User reviews

Let's start by writing this is a film I have difficulty evaluating. You notice the great technical qualities but emotionally it leaves you conflicted. Which, considering this is a Cronenberg film, might just be what was intended. I've seen most of his films and "A history of violence" is probably the least weird and most "commercial" (a term used by the director himself). It's a psychological drama with of course certain sequences of violence. It would not qualify as an action flick because the fight scenes are quite quick (less than a minute mostly), realistic, harsh and not glamorized. They're rather shocking but somehow exhilarating (like an adrenaline rush) but linger just a bit to show the results and make you feel uncomfortable. In the end, it does make you think about violence, if it's something ingrained, how it affects people, if it can sometimes be justified and if it can be overcome.

Let's not forget a very interesting mystery aspect regarding the past of the main character played solidly and subtly by Viggo Mortensen. All the actors were quite convincing in their parts, the wife being suitably loving and tormented, the main gangsters being suitably menacing. They felt like real characters and I particularly liked the interactions between the wife and husband. Cronenberg is obviously a professional at his craft and shows it once again. It's cinema d'auteur as we would say in french but it's not boring or overtly intellectual. So if you're a Cronenberg fan, this is obviously a must-buy but expect it to be relatively more "tame" than his previous efforts. If you like smart character driven psychological dramas with a hint of mystery, it's a must see but I'm conflicted as to how re-watchable it is, making a purchase recommendation an uncertain thing. Fans of the Cohen brothers dramas/thrillers would probably like it also.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10

Cronenberg's adaptation of a Wagner and Locke graphic novel places a simple American family man, and his all-American family, into a new and disturbing context which has them questioning everything they think they know. Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) owns a little diner in a small town and has a nice house on the outskirts of town, where he and his wife Edie (Maria Bello) raise their two kids apparently living the American dream in their own way. One day at the diner, two murderers pop by at closing time for some cherry pie, and Tom's heroic defense of his diner, his customers and himself sets off a series of events that threaten his family, his sanity and his life. The eerie tension never lets up in this powerful examination of identity, honesty and violence.

David Cronenberg has directed some of my favorite off-beat films - the masterpiece Naked Lunch, Scanners, Videodrome. I have watched these films many times and I still find them interesting. I can't really call myself a fan, however, because there are also just as many Cronenberg films out there which I found difficult to get through the first time (Crash, eXistenZ, Dead Ringers). Cronenberg enjoys creating disturbing situations and imagery, and wants to get under your skin and to stimulate your mind on as many levels as he can. In most cases, he pulls it off masterfully, but sometimes, his emphasis on the bizarre can come across as pretentious and forced.

Like a lot of very creative and intelligent people, Cronenberg sometimes leaves his signature virtually everywhere in his work. And sometimes, a director needs to make a film which does everything they want to accomplish but leaves off the signature. For example - the brilliant David Lynch showed us his ability to jump out of his own skin with Elephant Man and The Straight Story. These are still very much Lynch films, but they also appeal to the wider audience of mainstream cinema-goers. A History of Violence is, in some ways, Cronenberg's most straightforward film. A key to its success is that it is very easy to forget that you are watching a Cronenberg film, no matter how aware you are of Cronenberg's many quirks, idiosyncrasies and trademarks. It is so masterfully directed that, although the plot is not entirely unpredictable, you are right there in the action with the characters and feeling what they feel so that, though you may know what's next, you never exactly see it coming and you never know how it will take you there.

Viggo Mortensen, in his best mainstream role since Aragorn, and Maria Bello (one of the actors who made The Cooler worth watching), head an impressive cast in this adaptation of a Wagner and Locke graphic novel. Nobody in the cast slips up at all. The script is intense, realistic, and probably did nothing to make the performances easy. The plot, if described without the plot and the context created by the script, would seem somewhat absurd, but like Woody Allen's Match Point, it's absurdity does not make it impossible to believe. Editing, directing and pure performance combine to make flawless performances for this cast. Backed up by veterans Ed Harris and William Hurt, and very strongly supported by the excellent Maria Bello, Mortensen is shockingly excellent in a difficult role. I can't explain why without giving too much of the film away. Although the rest of the cast did exactly as they were supposed to, I want to single out Ashton Holmes - an actor I was completely unfamiliar with but who I will look out for in the future.

I recommend A History of Violence highly. It is one of my top five reasons for considering 2005 to have been a great year in North American film.

I expected bloody senselessness and instead saw a film laden with the deepest human emotions. It was real. From youthful loving to hard violence, from simple innocent joys to the full depth of adult violence and sex, and ultimate redemption, this film has it all. Every piece of clothing and set, every camera angle and lighting propelled the story relentlessly. I was never bored, and never overwhelmed with overdone violence. Nothing was gratuitous. Viggo Mortensen proved he's one of the finest actors to come along in a long while. Maria Bello carries so much on her talented shoulders. With Mortensen she shines with alternately warming and heartbreaking truthfulness. Ed Harris was delightfully menacing, and William Hurt gave the liveliest and best performance I've seen from him.

This movie is about truth and redemption. It's the best film I've seen in a very long time. Kudos to Cronenberg, Mortensen, Bello, and all the cast and crew for what was for me a nearly perfect movie.

See it, then see it again. It's brilliant.

I honestly don't understand why this movie has such a big score. I was hoping for intrigue. But this movie is so plain and basic. Even acting was poor.

I read through a lot of these comments, and it seems quite a few people who have given this film a bad rating based their judgment on either the sex scenes, or the gore (or both). Well, it's called "A History of Violence", and it's directed by David Cronenberg! What did they expect? The film is, simply put, amazing. Anyone who enjoys Cronenberg's other films will greatly appreciate this one. It speaks on many levels, and I suggest seeing it more than once to fully take it all in. Beautiful performances all around. I felt as though that is how people put in a situation like that would really act. I had a smile on my face the entire film because I have been waiting all summer (or longer) for a film of this caliber, and it was worth it.

A History of Violence is one of those ultimately frustrating films which leaves you with the sense that it could have been something really special but never quite managed to pull it off. There's a great story here, one brimming with potential. But the movie never fully lives up to the promise of its story. This is certainly not a bad film by any means but it's not a great one either and you get the feeling it should have been.

The story revolves around Tom Stall, as played by Viggo Mortensen. Tom is a small-town Indiana family man. He owns a local diner, has a beautiful wife (played wonderfully by Maria Bello) and a couple of kids. He leads a very ordinary, mundane kind of life. Then one day there is an attempted robbery at the diner and Tom saves the day, becoming a local celebrity and a very reluctant hero. The national media even picks up on the story...and that is where the problems begin. After Tom's face is splashed across national television someone shows up in this small Indiana town looking to settle an old score with one Tom Stall. Only this man does not believe Tom Stall is actually Tom Stall at all. This gangster, Carl Fogarty (played with an appropriate level of creepiness by Ed Harris), is certain that he knew Tom Stall as Joey back in Philadelphia. Seems Joey removed one of Fogarty's eyes and then disappeared. Suffice to say Fogarty is not real happy about it. As sure as Fogarty is of Tom Stall's true identity, Tom is just as insistent he is who he claims to be, a simple, ordinary, small-town Indiana family man. Where does the truth lie? The heart of the film is in finding out.

So there's the setup. Quite an intriguing one I must say. Mistaken identity? Hidden identity? Either way, with the presence of an obviously dangerous man like Carl Fogarty looming, there are certain to be some chills and thrills along the way. But the film never really takes off. It kind of limps along, with an occasional spasm of brilliance, but it never really works as well as it should. There are certainly some very good moments, but not enough of them to forgive all the lesser moments. And there are plenty of lesser, some would even say pointless, moments sprinkled throughout. It's a great story and the cast, Harris especially, does a great job with what they are given to work with. But in the end the cast, and ultimately the film, are let down by the material. The story's there, you know there's a great film in that story someplace. But that great film never materializes. It's a good film, but one which leaves you wanting more, with the sense it was one good rewrite away from being truly special.

This is, like all Cronenberg's work, a mythic movie. It occupies the world of "monsters" that Tom Stall's daughter dreams about at the start. It's as if we get to see the little girl's nightmare as the film unfolds. It's because of this poetic, super-real quality that criticisms from the "this isn't real life" brigade have no relevance. The screenplay is exceptionally tight and well-woven - no image is wasted. The subplot of the son's troubles with a school bully parallels the main plot. The very existence of the son is there to show the inheritance - the history - of violence. The sex scenes are there to show the proximity of lust and violence. The end can be nothing other than what it is: as someone else on IMDb has commented, the genie is out of the bottle. This is true for the family in the film, the society we see surrounding the family, and it's true for our families and our society. It's about the inexhaustible rage of humans. It couldn't be more relevant, it couldn't be more timeless. It is well acted and beautifully photographed. I have some minor reservations - did we really need so much of Howard Shore's music? - but on the whole I think this is a superb film. Not for the kiddies, however.

When a couple of thugs come into his dinner and start to make trouble, a man shows an ability to protect his customers and business in a way that seems more skilled than heroic. His actions bring him unwanted attention which brings folks from his pass and danger to his family.

Not a bad film. I was expecting more suspense than what I got but it is a well filmed, scripted and acted movie. Glad I came across it.

We are in a a small community driven town, restaurant owner Tom Stall becomes the hero of the town when he shoots and kills two murdering robbers at the restaurant. Not long after, facially scarred Carl Fogarty arrives in town proclaiming that Tom is actually a former gangster from Philadelphia who needs to go back to pay his dues. As Fogarty and his Hench Men put the pressure on, Stall and his family are in danger of being overwhelmed with violence and mistrust.

One thing that can never be said about David Cronenberg is that he is a very predictable director, his output of course, if we are all honest, is very up and down, bewildering critics and fans in equal measure. Thankfully A History Of Violence finds Cronenberg on particularly devilish form, taking the graphic novel origins of the piece, written by John Wagner & Vince Locke, and crafting a modern day Western that is using violence as some sort of escalating disease. This is the point surely? The graphic violence (handled with morose tension by Cronenberg) is the main character in the film, regardless of any past history that Stall may have had, the violence arrives into this family, totally unwanted and unexpected, and then latches on to them to maybe destroy them?

With that point of interest to note, A History Of Violence can be seen as a blood brother to Cronenberg's wonderful remake of The Fly, the unwanted entering the fray and spreading its disease to the point of no return. There is the use of the husband and wife's ongoing sex life as a seriously smart strand in the escalating story, where once at the beginning there is fluffy erotic intercourse, then the on going danger in their lives brings darkness and borderline sadism, it's very relevant, as is the son axis as he goes through a dramatic change when the violence and threats engulf the family. Cronenberg gleefully ties all the murky threads together to ask us for a reaction to the violence up there on the screen.

The cast, with the exception of a fish out of water performance from Ashton Holmes as the son, Jack, is fine. Viggo Motensen plays the duality of the role as Tom Stall with much verve, while Maria Bello shows exactly why she shouldn't be working for food in hopeless miscast assignments like The Mummy 3. Ed Harris gives us a nice line in villain duties, and William Hurt crops up late in the piece to almost steal the film with his darkly disturbing menacing point of worth. Peter Suschitzky's photography enhances the primary colours for added impact when the mood swings down dark roads, and Howard Shore's musical score is constantly ominous, where he blends his own score for Silence of the Lambs with a sort of Berlioz like edginess.

All in all it's a very interesting and sneakily crafty picture that above all else shows that when on form, Cronenberg still has very much to offer modern age cinema. Now, about Straw Dogs? 8.5/10

I attended the movie theatre not really knowing what to expect from "A History of Violence" (2005). I wasn't familiar with David Cronenberg's notoriously gory horror films, nor his status as "Baron of Blood". The film's premise is certainly not new: "someone's out to get me but I don't know why", and I wondered whether the film would stray into the old territory. Mistaken identity, amnesia, schizophrenia...

The involvement of Viggo Mortensen (as Tom Stall), William Hurt and particularly Ed Harris appealed to me, and suggested that the film was more than just the usual Hollywood fare. Man, did I underestimate this film! I had one of the most rewarding movie-going experiences in recent memory - "A History of Violence" was excellent. The film covers an impressive range of genres: horror, thriller, crime, drama and even dark comedy. Bloody and unflinchingly violent, but unexpectedly funny (almost comical) in parts, the film had the entire lot of us (in the audience) gasping, groaning and laughing quite loudly. Never have I had such a communal experience while watching a film in a public (albeit small) cinema! It was remarkable.

The film also manages to incorporate thematic elements (the culture of violence and its impact on people and communities) into the plot, thus satisfying viewers looking for a more "brainy" action-thriller. The high-school experiences of Tom's teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes, who performs well) form a side-story that cleverly illuminates certain aspects of the film's themes.

I was pleased to see Viggo Mortensen (who was in danger of forever being "Aragorn") play a convincing 'real-world' character, in a more weighty role than his (nevertheless likable) 'Eddie Boone' in "28 Days" (2000). Mortensen has the ability to convey so much in his facial expressions - a talent I wasn't aware of until now. Top performance from Ed Harris, who always impresses me with his ability to convincingly portray a wide range of characters, e.g. Richard Brown (The Hours, 2002), Parcher (A Beautiful Mind, 2001) and Christof (The Truman Show, 1998). Maria Bello was fantastic as Tom's wife Edie - a character with surprising depth and personality compared to the "screaming woman" common to so many films. William Hurt was great as Richie Cusack.

10/10.

I saw the film at the Cannes Film Festival. All I have to say is: Wow. One of the best thrillers ever. It's refreshing to watch a film in genre that's so often full of clichés. Besides being a thriller, it also a smart film about the culture of violence. How it dominates our world. One of the questions the film asks whether one can live free of violence, even the slightest. In the film violence lurks in every corner and the characters are forced to defend themselves. Definitely my favorite Cronenberg film, also his most mainstream I might add. It's a modern Western and reminds one of those great Western films. As the title indicates it's a very violent film but guess it will be toned down as usual, specially the sex scene. All the stars are in peek form and perfectly cast. William Hurt makes a comeback to better roles. He was also great in "The King". It will and should get some awards at the end of the year from critics and etc.

In the first fifteen minutes of "A History of Violence," we get a small town diner, a baseball game, and a sneering, varsity letter-wearing high school bully. Throw in an apple pie on a window sill and some kids saying bedtime prayers, and you've got the Saturday Evening Post. But this is the work of David Cronenberg, whose films so often explore the blurry – and icky – lines between biology and technology. So it's not surprising when this film, too, heads for the gray areas, this time between the sensibilities of Rockwell and Tarantino.

Small town diner owner Tom Stalls (Viggo Mortenson) runs the kind of place where you can eat at the counter, and "see you in church" is a standard goodbye. When he single-handedly foils a robbery and saves a few lives, then, the townsfolk are impressed and grateful, but not all that surprised. Tom is a Man, after all, and that's what Men do. But as David Lynch has taught us, pastoral postcard America often conceals deep weirdness and violence. The diner incident is of course big news in Anytown, USA, and Tom finds himself attracting not only local reporters who want to know "how it felt," but also the Reservoir Dog-type Mr. Foggerty (Ed Harris), who isn't surprised that Tom knows his way around a gun, and waxes nostalgic about good times in Philadelphia involving barbed wire and a guy named Joey Cusack. Foggerty seems to think Tom knows exactly what he's talking about.

Tom as "local hero" his family can handle, but after the Foggerty matter comes to a head, they do begin to wonder where these moves that would make Jeff Speakman proud are coming from. Perhaps more unsettling is the fact that they unconsciously sort of get off on their new image of dad. Junior soon finds in himself the will to flatten his jock tormentor, and wife Edie (Maria Bello) with some gusto acts out a rough rape fantasy with her hubby. Tom Stalls, indeed, but can't prevent the inevitable truth from coming to light nor catching up with him. That's shocking enough to his family, though maybe less so than the ways that knowledge affects them.

"A History of Violence" is fond of feinting toward familiar territory, only to veer away. Just when we think we've seen if before, in "Natural Born Killers," "Cape Fear," and the "just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in" tropes of countless mob flicks, it shifts its focus. For all its brutality, it comes across as a quiet movie. There is indeed more to Tom than he lets on, but less than his detractors might believe. He may be a liar in the strictest sense, but his protestations to his family and persecutors are sincere. The contemplation of violence, both pre and post-facto, rather than the acts themselves, drive the film. Whether the capability for, and indeed commission of, such acts permanently defines a person is left for us to decide. The film ends ensconced once again in small town tranquility, though this time seething with unspoken fear, accusations, and uncertainty. "A History of Violence" doesn't force itself with preaching or moralizing, but simply unfolds. It's another solid offering from the strong career of David Cronenberg.

A Cronenberg film. And one of the best of his movies. Stylish, dark and very warming. One of my personal favorite styles.

Overall - 3.5/5

FIRST.... Let us FOCUS on the Title´s content and context!

There is a great deal in this film that is lurking just below the surface! A History of Violence is quite another kind of story altogether! A unique combination of action, drama, suspense, and crime coupled with a suspenseful, intriguing, most interesting, and, at times, even a highly original and touching story. Personally. I think Viggo Mortensen does a spectacular job here in the lead role of Tom Stall, a man who would just as soon have everyone forget completely his dark and violent past! Mortensen (Eastern Promises) is one of the most highly underrated actors working today. More Details and Opinions in just a bit...........

Worth mentioning that I have a personal motive for taking a special interest in his career Here is something I'll bet quite a few of you don't know about King Aragorn.... He is one actor of an extremely select group, who was born into the English language and whose native language is English, but who has managed to acquire a very near-native ability in a second language, Spanish, so much so that he has played convincingly a Native speaker of Spanish in a handful of Spanish language films! Check out his acting filmography here on IMDb!

Just how does this involve me? Well, although I don't appear in films, in any language, I did not speak Spanish until I was 16...and now, after living in Colombia for over a quarter of a century, I usually pass for a native speaker!

VIOLENCE has a lot of other worthwhile things working in its favor. Excellent story and screenplay, plenty of suspense, and mostly outstanding performances turned in by other members of the cast... Especially William Hurt's award winning role. From me...VIOLENCE gets 9 well-deserved Stars!

9*********.... ENJOY! / DISFRUTELA!

.

If you go to this movie expecting a really great flick, you will be disappointed, but if you want see some gratuitous violence and a little bit of full frontal nudity, this is the movie for you.

Although the plot is a little unbelievable, the movie isn't bad, and the flaws in the plot certainly aren't a show stopper.

The action scenes are pretty cool and gory. This guy is like is pretty hard core, and it is great to see that one hit just isn't enough in some situations.

The acting is believable, but a little unnatural from time to time. The dialogue could use a little work, but it does progress the script and so it fill its requirement.

It is a graphic, dirty flick with no stings attached, and overall, I would recommend it.

Yes, it made me think that if Jean Arthur Rimbaud had been a man of our times he could have been the one behind this film. Optimism through pessimism. The light of darkness. A contradiction that makes sense, that rings true. A mesmerizing film with a spectacular Viggo Mortensen. The truth is there for us to see it, the truth is going to be told but the truth has the flavor of a fantasy. It is the adopted life the invented one that is real. We're invited into this simple but startling reality guided by the masterful hand of David Cronenberg. The casting is a stroke of genius. Viggo Mortensen has the presence of an icon and yet he can disappear be invisible in the most magnetic way. Maria Bello, for me, a stunning surprise. I didn't know (I still don't) her work, I only remembered her name because she has an unforgettable name. But here she proves she's an actress of enormous emotional/dramatic resources. 2005 is not quite over yet but I bet "A History of Violence" will be among the two or three best films I've seen all year

Well, its not Cronenberg best film.

Somehow, this movie lacking real nerve impact, something horrible that will reach its ugly hand, grab my guts and squeeze it. And correct me if i'm wrong, but this is exactly what Cronenberg used to do in most of his previous films.

And now, the magic is gone.

Sure, we exposed to some nasty sides of quiet and peaceful American life, but hey, I refuse only to "see" the movie, I want to participate in this experience too.

I want to feel the edge of the knife, slowly cutting my nerves, or maybe to feel that bullet going through my head and blowing my brains out, I want to feel a punch and taste the blood, but all I get when watching this film, is to feel like a distant viewer, a voyeur that floating above the bubbling swamp without any ability to be swallowed. (Wow, what a metaphor! Sometimes I'm amazing even myself).

There is no real influence on the viewer, 'A History of Violence' is just a movie! And one thing I can't accept from Cronenberg, is "just a movie".

Anyway, this movie depicts a lot of interesting situations that very nice to watch and nice to think about, but don't try to analyze it too deep, let the associations run, but not too far. This movie is not so complicated and more simple then you think.

And if you want to see some really disturbing violence, I recommend "Funny Games" by Michael Haneke and his other films.

It's a B-movie.

I would have given it no stars.

It is turgid. Slow moving does not mean atmospheric, it just means boring, badly edited and badly directed.