New Line Cinema | Release Date: September 23, 2005
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 814 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
581
Mixed:
84
Negative:
149
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
8
EpicLadySpongeMar 6, 2016
What's this? The last feature film made by Hollywood to be released on VHS? RIP - VHS'es. No longer relevant after 2006. A History of Violence is seriously one of those violent movies that actually works.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SpangleJul 25, 2014
This one is definitely a slow burner, but the pay off is great and as a film, it is certainly something to marvel at. Firstly, the direction from David Cronenberg is great and as this was the first film of his I have seen, it certainly makesThis one is definitely a slow burner, but the pay off is great and as a film, it is certainly something to marvel at. Firstly, the direction from David Cronenberg is great and as this was the first film of his I have seen, it certainly makes me want to continue going through his filmography. In terms of acting, Viggo Mortensen is great, as are Ed Harris and Maria Bello. The only actor whose performance was iffy was Ashton Holmes as Mortensen's son. He struggles at times, especially when on screen with heavyweights like Mortensen and Harris. In addition, the film is filled with tension. The film may be a slow burner and all, but once it kicks into high gear, things are very interesting thanks to these very well developed characters and their interpersonal relationships. While at the end of the day, this is a movie, everything felt very authentic and you really believed these people were who they said they were thanks to great writing, acting, and direction. The film has a smalltown feel as well, which is awesome. The violence is a tad graphic, but it never feels like it is too much, which is also a big plus for me personally. Overall, A History of Violence is a good film that really highlights what a thriller should be like. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Compi24Mar 29, 2014
While exploring richly thematic ideas of harm, family, and the troubled past, David Cronenberg and the case of "A History Of Violence" ultimately craft a fantastically thought-provoking and thoroughly intriguing thriller.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
beingryanjudeAug 25, 2014
A History of Violence is raw and compelling. This film will make you question everything, absolutely everything. And for good reason. By the end, you'll understand why Viggo Mortensen is much more than Aragorn.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
csw12Jul 18, 2013
A History of Violence is not bad its disgraceful. The movie is made in such an uninteresting way with its poor dialogue, below average acting, and a pace that will leave you with a headache. The ending is predictable and frankly a joke.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
cameronmorewoodNov 8, 2012
It is very rare that a film is so compelling that it keeps my eyes absolutely glued to the screen from its opening sequence to its final frame. Surely, A History of Violence is one of the great films of the decade.
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
6
imthenoobNov 9, 2016
The run time is rather short and doesn't offer much dialogue nor real plot progression. We see it visually advance in the plot but we don't really experience it. I think it could have been a much deeper film if that add a bit of dialogue andThe run time is rather short and doesn't offer much dialogue nor real plot progression. We see it visually advance in the plot but we don't really experience it. I think it could have been a much deeper film if that add a bit of dialogue and really explored the characters, Who could have been very compelling. I mean this is a family who is finding out that their father/husband isn't who he says he is and it shatters the mold of the perfect small town family that they built through out their lives.

I also think it wastes a very talented cast and doesn't really make much use of it them as well. Harris is always fun to watch and I loved Mortensen as the lead. Maria Bello is solid as well. Yet again they don't really make sure of them. All in all it's not a terrible movie but there's a lot of wasted potential.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Trev29Jul 19, 2013
I wonder how a movie can go from suspenseful and absorbing to seemingly worthless and uneventful. By the end, the storyline was pathetically simplistic. I hated the ending. It was as if everything that kept me entertained disappeared and wasI wonder how a movie can go from suspenseful and absorbing to seemingly worthless and uneventful. By the end, the storyline was pathetically simplistic. I hated the ending. It was as if everything that kept me entertained disappeared and was replaced by some peculiar straightforward garbage. However, that shouldn't diminish the fact that the majority of the film was very solid. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuJan 6, 2013
A History of Violence has it's plus points (a good story, some cool over-the-top murder action and some kinky sex) but they're offset by some ham-fisted scripting, flat direction and too many sub-plots that don't come together. The movie endsA History of Violence has it's plus points (a good story, some cool over-the-top murder action and some kinky sex) but they're offset by some ham-fisted scripting, flat direction and too many sub-plots that don't come together. The movie ends up being decent entertainment but still feels somewhat half-baked. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
j30Nov 15, 2011
Fantastic performances all around, Viggo Mortensen is one of the best actors around today. There's no corny one-liners from the bad guys, it's all raw and violent. There's almost something poetic about it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
oDjentoSep 29, 2015
The Scores for this film truly bewilder me as this is possible one of the worst films I’ve seen in a while: and I love Viggo Mortensen!
The film has a simple premise but doesn’t seem to really build up to anything from it. Viggo’s character
The Scores for this film truly bewilder me as this is possible one of the worst films I’ve seen in a while: and I love Viggo Mortensen!
The film has a simple premise but doesn’t seem to really build up to anything from it. Viggo’s character saves a community from criminals in a violent fashion and gets called a hero, but also attracts the Mob’s attention who think they know him. The premise never fully goes anywhere and the direction is all over the place, as in one scene where Cronenberg uses a panning shot that descends onto a boy at a baseball game. WHY USE THAT THERE? There are also far too many cuts in some scenes for instance, when Viggo returns home and it has a shot of everyone in his family in turn over and over and it was just too painful.
Then there is the “acting”. Viggo does an alright job of speaking quietly and then bursting into violence but nothing really is noteworthy about it. Maria Bello is awful in her role and is difficult to watch and the young teenager goes from doing an alright job to becoming worse as the film goes on. Then the 2 villains in the film hardly get enough screen time to really develop or become interested in or even really enjoy watching.
Then there are plenty of scenes that are just kind of unnecessary, one scene in particular being a perceived rape scene (which would’ve added controversy yes but really shown more about Viggo’s character) and turns it into a consensual and erotic staircase sex scene that just comes out of the blue and seems completely absurd. The directing of it is pretty shabby also, at one point cutting to a shot or the bottom of the stair case where you can see on leg moving slightly. Hmmm, such a vital shot. Straight after this they then also add in some unneeded nudity just to hopefully gain viewers interest for a few seconds again.
I really, really, really struggled to even attempt to enjoy this movie. The violent scenes are pretty unexpected and gruesome but they can’t give this film a better rating when the majority of the rest of the film is a trainwreck. Please try miss this for your own sake and money.
2.5/10
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ExKingApr 2, 2014
A history of violence was the first movie ever that i realized that a one and a half hour movie can be painfully long.
i was completely shocked by the overall terrible performances, even from Viggo Mortensen and i was shocked again when i
A history of violence was the first movie ever that i realized that a one and a half hour movie can be painfully long.
i was completely shocked by the overall terrible performances, even from Viggo Mortensen and i was shocked again when i knew that William Hurt was nominated for an academy award for his terrible awkward performance, and what made it worst is the directing.
Yes the directing was terrible coming from the director of Eastern promises. from the first 5 minutes i realized that the movie was slow, and i was kinda hoping for it to be like a cool directorial thingy, but it's not, it kept going like this making the movie painful to watch.
i just seen Eastern promises and i really liked it, Viggo Mortensen character was dark and the story had depth but here, we have a shallow character that just playing awkward to the point that even the connection between family members were awkward and unreal, i mean come on, a teenage boy kiss his mother good morning every day seriously ?
and i'm not against nudity in films but the wife coming out of the bathroom completely naked was pointless and stupid, it was like "hey, we can do this and that" and the sex scene on the stairs was awkward, i genuinely felt that i was watching a movie by M. Night Shyamalan.
Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
8
daviddelnorte23Apr 12, 2017
Esta película me parece maravillosa. La presentación tanto de todos los personajes como de la trama y como hacen que todo encaje en un mismo punto es genial. Aunque cuando parece que la película se va a estancar y necesita un empujón, loEsta película me parece maravillosa. La presentación tanto de todos los personajes como de la trama y como hacen que todo encaje en un mismo punto es genial. Aunque cuando parece que la película se va a estancar y necesita un empujón, lo tiene con un espectacular giro de guión. A partir de ese momento parece que va a caer, pero se mantiene bien hasta el final. Y es que ese es otro de sus puntos fuertes, lo rápido que llega el final. Indicando que está bien escrita y muy BIEN montada, lo que hace que tenga un gran ritmo toda la película.

Los personajes están bien construidos y te crees que los protagonistas son una familia. Muy interesante el personaje de Viggo Mortensen e interpretado de manera sensacional. Mención aparte para la valentía de la mujer del protagonista. Ole.

Otro de los puntos fuertes de la película reside para mí, en la crudeza de las imágenes en la mayoría de las ocasiones. Una cámara que no rehuye de nada, ni de las consecuencias de la violencia ni se priva de mostrar las escenas de sexo, como si de una serie de la HBO se tratase.

En resumen, película fácil y rápido de ver pero no por ello menos buena. Todo lo contrario. Me ha dejado muy satisfecho y con un final muy 'agridulce' que la eleva más si cabe como una propuesta valiente. Genial. Un PEDAZO de 8.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
YoursTrulyJul 22, 2013
This is a top-notch film. It is paced very well and the story is great. I was continuously waiting for the next development to find exactly what was going on. Combine all of this with great acting and you've got something really good.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CalibMcBoltsMay 30, 2016
David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' starts off slowly, then changes into a brilliant sprinting marathon, but tumbles before the finish line. That's the best i could describe this film. The beginning is slow, the middle is trulyDavid Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' starts off slowly, then changes into a brilliant sprinting marathon, but tumbles before the finish line. That's the best i could describe this film. The beginning is slow, the middle is truly incredible, but the third act (after a certain turning point, i wont say which, but anyone who's seen the film knows what i'm talking about) falls falt on it's ass, and it loses all of its momentum which is such a disappointment, if the ending kept the same momentum as the first and second act, it would've totally been a 5/5 star movie.

As for the writing. I feel like it's a script written by the Coen brothers, but they had to hand it over to a serious director who doesnt like comedy so he deleted all of the light moments from the script to make a serious thriller. That's basically what it is, and it's remarkable. Also for a movie directed by David Cronenberg, this movie is surprisingly easy to watch without crazy disgusting imagery or practical effects, it's a pretty straight forward film which was interesting to see. The movie does have lots of explicit violence and 2 sex scenes, but you need to see something of Cronenberg's style in this film.

Except for the disappointing third act, David Cronenberg's ''A History of Violence'' truly is a remarkable thriller. (The slow build up is dismissive)
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
tonyGreenJul 15, 2011
The Cronenberg trademark gore SFX are here, but so too is a great drama, characters and a story. If it kicks off feeling a little too made-for-TV (a little too saccharine on the domestic bliss angle?) , it pays off later in the adrenalineThe Cronenberg trademark gore SFX are here, but so too is a great drama, characters and a story. If it kicks off feeling a little too made-for-TV (a little too saccharine on the domestic bliss angle?) , it pays off later in the adrenaline rush of sudden, brutal realistic violence. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
Lopez17Aug 11, 2010
For as long as humanity has existed we have always been violent we may have not been created that way but somewhere down the line we found out that violence could save us or destroy us. It all depends on if we choose to use violence as aFor as long as humanity has existed we have always been violent we may have not been created that way but somewhere down the line we found out that violence could save us or destroy us. It all depends on if we choose to use violence as a means of salvation or as a means of destruction in David Cronenberg's blunt yet very insightful film raises thought provoking and shocking questions about the true nature of violence and how it can affect some and change others. how sometimes a single act of violence can make all the difference, how it can change who you are and turn you into a person you told yourself you would never be. This is the story of one man, the story of one family and the story of "A History of Violence". David Cronenberg's violent, brutal and extremely intelligent look into the nature of violence is nothing short of insightful, moving and at times shocking, shocking because it delivers a story so true and unflinchingly honest that turning away from the screen, turning away from the story would be near impossible. It is such a powerful and thought provoking film that just leaps out at you at every turn it shocks and amazes with its brutal violence, it's emotional and heartfelt story of family angst and how the past can sometimes catch up with you. Cronenberg know for his gory horror films and wigged out thrillers has created a stable film of right and wrong, good and evil, life and death. Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" is not a film for the squeamish or the faint of heart what it is a powerful film experiences that leaves you with a haunted and disturbed feeling making you wish you had not seen the film and at the same also making you feel glad you did. This film calls you to watch a film that needs you to watch it to see the darkness of one manâ Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
bigjon1958Jul 24, 2015
Great start to the movie through the first hour and then the last 30 minutes got kind of wacky and the personality of the main character did a 180. Overall a good movie, but surprised the critics rated it so highly.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
FilmEqualsJoyNov 22, 2012
Was this a bad film? Not at all. Was this a great film? Not at all. Was this an ok film? Yes. A History Of Violence is just a so-so film. There are things that I really enjoyed about the film. However, I had a problems. I had a unfulfilledWas this a bad film? Not at all. Was this a great film? Not at all. Was this an ok film? Yes. A History Of Violence is just a so-so film. There are things that I really enjoyed about the film. However, I had a problems. I had a unfulfilled feeling in me watching this movie. I kept on expecting moments of greatness. There were several parts in this film that just lead you on, and the second you think something big is going to happen....... nothing happens. There is all this tension and conflict in the characters, but I feel so unfulfilled by the end of the flick. I really wanted it to expand on several plot points. I felt like I watched the beginning and the middle of the film. It was as if there was something else in store, but it wasn't shown. Now the title does live up to the film. There is much violence in this film, but the violence is not as interesting as many other great films. Watch this film if you want to. Watch it if you don't. Like I said, its not the worst or the best film. It is just ok. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
trevortalksNov 14, 2012
Wow.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ReelViewsJun 14, 2015
David Cronenberg, the director of such films as Dead Ringers and The Fly, has a reputation for being a little "out there." It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that his latest, A History of Violence, is almost mainstream in the wayDavid Cronenberg, the director of such films as Dead Ringers and The Fly, has a reputation for being a little "out there." It may come as a surprise, therefore, to learn that his latest, A History of Violence, is almost mainstream in the way it tells a linear story and curtails freaky images. The movie, which is at its heart a meditation upon the meaning of identity, is not perfect. Although there's little wrong with the first two-thirds, A History of Violence slides onto a tangential path during its final act, and this misstep reduces the production's overall effectiveness. Nevertheless, there's a lot to admire here.

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a model citizen, ideal father, and loving husband. His two children, Jack (Ashton Holmes) and Sarah (Heidi Hayes), trust him, and his wife, Edie (Maria Bello), adores him. The fun hasn't gone out of their marriage, as Edie proves when she dons a cheerleader outfit to seduce Tom. One evening, while Tom is working behind the counter at his diner, two thugs come in with rape and robbery on their minds. After a brief struggle, Tom gets the gun away from one of the robbers and uses it to dispatch both intruders. He is hailed as a hero, and there is blanket news coverage. And it's on TV that Carl Fogaty (Ed Harris) sees a familiar face. Based on the evidence of his eyes, the man who calls himself Tom Stall is actually Joey Cusack, an ex-killer from Philadelphia. So, with henchmen in tow, Carl heads for the town of Millbrook, Indiana.

Central to the film's success is the uncertainty about Tom's past. When confronted by Carl, he not only denies being Joey, but claims to have never been in Philadelphia. Neither the script nor Viggo Mortensen gives us a clue whether Tom and Joey are the same person, or whether Tom is the victim of an unfortunate coincidence. As the Stalls must deal with the new, dangerous presence in their life, they must grapple with questions of identity. What makes each of us who we are? Is it our face, or something deep within?

Cronenberg weaves a spell for over an hour, but he proves unable to sustain it for the entire running length. The need for a conventional resolution pulls him off course during the movie's final third. Some of the most interesting characters and relationships are taken off the screen to allow A History of Violence to move in a different direction. Since the screenplay is based on a graphic novel, I suspect that the filmmakers may have had little choice about the trajectory.

The children have their own mini-stories as well. Sarah is afraid of monsters in her closet, and is comforted by her father (who says there are no monsters) and brother (who asserts that monsters are afraid of the light). Meanwhile, Jack has problems with a school bully. At first, he backs down but, in the wake of his father's "heroic" actions at the diner, he decides that confrontation may be the better course of action. Has the wimp become an avenger? Once again, it comes back to a question of identity.

Mortensen finds the perfect pitch for Tom. In this performance, we see a good, simple man who cares about his family and community. But we also see hints of something else - a darker, more decisive personality. During the film's first hour, I changed my mind several times about whether Tom was Joey, and a lot of that had to do with the way Mortensen plays the role. Opposite him, Maria Bello is a firecracker, the kind of actress who draws the camera's attention. Not since The Cooler has she been given this juicy and demanding a part. And, as the villain, Ed Harris is nothing short of despicable.

A History of Violence can be seen as a thriller, but in many ways it works best during its quieter moments. As the title indicates, this is not a sedate art film. It contains moments of sharp, vicious mayhem and there is a body count. But the strength of the movie lies in its psychological complexity and depth. And, while I wasn't enthused about where A History of Violence takes the audience during its waning moments, it at least offers a sense of closure, and, in the final scene, hope. Left unresolved, however, is the perhaps unanswerable question about whether the nature and identity of a person are fixed or fluid.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
jsp41Dec 16, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is incredible. The sudden bursts of extreme violence, the acting, the raw sex scenes, everything is top notch. The story amazes, and the ending at the dinner table is one of the most tense and thrilling scenes I've ever witnessed. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
CremildoAug 21, 2010
Um ato de brutalidade pode desencadear inumeros outros, virar de cabeca para baixo uma comunidade tranquila, desestruturar uma familia inteira, tornar alguem irreconhecivel para si proprio e pelos seus entes queridos, enfim, estilhacar oUm ato de brutalidade pode desencadear inumeros outros, virar de cabeca para baixo uma comunidade tranquila, desestruturar uma familia inteira, tornar alguem irreconhecivel para si proprio e pelos seus entes queridos, enfim, estilhacar o american way of life. O impeto de violencia existe em nossos genes, como em qualquer outro animal â Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
SchmidtFeb 8, 2011
It really does believe in itself. Really. Which is tragic, because it is a totally unnecessary and ridiculous mess that I am, to this day, ashamed to ever have seen. Most annoyingly of all, however, is how grossly overrated this sack ofIt really does believe in itself. Really. Which is tragic, because it is a totally unnecessary and ridiculous mess that I am, to this day, ashamed to ever have seen. Most annoyingly of all, however, is how grossly overrated this sack of over-confident, half-hearted nonsense is. If you are into films, please do not listen to what you hear, and AVOID this film. Utterly shameful. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
10
AAWOct 4, 2005
Best movie of the year. Extraordinary. Go now. Do not wait.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
6
KCOct 3, 2005
The bad acting, unbelievable circumstances, strange soundstage work, and predictable story make this just a watered down Cronenberg flick without anything strange to keep it interesting. Cronenberg's flicks often play out like a series The bad acting, unbelievable circumstances, strange soundstage work, and predictable story make this just a watered down Cronenberg flick without anything strange to keep it interesting. Cronenberg's flicks often play out like a series of disjointed events, and this one is no different. Too bad that style doesn't play to this type of movie as it does to the excellent (and disturbing) Dead Ringers. I actually winced at the bad acting in "A History of Violence". Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MonicaFOct 3, 2005
Are you guys kiddding? This was a HORRIBLE movie. The plot was horrible, the pace was horrible, the idea was horrible. It was slow and predictable. When we left the theater EVERYONE was saying how bad it was and atleast 15 people got up and Are you guys kiddding? This was a HORRIBLE movie. The plot was horrible, the pace was horrible, the idea was horrible. It was slow and predictable. When we left the theater EVERYONE was saying how bad it was and atleast 15 people got up and walked out DURING the movie. The ONLY saving grace in this movie is William Hurts 5 minutes on screen.. YES 5 MINUTES!!! Do not see this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
AdamOct 3, 2005
Just a horrible movie. How could the critics be so wrong on this? How could they almost unanimously support such a horrible movie?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
LoreliOct 4, 2005
Superb movie. Acting is excellent. May catch mainstream audiences, who exclusively want entertainment, off guard. They will find themselves not only entertained but also pondering the movie and its questioning of violence and identify for Superb movie. Acting is excellent. May catch mainstream audiences, who exclusively want entertainment, off guard. They will find themselves not only entertained but also pondering the movie and its questioning of violence and identify for days afterwards. Cronenberg has taken the age-old themes of the classic genres of the Western and revenge bloodfests and imbued it with a provocative point of view. Is violence an ugly but necessary means to an end if your intention is noble, or is it always just ugly and self-defeating? Does the moral cost of violence negate its use in all circumstances? Can one ever escape your past no matter how much you have managed to reinvent yourself? Although he has successfully defeated all threats to his idyllic life, has Tom Stall destroyed ultimately destroyed that life in his attempts to keep it? Is he any longer "the best man" his wife has ever known? These are just some of the questions I came away with after viewing the movie, and there aren't too many other films I have seen lately that have done that for me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RachelH.Oct 9, 2005
Great movie overall. The only thing I really questioned is the ending.....the plot twists were excellent, they kept you wondering the whole way through. Especially good performance by Mortensen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JeremyK.Jan 10, 2006
It's funny to see how either people absolutely loved or absolutely hated this movie. I, obviously, did not care for it -- and no, I'm not illiterate or oblivious. Yes, I got all the metaphores -- they were only delivered with a It's funny to see how either people absolutely loved or absolutely hated this movie. I, obviously, did not care for it -- and no, I'm not illiterate or oblivious. Yes, I got all the metaphores -- they were only delivered with a lead pipe. For example, he lived a "white bread" life in Millbrook... Millbrook is a brand of white bread. Gee, how clever. Cinematically, I found the lack of background music, while it augmented the slow pace of small town life particularly annoying after awhile. And, can somebody PLEASE explain why, just because some ex-thug knows how to fire a gun he can instantly turn into Bruce Lee when confronted with several well-armed opponents. Think about it... the guy has a teenage son so we can assume he's been flipping burgers in the diner working 14 hour days for at least 10 years. When's the last time you saw Mr. Olympia working at Mel's diner? If they wanted to make the story at least a "little" believable he should have been at least a "little" overweight and out of shape. Finally, with respect to the sex and violence in the movie -- I'm in no way prudish, but I found that neither did much to further the plot. Was it really necessary to show the blown apart skull of one of the victims while he lay twitching on the ground? All in all, I found the movie a HUGE disappointment and I'd be very suprised if this walked away with any major awards come Oscar-time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AlexE.Oct 1, 2005
You don't realize just how much this movie has affected you until it is over, the credits are rolling, Howard Shore's subtly haunting score is playing softly, and you realize that for the first time in a long time, a movie has You don't realize just how much this movie has affected you until it is over, the credits are rolling, Howard Shore's subtly haunting score is playing softly, and you realize that for the first time in a long time, a movie has caused you to feel physically and emotionally uncomfortable. The final scene in this film is heartbreaking, chilling, and incredibly unsettling. I will not tell you exactly what it contains, but I will say that it is no sort of "twist" ending and it is almost entirely silent. That one scene is enough to put this movie well onto my "Best of 2005" list, but the rest is what really cements its place. Cronenberg plays the audience like a fiddle for an hour and a half, taking our desensitization against violence on film and throwing it in our faces so that we can no longer look away. The experience of watching this in a crowded theater is exhilarating, as it seems the entire audience is sharing something very, very powerful. Great work from Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, William Hurt, and Ed Harris. See this if you have wondered where serious mainstream cinema has been hiding. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
MarcR.Oct 1, 2005
I don't get to the theater as much anymore, but when I do I want my precious time, not to mention almost ten bucks a ticket, to be worth it. So I check out what the critics and others are saying and try to give the pros their respect I don't get to the theater as much anymore, but when I do I want my precious time, not to mention almost ten bucks a ticket, to be worth it. So I check out what the critics and others are saying and try to give the pros their respect and the benefit of the doubt. But every time I pass up a movie rated poorly for one that is critically acclaimed I wind up sitting there wishing I went to see the movie all the critics panned. This movie was slow, unevenly directed, cinematically washed out, predictable and ultimately not very entertaining. Next time I go to the movies I'm going to skip the due diligence and ignore the critics until after I've seen it. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised and get my money's worth. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
ElieOct 1, 2005
This was the worst movie I have ever seen. The writing was the biggest bunch of hack tripe I have ever heard. I cannot believe even one critic liked this. Don't see this. It will make you angry.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
BradB.Oct 17, 2005
Croenenberg's direction is uneven, slow, and prodding....he gets very little out of his actors, especially the five year old girl. William Hurt was miscast as Joey's "Philly" brother. D - movie from a B list director.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
KristinaE.Oct 2, 2005
Bad. Boring. Repetitve. Bland. Unconvincing. Comic book and dramatic script at wrong times. Emotions were toyed with. Very drawn out, contained not much more than an exact replica of the trailer. Funny, to the point W.Hurt = A.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
alicew.Oct 24, 2005
one of the best movies i have seen in a long time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
RobT.Oct 3, 2005
The story was not very interesting especially once the plot unfolded. Ed Harris, William Hurt, and Mario Bello did a great job acting; the others were below average probably due to the inconsistency of how their characters developed. Final The story was not very interesting especially once the plot unfolded. Ed Harris, William Hurt, and Mario Bello did a great job acting; the others were below average probably due to the inconsistency of how their characters developed. Final thought: A disappointing film that was loaded with potential. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JustinTOct 3, 2005
Bad acting, bad dialogue and writing, unsympathetic characters. Inexplicably changes direction and themes halfway through the movie, and the scenes of violence seem randomly punctuated throughout the film. Every predictable plot twist plays Bad acting, bad dialogue and writing, unsympathetic characters. Inexplicably changes direction and themes halfway through the movie, and the scenes of violence seem randomly punctuated throughout the film. Every predictable plot twist plays out exactly as expected. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortenen give especially bad performances, but they may not have had much to work with in the beginning. The threadbare story was excruciatingly drawn out and uninteresting. The scenes with the high school bully seemed particularily contrived and stale, and the sex scenes definitely don't have the intended effect. And talk about product placement. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MikeG.Oct 4, 2005
From the eerily silent first moments of the film, Cronenberg captures mood and never lets go of it throughout. A History of Violence might have been a mediocre gore fest in the hands of a lesser director, but Cronenberg keeps you on the edge From the eerily silent first moments of the film, Cronenberg captures mood and never lets go of it throughout. A History of Violence might have been a mediocre gore fest in the hands of a lesser director, but Cronenberg keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the entire film and leaves you wondering about not only these characters and this story, but about the world we live in. Viggo Mortensen slips marvelously into the lead role, capturing the duality of his life perfectly: there is an anonimity in his character that's delivered adroitly. There are some small holes in the plot, but you won't find yourself thinking about them until long after you leave the theater. William Hurt's performance is a little weird - is his character supposed to be funny? - but this is quibbling. A History of Violence is a movie worth seeing. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
FantasyOct 5, 2005
There are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. It starts out in dramatic syle and gets your attention immediately. From there the story unravels before your very eyes with more holes in the story than Carter has little liver There are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. It starts out in dramatic syle and gets your attention immediately. From there the story unravels before your very eyes with more holes in the story than Carter has little liver pills or Swiss Cheese? But the ending is even lamer than War of the Worlds which I had previously thought was the worst ending ever. The audience filed out of the theater shaking our collective heads. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ScottM.Oct 6, 2005
If I ever see another Cronenberg Movie again shoot me please.He really is the most overrated Director ever his films are at best okay.But his choice of poor actors and bad scripts is key to confusing the audience along a really offbeat If I ever see another Cronenberg Movie again shoot me please.He really is the most overrated Director ever his films are at best okay.But his choice of poor actors and bad scripts is key to confusing the audience along a really offbeat journey.If you think this is good you best start watching some decent films please this is rubbish of the highest order! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
randyw.Oct 6, 2005
A brilliant movie; one that makes the intelligent viewer question the place and role of violence in American society, regardless of circumstance. One can see the master touch of a director whose Canadian viewpoint and perspective on American A brilliant movie; one that makes the intelligent viewer question the place and role of violence in American society, regardless of circumstance. One can see the master touch of a director whose Canadian viewpoint and perspective on American life reveals much about the dark underside of that society. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
LingX.Oct 6, 2005
A walking teapot that boiled and went on a killing spree. that's just about it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RJSamsonOct 7, 2005
It's a movie about character. If someone else directed it, it may turn commercial. But Cronenberg's style has definitely drawn sincere realism to one of the best movies of the year. Subtle yet strong. What more can I say?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
JohnstonOct 8, 2005
This film is so bad it is not even worthy of a score of 1. The first 5 minutes are predictable and from there it disintergrates before your very eyes. It loses all credibility after 30 minutes from which there is no escape. It just becomes This film is so bad it is not even worthy of a score of 1. The first 5 minutes are predictable and from there it disintergrates before your very eyes. It loses all credibility after 30 minutes from which there is no escape. It just becomes more awful by the frame. The ending is so preposterous it is not even worth commenting about. The director needs a reality check? Avoid at all costs. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
PhilMOct 9, 2005
It was OK. Entertaining but not the "great" movie the critics make it out to be. A little predictable and light on substance. More of a renter, don't pay full price to see it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DeWayneP.Sep 25, 2005
Excellent film. May not be everyone's cup of tea, because it's talks about our relationship to violence and how it reflects who we are as a society. Seeing how seductive our temptations are towards violence and how we use it for Excellent film. May not be everyone's cup of tea, because it's talks about our relationship to violence and how it reflects who we are as a society. Seeing how seductive our temptations are towards violence and how we use it for sexual fulfilment, revenge, as well as how we decide right (whistle-blower) from wrong (stool pigeon), or is it the other way around? One should approach this film not as an entertaining enterprise i.e. a Mel Gibson film, but as a film to give us pause and reflection as to who we are and have been. And it's okay, we can be reflective and critical and still be American...really...It's only a movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
ChadBJan 4, 2006
TERRIBLE. I'm not usually bothered by violence in movies, but this was just random extreme violence and uncomfortable sex scenes. I was about to walk out and ask for my money back when the movie inexplicably ended.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
SebaD.Feb 1, 2006
well done Maria Bello, beautiful performance you did. Now tell me if there s someone who really believe that Mortenesen was like "the carmelita descalza"?
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JaredFeb 20, 2006
I'm sorry, if you think this movie is predictable and boring, then you weren't watching the same movie as I was. What I saw was a brilliant, haunting, shocking portrayal of the American Dream being ripped apart by violence and I'm sorry, if you think this movie is predictable and boring, then you weren't watching the same movie as I was. What I saw was a brilliant, haunting, shocking portrayal of the American Dream being ripped apart by violence and lies, leaving behind the ugly truth that can seeth beneath such "perfect" families. The belief that we can run from who we are and change without regard for our past is brutally ripped apart. What we are left with is a family who has to pick up the pieces and try to deal with the horrible truth revealed to them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
RadCompanyDotNetFeb 7, 2006
A thinnly veiled action flick dressed up as a hypocritical P.S.A. I am so tired of this phony intellectualism seeping into movies lately (Capote). Cronenberg is a good director, but the script is garbage. And don't EVEN tell me I justA thinnly veiled action flick dressed up as a hypocritical P.S.A. I am so tired of this phony intellectualism seeping into movies lately (Capote). Cronenberg is a good director, but the script is garbage. And don't EVEN tell me I just didn't "get it". Stop patting yourself on the back for understanding a movie a tween could comprehend. There are issues in eXistenZ that are far more engaging. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
JoeyT.Mar 20, 2006
Because of the rave reviews by the critics I was expecting more. The movie is entertaining but had little to offer in the way of story. The acting is good but you won't be moved by any of the performances. All in all I was midly dissapointed.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
IsabelC.Mar 20, 2006
I've seen worse so I can't give this film anything lower than a 3, but wow, what a disappointment. And I'm seeing the same comments from other reviewers - how could the professional reviewers have possibly liked this? I've seen worse so I can't give this film anything lower than a 3, but wow, what a disappointment. And I'm seeing the same comments from other reviewers - how could the professional reviewers have possibly liked this? It's actually a very silly and childish movie, filled with plot holes. Whoever wrote this understands nothing about psychology as the characters reactions to events were preposterous. Parts of it were actually quite embarrassing. Not good. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
JoelMar 9, 2006
Bad acting, bad writing. Nothing thrilling, no big plot twist to be had, just random violence and unneccessary, uncomfortable sex scenes. Horrible.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
IanK.Apr 2, 2006
I promise, I am not exaggarating when I give this a rating of 1. I should actually give it a 0 because I believe it may possible be one of the worst movies I have -ever- seen (including TV movies), but I gave it a 1 figuring some people may I promise, I am not exaggarating when I give this a rating of 1. I should actually give it a 0 because I believe it may possible be one of the worst movies I have -ever- seen (including TV movies), but I gave it a 1 figuring some people may appreciate the soft-core p orn and brief moments of violence. The action in this movie was sooo slow and more comical than intense. I rented this based upon the Critic Review rating on this site, and I am now convinced the Critics were paid off (and that more money went to the Critics than the budget). The only reason I even sat through more than half this movie was because I was expecting it to get better, or waiting for some incredible twist at the end to fulfill the Critic Rating. I'm being serious. If you don't believe me, watch this. Horrible acting, horrible directing, the most generic cliche script, slow, and the situations were impossible to believe in. Even the sets were impossible to believe, nothing felt or looked remotely real enough to engage in the movie. I encourage anyone to watch the movie if they want to see just how poor the critic rating can be on this website. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SamApr 7, 2006
I thought this movie was excellently acted, directed and shot. Sure, if you just want mindless violence or cheap gags then steer clear. But if you're prepared to actually invest yourself in and engage with a film, pay attention off your I thought this movie was excellently acted, directed and shot. Sure, if you just want mindless violence or cheap gags then steer clear. But if you're prepared to actually invest yourself in and engage with a film, pay attention off your own back instead of expecting it to do all the work for you then you'll find some amazing themes and thought-provoking angles. There are violent scenes in the film, but they serve a purpose rather than being arbitrary or superfluous, like in so many films. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JonD.May 6, 2006
This movie was really really good. It was very different which is probably why so many people give it such a low rating. its either a love it or hate it movie. Let me say one thing GRAPHIC NOVEL. The violence is over the top because of this This movie was really really good. It was very different which is probably why so many people give it such a low rating. its either a love it or hate it movie. Let me say one thing GRAPHIC NOVEL. The violence is over the top because of this have you seen other graphic novel movies? Sin City perhaps or maybe Road To Perdistion ... the violence is over the top for a reason. That is why some people dont understand it, because they dont know that its a graphic novel. The story is a little different as well and it probly wouldnt happen in real life but its not supposed to. Overall a very well done movie and most people will either love it or hate it. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MichaelK.Jun 10, 2006
From what I understand, this movie was based on a graphic novel so it definitely has that comic book feel. Watch with an open mind and don't search for holes and you'll enjoy the film. I found myself caring about each character and From what I understand, this movie was based on a graphic novel so it definitely has that comic book feel. Watch with an open mind and don't search for holes and you'll enjoy the film. I found myself caring about each character and at times I found the movie very tense. Be warned, both the sex and the violence are at 100%. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AaronS.Jul 24, 2006
You've got to be kidding. This is a dopey, unrealistic, wooden movie that thinks showing a few scalps blowing off makes it a dangerous, deep look at violence. That scene on the stairs or in the locker room. If you thought that was an You've got to be kidding. This is a dopey, unrealistic, wooden movie that thinks showing a few scalps blowing off makes it a dangerous, deep look at violence. That scene on the stairs or in the locker room. If you thought that was an insight into the human condition, or even marginal acting, you should stick to Scary Movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PatT.Mar 21, 2007
I am generally appalled by the gratuitous violence of so many films these days, yet still I found myself drawn to the flawed protagonist. In spite of its brute force, this is a nuanced movie, with scenes of extreme violence juxtaposed with I am generally appalled by the gratuitous violence of so many films these days, yet still I found myself drawn to the flawed protagonist. In spite of its brute force, this is a nuanced movie, with scenes of extreme violence juxtaposed with domestic scenes of calm beauty. Even the brass score adds energy and tension, and the ending was a nice touch as well, with its lack of resolution but hint of hope. Ultimately, this film appeals to that very basic human satisfaction of seeing the bullies, mobsters, and thrill killers of the world get their due at the hands of the underdog. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
SP.Jun 8, 2007
A History of Violence is, no holds barred, the worst movie I have ever seen. Every part of the movie (writing, directing, producing, camera angles, acting) appeared to have been fulfilled by the equivalent of a high school student attempting A History of Violence is, no holds barred, the worst movie I have ever seen. Every part of the movie (writing, directing, producing, camera angles, acting) appeared to have been fulfilled by the equivalent of a high school student attempting to complete his end-of-the-semester project the night before it was due. Case in point: The horrendous cheerleader love scene. Whoever wrote that part of the script can feel slightly less bad about his lack of talent by comparing himself to the lumpen who shot the scene. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
jaymorrisApr 16, 2008
The best film of the year, hands down. David Cronenberg's enthralling meditation on violence, and the duality of man's nature and his capacity to change, recalls Anthony Mann's Bend of the River. Mr. Cronenberg has found hisThe best film of the year, hands down. David Cronenberg's enthralling meditation on violence, and the duality of man's nature and his capacity to change, recalls Anthony Mann's Bend of the River. Mr. Cronenberg has found his James Stewart in Viggo Mortensen; his performance is absolutely mesmerizing. One hopes that this masterpiece launches more teamings of this supremely accomplished director and his new leading man. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DavidS.Feb 15, 2010
This was hilarious. but that's not necessarily good. the final scene had me in tears almost. the highschool son subplot was so incredibly over the top. it was like leave it to beaver. oh man, and the gratuitous dress-up cheerleader sex This was hilarious. but that's not necessarily good. the final scene had me in tears almost. the highschool son subplot was so incredibly over the top. it was like leave it to beaver. oh man, and the gratuitous dress-up cheerleader sex at the beginning. classic. reviewers are bought and sold man. i can't believe this. seriously, only watch this movie if you just got some dank. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
SeamusSNov 15, 2005
Brilliant, One of cronenburgs best.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
BitBurnOct 11, 2005
That one really caught me by surprise. Very intense, raw. Awesome screenplay. Perhaps not for everyone but I loved it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
megw.Oct 10, 2005
Liked it rather a lot, almost strangely so. Saw it last night and still musing on it. Very violent bloodshed interspersed with serious erotic moments, gorey but not mindlessly so. A couple of laughs, but definitely not a comedy-no idea where Liked it rather a lot, almost strangely so. Saw it last night and still musing on it. Very violent bloodshed interspersed with serious erotic moments, gorey but not mindlessly so. A couple of laughs, but definitely not a comedy-no idea where people got that impression- and not one to take the kids to, least not smallish kids, older teens maybe, if you're comfortable with them viewing blood and sex. Not terribly predictable, enough twists and turns, done without beating one over the head with some moral perspective, which is refreshing. Worthwhile, different, not for the squeamish or easily offended. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SuzieH.Nov 1, 2005
Loved it! Very graphic violence & sex.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
JerrryS.Oct 1, 2005
The movie was done halfway thru and it kept going on. They add a main charater with no background near the end just to kill him. What was with the last scene where the passed the meatloaf and then it ends. Just like meatloaf, this movie was The movie was done halfway thru and it kept going on. They add a main charater with no background near the end just to kill him. What was with the last scene where the passed the meatloaf and then it ends. Just like meatloaf, this movie was plain and a was of a meal. Not even worth a DVD rental. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JayM.Oct 1, 2005
Cronenberg's most complete and successful film to date, fabulous performances by the whole cast, wow wauw! So not a Hollywood production, this is a @#$! real movie!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
DannW.Oct 1, 2005
I am absolutely stunned that people love this movie. The film is resoundingly terrible from the first scene in which the family speaks dialog that is laughable with pacing which is excruciating. Both child actors are so bad they are hard to I am absolutely stunned that people love this movie. The film is resoundingly terrible from the first scene in which the family speaks dialog that is laughable with pacing which is excruciating. Both child actors are so bad they are hard to watch. On exiting from the theater, I heard another patron say, "This is a whole new breed of terrible movie," and I agree. Both Viggo and Bello are good enough actors that they are able to give some credibility to their unspeakable dialog, but they cannot save this film. The pacing is slow, the "suspense" is tedious, and there is nothing "deep" to be had. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
leahNov 20, 2005
One of the best movies of the year, so darkly funny that i found myself to be the only one in the theater laughing! Cronenburg has not dropped the ball yet in his lengthy career.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
JonziOct 12, 2005
To appreciate this movie you must view it as part of the revisionist western genre like Peckipah or the "urban revenge" movies like Dirty Harry. Lacking in humanity, cold and certainly doing nothing for Cronenbergs feminism credentials - I loved it!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
MarkB.Oct 15, 2005
Despite the cold, clinical feel that David Cronenberg often brings to his horror and other films (and a similar reputation that he seems to enjoy cultivating in print), his best work includes a large dose of humanity to drive home his rather Despite the cold, clinical feel that David Cronenberg often brings to his horror and other films (and a similar reputation that he seems to enjoy cultivating in print), his best work includes a large dose of humanity to drive home his rather morose scientific themes and obsessions in ways that his more distanced work (Dead Ringers, eXistenZ, Spider) can't always do no matter how creepily fascinating or technically accomplished it may be. His adaptation of Stephen King's The Dead Zone has as much loss, poignancy and heartbreak as any movie made in the last 25 years; his all-time masterpiece The Fly wouldn't be nearly so resonant if it weren't as much a tragic romance as a gross-out horror classic. Not surprisingly, these two were his biggest box-office hits ever, and A History of Violence, which effectively jettisons the supernatural or science fiction elements while still dealing with many of Cronenberg's pet concerns, looks to join them. Small town family man and business owner Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) gets into more than he expected when he violently but understandably derails an attempt to rob his diner; nationwide notoriety, reporters and gangsters appear to threaten his perfect family life and maybe expose some less-than-savory truths that he'd vastly prefer remain submerged. (It's tough to discuss a film like this without tiptoeing into spoiler territory; on the other hand, if you've seen the trailer, you can probably guess the difference between a potential full-length movie and a 15-minute short subject.) Much of Cronenberg's previous work has dealt with, as a major theme or a subplot, parasitic invasive physical or mental forces that take over, dominate and often destroy their hosts; in Tom's case, said unwelcome elements could have been there all along, which is why I was less moved by his situation than that of his gentle, sensitive high-school son Jack (affectingly played by Ashton Holmes), who may or may not have inherited certain violent tendencies that he neither chose nor wants to have. Despite gripping (and often funny) supporting performances from Ed Harris, William Hurt, Maria Bello as Tom's wife (three cheers and an 'amen' for actresses who don't place any limitations on the sexual demands of the scripts they want to do!) and especially Mortensen himself, in a fascinating, career-redefining, coiled-spring performance that lends real ambiguity and danger to even the movie's early scenes, this effort is perhaps too linear and straightforward to fully engage Cronenberg's most devoted followers or to inspire repeat viewings as readily as his best mainstream work. But there's still plenty to absorb, appreciate and admire, although I have a feeling that the biggest discussion and debate--both among the film's surviving principal characters AND its audience--will inevitably occur after the closing credits have rolled. And it's impossible for me NOT to respect a film that questions the basic ethos of the action-film resumes of Charles Bronson, Steven Seagal, Jean-Claude Van Damme and pre-1980 Clint Eastwood by asking whether the so-called heroes of these films prevail because they have the forces of good and right on their side--or maybe because they're just a little bit better and more skillful at marshalling the forces of bad and wrong? Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ElaineM.Oct 15, 2005
The dialogue was so awful I was embarrassed for the actors. Mortenson gives a good performance, given what he had to work with, and Hurt is great. All in all, a huge disappointment. How the movie critics do fawn over Cronenberg!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
DudDOct 15, 2005
People in the movie burst out with laughter at the supposedly dramatic points of the movie. Contrarily, I wanted to burst out with rage at the stupidity of the movie. A real flop.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
NicMOct 10, 2005
I am not quite sure why this is getting such strong reviews. The film is very cliche and despite Viggo's amazing performance, I found the script to be flat. The critic's are getting shabby lately.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
mitchellmOct 18, 2005
Wow, these last low reveiws show us how people don't know what a goood movie is, they'd rather see something like "the fog" or some nonesense like that. and say its " the best movie ever!", thes people need to be shown what a real Wow, these last low reveiws show us how people don't know what a goood movie is, they'd rather see something like "the fog" or some nonesense like that. and say its " the best movie ever!", thes people need to be shown what a real masterpeice looks like, and this is one of them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MikeDOct 10, 2005
I was a big believer in the metacritic system before this. I can't understand how it gained an 80+_rating - truly a horrible movie and a waste of some good acting talent. The movie went in 10 different directions but didn't bother I was a big believer in the metacritic system before this. I can't understand how it gained an 80+_rating - truly a horrible movie and a waste of some good acting talent. The movie went in 10 different directions but didn't bother do any of them the justice they deserved - like a bunch of non-connected post-it notes on a director's refrigerator. Most disappointing (and disappointed). Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
rostokovaOct 10, 2005
A History of Violence is a simple film whos deadpan delivery, extreme violence and sexual aggression have elevated its critical status. The setup is simple and tailored to character development rather than narrative revelation, yet little A History of Violence is a simple film whos deadpan delivery, extreme violence and sexual aggression have elevated its critical status. The setup is simple and tailored to character development rather than narrative revelation, yet little depth in character is accrued during the film's course. Despite a fine performance by Viggo Mortensen, the script is far too spare in its treatment of his character, and lacks the psychogical tension and unease of Cronenberg's excellent Dead Ringers. The central implication that man can't change his nature, only suppress it, is explored superficially and mostly for gratification. Equally the ending's suggestion that violence may often be integral to the creation of the American dream is certainly subversive, but warrants further examination, rather than genre neatness. Blue Velvet also showed there was something dark beyond the picket fence; but it was assured, poetic and contained a subconscious as well as visceral threat. In comparison 'History' seems slight and hollow, its deadpan, off-beat delivery just a distraction from its vacuity. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LibbyF.Oct 10, 2005
Extremely disappointing after all the hype and great reviews I've read/heard. The pace, which could have been artfully slow, was painfully slow, when we knew exactly what was coming. Just get on with it, already. Viggo and Bello did Extremely disappointing after all the hype and great reviews I've read/heard. The pace, which could have been artfully slow, was painfully slow, when we knew exactly what was coming. Just get on with it, already. Viggo and Bello did their best with the stilted dialogue, but William Hurt was laughably unauthentic in his role. Thank god it was short lived. There were so many inconsistencies and holes in the story I lost track. Nice try, but this one could have been done much better. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChadS.Oct 20, 2005
I'll be the cheerleader, and next time, you be the man with a violent past. That scene on the stairwell is interesting because we've already seen the couple engage in role-playing when they have sex. Edie (Maria Bello) is like the I'll be the cheerleader, and next time, you be the man with a violent past. That scene on the stairwell is interesting because we've already seen the couple engage in role-playing when they have sex. Edie (Maria Bello) is like the Lorraine Bracco character in "Good Fellas" who admits to being turned-on when Henry (Ray Liotta) tells her to hide the gun. There's a darkness in Edie, too. If there's a flaw to "A History of Violence", it's the violence inflicted by Tom (Viggo Mortensen) on his victims because the rest of the film belies any graphic novel connection. Like fellow indie-director Richard Linklater, David Cronenberg mainstreams himself with dignity and class. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ChrisC.Oct 2, 2005
I'm a big fan of Viggo Mortensen & Ed Harris, but I thought this movie stunk big-time. I too am amazed it's getting great reviews. I'm usually a very forgiving movie goer, but this one literally had me shaking my head several I'm a big fan of Viggo Mortensen & Ed Harris, but I thought this movie stunk big-time. I too am amazed it's getting great reviews. I'm usually a very forgiving movie goer, but this one literally had me shaking my head several times. I feel the acting was sub-par by the minor characters, like the town cop (I've seen soaps with better acting). And the dialog was so contrived & stiff. It sounded rehearsed. Plus, the worst part was the family reaction to the big secret. They loved their father dearly, then they turned on him (on a dime)? C'mon, now. He saved their lives, and he's been a loving husband for over 15 years. This is simply retarded. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
GlenFOct 2, 2005
The violence is fun but the acting is laughable at times. Very surprised at the praise this movie recieved. It's also very predictable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MarkC.Oct 22, 2005
I want my money and time back. The acting was beyond wooden, the story was pointless, and the writing was horrible. The people who think this movie is great are the ones who think that's what the "cool" people are saying.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TrevorCottonOct 22, 2005
A History Of Violence works on so many levels with such convincing acting and a riveting story. Believe the hype this is one of the years best films!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
CraigA.Oct 24, 2005
This just wasn't a very good movie. Graphic violence and inappropriate sex scenes aside, this could just be any run of the mill television movie of the week. There really isn't much going on here. And who had the bizarre idea to This just wasn't a very good movie. Graphic violence and inappropriate sex scenes aside, this could just be any run of the mill television movie of the week. There really isn't much going on here. And who had the bizarre idea to cast William Hurt as a tough gangster? I understood this movie a little better when I read that it had been based on a cmic book. That really helps to explain the one-dimensional characters, the contrived plot, and misogyny. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
RamonaCOct 25, 2005
Starts out sensational and self destructs. Overrated and overhyped trailer trash of a movie. Avoid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
RichardCOct 29, 2005
Terrible. Random sex scenes and enough violence to make Sin City look like Mr. Rodger's Neighborhood combine to make the most pointless and disturbing movie I've ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
TimD.Oct 31, 2005
I'm not generally a fan of Cronenberg's stuff. And I'm not generally a fan of film critics. I'm with them on this one, though -- I thought it was excellent,disquieting, staying with me afterward in a way many movies do I'm not generally a fan of Cronenberg's stuff. And I'm not generally a fan of film critics. I'm with them on this one, though -- I thought it was excellent,disquieting, staying with me afterward in a way many movies do not. And I find the number and vehemence of the negative viewer reviews here to be genuinely interesting. Ah, well. To each their own. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TerryD.Oct 3, 2005
Wow. What a thought-provoking, disturbing movie. You'll be thinking about this one long after you leave the theater, which is a good thing. Wow again.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
russw.Oct 3, 2005
Gripping at times, very entertaining.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
MorganM.Oct 3, 2005
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. In a movie every scene is supposed to relate to either the end or the charactor or a turning point to either the postive or nagative. To have sex scenes with none of the above criteria is at This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. In a movie every scene is supposed to relate to either the end or the charactor or a turning point to either the postive or nagative. To have sex scenes with none of the above criteria is at less bad writing and is more then likly titlation(SP) for it's own sake. Unfortuneatly, even sex for sex sakes they don't manage to do well. Mortensen and Bello are just not attractive. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LisaR.Oct 3, 2005
Graphic violence and nudity thrown in to distract the viewers from a predictable movie headed towards stupidity as soon as Stall runs (hobbles) home to protect his family. Just plain stupid. The only worth-watching part was when William Hurt Graphic violence and nudity thrown in to distract the viewers from a predictable movie headed towards stupidity as soon as Stall runs (hobbles) home to protect his family. Just plain stupid. The only worth-watching part was when William Hurt entered the picture. Amazing how many people claim it's the best picture of the year. Tell me what's it like living with the mentality of a character in THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES? Learn to open your eyes and think for yourselves. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
BettyW.Oct 3, 2005
This was a really bad movie, do not even waste your money to rent it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
OwenDOct 3, 2005
This movie has replaced Alexander the Great as the worst movie I've ever seen. Poor acting, poor directing, and poor photography. After reading all of these glowing reviews, I persuaded some of my friends to see this movie with me. Now This movie has replaced Alexander the Great as the worst movie I've ever seen. Poor acting, poor directing, and poor photography. After reading all of these glowing reviews, I persuaded some of my friends to see this movie with me. Now I'm contimplating suing my city's newspaper for recommending this film. I've suffered inrreconsilabe damages, for the loss of my two hours that I will never get back. BAD MOVIE!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PeterGOct 3, 2005
I agree with Chuck 76, except that I think it wasn't even worth a 6. Pointless story, dragging pace (96 minutes felt like 180), gratuitous violence (that just didn't WORK), sex scenes that lent almost nothing to the story (and I agree with Chuck 76, except that I think it wasn't even worth a 6. Pointless story, dragging pace (96 minutes felt like 180), gratuitous violence (that just didn't WORK), sex scenes that lent almost nothing to the story (and could have been cut by about 90%), amateurish plot twists, wretched character development, completely expected and uninspired opening. Not even good (not great, but reasonable) performances by Mortenson, Bello, and Harris are worth much. William Hurt is utterly laughable. The children are utterly forgettable. The villains are utterly ridiculous. And before you say "You just didn't get it", I had no trouble enjoying Sin City (which was chalked full of violence) or "getting" something like Requiem for a Dream (which dealt with a weighty subject much more intelligently). A History of Violence is disgusting not for its treatment and demonstration of violence, but for its offense to the senses and sensibilities of its audience. I couldn't wait for this to be over. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
SteveN.Oct 3, 2005
Action scenes were very good, sex scenes were laughable, entire audience was booing at the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
RachelI.Oct 4, 2005
There's no denying it: this movie's bad. A completely unsubtle, predictable piece of trash. Acting so bad it hurts. An action-drama with training wheels.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ChaninderB.Oct 4, 2005
Awsome...captivating, and so well done. Cronenberg is the man.
0 of 0 users found this helpful