Joropukki
Joined Feb 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings126
Joropukki's rating
Reviews16
Joropukki's rating
They rarely make movies like this any more. Only eleven years have gone since the premier of this film – and now you have to move over to TV to see anything like this. Seeing it for the third time tonight, I was vaguely reminded of the first season of True Detective and on second thought, the American Friend by the German Wim Wenders. The History of Violence could almost have been made in France or Germany.
I've never been a fan of David Cronenberg. I think he's been showy and too shocking on purpose, not unlike another David – Lynch. I deeply disliked Twin Peaks, for instance – a pretentious, self-mystifying piece of crap. Here DC is on a good track. Even the music is great.
It's fascinating to read the divided comments on this film. I like it because it's really very cinematic and thoughtful. Violence in it is obligatory – like in a Greek drama. I only give it an eight because the ending is prolonged and somehow contrived. Viggo and Wifey are great and the Sheriff very believable. The ending loses something of the spirit of this relative masterpiece.
I've never been a fan of David Cronenberg. I think he's been showy and too shocking on purpose, not unlike another David – Lynch. I deeply disliked Twin Peaks, for instance – a pretentious, self-mystifying piece of crap. Here DC is on a good track. Even the music is great.
It's fascinating to read the divided comments on this film. I like it because it's really very cinematic and thoughtful. Violence in it is obligatory – like in a Greek drama. I only give it an eight because the ending is prolonged and somehow contrived. Viggo and Wifey are great and the Sheriff very believable. The ending loses something of the spirit of this relative masterpiece.
After seeing this impressive masterpiece for the third time I thought Sir Alfred Hitchcock's active career took place two or three decades too early with reference to his true nature. Here he was free from the constraints of U.S. puritanism of the Forties and Fifties. He was a modern here. He showed how to direct a shockingly macabre story with brilliant flair and impact, but also with a fine balance between slashing and insinuation. Frenzy was Ealing Studio stuff transported into future, as an emancipated variant of Baronets and Good Hearts – so British. Dear John (Carpenter), did you ever see this one? For some strange reason I kept on thinking of Freud all the while I was watching this. 8/10
I've seen most of Seagal's films. Director Waxman seems to have found a way to direct him. I won't go into storyline details, just commenting on the production will suffice here.
What I liked the best here was the atmosphere. It's gritty and effective, well backed up by music. I wonder why some commentators complain about the amount of action. I think there is enough gore. Most actors are not too great and a sturdy Seagal isn't exactly your special-ops type physically, but on the whole the story carries on well enough. Romania makes for a great place to shoot grit like this. I'll give it seven.
What I liked the best here was the atmosphere. It's gritty and effective, well backed up by music. I wonder why some commentators complain about the amount of action. I think there is enough gore. Most actors are not too great and a sturdy Seagal isn't exactly your special-ops type physically, but on the whole the story carries on well enough. Romania makes for a great place to shoot grit like this. I'll give it seven.