Re: A History of Violence
 

I honestly think this movie is being misunderstood. It wasn't about action, but about character, how far people have to go to be accepted, and if it's even possible in the first place. And it's about taking chances and whether it's worth it.

It was wrapped in the trappings of violence, but hey, violence sells. And some of it was pretty darn good. But if you go to this as an action movie, it's a mistake. This is a David Cronenberg movie. In another movie, he started out making a film about the Doublemint Twins and wound up with Jekyll and Hyde sexually sadistic doppleganger identical twin gynecologists. WTF? This guy is always making weird, taboo gambits wrapped in warped sex and violence. Unfortunately, people were probably led to expect something both quite different and, on an action flick level, something frankly a bit better.

This isn't one of Cronenberg's triumphs, but he misses the mark more than hits it. As does horror in general, which he is usually tied to and is generally known for. The movie doesn't work that well in a good number of ways, like the usual Cronenberg, but I don't think he was ever truly trying for what he is being held accountable for here. It's really likely that Cronenberg can't even make the kind of film he wants to in Hollywood -- if he ever truly nails it down and figures out exactly what it is in the first place. So here he has tried to commercialize his obsessions and the usual rawness of his feelings, and it fails, at least in large part, because he and his subject matter don't really fit into popcorn cinema at all. Any film like this is kind of an attempt to salvage itself before it has even set sail.

He's unlikely to ever be great at being anything other than Cronenberg, and mainstream cinema doesn't really have a place for where he wants to go. I think we're bound to be disappointed, and misunderstand what his movies are really going for, if we go to his very commercially-oriented movies. That's a shame, because he winds up compromising where he wants to go and what viewers of both his personal films and action films can expect.

I guess I'd rather see this film as an interesting variation on the theme: David Cronenberg than as what it was marketed as, a variation on a standard action flick. There are parts of it that deliver much better as Cronenberg than any of the rest of it delivers as action. It's a shame we had to sit through the rest of the action flick to get there, and that people who aren't really interested in Cronenberg's schtick found themselves unexpectedly dragged in for the ride.

Re: A History of Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
went into this with high hopes, re: cronenberg. found it painfully bad while watching and couldn't wait for it to end. strangely, afterward had this feeling of wanting to see it again to reeavaluate. this thread reminded me to get on that. tr to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you didn't subject yourself to a second viewing. I just got around to watching this last night. I was really looking forward to it, given the reviews, but it was one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Except for maybe a 10 minute stretch in the middle of the movie there was absolutely nothing even remotely good about this movie. How can so many reviewers get something so wrong? And William Hurt got an OSCAR nomination for this????????

Re: A History of Violence
 

Re: A History of Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/.../50919002/1023

[/ QUOTE ]

Ebert is spot-on, and his explanation is why History of violence is a deceptively great film.

Re: A History of Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
William Hurt
Worst. Gangster. Ever.

I thought the movie was OK up until his farcical entrance, what were they thinking when they cast him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldnt agree more. His character was one of the most ridiculous I've ever seen. It was like the movie turned into Walker: Texas Ranger as soon as Viggo got to his brother's mansion. The dialogue in that scene was unbelievably bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weird, I couldn't disagree more. I thought William Hurt basically made the movie, awesome acting in my opinion. And I liked the dialouge here.

I think everyone might be forgeting this was based on a "graphic novel", whatever that is.

Re: A History of Violence
 

i was under the impression that this was some sort of horror flick with a twist from all the positive hype i read on the net.


i watched it, it sucked.

Re: A History of Violence
 

[ QUOTE ]


Ebert is spot-on, and his explanation is why History of violence is a deceptively great film.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't buy into his explanation at all. FWIW, Ebert also gave "Tomb Raider" 3 stars, so I wouldn't say he is the be all, end all. My main problem is that I didn't really care about the characters at all. They were shallowly fleshed out, and Viggo's character took huge leaps that I just didn't buy. In addition, the subplot with his son was really poorly done I thought. I found myself not caring at all what happened to Viggo when he went back to Philly.

I do think that this would have made a very cool graphic novel, but as a movie I thought it was a complete failure.