A History of Violence

[fish2plus2]

btw, one thing i noticed about this movie is that it was much more effective on the big screen and the first time i saw it. i think it is because alot of the violence comes suddenly and violently and it made me and the person I saw it with jump a few times. Although, I definitely dont think it belongs at number 2 on that list.

[Barcalounger]

[ QUOTE ]
The hate for this movie is surprising to me. It certainly wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination, but for what it was, it was an enjoyable flick.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jules22]

i thought it was a mediocre film, but ed harris turned in some really good work imo

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose the director was trying to say something about character, about the strong dominating the weak, about how violence is always present just under the surface, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked the movie a lot, but interpreted the meaning much differently. I think the focus of the movie is more on the relationship between Edie and Tom, rather than on the violence itself. The movie asks the question: "If you found out that somebody you love used to be a completely different person, does that change the way you feel about him? Does that change who he is to you now?" The violence simply serves to contrast who Tom used to be with who he is when the movie begins. He used to be a violent assassin, now he is a completely loving husband and father.

The other point of the movie is obviously that Maria Bello has some serious grooming issues.

[andyfox]

"The other point of the movie is obviously that Maria Bello has some serious grooming issues."

Interesting. She doesn't do much for me, but my nephew, who's 21, thought she was completely hot. He said when she came out in that cheerleader's get-up, that was it for him.

Go figure.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
"The other point of the movie is obviously that Maria Bello has some serious grooming issues."

Interesting. She doesn't do much for me, but my nephew, who's 21, thought she was completely hot. He said when she came out in that cheerleader's get-up, that was it for him.

Go figure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, forgot you saw it on TV. I meant downstairs.

[Deorum]

I think most of the disappointment people experienced was not so much due to the movie not living up to the hype itself, but a different expectation derived from that hype.

When a lot of people are saying a movie is great, most people expect the movie to be emotionally moving. They expect to experience an adrenalin rush, extreme sorrow, terror, pride, etc largely based on the genre. But that didn't happen here. In the end, you felt indifferent towards the characters whether they murdered, were murdered, or both, and very little was accomplished in terms of the character's goals.

This lack of relation to and sentiment for the characters was not the point. This is not what was being hyped. What was being hyped was the meaning behind it all. Most people heard the acclaim, but not specifically what that acclaim was for. They expected to be moved. They weren't, and were disappointed because of it. But they were expecting the wrong thing (through no fault of their own, really).

[Borodog]

Maybe. I saw this without hearing about any hype. I just saw a commercial, about a small town short order cook with "a history of violence" and thought it looked cool. After I left I felt something like, "Well that was a good little movie", emphasis on the little. I don't know the runtime (I think someone mentioned in the thread), but I felt the movie was short; it was about as close as a movie can come to being a vignette and still have a complete arc.

Spoiler: <font color="white">One other reason I liked it was that the "good" guy won, and his wife and son didn't have to get killed along the way.</font>

[andyfox]

Yeah, I know what you meant; it was on cable, so I saw downstairs. Even in the cheerleader's outfit, there was some show-through to back up your point.

[josh_x]

I was also a bit disapointed with this film. I don't remember it too clearly, but i remember thinking it felt all muddled up. The first half of it was interesting with the whole doubt as to whether he is or isn't the gangster, which was great, and the interesting effects this had on the characters relationships. But then it turns into some bad action movie when he goes to new york (?) and kills all those people. I was thinking "huh? I was enjoying that characters and the relationships, and now i'm watching some bruce willis flick"

Also, the scenes with the kid getting bullied just seem ludicrous to me. If i saw those scenes in isolation i would have thought they were taken from a comedy, which i would have been keen to see. There was one bit where the bully and the kid are talking and something leads the bully to say "you calling me stupid?", that i remember thinking was f-in hilarious, which kind of killed the vibe.

It was cool, but it wasn't quite there IMO.