Reviewing the Reviewers: A History of Violence

I have to agree, I went to see it after people started calling it a great look at the American Dream. But it was boring, bland and unoriginal. Aparrently, Viggo Mortensen's "fantastic acting" boils down to him changing accent halfway through the film. The two children and his wife were very standard, uninteresting, one-dimensional characters.

For a film that is about character development, there is very little. We learn about 3 things about "Tom", none of which have any bearing on the story at all. The violence had all been done a hundred times before in films, there was nothing original or interesting about any of it.

Reply

I didn't *forget* the first sex scene, C.K. The first sex scene - and the other early scenes, one of which you correctly refer to as "overly sentimental" – is sexy, but it's hugely cliched and unoriginal. And purposely so: these are the kind of people, Cronenberg is saying, for whom a Cheerleader's outfit is absolutely as kinky as it gets. The introduction of violence (or, in one case, reintroduction) into their lives really is like a breath of fresh air; it imbues the three oldest members of the Stall family with a new awareness of how they function (and how they could function differently) in the world they live in. In that way, it's seductive, and it points towards options that are on some level attractive, even as their horrific. The second sex scene, then, is a model of all of that.

on a side note, I think I referred to HoV in my Cinematical review as "a masterpiece", which is something I don't think I've ever done here (at least, not in terms of a new release). I'm usually very careful about throwing around such high praise, simply because of the potential backlash. Good films deserve to be found and enjoyed without having to live up to the weight of my words, which are subjective and sometimes - sometimes - even misguided. I stand by my review of the film - i do think it's very, very good - but I think I shgould re-retire the "M" word. I don't think it does anyone any good.

Reply

I'll agree that the sex scenes were clever, but the rest of it was just boring. I had no connection to the characters, and every time Tom's brother said "Brohim", I died a little. It was just so corny.

The two serial killers at the start were just like every other set of serial killers on film, they don't talk because it's "cool" and "edgy", but when it comes down to it, it's been done a hundred times before.

I had high hopes when I saw the opening sequence and the first sex scene, but nothing ever came of it.

Reply

Robert Newton - I have to agree to an extent, the film did have redeeming moments, but the only consequences it showed were the consequences of being an ex-mobster. Just look at the ending, it was like a TV programme, he lost nothing.

I don't have a problem with the directing of the film, it was good, I think Ed Harris put in the best performance he could have with the script he was given, the film just bored me. There was no huge moral at the end. The film just seemed to say that if you ever find the great american dream, then not even your history can take that away from you, but even that is a stretch.

Reply

Cinematical has never been a bastion of stellar writing, but this banal diatribe ushers in an all-new low. The idea that someone who writes about movies can be so horribly misinformed about the purpose of film criticism would be funny if it weren't so sad. If you were trying to be witty by suggesting that those critics owe you a refund because you disagree with them about "A History of Violence" then I suggest you stick to nescient straight pieces unencumbered by humorless witticisms. If you weren't trying to be funny then it simply focuses the problem of the entire piece.

The job of a good critic is not to reflect your personal tastes. Aside from being impossible when discussing subjective points of view, it's also stunningly narcissistic. A film critic's job is to explain the relative merits, or pitfalls, of a movie as it pertains to their own taste, experience and opinion. It has nothing to do with whether they've mirrored your own egotistical view of the world.

Your laundry list of gripes leads me to think that you've never actually read any film criticism before. "Ebert misses these scenes and skips ahead to the next set of scenes..." Huh? In what world is he supposed to provide a chronological synopsis of the entire film? (Remind me never to read any of your reviews if I want to enjoy a fresh look at a film.) To suggest that he did not comment on the scenes you wanted him to mention because the "pace is slow at times" is so laughably ignorant that I believe you honestly think that the universe is here to serve your whims. Not to mention that anyone who uses "slow pace" as a synonym for "boring" automatically dismisses themselves as a serious critic in my book. They are not the same thing.

You call Roeper's piece a "somewhat simplistic review" but those words are meaningless when viewed in light of your naif "review of the reviewers." Look at this sentence: "It is filled with some very provocative film, especially in comparison to this year's fare." Ignoring the awkward and inaccurate grammar, that line showcases an inability to form a cogent argument. Instead of positing a vague supposition like "...especially in comparison to this year's fare..." why not provide examples from this otherwise vaporous list? My gut tells me that you've been reading too many of the recent, poorly-researched entertainment articles that declared the fictional "Box Office Slump" as proof that the quality of films is worse this year than ever before in the history of humankind. I can easily understand opinions that differ from my own, I can not, however, abide lazy, sloppy journalism. An average grade school kid knows to support their written positions with examples.

You then say that the film "is not a full film and it is not a great film when you hold it up against the backdrop of films from other years." Hello? I would have failed my composition class for making so many unsubstantiated claims. I could go on, but I've already dedicated far too much time and energy to this.

I should note that although I think "A History of Violence" is a fine film, I'm not defending these particular critics and their reviews, I'm defending film criticism from a charlatan like Sample Part 3 who obviously speaks of what he/she knows not.

Reply

It seems to me that you are all hung up on the sex scenes which only reflect the(1) caring and love that is needed to segue into violence that occurs, and that makes the film so believable. I am not a critic but I did see the movie and as a filmgoer it made a statement to me.. Yes there is violence in our lives and no it resolves nothing. But it tells me what can happen when this invades a Family, a neighborhood, and all in the area of the mayhem. Viggo Mortensen deserves an Academy nomination for the nuanced performance of his career. It to. me is a 5 star film I mention that I am 76 years old because age does not forget that there is violence in this world, and we somehow learn to live with it.

Reply

Uhhhh... William Hurt was brilliant! The expressions on his face when talking to his brother and henchmen were the highlights of the film. Oh and when he gets locked outside his house and starts looking for his keys.... my favorite part.

Reply

I thought it was a good, workmanlike thriller. Not Cronenberg's best and a bit overhyped. Maria Bello has the best line: You're not from Portland!

Reply

I highly enjoyed the movie. I thought it was an effective, well made little movie. It definitely didn't 'make you think' as much as much of Cronenberg's work, but was far more thoughtful than one would expect of a Hollywood thriller starring an actor best known for a fantasy film series.

Reply

It is difficult for me to completely hate professional weirdo David Cronenberg's pensive thriller, with its awkward angles, inappropriate close-ups, occasionally wooden dialogue, a score that is sometimes intrusive and a second half that crawls like a brain-damaged turtle on Quaaludes. Viggo Mortensen's Jekyll-and-Hyde performance, Ed Harris's bulldozer bad guy and William Hurt's turn as a midlevel mobster who can't get no respect are all high points that help negate at least some of the film's handicaps. Cronenberg is not being terribly bold by stating then showing that violence has consequences, but it is an effective attempt, nonetheless.

Reply