A History Of Violence

[Enchiladitos]

Just saw it and I thought it was pretty good. It kinda freaked me out because it was really subdued most of the time but then a scene of graphic violence or sex would happen and throw me off. Viggo was good as always.

[Thorpe]

How was Ed Harris?

[Enchiladitos]

Originally Posted by Thorpe

How was Ed Harris?

He was good. Nothing bad about his performance at all. I thought he came across as a pretty scary dude. I think his fucked up eye helped.

[Marck]

I thought it was a decent movie. The theater was packed and in some of those random/weird sex scenes people were literally saying "what the fuck is going on". The violence was also really intense.

[Vorph]

Definitely the best movie of Cronenberg's career. I almost didn't bother going to see it in the theater because a couple people in IRC who didn't get it or were bothered by the extreme violence said they didn't like the movie. Glad I came to my senses and went anyway, because it's definitely going to be near the top of my list of movies this year.

So yea, it's a great movie, but if you're a sissy about graphic violence... beware. It's not for the faint-hearted, but at the same time I would also say that I never felt the violence was gratuitous or out of place in any way. Without the violence, the whole point of the movie would have been lost. The movie itself reminded me a lot of Road to Perdition, though I liked this more. There's some plot similarities, plus both of them began as graphic novels and it shows throughout the movies. Never read the original for AHoV, but I think I'll track down a copy now.

9/10.

[Samus Aran]

All the parts with violence owned.

All the parts with anything else sucked.

[seraa]

the scene with William Hurt was the best part of the movie.

I love Cronenberg, but I still think The Fly was his best work. I'm a fan of eXistenZ as well. But History of Violence is pretty much up there.

[Murr]

i hate hate hate hate HAAAAAATED it.

i'm a worse person for having experience half the shit in that movie.

[Vorph]

Why? IMO all film violence should be that graphic. I have no problem with violence in movies, but I much prefer it when the director has the balls to attempt to show an accurate representation of what a bullet does to a human body instead of the usual Hollywood bullshit where someone is shot and carries on like nothing happened.

I believe that the movie isn't saying that violence is bad; quite the opposite actually. All of the violence in the movie (opening scene excepted) is unavoidable and necessary, for the alternative is much worse. What the movie is trying to show is that violence isn't really meant to be entertainment. I can't be the only person who saw other people in the theater all happy when he killed the two guys in the diner, like it was just another action movie, only to cringe and look away when the camera lingers on the face of one of the robbers that is half blown off? People love the action, until you make it super-realistic and make them look at the aftermath, then it stops being so much fun.

When you stop and think about it, this same attitude carries over into the real world too. What would happen if the news started covering wars by showing actual footage of people getting shot, blown up, burned alive, etc.? How would that affect the public support for a war? How about if the footage isn't just of the enemy getting killed, but our own people too? Most people don't want that though, they want to be safely insulated from what really happens so they don't have to trouble themselves with such things. I don't think they should be allowed to have that luxury, and my interpretation of the movie was that Cronenberg doesn't think so either.

[Cybsled]

What would happen if the news started covering wars by showing actual footage of people getting shot, blown up, burned alive, etc.? How would that affect the public support for a war?

That is exactly the reason why the military tries very hard to restrict media access to these types of situations. The administration can also play hardball.

"You wanna run that footage? Fine...the news pass for your company to the Pentagon and the White House is revolked!"

To get a balanced view of war, you sadly have to look to outside media outlets, otherwise you get ye olde propaganda version.

[Asmadai]

This movie isn't playing within 150 miles of my house. Pisses me the hell off, as I would really like to see it. Fuck you, limited release.

[Murr]

Yes, "violence shouldn't be entertainment" sold as ENTERTAINMENT IN A MOVIE THEATER.

Good game David Cronenberg.

The reason war footage is different (and why I agree with you on that point) is that the general public SHOULD know the horrors of war so they won't support it. Of course! But likening this movie to that is apples to oranges. There's no reason to remove people's insulation from this sort of pointless, brutal violence - the vast, vast majority of people seeing this film have probably never perpetrated and never will perpetrate violence of the sort of magnitude portrayed in this movie. It's saying, "Yep, if you're a crazy fuck who stabs people in the eye with barbed wire as a kid, you'll probably have to brutally murder about 18 more people later in your life" to Joe Suburbia who might not have ever been in a mild fight in his LIFE, much less tried to beat someone within an inch of death. It's unnecessary. Not to mention that minority who might see this movie on break from clubbing people's noses into their brains isn't going to have a change of heart after this oh so compelling story.

[Injektilo]

Thought the movie was phenomenal. The movie had such a dark undertone that you almost expected the violence that was to come, but it was so shockingly brutal that rocks you to the core. The acting was really top notch also, especially William Hurts small part.

I saw it with a couple friends, 2 of them liked it because they are violence junkies and thats all they really gave a shit about. My other buddy, like myself, normally likes the dark, deep movies that make you think ( requiem for a dream, eternal sunshine, etc. ) but he hated this. I was sorta surprised till he started explaining why he hated it and it turned out he really didnt understand a lot of the scenes. Im not saying this is something that happening across the board, but its definitely a movie where you have to assume certain things based on a sentence or a look the characters give, and you have to piece certain things togethor yourself. I dont think everyones into stuff like that, but i personally thought it made it all the more powerful.

The ending was the best though, i wont give anything away since i know a lot havent been able to see it yet due to limited release, but i couldnt imagine a more appropriate and at the same time shocking ending.

PS. the son absolutely annihilating the bully was totally awesome too

[James]

Originally Posted by Brittney

All the parts with violence owned.

All the parts with anything else sucked.

I have to agree. Great plot, great acting, *insanely badass violence*, but shitty, fucking HORRIBLE pace. God, it was SO SLOW exactly when it didn't need to be. Overall, it was enjoyable, but the slow pace of it means I'm probably not going to watch it again.

The school fight, though, was completely badassedly awesome, and definitely a must see scene. Who's laughing now motherfucker!

[Hateyou]

I thought this movie did a good job of making you feel bad at the violence, considering how desensitized we all are now. Wonderful acting as well, I thought it was cast perfectly. I agree with the above posters and the bully scene, that was my favorite part of the movie.

The only parts I didn't like (or maybe didn't understand?) were the sex scenes. I thought they were completely out of place. My girlfriend and I were just looking at each other saying "Why are they showing this?", and "Ok what's this have to do with anything?".

Overall a pretty good movie.