A History of Violence

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. (02/24/2012)

This is the second action film by David Cronenberg that I watched, and once again, I am quite disappointed. I expected an intense drama that wouldn’t hold back on anything. The latter was partially fulfilled; the film offers a few scenes where there was plenty of brutality in the shooting, but in terms of plot, it feels like a blank sheet of paper. It was lacking character motivation, and the revelation about Mortensen’s past seemed childishly presented. The film also lacked greater coherence in the story; to me, it somewhat jumped through time, and the filler between these jumps was neglected. The character of Edie was so poorly written - first she loves Mortensen, then hates him, then loves him again. If the creators had handled it better, it would be different, but as it is, I didn’t believe in her behavior at all. The performances of the actors save it; Mortensen carried the film, that’s undeniable, and Harris along with Hurt shone in supporting roles. There isn’t much action, but when it occurs, it is substantial. It’s a film where I really don’t know how to rate it. It has its qualities but also many shortcomings. I’m quite uncertain, which hasn’t happened to me for a long time. The most average of averages seems to fit this film the best, and so I give it 55%. (02/15/2018)

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)

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)

This intimate thriller from the controversial Canadian maniac on the director's stool is one of the most enjoyable surprises of the year. After outings like Naked Lunch, I wouldn't expect such a masterpiece from David Cronenberg, with good craftsmanship but extraordinarily stylish filmmaking. Of course, I'm not pretending that I didn't follow his last steps, so A History of Violence seems like a real slap in the face out of nowhere. While this film cannot be put on a pedestal of exceptionalism, it is actually a very conservative thriller about a man who reacts unnaturally coldly in a dangerous situation and pulls off a merry-go-round of questions, exclamation marks and dark places that threaten his very identity. Tom Stall, played superbly by Jacksonian good boy Viggo Mortensen, is the driving force behind the film – an archetypal hero "with a question mark". This time, the cleverly seated narrator is not out of line with the standard, and is "only" well mastered in terms of craftsmanship and keeps the fundamental question of "who is the protagonist?" open enough. The family environment that Tom defends with all his might worked brilliantly, which Cronenberg portrays suspiciously harmoniously in the first part of the film. In addition to the great acting performances of the whole ensemble and the well-written script, it is worth mentioning Howard Shore's inconspicuous but sensitive soundtrack and, of course, the perfect direction, which does not show off in any way, but sensitively looks at the story, carefully draws the viewer into it and alternates with incredible ease the intimate plane with almost naturalistic brutality, in which Cronenberg can be recognized a mile away. There's no sign of self-purpose, pathos, heroism... the final duel with Cronenbergian eases into intimate tones the spectacular black-and-black action that Tarantino can only quietly envy in his older colleague... The end of the film takes place without words, only gestures, hints and sounds into the quiet like a cry to which the viewer has to answer for himself. Will Tom get another chance, or will his actions destroy him? If it weren't for the drawn-out details and the slight loss of gradation at the end, this would have been an almost flawless film. Even in this form, however, A History of Violence is a mature and inspiring example of a psychological thriller, which, while not arousing deep questioning about the meaning of being, nevertheless captivates, absorbs and entertains. Without giving in. (11/13/2005)