A History of Violence

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 :) (05/03/2006)

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. (17/12/2005)

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. (13/11/2005)

If this film hadn't gone into a completely different plane in the final third act than in the perfect first hour, I wouldn't have hesitated to give it my highest praise. (03/11/2005)

From the initial predictable scene to the skillfully calculated drama with perfect actors and an unrelenting atmosphere. The dark past must be shown in a way that keeps me interested in what comes next, but the script keeps throwing one twist after another at me. The plot revolves around a fearful son and, unfortunately, key twists in the last half hour. I had already known where Tom was meant to end up for a while, but it couldn't have been more obvious. (28/01/2006)

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)

Excellently done in terms of acting and directing (I enjoyed Harris’ disgustingly amused expression incredibly) + a perfect finale. Plus, Mortensen comes across really convincing both as the nice dad and as Joey the killing machine. (25/10/2008)

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. (26/06/2006)

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. (24/02/2012)

"History of Violence" is a great film that shows how Cronenberg has matured. He is able to shoot scenes that have such an incredible impact on you that you won't even want to believe it. The scene on the stairs after the sheriff leaves is absolutely incredible, as well as the moment when the blood splatters on Mortensen after his teenage son saves his life. Cronenberg is not afraid of naturalism, on the contrary, which, in my opinion, places him high among contemporary directors. Life is sometimes just not nice. Why keep filming it like a fairy tale? (22/11/2013)