movies, but there was just god-awful.

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

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

2

tedb.Oct 22, 2005

WAY WAY WAY Overrated.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

TrevorCottonOct 22, 2005

A History Of Violence works on so many levels with such convincing acting and a riveting story. Believe the hype this is one of the years best films!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MarcusGOct 22, 2005

As perfectly paced as the best Hitchcock thriller. Then, to that "A grade", add such a unique agenda, worthy and absorbing. Cronenberg makes A History of Violence an undeniably fantastic film. It's an A+.

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

9

ChadS.Oct 20, 2005

I'll be the cheerleader, and next time, you be the man with a violent past. That scene on the stairwell is interesting because we've already seen the couple engage in role-playing when they have sex. Edie (Maria Bello) is like the I'll be the cheerleader, and next time, you be the man with a violent past. That scene on the stairwell is interesting because we've already seen the couple engage in role-playing when they have sex. Edie (Maria Bello) is like the Lorraine Bracco character in "Good Fellas" who admits to being turned-on when Henry (Ray Liotta) tells her to hide the gun. There's a darkness in Edie, too. If there's a flaw to "A History of Violence", it's the violence inflicted by Tom (Viggo Mortensen) on his victims because the rest of the film belies any graphic novel connection. Like fellow indie-director Richard Linklater, David Cronenberg mainstreams himself with dignity and class.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

1

KurtS.Oct 18, 2005

I

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

mitchellmOct 18, 2005

Wow, these last low reveiws show us how people don't know what a goood movie is, they'd rather see something like "the fog" or some nonesense like that. and say its " the best movie ever!", thes people need to be shown what a real Wow, these last low reveiws show us how people don't know what a goood movie is, they'd rather see something like "the fog" or some nonesense like that. and say its " the best movie ever!", thes people need to be shown what a real masterpeice looks like, and this is one of them.… 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

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

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

10

RaphaelC.Oct 17, 2005

Viggo Mortensen delivers one of the best performances I've ever seen, in what might be the best movie of the year.

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

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

10

StephenF.Oct 16, 2005

Can You Ever Escape Your Past? By now, I would think that there is no need for a spoiler alert. In addition, the movie's title pretty much implies it's theme. David Cronenberg validates his stripes here by crafting an interesting, Can You Ever Escape Your Past? By now, I would think that there is no need for a spoiler alert. In addition, the movie's title pretty much implies it's theme. David Cronenberg validates his stripes here by crafting an interesting, non-predictable and insightful tale about violence, finding peace, and escaping one's past. The story not so much has twists than an unconventional, unexpected development of the events. It is captivating, with sporadic violence that thrills as well as turns your stomach. The only incongruity in the movie is the lightening speed killing machine Joey that Tom turns into. It is action that is more suitable to a James Bond or John Woo film than the drama/thriller here. Viggo Mortensen is nuanced, subtle and self-effacing as Tom/Joey, the man who finds peace and gentleness in his new life in a small, midwestern piece of Americana. Ed Harris and William Hurt gives interesting and substantial character performances as mobsters. The movie does not display pretensions. It tells an engrossing survival tale that ends with the shocking and seemingly impenetrable question of how does Tom escape his history of violence and recapture his peaceful life with his family?… 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

1

MarcOct 15, 2005

Chuck D said it best - Don't believe the hype. Terrible. The thing that made it so frustrating to watch is that I felt like the movie had so much potential, and it just fell flat on its face. Laughable sex scenes with a gratuitous shot Chuck D said it best - Don't believe the hype. Terrible. The thing that made it so frustrating to watch is that I felt like the movie had so much potential, and it just fell flat on its face. Laughable sex scenes with a gratuitous shot of Mortensen's ass (thanks a lot for that), poor acting, unrealistic events, and a high-school bully sub-plot that was unnecessary and more cliche than Saved by the Bell. This is the type of movie that hipsters who blindly follow critics' leads will love. Everyone else will be sorely disappointed. Ohh, and by the way, don't tell me I just "don't get it." I enjoy a good thinking man's movie, and this is not it.… Expand

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

10

DSOct 14, 2005

A fantastic piece of work, with both excellent acting and a gripping story that draws the viewer in. Highly recommended.

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

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

GeorgeG.Oct 13, 2005

This was an awful film. The acting was bad, the script was bad, the editing was bad. It was a waste of time. Watching the previews I thought it looked like a bad movie, but after seeing all the acclaim I thought I would give it a try. Should This was an awful film. The acting was bad, the script was bad, the editing was bad. It was a waste of time. Watching the previews I thought it looked like a bad movie, but after seeing all the acclaim I thought I would give it a try. Should have trusted my instincts.… 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

9

AnonymousMCOct 13, 2005

Superlative directing, editing and acting. Although probably intended to appeal to a mainstream audience, this film nonetheless is vintage Cronenberg, with all the psychological tension and visceral thrills wrapping up a philosophical theme,Superlative directing, editing and acting. Although probably intended to appeal to a mainstream audience, this film nonetheless is vintage Cronenberg, with all the psychological tension and visceral thrills wrapping up a philosophical theme, in this case determinism vs. free will. Not a single frame is wasted in this film: when the final credits roll, you might guess the running time was fifteen minutes. From a great director, another fine effort which will reward attentive and intelligent viewers.… Expand

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

10

BobXOct 12, 2005

A thinking man's movie that doesn't end when the credit's roll. Put simply, if you are the kind of person who can sit through an Adam Sandler film, or worse yet, enjoy it, then this film is clearly not for you. The film is a A thinking man's movie that doesn't end when the credit's roll. Put simply, if you are the kind of person who can sit through an Adam Sandler film, or worse yet, enjoy it, then this film is clearly not for you. The film is a living, breathing critique of itself and the people who gave this film low reviews. It's about the victory of the primal and the stupid over the intelligent and gentle. And while the plot itself may be fairly straightforward, the subtext for what is occuring on screen has delighted me and my friends for days now in discussion. To put it on familiar terms, the movie is a very good approximation of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness,a much better representation than any of the films that lay claim to that name. The camera-work itself is very amazing, it moves slowly and majestically like the story does at the beginning. Giving a very gentle and relaxing atmosphere and the musical score follows suit. The pacing perfectly depicts the change in the life of Stall (Viggo) and his family as their instincts overwhelm their good nature. The camerawork becomes insular and even violent at times, justly reflecting the changes of the family. Mortesen and Harris both give great perfomances acting but it's really Bello and Hurt who you remember afterwards. Hurt steals the show for his brief performances and most of the discussion of plot wll end up centering around Bello. In the end it is very simlilar to the third act of adaptation where the movie itself becomes what it criticizes and ultimately I think the subtext is much to complex and subtle for the average movie goer these days. Don't worry kids, there will be another Adam Sandler flick out as soon.… 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

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

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

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

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

WackoOct 11, 2005

This movie is so overrated that it sucked. Just awful.

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

9

thewisekingOct 11, 2005

A brilliant Cronenberg art film which plays like a populist melodrama. This film works on every level. The casting is absolutely first rate, and the screenplay is brilliant. The film flies by in around 90 minutes, unlike most of the tedious, A brilliant Cronenberg art film which plays like a populist melodrama. This film works on every level. The casting is absolutely first rate, and the screenplay is brilliant. The film flies by in around 90 minutes, unlike most of the tedious, overwrought 2 hours plus crap we feel like walking out of nowadays. Several hours after seeing it, you start to like it even more, It is profound and thought provoking as well as entertaining.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JobA>Oct 11, 2005

Very good and unexpected.The acting and story was terrific!

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

timothyk.Oct 11, 2005

If you don't love this movie then you should have your head checked. Rawness and simplicity are the point. Dirty Harry meets Unbreakable.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

BitBurnOct 11, 2005

That one really caught me by surprise. Very intense, raw. Awesome screenplay. Perhaps not for everyone but I loved it.

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

10

brianmOct 10, 2005

Masterpiece. Run, do not walk, to this picture. The best film since Lord of the Rings, and not because they share similar scores.

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

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

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

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

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

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

10

AdamSingerOct 9, 2005

Brilliant.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

0

JaneOct 9, 2005

In a word - Awful!

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

9

BoydPOct 9, 2005

A stunning and unsettling story of violence and how it affects and upsets the status quo. This is basically a character piece, which may be surprising to those expecting an action film. The violence is quick and brutal, the sex is raw and A stunning and unsettling story of violence and how it affects and upsets the status quo. This is basically a character piece, which may be surprising to those expecting an action film. The violence is quick and brutal, the sex is raw and revealing, and the comedy is very dark. If you think the violence is the only interesting aspect of the film, perhaps that says more about you than it does about the movie. Which, I think, is exactly the point the movie is making.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

10

MondoQuantS.Oct 9, 2005

A Masterpiece, but not for everybody. Those familiar with violence and the psychology will see much beneath the surface. Many before/after themes run through this film, leaving you to think days afterwards. The before/after sexual scenes A Masterpiece, but not for everybody. Those familiar with violence and the psychology will see much beneath the surface. Many before/after themes run through this film, leaving you to think days afterwards. The before/after sexual scenes between Tom and his wife are telling. The final scene of the family at the dinner table, trapped in the realization they are changed, never to be the same - no other good option - is haunting.… 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

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

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

4

walterc.Oct 8, 2005

Film had great potential for the first 1/2, but got sappy afer that including a number of unnintended laughs from the audience. Some great acting out of Hurt and Harris, but not enough to bouy the rest of the film.

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

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

3

MichelleS.Oct 8, 2005

The screenplay is inauthentic and the acting is laughable. The movie stinks.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

[Anonymous]Oct 8, 2005

The very best film that I have seen this year so far. Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, William Hurt, and the rest of the cast deserve Oscar nominations. Ditto to Thomas Newman for his beautiful score and Cronenberg for directing his best film The very best film that I have seen this year so far. Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, William Hurt, and the rest of the cast deserve Oscar nominations. Ditto to Thomas Newman for his beautiful score and Cronenberg for directing his best film ever. The cinematography and film editing were unparalleled. Great script.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

nancyLOct 8, 2005

I'm really shocked at so many of the negative reviews here. Yes, the ending lacks resolution, but that's entirely the point! I thought it was an extremely powerful ending and I couldn't stop thinking about the movie for days I'm really shocked at so many of the negative reviews here. Yes, the ending lacks resolution, but that's entirely the point! I thought it was an extremely powerful ending and I couldn't stop thinking about the movie for days afterwards. There are so many layers to it that I know I'll have to see it again. The acting is wonderful in its subtlety. If you think acting means scenery-chewing, then you won't like this film. And the 2 sex scenes are not gratuitous in the slightest. In fact they are integral to the film and to understanding the 2 main characters. One of the scenes is raw and disturbing, yes, but again, it's supposed to be. There are so many emotions on display in that one scene and the actors did a fantastic job. If you just want stylized "movie" violence, "movie" sex complete with some love theme pop song playing and a Hollywood ending, then this film is not for you. The film uses noir, Western and action thriller elements with great success but it's essentially a drama about what happens to one small-town family when violence enters their lives. It's also about the choices we make and how they not only affect us but those around us. And it's about so many other things. Just go see it.… 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

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

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

10

DavePOct 7, 2005

If you think Boondock Saints is a great movie, you will dislike this. Because you have terrible taste. Otherwise, step right up to Cronenberg's celebration of the use of violence in American culture in all of its subversively If you think Boondock Saints is a great movie, you will dislike this. Because you have terrible taste. Otherwise, step right up to Cronenberg's celebration of the use of violence in American culture in all of its subversively non-subversive glory. Stands with Nobody Knows and Last Days as one of the most nuanced, poetic films of the year.… 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

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

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

10

RJSamsonOct 7, 2005

It's a movie about character. If someone else directed it, it may turn commercial. But Cronenberg's style has definitely drawn sincere realism to one of the best movies of the year. Subtle yet strong. What more can I say?

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

4

RobkOct 6, 2005

A suprisingly bad film. The film overall had a lack of directing, which is surprising since this film was directed by the same man who directed Crash. The acting needed to be so much more and the plot itself missed a few twists and turn that A suprisingly bad film. The film overall had a lack of directing, which is surprising since this film was directed by the same man who directed Crash. The acting needed to be so much more and the plot itself missed a few twists and turn that the story desperatly needed. I was looking forward to seeing this movie, but now that I've seen it I wish I'd never heard of A History of Violence.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

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

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

9

randyw.Oct 6, 2005

A brilliant movie; one that makes the intelligent viewer question the place and role of violence in American society, regardless of circumstance. One can see the master touch of a director whose Canadian viewpoint and perspective on American A brilliant movie; one that makes the intelligent viewer question the place and role of violence in American society, regardless of circumstance. One can see the master touch of a director whose Canadian viewpoint and perspective on American life reveals much about the dark underside of that society.… 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

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

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

4

pacoweOct 5, 2005

I'm surprised at the positive reviews this film is garnering. I enjoyed the film somewhat, but only because I thought certain parts were intentionally humorous. The more I think about the overacting, the slow pace, the gratuitous sex I'm surprised at the positive reviews this film is garnering. I enjoyed the film somewhat, but only because I thought certain parts were intentionally humorous. The more I think about the overacting, the slow pace, the gratuitous sex scenes and the ultraviolence, the more I dislike the film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

JeffOct 5, 2005

This movie grabbed your attention from the first minute and never let go. I am glad I read nothing about it before seeing it, as that made every scene in the movie more memorable.

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

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

4

DeerkCOct 4, 2005

This movie is critically over-rated. It's somewhat well acted, but oddly paced, at times inconsistant, annoying and, worse, outright dull. It's a plodding, pointless affair, with little in the way of intrigue or mystery, and what This movie is critically over-rated. It's somewhat well acted, but oddly paced, at times inconsistant, annoying and, worse, outright dull. It's a plodding, pointless affair, with little in the way of intrigue or mystery, and what 'plot' there is to weave the scenes together is predictable, and uninteresting. Eventually becomes typical action-movie fair, but without the budget or effects. It's ultimately pointless, people die, but nothing really changes. This movie is not in the least entertaining. Save your dollars.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

AAWOct 4, 2005

Best movie of the year. Extraordinary. Go now. Do not wait.

0 of 1 users found this helpful

10

ChaninderB.Oct 4, 2005

Awsome...captivating, and so well done. Cronenberg is the man.

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

10

LoreliOct 4, 2005

Superb movie. Acting is excellent. May catch mainstream audiences, who exclusively want entertainment, off guard. They will find themselves not only entertained but also pondering the movie and its questioning of violence and identify for Superb movie. Acting is excellent. May catch mainstream audiences, who exclusively want entertainment, off guard. They will find themselves not only entertained but also pondering the movie and its questioning of violence and identify for days afterwards. Cronenberg has taken the age-old themes of the classic genres of the Western and revenge bloodfests and imbued it with a provocative point of view. Is violence an ugly but necessary means to an end if your intention is noble, or is it always just ugly and self-defeating? Does the moral cost of violence negate its use in all circumstances? Can one ever escape your past no matter how much you have managed to reinvent yourself? Although he has successfully defeated all threats to his idyllic life, has Tom Stall destroyed ultimately destroyed that life in his attempts to keep it? Is he any longer "the best man" his wife has ever known? These are just some of the questions I came away with after viewing the movie, and there aren't too many other films I have seen lately that have done that for me.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

9

MikeG.Oct 4, 2005

From the eerily silent first moments of the film, Cronenberg captures mood and never lets go of it throughout. A History of Violence might have been a mediocre gore fest in the hands of a lesser director, but Cronenberg keeps you on the edge From the eerily silent first moments of the film, Cronenberg captures mood and never lets go of it throughout. A History of Violence might have been a mediocre gore fest in the hands of a lesser director, but Cronenberg keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the entire film and leaves you wondering about not only these characters and this story, but about the world we live in. Viggo Mortensen slips marvelously into the lead role, capturing the duality of his life perfectly: there is an anonimity in his character that's delivered adroitly. There are some small holes in the plot, but you won't find yourself thinking about them until long after you leave the theater. William Hurt's performance is a little weird - is his character supposed to be funny? - but this is quibbling. A History of Violence is a movie worth seeing.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

10

GnarlesOct 4, 2005

Igonore the idiots on here - this is the real deal, folks.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

8

russw.Oct 3, 2005

Gripping at times, very entertaining.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

4

RichardG.Oct 3, 2005

The critics are way off on this movie.... Its only critically acclaimed because it has a strange ending and because it was so gorey. It is not a very good movie. The acting was TERRIBLE. The leading female actress overacted in every scene. The critics are way off on this movie.... Its only critically acclaimed because it has a strange ending and because it was so gorey. It is not a very good movie. The acting was TERRIBLE. The leading female actress overacted in every scene. No one gets to understand why the characters are so obtuse, and maybe we shouldnt, maybe its a part of the "art" of it, but at least give us a good package, some good camera work, and some good acting, and dialogue. Not a very good movie for actually movie goers… 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

10

TorvC.Oct 3, 2005

One of the best films this year. Cronenberg is at the top of his form eliciting wonderfully nuanced performances out of his cast with a singularly focused sense of direction. This is my favorite kind of film -- one that resonates in your One of the best films this year. Cronenberg is at the top of his form eliciting wonderfully nuanced performances out of his cast with a singularly focused sense of direction. This is my favorite kind of film -- one that resonates in your brain long after you've left the theater. SEE THIS MOVIE!… 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

10

TerryD.Oct 3, 2005

Wow. What a thought-provoking, disturbing movie. You'll be thinking about this one long after you leave the theater, which is a good thing. Wow again.

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

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

A History of Violence

User Reviews