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. (13/01/2010)

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. (18/12/2005)

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%. (16/02/2018)

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. (25/02/2012)

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 :) (06/03/2006)