A History of Violence

BootBoy said:I wouldn't even give it a look...

Hey, don't be like that! Honestly, there's really no reason to be so skeptical—especially when you consider that Cronenberg has delivered such a genuinely great piece here, one that's almost uncharacteristic for him. I mean, it's atypical because the way he expands the narrative throughout the whole movie is just seamless; he weaves through all those different subplots without ever stumbling or losing momentum.

Richard Hernandez13 said:Was I really the only one laughing in the theater?

I recall Branko Djuric once mentioning in an interview that a single laugh at the wrong moment can turn a tragedy into a comedy. I'm not sure who originally coined that thought, but it holds up. (And frankly, he struggled with that exact issue when playing Hamlet.)

Maybe my mood was just off, but once Tom started sprinting home, desperately trying to save his loved ones, I couldn't help but think of Forrest, and that was it. Then came the scene in the house with a frantic Edie and a lost kid looking completely bewildered—his expression was less horror and more comical confusion—so I just couldn't take it seriously anymore.

Plus, there are too many plot holes for my liking, and Viggo seemed to have more work to do than Steven in several of their collaborations.

But I wasn't actually laughing at the movie itself; I was more like laughing along with the film.

Has anyone else caught this yet? Personally, I thought the movie was excellent. If you haven't seen it, you really should check it out somewhere.

boldlynx2 said:Has anyone else caught this yet? Personally, I thought the movie was excellent. If you haven't seen it, you really should check it out somewhere.

You're referring to that film starring Viggo Mortensen, I assume? It is truly a phenomenal piece of cinema; it’s certainly worth your time to sit down and watch it.

Just finished watching. Honestly, I'm feeling pretty split on this one. Like someone else mentioned earlier, the individual sequences hit hard, but the movie as a whole feels kind of surface-level. One of my biggest gripes was the character arc—or lack thereof. I’d pin that on Viggo Mortensen; he didn't just fail to transform the character from start to finish, he basically neutralized him. I can't seem to find any real perspective or depth there, and the more I think about it, the less I find, which just leaves me feeling indifferent. It wasn't a strong performance at all... honestly, looks like a lack of craft or just not "getting" the role. Third thing: for a Cronenberg film, there's a weird lack of atmosphere. With all this violence surrounding the characters, you'd expect some neuroticism or psychosis, but they just seem to be "going through the motions." You don't feel that inner agony. Maybe the score is off, or maybe it needs more diegetic sound—just some silence broken by natural noises like wind or a creaking door... whatever. It just lacks that sense of dread and anxiety given what these people are actually going through...

There are pros, though. The camerawork is solid, the action scenes work, and Ed Harris and William Hurt are great. Even the kid playing the son was alright... it's a decent enough movie, but the acting could have been much better. It feels hollow...

The movie was just plain stupid. The acting was solid, but that’s about it—everything else made zero sense to me. Not to mention how incredibly naive some of those scenes felt.