|
Directed by: Cronenburg Starring: Strider Entertaining RATING: 4 PROS: Good cinematography CONS: Mushy ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: n/a
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2005 07:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
I didn't really enjoy this one. I read all sort of critical acclaim, and when I saw it I saw a film with uninteresting characters, music that sounded like LotR B-sides, and Ed Harris playing a cool character for entirely not long enough. I suppose if you like neato violence this provides it, albiet in short spurts. RATING: 1.5 PROS: Ed Harris' character is sort of neat. CONS: This movie bored the hell out of me, I expected some suspense or something, but it was just dull.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2005 16:36
|
|
|
A brilliant dissection of violence in America, and also on the depiction and role of violence in movies. Truly brutal filmmaking, with some great touches of black comedy. (And by "brutal," I don't just mean the violence -- the last scene feels like a punch in the gut.) The only real negatives: --It starts out a little slowly --The actress who plays the girl is terrible --and I may be the only one who complains about this, but the full-frontal shot seemed really gratuitous I don't know whose idea it was to do the last scene sans dialogue, but that was loving brilliant. I'm glad this got a wide release (would've had to wait for the DVD otherwise), but I don't think this'll do too well with the general public. I hope it gets some deserved Oscar recognition. Anyway, this is Cronenberg at his best. 5/5. Also, William Hurt's "How do you gently caress that up?" is the line of the loving year. FoneBone fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Oct 1, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2005 17:12
|
|
|
Took Friday off the week prior to go to see this film -- and I didn't because of Cronenberg, although I've seen a few of his works (The Dead Zone, The Fly, eXistenZ) and now I'm definitely interested in more of his stuff. One of the few cons I can find is Josh Olson's screenplay -- until now he's basically been writing Casper Van Dien and Eric Roberts movies. I get the idea that the actors were really excited to be working with Cronenberg and really didn't give a poo poo. The violence was, as expected, stunning, brutal and satisfying. Good acting from all parties and of course, Cronenberg. My favorite film of 2005. RATING: 4.5 PROS: Direction, acting (Ed Harris especially), the stunning outbreaks of violence CONS: The screenplay
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2005 17:20
|
|
|
The lady at the Jack in the Box is lucky I didn't break her goddamned neck. Trying to hand me my nickel change after giving me my pumpkin milkshake. I turned the cup around, and there was all this BROWN crap on the side. The side where her hand had been. But instead of just giving me a napkin to wipe with, considering it was already on my hand, she reaches through the window and tries to dab it off herself. I'd just seen A History of Violence. And if I'd had the ability, that bitch might be dead right now. Or at least had a broken arm. Director David "Depraved" Cronenberg has already expressed semi-regret that "History" is turning out to be a hit. The comic book wasn't a knockover hit when it was released, but it's Cronenberg's kind of story, the kind of "speak the unspeakable" stuff that gets his evil brain moving. For those that saw the remake of "The Fly" starring Jeff Goldblum (the last Cronenberg film that most people know about, because it's the only one that plays regularly on cable TV,) "History" is at least as unsettling, complete with open wounds that Cronenberg forces the audience to see. But it's not the violence itself that makes this movie special. This is a story about identity, about knowing oneself, even when that's exactly what you're trying to escape from. Viggo Mortensen's character, Tom Stall, has escaped his former life as a mob hitman named Joey Cusack. It was working until he foiled a stick-up job, using his old gangland skills, and became a national hero. That Tom is so close to his old self is a clear suggestion that maybe all human beings are prone to violence -- that's the kind of story Cronenberg likes. There were many scenes that provoked giggles and guffaws within the theater where I watched it -- more people that are lucky I have no skill as a killer. Mortensen and Ed Harris are both good, but the real standout work was from Tom's son Jack, played by Ashton Holmes, and Tom's real brother Richie Cusack, played by an almost unrecognizable William Hurt. Maria Bello as Tom's wife Edie is also a standout, and I have to give credit to Heidi Hayes as Tom's little daughter Sarah. So much of this movie, like the comic book, is told without any words and hardly any actions. Fine for print, but in the movies, you need a good musical track to pull it all together. So kudos to Howard Shore (who did all the Lord of the Rings movies) for the score. Go see it. Don't kill nobody. Rated 4.5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2005 23:02
|
|
|
This movie progressed too slow, and lacked the up and down plot line, if that makes any sense. The direction was awful, and a lot of the scenes just felt uncomfortable, like they were out of place or the actors were waiting to hear "Cut!" There were a bunch of scenes that just left me  Pros: Some crazy graphic violence, and Ed Harris as a badass, and William Hurt was pretty funny Cons: Slow progression, and an off kind of feeling to the entire movie. Rating: 1.5 out of 5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2005 05:39
|
|
|
Subtle, humorous, humane, and utterly terrifying. The movie was filled with very "human" moments to ground you in the reality that cinema often denies the audience. So I felt as betrayed as Tom's wife even though I was also rooting for Tom - which like Tom, also made me wind up feeling guilty. Pros: Raises lots of tough questions about the value and glorification we place on violence in American society. Excellent script that does a great job of adapting from the graphic novel. Excellent performances all-around, especially by Tom/Joey's son. Cronenberg is a master of sickening the audience with the gory consequences of violence. Wonderful cinematography. Great scoring. A film that everyone in America should see at some point in their lives. Bonus points for hilarious not-so-subtle revenge-abuse of the breakfast cereal product-placement in a later scene. Cons: The gangsters often seem a bit stereotypical. (Although this works as a nice contrast to the very human, flawed, and nonstereotypical Stall household.) The daughter was a bit too much of a moppet for my tastes. Bottom line: This is cronenberg's masterpiece, and a true landmark in American cinema. If you don't think so, I'll loving kill you. 5.5/5 DanSTC fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Oct 2, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2005 05:54
|
|
|
What a treat. It's Cronenberg cleverly disguised as mainstream fare, and it has the combined strengths of both. It's tense and darkly funny, and explores the themes of violence and family in a thought-provoking way. The cast is amazing... I was particularly impressed with Maria Bello's performance, but it was full of great actors in interesting roles. Viggo Mortensen is by now well-established as a bankable leading man, and he did not disappoint. 5.0
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2005 07:22
|
|
|
What a great little film. I saw it with Santiago3 the other night and we were thoroughly impressed. Here's a fun question to ponder, are the two criminals at the beginning in anyway connected to the rest of the story? I thought at first that they were two of Fogerty's men, but isn't equally as plausible that Carl saw Viggo on TV and said, "Oh, boy it's him!" and had no connection to the two other guys? Also, I think Cronenberg is touching on the old adage that the most disturbing and horrifying acts of violence usually take place in the small midwestern town populated by "Nice people" as the Sheriff says. I also think that since the violence is quick and brutal, it has much more of an impact on the audience. When you watch a film like "The Killer" or "Commando" where the bodycounts are in the hundreds, you grow numb after a while. In this film, someone getting their nose driven into their skull or a shotgun blast to the back nearly punched me back into my seat. Like a previous poster said, it's a great dissection on the role of violence in American society today, and is darkly funny. Great stuff. Some of my other friends who saw it complained that it was too abrupt at the end, but I think the film ended exactly where it needed to and wasn't drawn out to laborious lengths. 4/5 PROS: Ed Harris and William Hurt chew through their small roles with great vigor. The violence is brutal, terrifying and will hit you right in the stomach, and comes in short spurts like blood from a pierced jugular. CONS: A very methodical pace may lead some to check their watch BOTTOM LINE: Cronenberg really has made a wonderful little film and one of the best films to come out this year 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2005 07:57
|
|
|
Went in expecting a good psychological suspense film, left utterly disappointed. I'm re-writing this so it contains more "this is why I didn't like it and hopefully you'll see something else instead" and less "gently caress YOU, MOVIE". The opening scene sets the pace for the rest of the show: slow and methodical, giving you ample time to let things sink in. The problem is that Cronenberg doesn't know where to draw the line between "wow, this is powerful" and "move along already, christ" and as a result scenes that should be compelling end up awkward, boring, or both. I thought what became the first sex scene was great - up until the close-up of Viggo going down on his wife which lasted a few minutes too long. The ending should have been an emotional sledgehammer but after a while reminded me of the scene from MST3K's version of Manos where Servo desperately shouts, "DO SOMETHING!" Virtually every important scene is similarly drawn out, in (what I'm assuming is) an attempt to maximize the effect of jarring sex and violence. Then again, I play a lot of San Andreas and I've used the internet for more than a day; the stuff Cronenberg relies on to shock the sensibilities isn't all that shocking. This is made worse by the fact that there isn't much to fall back on in the absence of shock value: no plot, and no characters I give a drat about. Lord of War made me all kinds of uncomfortable with its depiction of The Bad Men, perfectly summed up at the end with the knock on the door - this movie just left me wondering, "so what?" While Ed Harris is doing his thing the movie is still interesting, if slow - I didn't quite know where it was going, but figured there would be a twist at the end pulling the threads together. I say that because there's only one question to be answered - who Viggo is - and really only one possible answer. Unfortunately Cronenberg decided that halfway through would be a good time to resolve the burning question and have Ed Harris get shot in the back, and promptly ran out of ideas. After that the movie doesn't even pretend to make sense, and doesn't care if you notice. Pros: Ed Harris is cool in Ed Harris style, and the introduction was enjoyable. Cons: After the introduction the pacing and style starts to get distracting, and everything goes downhill from there until its over and you realize that nothing of substance actually happened. I've never heard so many sighs of relief for ending credits or seen a theater empty so quickly. zzyzx fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Oct 4, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2005 10:22
|
|
|
Go see A History Of Violence, because it's the only movie this year where you can see Aragorn palm some guy's loving nose until you can see his skull, shoot his brother and about 600 other guys, and slap some kid. 5.5/5, for those reasons. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 04:11
|
|
|
Horrible. This movie had the opportunity to be a whole lot better, but it seems that director David Cronenberg (director of such riveting films as "Scanners", and "eXistenZ") has struck again. First of all I thought both sex scenes were overly akward and completely pointless. Yes we know they love eachother very much. Do we really need to see Maria Bello and Viggo Mortenson sixty-nining eachother for five minutes? Or having ANGRY sex in the middle of a house holding their 3-year old daughter? The scene where the little girl had the nightmare and the whole family seemingly cared soooooo much about their little girl that they all woke up and came in to see what was wrong... jesus. I laughed there. It was a bit overly sentimental for my taste. The opening scene was drawn out waaaay to long, and I feel it was only put there so the director could have a place to put the mandatory opening credits. Those characters ended up having little to no relevency with the plot. Also, the high-school bully scenes reminded me of some lovely after school special. Could Cronenberg really not see how loving cliche and laughable these scenes were? The scrawny, wimpy kid could catch a loving FLY BALL right to him. Lets all congratulate him for a job well done. Oh and lets beat the poo poo out of him and push him around in the locker room for doing his job. Did anyone else think that Viggo sounded like a complete moron when he was in the hospital the second time, explaining his "split personalities?" Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie did a horrible job building a character for Viggo's brother. He is introduced to us in the end, and within 10 minutes he is dead. We are supposed to care, but we don't. And when they first saw eachother again, who thought they were going to make out? I cringed when they had their foreheads pressed together. Some things were cool however, like when they panned to peoples faces after Viggo hosed them up. However, if that's all the good I could find from this movie I might as well have just watched Pulp Fiction over, because that's actually a good movie. Why did the critics like this movie so much again? Rating: 1.5/5 Owldolph Hootler fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Oct 3, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 06:30
|
|
|
The opening scene is hilarious. Dry, but funny. I loved this movie, the shots were excellent and the angels were desireable. I liked how the family interacted, it was pretty interesting. The nudity was distracting. The gore was fantastic and I loved every part of it. The only thing I didn't like about the movie were the dick fucks sitting behind me. I promptly shot them in the face. 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 07:23
|
|
|
The movie is horrible. I don't see how it ever got made. I was tempted to walk out...so many bad scenes as listed a few posts above. Somehow I made it through the whole movie always thinking "something interesting has to happen". It never did. The high school kid turned badass, the worthless daughter (the opening scene of her in the bed was just pathetic), the horrible Tarantino ripoff beginning, the hospital scene, the sex on the stairs, RUNNING from town all the way home, anti climatic ending, it's all so bad I was irritated. Maybe it could have been rescued by one or two scenes but the whole loving movie was bad scene after bad scene. I was most annoyed Viggo didn't stop his heavy breathing for like 10 minutes after running from town all the way home. His breathing actually fluctuated heavy and light as they edited the scene together. I guess if you can shoot a movie and make it very grainy looking and kinda dark you are Hollywood gold.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 07:49
|
|
|
I just saw this movie for the second time. Not because it was anything worth watching, but because it was the most piss-poor loving faggoty-rear end piece of poo poo film that I have ever watched (And I use the term "watched" lightly, as it felt more like a motherfucking root-canal through my rear end) to the point where I was cracking up so bad my sides hurt. This film (and in this post, translate every use of the word "film" to "poo poo.") was the best time of my life, as I'd never laughed so hard. My friends and I were all in tears. Once we realized halfway through the film that this was, in fact, NOT a comedy, it made it even funnier. We couldn't believe what we were seeing. No loving way. Viggo Mortenson face deep in 50 year old snatch. No loving way. Oh hey, there's her snatch again. With her robe open. Wow that was a quick cut. poo poo, man. Thanks to David Cronenberg's most recent failure, I am now allergic to film. But drat it was a good time. 5.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 08:23
|
|
|
Great movie. I loved the opening sequence, as you wondered who these guys were and what they were doing. All the performances were really incredible, except for the little girl, who I thought was ok for what she needed to do. The standout was William Hurt, who I've never liked, but thought he was brilliant here. This movie actually reminded me a lot of Korean movies, that tend to be slow, dramatic, sometimes a bit cheesy, and also having short, fast bits of hyper violence in them. It's not everyone's thing though, and I don't see this movie doing that well here because of it's pacing. There was a senior citizen couple sitting in front of us who walked out of the movie during that scene on the stairs, and never came back. I really enjoyed the ending with no words and the communication all in their eyes and actions, but at the fade to black, someone in my theatre yelled, "What the hell?" Rating 5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 12:16
|
|
|
Cronenberg really dropped the ball with this film. I've seen almost all of his films and I can find quite a few redeeming qualities in all of them (yes, even eXistenz)... with the exception of A History of Violence. This film was a HUGE letdown. I was really excited when I found out this movie was indeed going to get a wide release (I'm stuck in Arkansas), but now I'm finding that I wish I'd never seen it at all. The plot was laughable. The dialogue was so cheesy and cliche. There were threads that never went anywhere and felt like they didn't add anything to the film (Like the nerd-turned-martial-arts-hero son). Everything seemed so thrown-together. While I have no problem with slower, more methodical pacing, it just seems as though some of the poo poo was dragged out as filler. Am I the only person who thinks Viggo couldn't act his way out of a paper bag (and he's ugly as homemade sin to boot!)? Pros: Ummm... MAYBE Hurt & Harris, great cinematography, and the extremely sparse black comedy? Cons: Pacing, filler material, acting, dialogue, & Viggo. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2005 21:28
|
|
|
I didn't mind the pace of it. I guess Cronenberg directed what was there with skill. I say "what was there" because the screenplay is loving terrible. I don't know what the graphic novel is like (heck, I didn't know there was one) but it can't be too amazing if it turned out this sort of stilted, pointless dialauge. Now that I think about it, I take back what I said about Cronenberg. He has obviously never interacted with a human being under the age of 20 before in his entire life. It was like he had seen a picture of a little girl once and was just blindly guessing at what they would act like. You could blame that on the little kid's acting skills if you really want, but there's a point where the director has to take responsibility for actors coming across like they are reading teleprompters. It's sad that the movie was so disappointing, because the first few minutes are actually very well done. Right up until a little girl shows up on screen making noises like a dog caught in a squeaky door. "Okay, act like you are afraid, but you can only chirp because I am a retarded man." The other actors do what they can to put the words on the screen, but the things they say can be so stupid it's just impossible for them to do it believably. Someone said something about the last scene being good. I suppose it is if you hold up a little notecard and block out the little girl, or perhaps the entire screen. The little bursts of action that come up periodically are gory, loud, brutal, etc. They work very well. In summary: The direction is there for every second there are no children on screen, the acting is good as long as it doesn't involve children, but the writing just isn't there. RATING: 2 PROS: Well directed, well acted (exclude children from both statements) CONS: The writer needs to be quietly put to sleep. ----------------
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2005 01:35
|
|
|
I saw this movie last weekend with two of my friends, and we still talk about it. Not because it was good, gently caress no, but because it was so bad it was hilarious. One of us will say something and the other will say something to the effect of, "Yeah, what ever, Joey". It never gets old. 1/5, worst movie ever. You people who rate it 5 are utterly retarded.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2005 21:29
|
|
|
Hey guys! This movie is about Aragorn and he’s killing people! It will be just like Lord of the Rings but with guns and rough sex and nudity! Or like Sin City in color! 5.5/5! Wait, no. This was the worst movie I’ve seen this year. Every actor minus Mortensen and Harris will piss you off to such a great degree that you will wish that Tom/Joey would just loving lose it and start killing them all, starting with his can’t-act-for-poo poo kids. But he doesn’t, because the actual violence in this movie lasts about 5 minutes when all combined together. These scenes are well done technically - the special effects to make them look realistic are fine - but the scenes themselves are unrealistic. Watch as Viggo twice takes out a crime-boss’ henchmen as the boss himself stands there and waits until the last moment to draw his gun! Watch as one crime-boss stands over Viggo and gives a longwinded speech giving family members ample time to silently sneak up behind him and shoot him in the back. The acting and dialogue are so bad that you’ll laugh in all the wrong places, including: Every time the father and son are onscreen together, every time the son and bully are onscreen together, every time the daughter opens her mouth, the final scenes between William Hurt and Mortensen... and so on. The scenes with the townspeople are clichéd beyond belief – which I understand is on purpose – but doesn’t work at all when they’re in the same movie as these other characters who you’re supposed to be taking seriously as badass killers. I was lead to believe by the trailer that I would be in for a thrilling suspense type movie. This movie is the opposite of suspenseful. Not once after the initial scene of violence do you ever wonder if Viggo’s character could just be trapped at the wrong place at the wrong time. You know immediately what’s going on and what will happen from here on out. You’ll just wonder how long it will take. Then, after resisting the urge to look at your watch for an hour and a half, you’ll finally give in and take a look, only to wonder how this movie could possibly come to a close in a timely manner... and then it just ends. What this movie has going for it: Mortensen and Harris are fine in this movie. I wish Harris had a larger role. The final scene of the movie was handled well... and if I didn’t hate the rest of the movie up until that point I may have walked out of the theater admiring the director for the choice he made in ending the film. What sucked: I pretty much covered this already Real score: 1/5 Gambl0r fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Oct 8, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2005 06:32
|
|
|
Gonk posted:Horrible. This movie had the opportunity to be a whole lot better, but it seems that director David Cronenberg (director of such riveting films as "Scanners", and "eXistenZ") has struck again. Quoted for truth although my biggest issue with the movie is that I left the theatre and I had no reaction. I wasnt excited about a cool movie or pissed I just wasted my time. I mean it was so medicore that it makes it worse. Atleast it's fun to bash a terrible movie. Wait for DVD and go rent Ong Bak for your action cravings. 2.5/5 - that actually made it worse for me than if it were a 1/5.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2005 06:45
|
|
|
QuantumMechanic posted:1/5, worst movie ever. You people who rate it 5 are utterly retarded. Hey guys people with different opinions are STUPID  Anyhow, I really enjoyed it. I won't say best movie I've seen in a while, but it was certainly worth what I payed. It seemed to me to be something in the vein of Unbreakable; it was just a movie about a typical man coming to terms with something fantastic/terrible inside of him. And, like Unbreakable, the pacing was slow at best. I guess this is a turn off to most, but never once did I feel like I was forcing myself to sit through either of those movies, because there was just so much... humanity. The spurts of fantastic hyperviolence only made it better, honestly the only movie violence I've seen in a while that disturbed me. I would say it rivals some of the disembowelment hentai I've seen around these parts in terms of fuckedupedness. 4.5/5 batwingedloony fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Oct 8, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2005 10:22
|
|
|
History of Violence had a good beginning, and went well for the next hour, but at the one hour and twenty minute mark you got the feeling that the directors just stopped caring and just slapped together an ending. The suspense builds up to an unsatisfying conclusion, and the effect of the psychological mindgames of Fogerty and Jack just build up to... nothing. Not entirely unenjoyable, just very forgettable. RATING: 2.5/5 PROS: Viggo Mortensen acted well, the character of Fogerty is great, lots of suspense. CONS: Rushed ending, suspense feels wasted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2005 13:19
|
|
|
Wow, I'm surprised to see so many good reviews. I just went and saw the later movie. That last scene, oh my loving god did it stretch. I started laughing like halfway through.. It was supposed to be all serious with the daughter getting him a plate but really the camera panning from face to face was just too much. Then it cuts to a 4 second black screen and the credits start. I have never seen a theatre break out laughing like that before -- not to mention all the 'what the gently caress was that?' comments. Did anyone else have the audience laugh at that last scene? Man.. I'm seriously just waiting for family guy to parody that. Also, that sex scene on the stairs.. WHAT THE gently caress was that all about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2005 07:57
|
|
|
It's funny, I'd read that this was David Cronenberg going mainstream, but I don't think that's the case, having seen it. Quite on the contrary, in fact. This movie deliberately makes you uncomfortable, and violence comes in quick, intense bursts, with graphic results. All of this is making a point, though. Many of the things I've noticed people complaining about are obviously intentional or tongue-in-cheek; a perfect example of this are the scenes with the school bully. It's a classic Americana situation, played over-the-top, until it comes to a startling, violent conclusion. This would be a signature moment for either Brian De Palma or...well, David Cronenberg. The thing you have to remember is that it's not realistic, nor is it intended to be. I thought this came across rather clearly, but then I may be overestimating people's familiarity with Cronenberg's work. Anyway, as I say, there is a point to this: the movie is showing us that this classic Americana setting is burying a history of obscene violence, and questioning whether or not the cycle can be escaped. You can make the question larger than that, actually, and apply it to the human race in general, but America is the obvious choice for the setting, given that other countries didn't so idealize themselves the way America did in movies. So the movie makes a point, which is good, but I also found it to be entertaining, which is more important. Yeah, it's slow, but it's never boring. It's often funny, and with the exception of the kids, the performances are very good. I'm particularly impressed by the first sex scene, actually. In pretty much every movie, a graphic sex scene is very false - characters look great, and the whole thing is filmed in snippets with perfect lighting. Here, we are watching a husband and wife have sex. They don't always look great, they laugh a little bit, the whole thing looks a bit goofy. The whole scene has a slightly off voyeuristic feel to it, making it both a bit funny and sweet, and a bit unnerving. I guess what I liked best about the movie, though, was that it didn't answer its central question for the audience, which was nice. If the cycle of violence is endless, the whole thing seems nihilist exercise, and yet if it is overcome, it seems like the sort of Americana heartwarming story that it satirizes. I find it encouraging to see a movie that knows when answers discourage thought, rather than stimulating it. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2005 00:17
|
|
|
The dialogue in A History of Violence is so poor and awkward that it almost makes you forget about the awkwardness you just felt in watching two really uncomfortable, long sex scenes, and COMPLETELY cancels out any of the cool killing that goes on. It's an interesting premise, and could have been really interesting and subtle, but instead was blunt and amateurish. The teenage son was one of the worst acted characters I've ever seen. 1/5, extra points taken away because reviews said this was really good and it got my hopes up.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2005 06:09
|
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. That said, I didn't "get it" as some of the other posters have. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the director and source material. As a random flick I just went and saw, it was entertaining, unexpected, and interesting. Viggo, the wife, the son, Fogerty, and the brother were all fantastic. But... Bad -The little girl is awful. Whenever she spoke, it took me right out of the movie. -The bully is shockingly 1 dimensional. Apparently, I missed the point there? Weird -full frontal scene. Say, huh? 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2005 08:41
|
|
|
I saw this movie last night and I think it is easily the most accessible Cronenberg to date. I feel some of the shots that returned to the victims of recent violence were just there for Cronenberg to get off on. However, my favorite thing about the film was how the shots sometimes lingered. Notably right after his son saved his life and of course the final shot. He really gave you time to let the emotional tension between the characters sink in. I didn’t know much about this movie before going and it cause it to have a much more raw effect on me. How graphic the sex and violence was left you feeling unclean and made it a very real experience. There is no drawn out gun fights or boxing match style fist fights. The killing happens quick and without hesitation. And the results of these killings are show to you with no reserve for innocence. The sex is no less real than violence by anyone’s standard. This is one of very few films I have seen that does not glorify sex between a couple in any way. It is shown as it really is, and it was not comfortable to watch. You will see a lot of unpleasant things in this movie, and the sex is no exception. Without getting any deeper and spoiling things, I will just say that this was quite a powerful film. It has made me think more that perhaps any other movie this year. The acting was great as was the script and photography. There really were no distractions. Being a resident of Indiana and from a small town I can tell you that the overall feel was very convincing. 9/10
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2005 16:14
|
|
|
I just saw this, its easily the most intense drama of the year. Cronenburg is in top form here, keeping the audience in the palm of his hand. Viggo Mortensen is brilliant, giving the performance of his career. Now Ed Harris, he's just too good. He makes it look easy. The film was hot poo poo thematically, questioning morality without giving any easy answers. I have to say, I thought the movie made perfect sense, it played out pretty straight forward. I'm not sure why people are offended by Maria Bello's frontal nudity. I mean, all this violence and profanity, yet some skin offends you?  5.5, amazing stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2005 12:48
|
|
|
Hated it. The movie gives all it has to give about half way through and then leaves you waiting for the next twist, which never comes. I understand that the movie isn't supposed to be plot driven, but my brain implodes trying to comprehend how the characters and themes in this movie justify rating it so highly. If you're the type of person who enjoys picking apart boring, predictable movies to find some seriously deep messages about violence in society and the family, then this is the movie for you. 1/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2005 18:09
|
|
|
3/5 Maybe it was the headache I had while watching this but I just didn't find it to be very good. Harris played a good mobster but I just thought the story was pretty weak. The violent parts were well done and the latter half of the movie just left me kinda like.. uh yeah okay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2005 04:35
|
|
|
Pros: I really liked the violent parts. They expressed a sense of realism in how suddenly events exploded, and how quickly they ended. Cons: The violence only takes up about 2 minutes of screen time, this being bad because I felt the violence was the only thing done right with this movie. I thought the dialog was pretty flat, the sex scenes were awkward, and the family's reactions to the secret weren't very believable, particularly the son's. The son's problem with the bully, which I was hoping they were going to go somewhere with, just ended up as a dangling thread. Also, there were some huge plot problems for me: Why would the mob guys gently caress around like clueless dips? As soon as they realised he was who they were looking for, they would've gone in his house in the middle of the night and shot him in the head, or on the way to work, or with a rifle while he was in his yard or whatever. Following him around and bugging him at work, and his family at the mall, makes no sense. At his brother's, they knows he's a crazy resourceful killer when he wants to be, but his brother has his henchman use a garrot. What the gently caress? I would've really liked this as a 30 minute show on HBO or something, but it was too long at 95 minutes for the content it had, and I normally like my movies at 120 minutes minimum. 2.5/5 - Below average, except for the depictions of violence. I'd be giving it a 1/5 if I had been expecting a movie with some sort of deep meaning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2005 06:30
|
|
|
All of the "hurrr I loved the violence and that's it" talk is exactly what this movie is trying to show us! From Ebert's review: But what is Cronenberg saying about Tom, or Joey? Which life is the real one? The nature of Joey's early life was established by the world he was born into. His second life was created by conscious choice. Which is dominant, nature or nurture? Hyde, or Jekyll? Are we kidding ourselves when we think we can live peacefully? Is our peace purchased at the price of violence done elsewhere? In "A History of Violence," it all comes down to this: If Tom Stall had truly been the cheerful small-town guy he pretended to be, he would have died in that diner. It was Joey who saved him. And here is the crucial point: Because of Joey, the son Jack, makes discoveries about himself that he might not have ever needed (or wanted) to make. "A History of Violence" seems deceptively straightforward, coming from a director with Cronenberg's quirky complexity. But think again. This is not a movie about plot, but about character. It is about how people turn out the way they do, and about whether the world sometimes functions like a fool's paradise. It's a wonderful analysis of violence, its identity and how we as a people relate to it. What did his wife do shortly after finding out the truth? hosed him hard on the steps, without regard that their children would see. What's that say about our love for violence and those who can dish it out? A very nice film. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2005 17:19
|
|
|
I understand the point of being "deceptively straightforward", but while the director wants it to have deeper meaning, it doesn't resonate when the presentation is so shallow. Besides, his 'message' is vague and murky at best. I get it, Cronenberg wants us to think of this movie as an allegory to American society burying a literal history of violence, using cliche settings and situations and then screeching them to a halt by inserting brutality and gore. I know where he was going with it, the problem is that I didn't FEEL any of that coming through the plot. No rooting for anyone, no attachment to the characters, no turns in the road of the plot. Where I think Cronenberg made his mistakes here is that he was so focused on trying to make people think of what the movie represented, that he forgot to make a compelling movie in the process. That said, I don't think it was bad, just that I had no reaction to it, even though I knew what the intended reaction was supposed to be. Pros: Nice seeing Viggo branch out, Ed Harris's character is cool, and the violence is pretty nuts. Cons: Didn't really do anything for me at all, character development-wise or plot development-wise. I was expecting something a little more psychological, but it felt too flat. 2.5/5: "Just average"
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2005 07:09
|
|
|
This movie was worthless. The violent parts (all 2 minutes of them) were extremely well done. Other than that, it was dumb. This movie had some glaring holes and other things that were just loving annoying: -He runs home from downtown? What the gently caress? The whole movie they make it out like he lives in the sticks, and then when his family is in trouble he Forrest Gumps it home in no time flat? On a foot that got stabbed clean through? How? -When he is about to be killed in his front yard by the mobster. Who honestly didnt see his son coming with the shotgun from 10 million miles away? -When he is at his brothers house. He takes down like 4 henchmen, sequentially. While the others just stand and watch, guns in hand. I thought the first sex scene was dissapointing because they 69'ed for 15 minutes straight and we didnt get to see any action. Then they screw on the stairs and we see man-rear end, AND THEN the previously uber-milfy wife turns out to have flappy french-toast shaped tits.  gently caress this movie 0/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2005 08:54
|
|
|
I liked this movie, but was honestly confused by some parts. The tongue-in-cheek explanation seems to make more sense of the bully stuff, as that was too cliche and dumb to be taken seriously. Personally, I laughed at a lot of the family's interaction...the nightmare thing was just so over-the-top and ridiculous, and the son was so typically angsty that I found myself giggling every time he came on screen. And people weren't disturbed by the nudity, we were just really confused as to why that full frontal shot was in there. Like...it served no purpose that I could see. Plus Ed Harris' accent annoyed me and I thought William Hurt was entirely unbelievable. He took the whole thing as a joke, and I just didn't buy it. Overall, though, I enjoyed myself. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2005 22:04
|
|
|
I would post my own review, but I can't say it nearly as well as Jon Rosenbaum, so here's his review:quote:A History of Violence It seems to me that poeple went to this movie expecting an action movie or something, as opposed to a meditation on the different forms violence takes. The movie's plot was there, but the movie was not about its plot. It was about violence, our reactions to it, and the forms it takes. rating: 5.5/5 Square fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Oct 18, 2005 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2005 00:40
|
|
|
I'm in the "liked it" camp. Everyone's basically already listed all the good points. In addition to those I liked the ironic religious allegory. It added another interesting demension to the film. I also enjoyed the way that American culture was mocked throughout the whole thing. "See you in Church!" Lolz 4/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2005 08:39
|
|
|
This may be the most boringly slow-paced movie I've ever seen. It accomplished nothing in developing characters or creating an interesting plot. This was definitly one of the worst movies I've seen this year. .5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2005 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 08:24 |
|
|
Horrible acting, plot holes, and gratuitous nudity. Why didn't I just watch the spice channel? .5/5
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2005 06:18
|
|