A History of Violence

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

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

Cronenberg interestingly mixes various styles, with the "western" style being particularly notable. The simple and civilian story moves forward thanks to the strength of the performances and the interweaving of scenes, which, despite their genre differences, work together more than decently. Marital sex pushed to the edge of uninhibited soft porn raises the eyebrows of Puritan viewers at the very least, and the detailed camera work during headshots leaves even the toughest folks unsettled. Even though it's true that the shallowness of the screenplay in the second half could have been masked by a faster pace, it is ultimately compensated by a masterful ending in which Cronenberg clearly demonstrates his ability to manipulate the audience, even against their will. (12/17/2005)

David Cronenberg avoids family clichés and holds the reins of this essentially simple film firmly in his hands. His almost sick perversion of blood and brutality is clearly evident here, as you really don't see this kind of raw action in every other film, with detailed close-ups of a head being shot through or a broken face. Similarly, the disfigured Ed Harris will definitely not leave you unaffected. Surprisingly, Viggo Mortensen is quite credible and handles the action scenes brilliantly and convincingly. Maria Bello is also worth watching, though she doesn't surpass her role in ER. What I am unable to understand, though, is the Oscar nomination for William Hurt. Otherwise, it's basically the same Cronenberg, so different from the majority of others. (06/26/2006)

"History of Violence" is a great film that shows how Cronenberg has matured. He is able to shoot scenes that have such an incredible impact on you that you won't even want to believe it. The scene on the stairs after the sheriff leaves is absolutely incredible, as well as the moment when the blood splatters on Mortensen after his teenage son saves his life. Cronenberg is not afraid of naturalism, on the contrary, which, in my opinion, places him high among contemporary directors. Life is sometimes just not nice. Why keep filming it like a fairy tale? (11/22/2013)