A History of Violence

I expected bloody senselessness and instead saw a film laden with the deepest human emotions. It was real. From youthful loving to hard violence, from simple innocent joys to the full depth of adult violence and sex, and ultimate redemption, this film has it all. Every piece of clothing and set, every camera angle and lighting propelled the story relentlessly. I was never bored, and never overwhelmed with overdone violence. Nothing was gratuitous. Viggo Mortensen proved he's one of the finest actors to come along in a long while. Maria Bello carries so much on her talented shoulders. With Mortensen she shines with alternately warming and heartbreaking truthfulness. Ed Harris was delightfully menacing, and William Hurt gave the liveliest and best performance I've seen from him.

This movie is about truth and redemption. It's the best film I've seen in a very long time. Kudos to Cronenberg, Mortensen, Bello, and all the cast and crew for what was for me a nearly perfect movie.

See it, then see it again. It's brilliant.

In the first fifteen minutes of "A History of Violence," we get a small town diner, a baseball game, and a sneering, varsity letter-wearing high school bully. Throw in an apple pie on a window sill and some kids saying bedtime prayers, and you've got the Saturday Evening Post. But this is the work of David Cronenberg, whose films so often explore the blurry – and icky – lines between biology and technology. So it's not surprising when this film, too, heads for the gray areas, this time between the sensibilities of Rockwell and Tarantino.

Small town diner owner Tom Stalls (Viggo Mortenson) runs the kind of place where you can eat at the counter, and "see you in church" is a standard goodbye. When he single-handedly foils a robbery and saves a few lives, then, the townsfolk are impressed and grateful, but not all that surprised. Tom is a Man, after all, and that's what Men do. But as David Lynch has taught us, pastoral postcard America often conceals deep weirdness and violence. The diner incident is of course big news in Anytown, USA, and Tom finds himself attracting not only local reporters who want to know "how it felt," but also the Reservoir Dog-type Mr. Foggerty (Ed Harris), who isn't surprised that Tom knows his way around a gun, and waxes nostalgic about good times in Philadelphia involving barbed wire and a guy named Joey Cusack. Foggerty seems to think Tom knows exactly what he's talking about.

Tom as "local hero" his family can handle, but after the Foggerty matter comes to a head, they do begin to wonder where these moves that would make Jeff Speakman proud are coming from. Perhaps more unsettling is the fact that they unconsciously sort of get off on their new image of dad. Junior soon finds in himself the will to flatten his jock tormentor, and wife Edie (Maria Bello) with some gusto acts out a rough rape fantasy with her hubby. Tom Stalls, indeed, but can't prevent the inevitable truth from coming to light nor catching up with him. That's shocking enough to his family, though maybe less so than the ways that knowledge affects them.

"A History of Violence" is fond of feinting toward familiar territory, only to veer away. Just when we think we've seen if before, in "Natural Born Killers," "Cape Fear," and the "just when I think I'm out, they pull me back in" tropes of countless mob flicks, it shifts its focus. For all its brutality, it comes across as a quiet movie. There is indeed more to Tom than he lets on, but less than his detractors might believe. He may be a liar in the strictest sense, but his protestations to his family and persecutors are sincere. The contemplation of violence, both pre and post-facto, rather than the acts themselves, drive the film. Whether the capability for, and indeed commission of, such acts permanently defines a person is left for us to decide. The film ends ensconced once again in small town tranquility, though this time seething with unspoken fear, accusations, and uncertainty. "A History of Violence" doesn't force itself with preaching or moralizing, but simply unfolds. It's another solid offering from the strong career of David Cronenberg.

Let's start by writing this is a film I have difficulty evaluating. You notice the great technical qualities but emotionally it leaves you conflicted. Which, considering this is a Cronenberg film, might just be what was intended. I've seen most of his films and "A history of violence" is probably the least weird and most "commercial" (a term used by the director himself). It's a psychological drama with of course certain sequences of violence. It would not qualify as an action flick because the fight scenes are quite quick (less than a minute mostly), realistic, harsh and not glamorized. They're rather shocking but somehow exhilarating (like an adrenaline rush) but linger just a bit to show the results and make you feel uncomfortable. In the end, it does make you think about violence, if it's something ingrained, how it affects people, if it can sometimes be justified and if it can be overcome.

Let's not forget a very interesting mystery aspect regarding the past of the main character played solidly and subtly by Viggo Mortensen. All the actors were quite convincing in their parts, the wife being suitably loving and tormented, the main gangsters being suitably menacing. They felt like real characters and I particularly liked the interactions between the wife and husband. Cronenberg is obviously a professional at his craft and shows it once again. It's cinema d'auteur as we would say in french but it's not boring or overtly intellectual. So if you're a Cronenberg fan, this is obviously a must-buy but expect it to be relatively more "tame" than his previous efforts. If you like smart character driven psychological dramas with a hint of mystery, it's a must see but I'm conflicted as to how re-watchable it is, making a purchase recommendation an uncertain thing. Fans of the Cohen brothers dramas/thrillers would probably like it also.

Rating: 7.5 out of 10

I honestly don't understand why this movie has such a big score. I was hoping for intrigue. But this movie is so plain and basic. Even acting was poor.

A History of Violence is one of those ultimately frustrating films which leaves you with the sense that it could have been something really special but never quite managed to pull it off. There's a great story here, one brimming with potential. But the movie never fully lives up to the promise of its story. This is certainly not a bad film by any means but it's not a great one either and you get the feeling it should have been.

The story revolves around Tom Stall, as played by Viggo Mortensen. Tom is a small-town Indiana family man. He owns a local diner, has a beautiful wife (played wonderfully by Maria Bello) and a couple of kids. He leads a very ordinary, mundane kind of life. Then one day there is an attempted robbery at the diner and Tom saves the day, becoming a local celebrity and a very reluctant hero. The national media even picks up on the story...and that is where the problems begin. After Tom's face is splashed across national television someone shows up in this small Indiana town looking to settle an old score with one Tom Stall. Only this man does not believe Tom Stall is actually Tom Stall at all. This gangster, Carl Fogarty (played with an appropriate level of creepiness by Ed Harris), is certain that he knew Tom Stall as Joey back in Philadelphia. Seems Joey removed one of Fogarty's eyes and then disappeared. Suffice to say Fogarty is not real happy about it. As sure as Fogarty is of Tom Stall's true identity, Tom is just as insistent he is who he claims to be, a simple, ordinary, small-town Indiana family man. Where does the truth lie? The heart of the film is in finding out.

So there's the setup. Quite an intriguing one I must say. Mistaken identity? Hidden identity? Either way, with the presence of an obviously dangerous man like Carl Fogarty looming, there are certain to be some chills and thrills along the way. But the film never really takes off. It kind of limps along, with an occasional spasm of brilliance, but it never really works as well as it should. There are certainly some very good moments, but not enough of them to forgive all the lesser moments. And there are plenty of lesser, some would even say pointless, moments sprinkled throughout. It's a great story and the cast, Harris especially, does a great job with what they are given to work with. But in the end the cast, and ultimately the film, are let down by the material. The story's there, you know there's a great film in that story someplace. But that great film never materializes. It's a good film, but one which leaves you wanting more, with the sense it was one good rewrite away from being truly special.