A History Of Violence [Archive]

View Full Version : A History Of Violence

Nzoner

10-08-2005, 06:36 PM

I was going to go see this on opening weekend but had mentioned it to one of my client's employees(a girl in her mid 20's)and she's like no don't do it,it's horrible,it's slow and boring etc.

Well I heeded her advice until today when after reading reviews I decided I had to go and make up my own mind.

Am I ever glad I did,I thought the movie was fantastic.It's not what your used to seeing from director David Cronenberg but he definitely prooves he can pull off a more mainstream movie.

Let the word violence in the title be fair warning,this movie is violent and the scenes are graphically realistic.

The movie does a good job of taking us into the character's lives and it shows violence in different forms alot like Crash did with racism.The acting is top notch and Ed Harris and William Hurt do a great job as bad guys.

All in all I'm calling this one a keeper and it's going into my collection once it's released on DVD.

Dunit35

10-08-2005, 06:37 PM

sounds like a must see movie..

siberian khatru

10-08-2005, 07:41 PM

A History Of Violence

"Alex, what is Mohillbilly's biography?"

Miles

10-08-2005, 07:45 PM

I hardly ever go to the theater but might have to for this one.

HemiEd

10-08-2005, 07:58 PM

A History Of Violence

"Alex, what is Mohillbilly's biography?"

rep ROFL

Deberg_1990

10-08-2005, 09:25 PM

I want to see this bad...Cronenberg is an underrated genious....He started off as a pure horror guy, but has really expanded his film catolog nicely over the years.

Nzoner

10-08-2005, 09:58 PM

I hardly ever go to the theater but might have to for this one.

I know how much of a movie buff you are so do me a favor,when seeing it keep in mind that it's based off a graphic novel.

DenverChief

10-08-2005, 09:59 PM

I thought Crash was a horrible movie and I date inter-racially

Nzoner

10-08-2005, 10:06 PM

I thought Crash was a horrible movie and I date inter-racially

That's the great thing about art it's all subjective.Myself,I look for movies like Crash,when going to my local renter I steer clear of most all the so called new and hot and get lost in the independent section instead.

DenverChief

10-08-2005, 10:13 PM

That's the great thing about art it's all subjective.Myself,I look for movies like Crash,when going to my local renter I steer clear of most all the so called new and hot and get lost in the independent section instead.

Don't get me wrong I love indi films too I realy wanted to see "Waiting" this weekend but it looks like I'm going to have to wait till next weekend. I just thought Crash was horrible because it is so "in your face" with racsim....

Nzoner

10-08-2005, 10:18 PM

Don't get me wrong I love indi films too I realy wanted to see "Waiting" this weekend but it looks like I'm going to have to wait till next weekend. I just thought Crash was horrible because it is so "in your face" with racsim....

I wasn't getting you wrong,like I said it's all subjective and I respect how the movie made you feel.Personally,I love in your face type films because if done right they'll leave you feeling quite uncomfortable.

Requiem For A Dream is one of my favorites,it's over the top in your face with drug abuse but it took me into a world that I was more than ready to get the hell out of and imo that's great movie making when a film can do that.

Miles

10-08-2005, 10:23 PM

I know how much of a movie buff you are so do me a favor,when seeing it keep in mind that it's based off a graphic novel.

Thanks, I didnt realize that. Definitly good to know before seeing it.

Im a pretty big Cronenberg fan so im especially looking foward to this one.

wheeler08

10-09-2005, 07:17 PM

I went and seen both Waiting, and History of V. this weekend. I guess I'm picky, but Waiting didn't get much more laughs out of me than what was in the trailer. I thought History was boring and slow, and was disapointed by the abrupt ending. For some reason I laughed several times and the blatant violence. and just thought I was sick, but I bet half the movie crowd laughed the same time I did. First movie I've been to where the whole crowd walked out bitching about how bad the movie was. Just my 2 cents

Deberg_1990

10-09-2005, 07:24 PM

chagrin

10-10-2005, 06:54 AM

rep ROFL

Step 9, you owe me an apology!

chagrin

10-10-2005, 06:56 AM

All in all I'm calling this one a keeper and it's going into my collection once it's released on DVD.

Serious question:

Is it really any more predictable than it appears?

Am I anywhere close to the gist of the plot when I think that he is an ex-hit man who's past has come to haunt him in his new life? If I am, it doesn't seem at all interesting but I have been known to be wrong on occasion.

patteeu

10-10-2005, 07:03 AM

Requiem For A Dream is one of my favorites,it's over the top in your face with drug abuse but it took me into a world that I was more than ready to get the hell out of and imo that's great movie making when a film can do that.

The first Scooby Doo movie did that to me. I didn't care for it, but you might really dig it. :p

Nzoner

10-10-2005, 09:43 AM

I have heard a few reviews say the same thing. The audience laughs in a few parts that are not intended to be as such. I think Cronenberg's style can be a little over the top and misunderstood at times.

Plus,as stated above it is based on a graphic novel.

sd4chiefs

10-10-2005, 09:49 AM

Serious question:

Is it really any more predictable than it appears?

Am I anywhere close to the gist of the plot when I think that he is an ex-hit man who's past has come to haunt him in his new life? If I am, it doesn't seem at all interesting but I have been known to be wrong on occasion.

This movie is very predictable and I thought the ending sucked. A couple of people in the theater booed when the movie ended. I felt the same way.

Man has boring family life, kill some bad guys, man has boring family life, kill some more bad guys, yada, yada, yada, the end.

Nzoner

10-10-2005, 09:55 AM

Serious question:

Is it really any more predictable than it appears?

Am I anywhere close to the gist of the plot when I think that he is an ex-hit man who's past has come to haunt him in his new life? If I am, it doesn't seem at all interesting but I have been known to be wrong on occasion.

Without giving anything away I'll just say it I thought it did a good job in asking the question is change really possible in one's life.

Again,there is no wrong or right when it comes to movies,art etc. you either like it or you don't.Thankfully,we don't all like the same thing,be pretty damn boring wouldn't it?

Nzoner

10-10-2005, 09:56 AM

The first Scooby Doo movie did that to me. I didn't care for it, but you might really dig it. :p

Nice.

Nzoner

10-10-2005, 10:03 AM

This movie is very predictable and I thought the ending sucked. A couple of people in the theater booed when the movie ended. I felt the same way.

***SPOILERS*****

I appreciate your thoughts on the ending but I thought it was fine.The daughter getting the plate and untensils,the son passing the meat at the dinner table.After all the deception he had put his family through he was being accepted back and forgiven,at least that was my take.

Sure-Oz

10-11-2005, 07:41 PM

*SPOILERS*

i thought that movie sucked, there were some stupid parts. the fighting scenes were badass but the movie overall wasnt that good imo. the best scene besides the 2 retarded ass sex spots was when the kid kicked that bullys ass!

angel

10-11-2005, 09:20 PM

my opinion, SPOILERS, whatever---

I heard this movie was up for Oscars, the preview looked promising, so I went.

Within the first two minutes.. no, seconds, I knew this would be a bad movie. And by bad, I mean, poorly directed, poorly acted, poor script writing.

The first scene:

front of a motel, two guys come out VERY slowly. One guy adjusts a chair that is sitting outside the door about 1/2" for no reason. The walk SLOWLY to their car which is parked about three feet away from the door they just came out of. They stand in front of the car, not looking at one another, staring blankly ahead facing the car. One says, "we'll keep going East and stay out of big towns". The other guy takes about a minute to say "yep" or something to that effect. They stand there for another minute or so staring blankly over the car. One guy says "I'm tired". The other guy says "I'll go check out, you drive the car up to the office." they trade keys ever so slowly. One guy walks off camera while the other guy SLOWLY got into the car making sure the audience knows that he's tired.
Then he drives about two feet to the office of the hotel and turns the car off. The other guy comes out of the office. The first guy said "what took so long?" and I laughed because that was the first thing this whole first 20 minutes that hasn't taken too long.
The guy who came out of the office said, "I had a little trouble with the maid" and I'm thinking, oh-my-god, how can this be up for an oscar? and it's only the opening scene of the movie
There's a long drawn-out thing about needing water for the car, and he hands the tired guy a milk jug and says there's a cooler in the office. So the tired guy SLOWLY walks into the office, touches EVERYTHING for about five minutes, postcards, the counter, the bell, the maid's cleaning supplies, opens the fridge to reveal many milk jugs filled with water- which he touches- then he closes the fridge and goes to SLOWLY fill up his milk jug with water from the cooler.

I know you're thinking the director is just adding suspense, but come on, we all know that the maid and the office guy are dead, so just get on with it. SLOWLY, the camera pans to the dead bodies to reveal and shock us! And then a little girl (one of the worst child actors ever) comes out of the bathroom holding a doll and making noises like she's constipated. The tired guy shoots her and leaves.

This is our opening scene. The whole movie is the same deal. The director is making things slow to "create suspense" but the script is so predictable that I'm turning to my friend every few minutes saying what I think is about to happen, and then, shockingly, it does!

There was a part that I'm sure the director meant to be crazy violent and shocking, but the entire audience, which up to this point had been in a coma, was laughing their heads off.

The ending, which I could go on and on about, and still somehow make it faster and more entertaining than the director of this movie, was so predictable and stupid. As soon as he walked in the door, I was whispering to my friend exactly what was about to happen seconds before it did.

In short, this movie is only worth seeing if you like to make fun of movies. If so, it's a great time! If not, don't waste your time.

Nzoner

10-11-2005, 09:41 PM

leviw

10-12-2005, 12:27 AM

I can't get over how much Viggo Mortensen looks like Denis Leary...

Mortensen
http://www.vujer.com/material/files/Mortense.jpg
Leary
http://szinkronhangok.fw.hu/galeriakepek/denis-leary_150x200.jpg

onescrewleftuntwisted

10-12-2005, 12:35 AM

i thought *crash* was a great movie

id. films are some of the most artist films out there

think back *the cube* no plot, no story
just a bunch of people stuck in a cube,but by god it worked

ZootedGranny

10-12-2005, 01:22 AM

If Cronenberg's aim with this movie was to create stark contrast between the two halves of the movie with borderline parody, then he did a great job. I almost have to believe that was his goal, because I respect him as a director (I loved Crash and enjoyed Videodrome as well as eXistenZ)...but at the same time I really question major portions of the movie.

I found it very entertaining, then again, I'm a big fan of graphic violence in films.

SPOILERS

A list of things I have a problem with:

The completely worthless drawn out setup of the bad guys in the beginning of the movie. You start to think they have a bigger role until they are blasted away and never heard of again (obviously). Even though the movie is very short in today's standards, they give minutes upon minutes of screentime to these guys that could've been done in just a couple.

Nearly every scene the teenage son was in was unintentionally hilarious and cliched, including the 80s era prick bully. It's shown that the son is bad at sports, and within 3 minutes, it shows him make a game winning play in a meaningless gym class baseball game. The bully's reaction was so over the top half of the movie theater laughed. He's berating this kid over, asking him if he thinks he's hot shit because he caught a ****in pop up. Of course the son plays the intellectual, turning the barbs back. On the main strip, the bully and his friend look at the kid and the sidekick says something like "Hey, isn't that the kid from gym class, you should kick his ass." Just hilarious.

A little later, Tom and his son are in the kitchen, Tom smacks the kid, and then the kid's eyes well up, he gets some puppy dog look on his face and runs upstairs like thousands of other times in thousands of other movies.

His brother calls him up "Still good with the killing?" Hahaha

The reporter giving an over the top incredulous look to her camera man "I guess that's all we'll get!"

Just incredibly cheesy dialogue.

Now, there are a couple of ways to take it. Did Cronenberg intend for the movie to be completely stereotypical in order for the violence later to be more shocking, or to show the complete seperation between Tom & Joey? Was the writing cliched on purpose? Or was it just not that great of a movie?

I mean, I understand he tried to make the point that violence begets violence in reference to his son kicking the shit out of the bully. I understand the last scene where he's looked at differently at the dinner table because they know he can't go back to being just Tom.

Maybe I have to give him a pass based on the fact that I didn't read the source, but I thought everything (aside from the violence) could've been done better.

angel

10-12-2005, 08:38 AM

Angel,I have one question.Have you ever seen a David Cronenberg movie other than this one, and if so did you like it?

Lastly,the beginning of this article from 1999 hit the nail on the head about Cronenberg.

The movies of David Cronenberg inspire strong opinions. (http://www.salon.com/people/bc/1999/11/30/cronenberg/index.html)
I haven't seen any of his other films, but I will look into it and let you know what I think.
I was just going there with what I think makes a "good" film, and this one didn't do it for me.

Sure-Oz

10-12-2005, 09:14 AM

I thought Crash was great, this movie however was a joke. Rottentomatoes.com has it at an overall 88% wtf are they smokin? First time ive been disappointed by their overall reviews.

mcan

10-12-2005, 02:51 PM

The movie is SUPER POOP!

There are plenty of STYLIZED films that are based off of graphic novels. "Sin City" comes to mind. But, stylized shouldn't be an excuse for shitty dialogue and exaggerated (rediculous) characters, and stupid plot devices...

Also, I find it hard to believe that this many people liked David Cronenberg's "Crash." I haven't seen it, to be fair, but I worked at Blockbuster when it came out and didn't hear anything good about it. That's why I never bothered. ExistenZ, I've seen about half of, and thought it was pretty stupid. My bet is, most people on this board are thinking of the recent movie "CRASH" with Matt Dillon and Don Cheadle. They are two totally different movies people.

Crash (2005)= Fantastic film about how racism touches people's lives. Well acted, written, directed, and concieved. Written and directed by Paul Haggis. (writer of "Million Dollar Baby")

Crash (1996)= Really hyped up and controversial film about a small fetish cult who derive sexual satisfaction from car crashes. Directed by Cronenburg (director of History of Violence, and lots of crappy horror movies)...

ZootedGranny

10-12-2005, 03:48 PM

The movie is SUPER POOP!
Crash (1996)= Really hyped up and controversial film about a small fetish cult who derive sexual satisfaction from car crashes. Directed by Cronenburg (director of History of Violence, and lots of crappy horror movies)...

There probably is that confusion, however, I knew this.

Nzoner

10-12-2005, 03:54 PM

Crash (1996)= Really hyped up and controversial film about a small fetish cult who derive sexual satisfaction from car crashes. Directed by Cronenburg (director of History of Violence, and lots of crappy horror movies)...

I really liked his remake of The Fly as well.

Hammock Parties

10-15-2005, 08:29 PM

Just got back. Fantastic.

To those of you thought it was too slow: STOP WATCHING HOLLYWOOD SHIT

The only bits I thought were unnecessary were the sex scenes. Just horrible and laughable. Embarrassing, really.

I would have taken out the crap sex scenes and some of the stuff with the son and the bully, and thrown in a few scenes showing Joey as he used to be back in Philly.

Ed Harris was fantastic!

Chiefs Pantalones

10-15-2005, 08:35 PM

Hammock Parties

10-15-2005, 08:40 PM

When your mom and dad have that talk with you, you'll understand. :)

Hur hur. The sex scenes were not necessary. Gratuitous crap.

Chiefs Pantalones

10-15-2005, 08:44 PM

Was it really that good? The previews didn't do it justice then...

chiefs4me

10-15-2005, 08:44 PM

Hur hur. The sex scenes were not necessary. Gratuitous crap.

I thought you went to the parties and game?

Hammock Parties

10-15-2005, 08:48 PM

I thought you went to the parties and game?

You thought wrong.

Hammock Parties

10-15-2005, 08:49 PM

Was it really that good? The previews didn't do it justice then...

I'm not sure what you mean, I liked the trailer and it's getting great reviews.

Deberg_1990

10-15-2005, 10:51 PM

Hur hur. The sex scenes were not necessary. Gratuitous crap.

Typical Cronebnerg....His style is over the top at times. I do believe the sex scenes served a purpose though. The 1st one it was more playful and jovial. The 2nd one, was violent, almost rape like. Him and his wife were turned on by the violence.

Miles

10-27-2005, 01:12 AM

I finally got around to seeing this earlier today. I was a bit hesitant to go since serveral of my friends really hated it but im glad i checked it out anyways.

I think most of the critisims of the film are towards pretty typical Cronenberg traits. While this was definitly more mainstream that his past films, those traits were still present.

I guess my only complaint is that I thought William Hurts performance was a little weak. Also for some reason going into the movie I thought it was going to be John Hurt rather than William.

I might have to rent dead ringers again soon.

mcan

10-27-2005, 02:22 AM

yes, Ed Harris is good in this film. So is Viggo Mortenson. They are both fine actors. But you know what? They would also be good if they were dressed as Vampires in Oregon Trail Junior High's local Haunted House... They could host the cake walk, and I would be mezmorized. Doesn't make the film good.

Inane (typical 3 act) story.
Stilted direction.
Stupid characters that border on cartoons.
Terrible performances from almost everybody else, especially William Hurt (who play "drunk" the whole movie). Although Maria Bello (the mother) did an OK job.

There is almost nothing in this film that even resembles anything that should or could be called "good." That's how bad it is. It's right up there with "Plan Nine" and "Manos: The Hands of Fate" on the shit-o-meter. The difference is, these guys spent a WHOLE lot more money to make their feces.