A History of Violence

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 :) (03/06/2006)

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)

It’s more like a 3.5*, but I’ll go a bit higher. It’s true that as a whole it’s not such a gripping thriller. Especially, after the entrance of Ed Harris, I was convinced that Cronenberg would come up with some unexpected twist, but I guess I was wrong. The film continues to move at its established pace, with only a few bloody shootouts and suspenseful scenes intervening. But the story is far from uninteresting, it’s well shot and those 90 minutes finishing with a graphic head shot and a typically American family happy ending can’t be considered a waste of time. (02/25/2012)

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. (12/18/2005)

From the initial predictable scene to the skillfully calculated drama with perfect actors and an unrelenting atmosphere. The dark past must be shown in a way that keeps me interested in what comes next, but the script keeps throwing one twist after another at me. The plot revolves around a fearful son and, unfortunately, key twists in the last half hour. I had already known where Tom was meant to end up for a while, but it couldn't have been more obvious. (01/29/2006)