A History of Violence

not a bad film, had some good violent bits in, but was incredibly slow in other bits. Had a strange storyline too which left more questions than answers. The ending was silly too just cut off and didn't tie any loose ends. Otherwise Vigo was good in it not as good as Aragorn but still ok.

ok so I have decided in my infinite wisdom to review every single film i have ever seen on love film... Currently still on the letter 'A' (don't ask) So this one will be short... the twist isn't really a twist...The film's moral compass is broken and the film doesn't say anything good about anyone...

The film's strengths are numerous. First, there is not a weak link in the cast; even the people we haven't seen before (most notably Tom's son, Jack) turn in great efforts. Maria Bello may as well be married to Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris is his usual brilliant self, and in a role that can't take up more than ten minutes' screen time, William Hurt almost steals it with a character unlike any he has played before. I say almost, because then we have Viggo giving a clever, studied, subtle and utterly convincing performance as Tom. Just how studied and subtle it is, in fact, becomes clearer on repeat viewing. Having seen this film, I would certainly suggest he is the new master of the understated performance, understanding the power of low-key finesse in a way that echoes the likes of De Niro and Spacey! The theme of violence being fundamental to the human condition joins the more common ones in Cronenberg's work: questions of identity, and the complex duality of human nature. The latter of these is examined at its closest with two very different, very deliberate love scenes, which Cronenberg put into the film himself. The first is a scene that shows us just how beautiful and fun sex should be between a couple this deeply in love, and is pure joy to watch (Mortensen proves particularly amusing somehow); the second is a superb juxtaposition that really challenges the audience. From a technical perspective, there really isn't anything wrong with this film. It looks great, the score, by long time Cronenberg collaborator Howard Shore, does exactly what it is supposed to do, underpinning every moment of tension, drama, and extreme emotion perfectly. Cronenberg's talent allows him to work through a few different tones, including dark humour at points. There is in fact a scene you could believe had been written by Tarantino, which doesn't sound like it should work in such an otherwise serious film, but it is perfect. The review wouldn't be complete without mentioning the violence, of course. It is straightforward, unglamourous, instant, sloppy, and always justified. It is this that interests Cronenberg, how we justify violence, and even applaud it. We fully appreciate the violence we see is necessary, but he wants us to acknowledge it isn't a light subject we just brush over. Regardless of how justified it is, real violence is never pretty and should stay with you, it should change you. The technique of manipulating the audience, making them complicit in the violence, is not a new one; Kubrick and Tarantino are both famous for it, but when Cronenberg does it, it is fresh. He wants you to cheer, but he also wants you to know what you're cheering, which ties nicely back in with those themes. A perfect, provocative film for a mature audience, with a closing scene that may disappoint those who haven't been paying attention. It haunts, and hopefully provokes reflection from the audience.

Amazing film, Viggo and Cronenberg on top form. Not an easy film to watch in places but it also isn't gratuitous. Recommended!

Having read through many of the reviews of this film, and many reviews of other films, the most amazing thing is how many reviewers can't spell, have terrible grammar and show an astonishing ignorance of the English language. God help us, no wonder we're in the proverbial! By the way, i enjoyed this film. Not as bad as many people think.