 | |
| | Salesrank: 101822
|
| Our Price: $5.97 |
| Used Price: $3.73 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
On the surface, David Cronenberg may seem an unlikely candidate to direct A History of Violence, but dig deeper and you'll see that he's the right man for the job. As an intellectual seeker of meaning and an avowed believer in Darwinian survival of the fittest, Cronenberg knows that the story of mild-mannered small-town diner proprietor Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is in fact a multilayered examination of inbred human behavior, beginning when Tom's skillful killing of two would-be robbers draws unwanted attention to his idyllic family life in rural Indiana. He's got a loving wife (Maria Bello) and young daughter (Heidi Hayes) who are about to learn things about Tom they hadn't suspected, and a teenage son (Ashton Holmes) who has inherited his father's most prominent survival trait, manifesting itself in ways he never expected. By the time Tom has come into contact with a scarred villain (Ed Harris) and connections that lead him to a half-crazy kingpin (William Hurt, in a spectacular cameo), Cronenberg has plumbed the dark depths of human nature so skillfully that A History of Violence stands well above the graphic novel that inspired it (indeed, Cronenberg was unaware of the source material behind Josh Olson's chilling adaptation). With hard-hitting violence that's as sudden as it is graphically authentic, this is A History of Violence that's worthy of serious study and widespread acclaim. --Jeff Shannon
A History of Violence Reviews:
Cheap Mafia stereotypes abound in this sordid tale of redemption 
2009-12-20 - ***Warning: this review may contain spoilers ***
At the beginning of 'History of Violence', we meet two vicious killers who murder three people in a motel including a young child. Director Cronenberg immediately cuts to his protagonists, the Stall family, so I thought this was going to end up as another 'Desperate Hours', home invasion type of flick, with the bad guys invading the family home and perhaps terrorizing them or taking somebody hostage. Refreshingly, for a few moments at least, Cronenberg goes in another direction. The bad guys are dispatched by the principal protagonist, Tom Stall, played by Viggo Mortensen. It turns out that Stall has tried to erase his past life as Joey Cusack, a Mafia hoodlum, and has assumed a new identity in an idyllic Indiana town. But at the critical moment, while working at his place of business, a family diner, he's able to use his past skills as a made man and blows away the killers. As a result, he becomes an instant celebrity and becomes the subject of media scrutiny.
Unfortunately, beyond this point, not a lot makes sense in this film. For starters, Cronenberg admits that the media scrutiny is only a local phenomena. The truth of the matter is that such a story would not remain a local event but would be covered nationally as well as on the internet. After Mafia boss Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) shows up on the scene, folksy Sheriff Sam Carney does some 'research' to try and find out whether Fogarty is telling the truth that Tom has been leading a double life. For some reason, he's only able to find out about Mafia boss 'Ritchie'--there's no mention of Joey anywhere. Now why is that? A Google search would have certainly brought up information on the brother of a well known mobster such as Joey who police are aware ripped Fogarty's eye out. Furthermore, once the media found out about Tom the hero, there would have been intense scrutiny about his background leading to the discovery that Tom is not who he says he is.
Now what about the ridiculous scene where Tom ends up seeing Fogarty's car and assumes it's heading out of town to his house to do harm to his family? Why does he start running all the way home? If he believed that the mobsters were going to hurt his family, wouldn't he have 1) called Sheriff Sam immediately and 2) grabbed a car or got one of his employees or friends to drive him home right away? Why do the mobsters attempt to induce Tom to come with them? He's standing right out on the lawn when Fogarty or one of his two henchmen could have went right up to him and shot him in the head? For that matter, if they wanted to, they could have killed the whole family right then and there.
What exactly happened to Fogarty and his henchmen after Tom and Jack blow them away? We never see the police arrive and the bodies being taken away. Wouldn't there have been even more media interest which certainly would have led to the discovery that Tom was connected to the mobsters in the past? All we see is the Sheriff come over and make some meek inquiries as to Tom's background.
While we find out next to nothing about Ed Harris's Fogarty, the same goes for brother Ritchie. They are both stereotypes of the typical Mafiosi. Cronenberg resorts to making Ritchie into a buffoon and admits that he didn't use a soundtrack during the climactic scene where Tom dispatches his brother and his minions in order to play up the comedy. Another stereotype is the school bully who is constantly harassing son Jack. How many times have we seen this type of character in poorly written films? Even worse, the bullying isn't even convincing (would a bully pick a fight just because a guy catches a baseball and the game is over?) In order to 'humanize' his principals, Tom and Edie, Cronenberg pads his film with overlong sex scenes. Worse is his obsession with showing all the blood and guts that are spilled whenever someone is shot. There's even an absurd 'DVD extra' which shows contrasting American and International versions of a scene focusing on the amount of blood that spurts out of a victim's mouth.
While technically Cronenberg is a highly competent director who is able to get decent performances out of his actors, the script he's working with is amateurish. Ironically, History of Violence has little 'history' in it at all. Instead, it's a sordid tale of redemption in which a reformed man must defend himself against one-dimensional straw men who we neither care or know next to nothing about.
Good thriller, well directed. 
2009-11-27 - It goes to show you that people have different tastes, there are some terrible reviews of this well directed thriller which also features a couple of sexy scenes. Very entertaining and I liked the story line of a guy who tries to leave his violent past behind but is dragged back in. I haven't seen the Blu Ray version yet but I'm going to buy or rent it.
A life after death
2009-11-14 - I love this movie, bought it, and have watched it many times. The main character went through a painful transformation to have a life he loves. He "killed" himself. He was thrust back into his old world by his act of bravery. His life will never be the same again no matter what else he does. He has to be both the family man and the killer in the end. His son may have the same natural violent "talents". No organized religious redemption but, he does take a cleansing dip before going back to his family. In the last scene, he looks up at his wife searching for the love in her eyes that he spoke of earlier in the film.
A History of Violence [Blu-ray]A History of Violence (New Line Platinum Series)
Worst Movie Ever 
2009-10-30 - If it were possible for a movie to be rated negative five stars, I'd do it. This was so far past awful, you couldn't even see awful from where this movie was.
I had high hopes for the movie since I like many of the people in it. However, the writing is so bad that the talent can't do anything with it.
The collection of acting talent, unfortunately, is no more able to become a good movie than a heap of building materials is able to become a house.
Conflict and Violence
2009-10-27 - Two men walk out of a motel and get into a convertible. [No seatbelts?] What are they up to? Next we see a family at home. Tom Stoll works in a small restaurant in a small town. There is conflict in the boys gym. [Believable?] The parents spend time together when the children are away. [Does the film slow down afterwards?] Then those two men show up in town and start trouble in Tom's restaurant. Tom finishes it. This makes the newspapers and brings in more business, and unwanted attention. Three men show up, one claims to know Tom from Philadelphia. Sheriff Sam checks them, they have records. What's up? "Get the shotgun!" Is the family threatened? [Why does Tom have to run to his house far out of town?] Why did Sarah leave her Mom Edie when shopping? [Believable?]
Jack is a chip off the old block, he knows how to handle Joey. [Too good to be true?] Will a court order keep Carl Fogarty away? There is action that was telegraphed in the earlier scenes. [Is this believable? The scenes seem to be concocted for violent dramatic scenes.] Will Edie and Tom get along? Will a voice from the past call Tom? [This is a new story that drags in spots.] his brother has a complaint. But Joey is like "Rambo", he is hard to kill. Can he wash away his sins in a pond? Back home in Indiana life returns to normal. [Believable?] This story just stops, there are no after effects from the action in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love.
The violent scenes seem to be the sole purpose of this film, like some kind of pornography of violence. Its as if the writers concocted graphically violent scenes then wrote a story to link them together. Some scenes would have made this X-rated back in the 1970s. Other reviewers pointed out the logical flaws in this story.
