A History of Violence

It’s hardly news that films get adapted from comic books—or "graphic novels," as people like to call them when they want to sound 'serious' here in the US. What is actually refreshing is how this movie respects the medium of film itself, utilizing its own unique tools to visually convey what a great comic sometimes does: telling a gripping story with controversial undertones that really sticks with you.

Cronenberg himself mentioned that when he first picked up the script, he didn't even realize there was a graphic novel involved. It wasn't his motivation, which feels like a deliberate move to distance himself from those extreme aesthetic crossovers like Sin City.

The story unfolds in a quintessential small American town, home to a typical American family. After a random incident involving the violent deaths of two bandits, the internal dynamics of the household shift. Everyone starts drawing their own conclusions—some reactions are pure instinct, while others feel calculated and, at times, selfish. When asked about parallels to themes found in the work of David Lynch and David Cronenberg, he just said, "I heard of him some scenes"😎

Certain scenes are visually stunning and emotionally heavy, often relying entirely on silence, yet they reveal so much about the characters. The sex scene between Tom (Viggo Mortensen) and Edie (Maria Bello) suggests that the path to climax is often 95% intense imagination tied to fear and dominance, with the rest being almost primal. There's another scene—spoiler alert—where the main character's son, usually a quiet kid bullied by the local high school jocks, sees his father's 'heroic' act and suddenly realizes that maybe solving problems with violence isn't such a bad idea after all.

The violence, particularly the aftermath, is classically Cronenbergian and honestly nauseating. But you shouldn't miss the core question the film poses: can a person truly change? And more importantly, would we even recognize that person if they tried?

Overall, the film is brilliantly executed, mostly because it stays so simple. The pacing, tone, and acting are flawless. For me, it’s the best film of the year so far. Just a small, perhaps unnecessary observation: the title starts with an 'A,' which in my interpretation makes it "a history of violence." After watching it, that title feels oddly appropriate.

Probably nobody else has checked this out yet, but I just had to drop this review from The New York Times in here. Manohla Dargis puts my thoughts into words so much better than I ever could—I honestly couldn't have formed a single coherent sentence if I tried... and even though it's in English, it’s just fascinating to read... especially that part where she breaks down why the violence in this film actually matters... how it isn't just some "mindless violence" but serves a purpose within the story. And, well, of course, someone has to suffer along the way... including the audience...

That sounds really intriguing.
I’m definitely looking forward to this one—mostly because I felt like Spider-Man was just okay, if I'm being honest.

For what it's worth, when American critics were reviewing the film after its premiere at Cannes, the reception was actually pretty lukewarm.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see. We'll see.

By the way, when the local critics brought back reports from >, they didn't exactly give it a glowing review.

I feel like one of the biggest hurdles in actually watching American cinema is just a complete lack of familiarity with how American society works—the whole cultural landscape, really. Sadly, it’s not just about film criticism; it bleeds into everything. Literature, sociology, economics, the political system... you name it. It's almost absurd, thinking about how folks over in Eastern or Southeastern Europe might have these specific, skewed perspectives on violence in American movies or American life, even while living right next door to such high rates of mass shootings. But, that's a rabbit hole for another day... 🙄 😁

The point is... khm... 😉 .... that our aesthetic standards are shaped by certain factors that we... whether fortunately or unfortunately... simply can't control.

I just can't wrap my head around how this guy takes out three gangsters and the police don't even bother with a proper investigation. Instead, we just get some disorganized local sheriff showing up to play cop. Then there's that scene in Philadelphia where he tears through four more thugs without anyone lifting a finger—it honestly feels a bit like Captain Mike or maybe even Buddy Spencer. Any sane woman would be a lot more worried and start questioning her husband's past when all these shady characters come looking for him. It all feels a bit too messy for me. But hey, since it’s based on a comic book (a graphic novel, right? 🙂), I guess you have to forgive some of the logic gaps. The violence is well done, though—raw, gritty, and intense. The ending, however, is pure Hollywood cliché; that pathetic little moment with the food, implying that having a father and husband like this is somehow better than nothing at all... give me a break.
Average rating, a three out of ten...

Before you dive into any of those major plot points that tie everything together, could you please throw up a spoiler AHEAD Quote? I'd really appreciate it!

Jessica Nguyen85 said:One of the biggest hurdles when watching American movies is just having zero clue about how American society actually works or its cultural quirks. Honestly, it’s not even just about film criticism—it hits everything—literature, sociology, economics, the political system... you name it. It’s kind of ridiculous how people in places like Eastern Europe think they have some deep insight into violence in American films or the US social fabric, while living right next door to actual mass shooters. But yeah, that's a whole other conversation... 🙄 😁

The point is... khm... 😉 .... that our sense of aesthetics is shaped by certain factors that we... luckily or unfortunately... can't really control.

👍

wow, I never thought I'd see the day 😁 but I actually find myself agreeing with this post. 😁😁

Richard Hernandez13 said:Hey, could you please add a spoiler warning before dropping those big plot twists? It helps out...

thank god I always check what the regulars have to say first... 😁😁

wow, I honestly didn't think I'd ever see the day, but looking at what you wrote here... I might actually have to agree with you.

😎 😉

Caught a movie last night and it was genuinely great...
There are definitely things they could have handled differently, but I’m not going to nitpick...
I’d go as far as saying it’s one of the best films of the year, especially following Closer...

👍

nimbletiger68 said:A graphic novel??? 🙂

Elaborate.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Just a potentially random thought, but since the title starts with "A," it translates to "A History of Violence." After watching it, that title actually makes a lot of sense.

That’s not just a random thought; it’s a sharp one. Honestly, it's so good it gave me a better idea than Cronenberg's (humble as I am 😁). Seriously... why? Because I think a more compelling angle would have been if the movie was actually a "History of a Single Act of Violence." If David had gone that route, it would have been incredible. It touches on it slightly—this violence spreading like a virus from start to finish, infecting characters regardless of how much they try to resist—but he mostly veered off into character studies, modern excess, and the whole "who are we really?" trope. It didn't quite hit that mark. It wasn't bad in that arena, but it wasn't brilliant, and it could have been. There are great moments, sure—like when Ed Harris asks the lead something along the lines of, "Who are you when you dream? The old you or the new you?" That was genius. To me, the film felt like a collection of great sequences poorly stitched together. I don't know why, honestly. Viggo Mortensen wasn't the right choice for the lead; it felt off. And one detail bothered me—did anyone else notice the music? Those heavy-handed "this is a pivotal moment" swells were totally misplaced. Cut the Phantom of the Opera crap and let me hear the characters. Let me hear the floorboards creaking or a door slamming. I don't need a score to tell me someone is terrified. Someone mentioned some clichés in the narration... yeah, there are some, but I think they were secondary and shouldn't tank the rating.

...hmmm...I watched it a few months back—not even in a theater, just on my tiny little laptop screen...and honestly? It felt... incredibly powerful...if a bit "hollow" at times...but the bottom line is that I actually ended up enjoying it, truly...

...about two weeks later, Pavicicev's review dropped...he gave it a three, along with a whole list of gripes (the worst being that the movie starts with this intense dramatic tone, only to pivot into a standard action flick in the second half)...I went off and read more reviews after that (what can I say—I'm a total freak 😉...), and most of them—aside from a few people who basically "glorified" the thing—were in a similar boat...and what's worse? Every single criticism, from start to finish, was spot on! But for me, the movie is still a blast to watch—the violence is beautifully stylized (which is a rare find), shot with such a passionate eye for color, contrast, and mood...it’s just visually gorgeous...and despite all the narrative issues and logical "holes," there's just something about it...

...as for the acting...well, Viggo Mortensen, the "I'm-so-arty" type, isn't exactly one of my favorites, but he was, in my opinion, brilliant in this role...though the biggest "acting paradox" for me has to be Maria Bello playing the mother of a teenager...but hey, that's just Hollywood 🙂 ...

...anyway, to make a long story shorter—despite all its flaws, A History of Violence is a beautiful Cronenberg's film; maybe not as "dark" or "artistic" as Spider-Man, but visually superior and perhaps even a notch more convincing....

🙂 🙂 🙂

SPOILER AHEAD 😉

If you have violence that spreads like a contagious disease from the opening credits to the end... something that acts like a virus, infecting characters no matter how immune they think they are or how much they resist... and if the movie only brushes past that idea superficially to head down a different path—one focused on questioning identity, the emptiness of the present, and ultimately picking at that eternal question of "who are we really"—then it just isn't that.

Great observation... and there are certainly hints of that throughout the whole thing... but I feel like the focus was more toward a sort of meditation on that question of "who are we" or—from everyone else's perspective—who this guy played by Viggo Mortensen actually is. Visually and dramatically, that process where all these people, especially his family, start looking at him differently as the film moves away from that initial conflict in the restaurant... it’s handled incredibly subtly... specifically through those two extremely—and I mean *extremely*—well-done sex scenes... one before and one after... that one on the stairs afterward is honestly some of the most unique filmmaking I've seen in a while... The character played by Maria Bello... she starts to doubt him generally, of course... feels betrayed... basically, the bottom line is she starts to fear him... and that actually ignites this animalistic urge in her which then creates a certain distance. I guess... my impression is that the idea from the quote above... that contagion of violence... I think it really does spread through the entire film, and the reaction to that virus varies from person to person. This spreading infection is almost an abstract context in which the lead character struggles with himself to confirm his decision to become a different person. Uh... I could go on about this 😁

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Uh... maybe we should talk about this instead 😁

I get where you're coming from, but honestly, all that "what if" stuff just makes the movie feel like a missed opportunity to me. It’s got way more untapped potential than actual execution. Like I said, it could have been a masterpiece, but as it stands? Not quite. I can see you're really feeling it though (and clearly not just you, given what the American critics are saying). Regarding the virus subplot—I really think they should have leaned into that instead of tossing it aside. Without it, even the opening feels a bit pointless, doesn't it? You're working overtime to defend David here, stretching things pretty thin, so I'm not sure how many more posts this thread can take before it snaps. ;-)

Jessica Nguyen85 said:The violence—specifically the aftermath—is classic Cronenberg's and honestly makes you want to gag.

You're exaggerating.

The film is fine, I suppose, but nothing groundbreaking. If I'm being honest... the lead actor (and this is my critique of David, not Viggo Mortensen) is completely unconvincing as someone capable of killing people. He acts like he's just handling some minor inconvenience. If you recall the scene where those three guys show up at his house... when the guy approaches him, the main character just knocks the gun out of his hand, smacks him in the nose with his palm three times (literally saying, "THREE!" times), grabs the weapon, and kills one of them. And ONLY THEN does Ed Harris—a man who’s been a career criminal for at least twenty years and is suspected of multiple murders; surely, one can reasonably assume he's pulled a trigger plenty of times in his life—reacts by shooting him... come on.

you're exaggerating

The movie is fine, I guess, but nothing special. Personally, I’d say... the lead actor (and that's a critique for David, not Viggo Mortensen) is totally unconvincing as someone who kills people while casually saying "pathetic little snack"... if you remember the scene where those three show up at his house... the guy approaches him, the main character knocks the gun out of his hand, hits him three times—literally says "THREE!"—right in the nose with his palm, grabs the gun, kills one guy, and ONLY THEN does Ed Harris (a man who’s been a criminal for at least 20 years and is suspected of way more murders; so, it’s reasonable to assume he’s fired plenty of guns in his life) reacts by shooting him... come on.

Regarding the exaggeration... those scenes of body horror where you see the impact of a bullet to the head or face, cut up in several places by glass... basically, the physical result of violence is very much Cronenberg's style, and a normal person watching that scene usually feels nauseous... kind of like when you watch a skater wipe out hard on a rail and smash their ass, and you just feel this reflexive twinge in the same area... that's what I mean.

As for the scene mentioned... I think it’s irrelevant to the whole story, and besides, it isn't some "cowboy" flick. What matters about that scene is that it serves the process of discovering who Taj Stall actually is... and, well... the final result of the film is really the key thing... as a viewer, that whole process sort of "cools" us down toward the protagonist... the director spends the whole time trying, and succeeding, to make us emotionally disconnect from how this cold, violent guy is portrayed... he has his moments, sure, but... we don't trust him.

It's sad when a film's success is measured by how much you identify with a character.

And regarding Viggo Mortensen... I think, in the sense I’m describing the film itself, he played it flawlessly... somewhat suspended, yet cold and calculated... at times you don't know if his moves are genuine... whether it’s instinct or love driving him to protect his family... which is personally what I find most interesting... where is the point where the obsession with violence becomes uncontrollable and almost unconscious... though the film shows me that it is possible to resist the temptation. Though it's incredibly difficult and costly... for those close to him, but especially for himself.

goldenhound32 said:You're exaggerating.
The movie is alright, but nothing to write home about. Honestly? The lead actor—and I’m talking about David here, not Viggo Mortensen—is totally unconvincing. He’s supposed to be this killer, yet he acts like he’s just handing out cookies. Remember that scene where three guys show up at his house? One guy pulls a gun, the lead disarms him, punches him in the nose three times, grabs the weapon, and kills one of them. Only then does Ed Harris—a guy who’s basically been a career criminal for twenty years and probably has a body count higher than most action stars—decide to react by shooting him. Come on.

Like I said before... it's completely irrelevant to the movie. This sounds like someone trying to explain why the Titanic sank just because they didn't like the font used in the credits.

Jose Miller17 said:Like I’ve already pointed out... it’s completely irrelevant to the movie itself...

And why wouldn't it matter? Honestly, why couldn't we just have the protagonist shoot them and have them clutch their hearts and collapse with those overly dramatic facial expressions—you know, like in movies from fifty years ago? To me, that kind of thing matters, even if the film isn't about violence and the shooting happens as some random side event.

It seems like whenever something is poorly executed, unrealistic, or just plain naive, people's go-to move is to simply dismiss it as "irrelevant" and call it a day. That doesn't actually solve anything.

Jessica Nguyen85 said:Those scenes of body horror—where you see the impact of a bullet to the head or a face sliced open by glass shards... that kind of visceral physical violence is pure Cronenberg style, and a normal person watching that usually feels nauseous...

How can I even explain this... just because most of us grew up watching movies that didn't feature such hyper-realistic mutilation (I don't count zombie flicks, since I view them as mere entertainment and they don't trigger my own specific brand of sensitivity), it doesn't mean I can't adapt to it. I find myself acclimating easily because of a conviction I hold—perhaps a misguided one—that the execution is realistic. But fine, based on your exclusionary logic above, I suppose I'm not "normal." And that movie about the skater kid? It actually struck me as funny... maybe because I'm not a man, but I doubt that's the reason.

And also... the final result of the film is actually the crucial part... as a viewer, that whole process somehow 'cools' our emotions toward the protagonist...

I experienced it somewhat differently... David clearly isn't aiming for that "cooling" effect, because every time he chills us out, he immediately pulls us back in, making us feel sympathy for the character or rooting for him (simply because he has a family or is a decent member of his community—though, in reality, those types are rare, and you often find out later they aren't made of AU material either).

It’s unfortunate when a film's success is measured by how much the audience identifies with a character.

I agree... I didn't identify with the characters in Apocalypse Now, Eraserhead, Persona, or Last Year at Marienbad at all, yet I found those films deeply compelling.

And please don't get me wrong... I think David is a fine director, but that doesn't mean I won't "attack" him if he makes something subpar (which is far from being the case here; this film isn't some Spider-Man sequel).