A History of Violence

A big void plotwise. It’s quite a simple, almost trivial story, which is why I miss the reason for the Oscar nomination. In a nutshell, it’s a couple of artfully stylised violent scenes, diluted by two passionate love acts, all with a poor psychological background. Fortunately, Cronenberg directs in such a way that there’s no chance to get bored and the hundred minutes or so pass quickly. The actors are above average, Maria Bello is great, but Ed Harris – whenever he appears, he lights up the screen with his presence; it’s a pity that he has so little space, but still more than the few minutes (literally!!!) of barking from William Hurt, whose Oscar nomination I don't quite understand! With exaggeration, this really smacks of a plot by the members of the academy :) (2006-03-05)

This is the second action film by David Cronenberg that I watched, and once again, I am quite disappointed. I expected an intense drama that wouldn’t hold back on anything. The latter was partially fulfilled; the film offers a few scenes where there was plenty of brutality in the shooting, but in terms of plot, it feels like a blank sheet of paper. It was lacking character motivation, and the revelation about Mortensen’s past seemed childishly presented. The film also lacked greater coherence in the story; to me, it somewhat jumped through time, and the filler between these jumps was neglected. The character of Edie was so poorly written - first she loves Mortensen, then hates him, then loves him again. If the creators had handled it better, it would be different, but as it is, I didn’t believe in her behavior at all. The performances of the actors save it; Mortensen carried the film, that’s undeniable, and Harris along with Hurt shone in supporting roles. There isn’t much action, but when it occurs, it is substantial. It’s a film where I really don’t know how to rate it. It has its qualities but also many shortcomings. I’m quite uncertain, which hasn’t happened to me for a long time. The most average of averages seems to fit this film the best, and so I give it 55%. (2018-02-15)

From a predictable intro scene to a skillfully calculated drama with perfect actors and an unrelenting atmosphere. The dark past must be shown in a way that keeps me interested in what comes next, but the script keeps throwing one twist after another at me. The plot revolves around a fearful son and, unfortunately, key twists that don't come until the last half hour. I had already known where Tom was meant to end up for a while, but it couldn't have been more obvious. (2006-01-28)

It’s more like a 3.5*, but I’ll go a bit higher. It’s true that as a whole it’s not such a gripping thriller. Especially, after the entrance of Ed Harris, I was convinced that Cronenberg would come up with some unexpected twist, but I guess I was wrong. The film continues to move at its established pace, with only a few bloody shootouts and suspenseful scenes intervening. But the story is far from uninteresting, it’s well shot and those 90 minutes finishing with a graphic head shot and a typically American family happy ending can’t be considered a waste of time. (2012-02-24)

I hesitated for a long time with my review because, from my point of view, the film is exactly between 3 and 4 stars. Cronenberg is an experienced and high-quality director, so there is not much to criticize from a technical point of view. Additionally, the film has a very decent cast and corresponding performances by the actors. However, I have a problem with the script, or rather with the film's categorization and its ambitious desire to be more than just an entertaining movie for moments of relaxation. The title A History of Violence gives the impression of a film that wants to explore violence as a phenomenon, map it out, and insert some sort of message and psychological depth into its plot. The entire film therefore oscillates in its genre classification between a crime thriller and a psychological drama. In the first case, it has a slow and uneven pace, hindered by excessive dialogue and a plotline that is essentially too simple. In the second case, it lacks a deeper psychological characterization and credibility of events. Tom Stall's brutal fights, especially the final fight where he effortlessly defeats his opponents in a no-holds-barred Bond-style battle despite two recent serious injuries, seem to have come straight out of a terrible action movie. Certain things, such as the ability to turn off inhibitions and aggressively neutralize an enemy, do not disappear, but after 20 years of peaceful life in a provincial town, I did not believe in his combat abilities. He would lack speed, reflexes, and accuracy. This requires intensive daily training. Nevertheless, I envy Tom for his partner's sexual appetite and understanding family. In real life, after the love scene on the stairs, he would probably need long-term treatment with a physical therapist. Overall impression: 65%. Those who want a film that analyzes violence and tries to offer a fresh perspective should rather watch Straw Dogs or A Clockwork Orange. (2010-01-13)