**Allow me a bit of a rant here** Fuck You Mr. Cronenberg for not showing up to your own film at this years Off-Gala screening. That's two films in a row (Spider) you were a no show, and this is the town which has supported you since day 1. Not Classy. I loved your Film though. **End Rant**
A new Cronenberg film is always an event. The Canadian Auteur delivers every single time and A History of Violence continues his stunning string of successes. With this film he continues to explore the darker regions of the human psyche, but without the technology melding of the flesh (Crash, eXistenZ, The Fly). Gone is the gloomy and foreboding atmosphere which typify his work. In fact, this is the sunniest Cronenberg film to date, set in charming small town middle-america complete with diners, lemon pie, baseball and rich fall colours.
I suspect that subsequent viewings of A History of Violence will reveal more layers to the Jungian subtext, but one of the charms of watching it the first time is that you never, ever know where it is going to go.
It begins in pure genre territory, in fact, the beginning is not unlike the opening of From Dusk Till Dawn of all films, following two tough-guys in a murder fuelled road trip. Quickly shifting gears, we meet the Stall family, hard working restaurateur dad (Viggo Mortensen), smart and confident lawyer mom (a sublime Maria Bello), and their two school-aged children. The family gets along quite well, with the only visible sign of trouble being with Jack being bullied at school. He has been handling the bullies locker-room intimidation with a self deprecating wit not often used in these types of teenage situations, but the situation is simmering to a boil. Back to the murdering thugs, as they arrive at the quaint little town and into Tom's Diner. A hold-up is followed by gunplay and an incredible act of heroism on Tom's part. This particular scene brings Cronenberg's direction into sharp focus with its shocking, graphic and bloody display. Tom becomes a bit of a CNN celebrity as he gets his proverbial 15 minutes of fame. He is demure and shy, fitting with his small town lifestyle. However, shifting gears again, the TV exposure eventually attracts another comic-book-styled unsavoury into town (a one-eyed Ed Harris, in fine form) who claims to have a past with Tom. Meanwhile, confused by dad's violent heroics, Jack unleashes his inner demons onto the school bully squad.
The path of the film could go a number of ways at this point. Does he play it like Egoyan in The Sweet Hereafter, a town dealing with violent tragedy? Nope. Does he play it like Oliver Stones satire of the media and violence a la Natural Born Killers? Wrong again. Instead Cronenberg plays it like an archetypical Western in a contemporary setting and a character driven one to boot. Plus, he manages to heighten the genre aspects and also the dramatic aspects with no loss to either approach. In other words he is able to have his cake and eat it too.
Take the complexity of both the leads. In no small part due to superb performances from Viggo Mortenson (No Aragorn or Hidalgo in sight here) Maria Bello and young Ashton Holms. But through two sex scenes alone, he manages to put where the film stands at that point completely in context. Both scenes are very, very steamy (and crammed with subtext) and it was a masterful stroke to get both of them by the MPAA watchdogs. That tidbit alone adds a hint of meta to the proceedings further mystifying the bizarre dichotomy that is sex and violence in modern-day America.
Demons lurk just beneath the surface of a thin veneer of community. But the scary thing is the fact that here it is so casually accepted. The end scene is quietly haunting and burns with a searing intelligence on the state of the union. A History of Violence opens wide September 30th, and it may just find the massive audience it is going after. It is already a classic entry into the Cronenberg canon.
More from History of Violence, A:
- Reviews: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE FILM REVIEW
This is the film I've been looking forward to all year.I've watched so much crap this summer.I hope Cronenberg knocks this one out the park.
Ouch! David called. You made him cry.
yeah a bit hars on poor David wasnt it maybe he had better things to do than be in a room with a bunch of film geeks sweaty at the palms to shake his hand?
As opposed to your review, my biggest problem with the film was the 2nd sex scene. I enjoy seeing beautiful women enjoying themselves as much as the next guy. But I just couldn't buy that she was in a frame of mind to enjoy anything, especially sex, at that particular moment. Not only was her husband not who she thought he was (which makes her understandably hurt and angry), but just seconds before he was strangling her by the neck. Not exactly stuff that puts women in the right mood.
I thought that scene was just an excuse to add a sex scene with a pretty woman. But I didn't buy it, and wish the scene was left on the editing room floor.
Having saw the movie, I fall under the "didn't like it&" crowd. And its really hard for me to say WHY I didn't like it. The action scenes were quick, violent, and graphic. Stuff I like to see. The sex scenes were strategically graphic, and again, stuff I like to see. Its how the overall story was told, I think, which left me cold. Its difficult to elaborate what I didn't like without spoiling, but the opening scene felt unnecessary character development, after seeing the later cafe scene. The dialog before the first sex scene, and indeed the sex scene itself, seemed to be a hint for future plot direction that never occurs. The twist later in the movie opens up a whole lot of family continuity holes that are never explained. The whole lethargic pacing of the storytelling, broken up with the staccato action scenes, just didn't vibe with me, and to say that the ending left me unfulfilled would be like saying that sewage has a mildly unpleasant odor.
Decent acting (Mortensen, Harris), and interesting premise, But the unclear overall message and clunky pacing gives it the feeling that its a B-level director working with A-level talent and budget.
This was the worst movie I have ever seen in my whole entire life.
A good premise, the promise of an guy's edgy action film, great acting talent in Ed Harris, an "A&" rating in Entertainment Weekly, and possibly a new star in Mortensen, coming off the hot LOR trilogy. So I'm there in my seat the first weekend.
Yet...what a dog this was. A good premise doesn't make a good script, apparently, and Cronenberg's direction is strictly back aisle of the video store. The pacing is atrocious, sex scenes are graphic and over the top--both of them--and clumsily used--I'm sure Cronenberg didn't intend the lovely Maria Bello's semi-nudity to evoke the chuckles it did at the Burbank theater where I saw it.
The story has endless holes, unexplained twists, and nonsensical sequences. One example: Mortensen's character spots the bad guys through his downtown cafe window, correctly guesses they are headed to his home and up to no good, so he calls his wife and tells her "get the shotgun&". We know he has no car because we saw him walk to work that morning (even though he recently was stabbed in his foot), but why doesn't he tell her to get in the car and leave? Instead, we are treated to a sequence of ridiculous shots of Mortensen running home--through town...down the highway...down the old road...over the hill...and finally to his farmhouse, where miraculously(!) he gets there before the bad guys--and all while limping on his bloody, bandaged foot.
But...when it comes time for him to make a quick trip from Indiana to Philadelphia and back, he drives in the family truck. So...apparently their family vehicle works just fine.
And hey, if we're working with A-list talent, can we get a decent lighting director? The whole movie looked like a grainy, poorly lit 70's film, and not in an edgy auteur way, either.
I could go on and on about this awful film, but I won't waste the time. Trust me, there was lots of groaning at our theater when the closing credits finally came on. And you should ignore the glowing reviews--this is clearly the case of a bad film with a bad director being evaluated on an unfairly biased sliding scale--favoring what I don't know. Cronenberg? His past work? His foray into a bigger budget.
This is gaarbge, and the worst kind. I want my $10 back.
I'd have to agree with Mark. I've read some of the rave reviews on the net and even tried to see the film using the eyes of some of these people who seem to be saying I just didnt get it and I need to look for layers. Didnt work. At the end of the day, this was a slow moving and turgid story with a few intensely violent scenes and out of place sex shots. I DID like the interactions between some characters - particularly father and son but they never seemed to go anywhere - bit like the film.
Noone in the cinema seemed to like this film and there was a palable sense of disapointment in the place as we left
What's all this hand-wringing about?
Cronenberg is a second-rate director. Most of his movies are turgid crap. Dead Ringers was the most risible piece of shit I've ever seen. Twin gyneacologists go bananas and chop up chicks. Good twin, Bad twin. Yeah, right. That's a very original and believable premise. Cro-cro has issues with sex, it's always got slime or blood involved. I'll give credit where it's due. Existenz, despite its sucky title and some typically wooden dialogue, did work as an altered-state thriller. But compared to Matrix One? Really, come on. They're not in the same league.
Cronenberg. B-movie director. End of story.
I refuse to rise to the bait Sharkey, as you sound stubornly irate in the post, but you cand dig a lot deeper in Mr. Cronenberg if you chose...Unlike most 'B-Films from B-Directors'.
-----