Anybody else seen "A History of Violence" (Possible Spoilers)

[CollinEstes]

I was pretty excited about going to see it and boy was I dissapointed. Just curious if anyone actually like this movie.

I thought it was like if a drunk 16 year old wrote a movie this is probably what it would be.

[namknils]

I saw it, it was kinda "meh". It kept me interested though, so I guess it wasn't horrible.

[CollinEstes]

I agree, it wasn't boring but it just never really went anywhere.

Reminds me of Monster's Ball where all the critics love it and nobody else.

I liked it. It had good character development with the son and wife, and intrigue with Vigo Mortensens characer and William Hurt.

Very simple movie though, which I like. I like to watch a movie once and fully understand it.

Plus, a full-frontal of that actress from the Cooler.

[eastbay]

I liked it a lot. This is not a simple popcorn movie. If that's what you wanted, I can see how you might be disappointed.

eastbay

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked it a lot. This is not a simple popcorn movie. If that's what you wanted, I can see how you might be disappointed

[/ QUOTE ]

[daveymck]

Saw it on Friday and really enjoyed it, its a very visual film eg the last scene amonst others. I think the pacing was off though I would have kept the Ed Harris guy stalking them a bit more.

Has anyone read the comic book of it interested how it compares.

[CollinEstes]

I really didn't expect that at all. I really like more of the unsual movies but I found this one to be like the other poster said, "meh".

I hate the same old crappy movies as much as the next guy, but I thought this one didn't develop all that well and didn't quite come together to provide any sort of cohesiveness. Just my opinion.

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, a full-frontal of that actress from the Cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at that bit its exactley the same as what our lass would do if pissed off with me, cover up you are not seeing me like this.

The one bit I found bizarre though was the sons character development or are we to assume he developed his fighting skills naturally form his father.

[CollinEstes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Plus, a full-frontal of that actress from the Cooler.

[/ QUOTE ]

I laughed at that bit its exactley the same as what our lass would do if pissed off with me, cover up you are not seeing me like this.

The one bit I found bizarre though was the sons character development or are we to assume he developed his fighting skills naturally form his father.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if they were trying to make that connection or not, I thought they were just trying to really surprise you in that we all thought he was a pussy and really he could kick some ass.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

The one bit I found bizarre though was the sons character development or are we to assume he developed his fighting skills naturally form his father.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the implication is clearly that he has a natural killer instinct inherited from his father, something that the father had long attempted to suppress in his son. The son's performance of his internal conflict and strife as he discovered this disturbing dichotomy within himself was phenomenal, IMO.

This thread of the movie was supposed to leave you pondering the nature vs. nurture question, not leaving the movie going "weird movie, dude. Kinda slow. Nice hooters, though."

eastbay

[CollinEstes]

Got to say that is an excellant interpretation.


Still though I can hear so drunk dude at a party saying, "Dude what if there was like this small town dude that was like bad ass at fighting and could kick everyones ass, but then like he wasn't really small town he was like in the mob, that would be so sweet."

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Got to say that is an excellant interpretation.


Still though I can hear so drunk dude at a party saying, "Dude what if there was like this small town dude that was like bad ass at fighting and could kick everyones ass, but then like he wasn't really small town he was like in the mob, that would be so sweet."

[/ QUOTE ]

The movie works on multiple levels, like the title. That's part of what makes it interesting.

eastbay

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked it a lot. This is not a simple popcorn movie. If that's what you wanted, I can see how you might be disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you [censored] kidding?

i was disappointed that it was a popcorn movie without the fun parts. i was expecting something deeper, more subtle, thought-inspiring, etc. instead i've got a bunch of crap like:

- a guy who knows there is an immediate and mortal threat to his family and doesn't have them get the [censored] out of town immediately, but somehow cares after he walks to work

- tough and smart outlaws. so tough they don't make references to 'casually' killing clerks at a motel, and don't even pay any mind to it after discovering it. so smart that they stay low in small towns. they're such good criminals that they have no money. but they can rob for it, right? and what's the best way to stay low? it's certainly not taking the money when offered and leaving. you've got to lock the door and make a production about killing people randomly to show that you "mean business." that way you'll...get the money that has already been given to you, with all of the risks of being there too long while somebody could have cell phoned the cops or could have seen what was happening from the street outside.

- ridiculous fight scene after ridiculous fight scene. got a few heat-packing thugs in your front yard? no problem! just grab the one who has his gun out, hook his arm, and punch him in the nose for about fifteen seconds because the other ones will just stand there and watch for a while. fights like the high school one are very common as well. because everybody takes out multiple people with standing strikes, there's no wrestling around or anything.

- a rich and successful criminal brother who brings you to his house to see you before killing you. understandable that he wants to see you. understandable that he doesn't want to mess up his house with gunplay and blood. not understandable that he doesn't have you taken somewhere outdoors where you could be shot, or have other people around with guns drawn incase you get loose, or can't quickly retrieve and gun and can't hit you within several feet of himself. it's also a nice touch that he goes for his keys instead of shooting the lock or even better running away, because going for the keys sure wouldn't have been a popcorn moment. this is maybe the most amazingly bad role i have ever seen a good actor take.

- just killed a bunch of people in a beautiful mansion? need to clean off some blood? is it night-time? no problem. you shouldn't use one of the 800 bathrooms in the house. since it's a house you've never visited and you can see in the dark, you know that there's a lake in the backyard. you also have a time machine to make it become morning. instead of using the shower you should chuck the gun and then FALL TO YOUR OVER THE [censored] TOP DRAMATIC KNEES AND SPLASH WATER ONTO YOUR WOUND WITH ONE ARM FOR REDEMPTION OR SOMETHING.

- some "message" of unwelcoming tolerance with the dinner scene at the end which wouldn't have even been poignant but becomes laughable when you consider the fact that there is roughly a 0.00% chance that the little girl is going to remain quiet for the 10 minutes it takes to draw out the scene and dramatically get a plate for you.

this movie [censored] sucked, dude. to say it's anything other than popcorn is a joke. that's not what i was wanting or expecting, but i would have liked it better if it were MORE popcorn since it's obvious that this movie had no chance of ever bearing meaning.

[rory]

david croenenberg doesnt know anything about finding good actors or having a script with a good plot and good dialogue, but he knows a lot about sex

and the movie was really shot well

Fair enough. That's your opinion.

What are you elaborate thoughts on "White Chicks"?

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion

[/ QUOTE ]

feel free to argue with any of the points that i made

The only real hole I thought in character development was: (Spoiler warning)

The kid realizes his father is a phony, and yet has the stones to get a shotgun and blast away some goon in his front yard while little Sally is selling Lemonade down the corner, then, (after rescuing his father from certain doom), he tosses the gun down and gives his dad the cold shoulder?

I mean, to me, he isn't going to grab that gun and help out unless he's embraced the fact that his father is a phony criminal. I don't think he had time to do that from the moment he went inside to when he grabbed the gun and came out firing.

And if he has embraced that fact, why is he now giving his dad sh** for being a professional bad-ass? That was a hole, IMO.

EDIT: Popcorn movie tidbit for ya (SPOILER WARNING #2): This movie reminded me of JOE DIRT when Clemm pulled some heroics and the mafia saw him on TV and came to pepper him with bullets.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
david croenenberg doesnt know anything about finding good actors or having a script with a good plot and good dialogue, but he knows a lot about sex

and the movie was really shot well

[/ QUOTE ]

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The Brood
Videodrome
Dead Ringers
Existenz
The Fly
Scanners
Spider

Cronenberg is one of the most original and though-provoking filmmakers of the last 30 years. Period.

[ QUOTE ]


- a guy who knows there is an immediate and mortal threat to his family and doesn't have them get the [censored] out of town immediately, but somehow cares after he walks to work


[/ QUOTE ]

You are probably right about this. I think they needed to do this so that viewers would be able to suspend disbelief that he is this Joey guy. Sort of a cheap way to do that, though. I agree.

Had it played out like you said, then everyone in the theater would have been like "Oh, he knows something...he must be this Joey guy. Lets go watch Hulk at the dollar theater."

BTW, you listed parts you didn't like. Did you appreciate ANY of the movie? You made reference to "high school fights with no wrestling around..". Didn't you appreciate the kids fight scene? That looked believable to me. A kick to the stones, a throw into a locker, a couple punches, then some mafioso-like kicks to the gall bladder when villain is down. I liked that scene.

People in the audience actually cheered at that scene. lol. I thought that was pretty lame of them, but whatever.

[rory]

i have a small sample size i guess-- my two experiences with him are a history of violence and crash... so you can see how i would come to that conclusion.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I liked it a lot. This is not a simple popcorn movie. If that's what you wanted, I can see how you might be disappointed.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you [censored] kidding?

i was disappointed that it was a popcorn movie without the fun parts. i was expecting something deeper, more subtle, thought-inspiring, etc. instead i've got a bunch of crap like:

- a guy who knows there is an immediate and mortal threat to his family and doesn't have them get the [censored] out of town immediately, but somehow cares after he walks to work

- tough and smart outlaws. so tough they don't make references to 'casually' killing clerks at a motel, and don't even pay any mind to it after discovering it. so smart that they stay low in small towns. they're such good criminals that they have no money. but they can rob for it, right? and what's the best way to stay low? it's certainly not taking the money when offered and leaving. you've got to lock the door and make a production about killing people randomly to show that you "mean business." that way you'll...get the money that has already been given to you, with all of the risks of being there too long while somebody could have cell phoned the cops or could have seen what was happening from the street outside.

- ridiculous fight scene after ridiculous fight scene. got a few heat-packing thugs in your front yard? no problem! just grab the one who has his gun out, hook his arm, and punch him in the nose for about fifteen seconds because the other ones will just stand there and watch for a while. fights like the high school one are very common as well. because everybody takes out multiple people with standing strikes, there's no wrestling around or anything.

- a rich and successful criminal brother who brings you to his house to see you before killing you. understandable that he wants to see you. understandable that he doesn't want to mess up his house with gunplay and blood. not understandable that he doesn't have you taken somewhere outdoors where you could be shot, or have other people around with guns drawn incase you get loose, or can't quickly retrieve and gun and can't hit you within several feet of himself. it's also a nice touch that he goes for his keys instead of shooting the lock or even better running away, because going for the keys sure wouldn't have been a popcorn moment. this is maybe the most amazingly bad role i have ever seen a good actor take.

- just killed a bunch of people in a beautiful mansion? need to clean off some blood? is it night-time? no problem. you shouldn't use one of the 800 bathrooms in the house. since it's a house you've never visited and you can see in the dark, you know that there's a lake in the backyard. you also have a time machine to make it become morning. instead of using the shower you should chuck the gun and then FALL TO YOUR OVER THE [censored] TOP DRAMATIC KNEES AND SPLASH WATER ONTO YOUR WOUND WITH ONE ARM FOR REDEMPTION OR SOMETHING.

- some "message" of unwelcoming tolerance with the dinner scene at the end which wouldn't have even been poignant but becomes laughable when you consider the fact that there is roughly a 0.00% chance that the little girl is going to remain quiet for the 10 minutes it takes to draw out the scene and dramatically get a plate for you.

this movie [censored] sucked, dude. to say it's anything other than popcorn is a joke. that's not what i was wanting or expecting, but i would have liked it better if it were MORE popcorn since it's obvious that this movie had no chance of ever bearing meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

i love this this kind of retarted argument: "Dude, it was so unrealistic!"

The whole movie is an allegory, a meditation on the nature of violence - what causes it, how is it manifested in man, can man overcome this base natural instinct?

Take a look at the whole first part of the movie - after we meet the killers and before they show up at the diner. The "family" stuff. the dialogue, the acting, the pacing, even the framing - it's all UNREAL, a little bit off. It's a fairy tale.

And that's the point. Life without violence is unreal, impossible to sustain and against our nature.

The movie was not a documentary, nor a Steven Segal flick.

It's fine if you don't like a film, but at least take a look and think about what the filmmaker is trying to say before blasting it.

[xadrez]

[ QUOTE ]


- just killed a bunch of people in a beautiful mansion? need to clean off some blood? is it night-time? no problem. you shouldn't use one of the 800 bathrooms in the house. since it's a house you've never visited and you can see in the dark, you know that there's a lake in the backyard. you also have a time machine to make it become morning. instead of using the shower you should chuck the gun and then FALL TO YOUR OVER THE [censored] TOP DRAMATIC KNEES AND SPLASH WATER ONTO YOUR WOUND WITH ONE ARM FOR REDEMPTION OR SOMETHING.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any experienced mob hit man will tell you that its not wise to wash up after murder someone in the crime scenes bathroom. This is where forensic scientists get crucial evidence such as hair, blood, etc.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
It's fine if you don't like a film, but at least take a look and think about what the filmmaker is trying to say before blasting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you actually think there is depth or meaning to the concept? all of the nature/nurture, ability/inability to change yourself, acceptance, etc can be summarized in about one sentence and i'm not going to offer that for your 'critique'.

i watch and love all kinds of movies with all kinds of unrealistic moments. if every aspect of the film is going to be this over the top, though, i want to at least be entertained by how over the top it is. do you think i think about this kind of stuff if i see a vin diesel movie?

i went into this movie knowing nothing about it other than the BASICS of the premise (guy defends diner and might be unusually skilled at fighting) and its high ratings on rotten tomatoes. i was expecting something thought-provoking. the concept is simple. somebody saying "[INSERT SUBJECT]: think about it..." is not an all-expenses paid trip to blowjobsville in my book. the unrealistic moments were so utterly and distractingly awful that they could not be looked over in the context of what is supposed to be a purposed film. i truly do not nitpick over this kind of stuff, it was like somebody setting off an airhorn in the theater every time it happened.

i did bring up stuff that was just about being awful too, like the lake scene. that has more to do with the director jerking off on camera and pandering to idiot audience dramatism than it does with a lack of realism.

you're an idiot if you think i'm incapable of "discovering" the "meaning" or that i would harpoon an otherwise great movie over a lack of realism. i deserve a lot more credit than that.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
Any experienced mob hit man will tell you that its not wise to wash up after murder someone in the crime scenes bathroom. This is where forensic scientists get crucial evidence such as hair, blood, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

his hair, blood, fingerprints, and etc are all over the house including the study where bloody murders occured. there's nothing he could do to prevent them from locating data everywhere, it's just a matter of whether he's been booked before or not.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any experienced mob hit man will tell you that its not wise to wash up after murder someone in the crime scenes bathroom. This is where forensic scientists get crucial evidence such as hair, blood, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

his hair, blood, fingerprints, and etc are all over the house including the study where bloody murders occured. there's nothing he could do to prevent them from locating data everywhere, it's just a matter of whether he's been booked before or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well maybe he cleaned it all up and that's why it's morning now. ???

[Boris]

Keep up the good work.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's fine if you don't like a film, but at least take a look and think about what the filmmaker is trying to say before blasting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

you actually think there is depth or meaning to the concept? all of the nature/nurture, ability/inability to change yourself, acceptance, etc can be summarized in about one sentence and i'm not going to offer that for your 'critique'.

i watch and love all kinds of movies with all kinds of unrealistic moments. if every aspect of the film is going to be this over the top, though, i want to at least be entertained by how over the top it is. do you think i think about this kind of stuff if i see a vin diesel movie?

i went into this movie knowing nothing about it other than the BASICS of the premise (guy defends diner and might be unusually skilled at fighting) and its high ratings on rotten tomatoes. i was expecting something thought-provoking. the concept is simple. somebody saying "[INSERT SUBJECT]: think about it..." is not an all-expenses paid trip to blowjobsville in my book. the unrealistic moments were so utterly and distractingly awful that they could not be looked over in the context of what is supposed to be a purposed film. i truly do not nitpick over this kind of stuff, it was like somebody setting off an airhorn in the theater every time it happened.

i did bring up stuff that was just about being awful too, like the lake scene. that has more to do with the director jerking off on camera and pandering to idiot audience dramatism than it does with a lack of realism.

you're an idiot if you think i'm incapable of "discovering" the "meaning" of the movie or that i would harpoon an otherwise great movie over a lack of realism.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...i understand you didn't like the movie, but I can't imagine why it has provoked such a strong reaction from you...but to each his own.

I enjoyed the film. I found it interesting and thought-provoking, and I enjoyed the filmmaking. I'm a Cronenberg fan.

Guess we're just on different trains of thought here.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any experienced mob hit man will tell you that its not wise to wash up after murder someone in the crime scenes bathroom. This is where forensic scientists get crucial evidence such as hair, blood, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

his hair, blood, fingerprints, and etc are all over the house including the study where bloody murders occured. there's nothing he could do to prevent them from locating data everywhere, it's just a matter of whether he's been booked before or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, who are the cops going to go look for? Joey or Tom? You forget that the hero has as a new identity, so unless "Tom" has been fingerprinted before, they wouldn't be looking for him.

But again, who cares? It's not a police procedural.

[rory]

everyone in our theatre was laughing at parts of the movie which were supposed to be sad/shocking/moving/poignant.

[ QUOTE ]
everyone in our theatre was laughing at parts of the movie which were supposed to be sad/shocking/moving/poignant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying the director failed then?

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a Cronenberg fan.

[/ QUOTE ]

so were all of the reviewers. i think the movie caters to a lot of human sensibilities, but the fans are basically going to fall into 3 groups:

1: the people who would pay double-price for tickets to watch cronenberg take a dump on film. i don't judge people for this, it's their prerogative and their preference. clearly the guy has his fans, but i was honestly shocked at how little resistance there was to him in the reviews i read after seeing the movie. usually when somebody 'subversive' or 'underrated' or 'avant-garde' or wherever you would put them comes out and makes an album or a movie, there are dissenters. 'spike jonze is just smoke and mirrors', you know that sort of thing. it doesn't seem to happen against this guy.

2: the pseudo-intellectuals that manage to take pride in "understanding" a completely obvious, simple, and non-subtle concept. needless to say, the assertion that anybody with an above-retarded intellect must not have "gotten" the movie if they disliked it incenses me.

3: easy-going joes who like to see a nice hero story with some pride-inspiring fight moments

i'm not a cronenberg fan. i'm not a cronenberg opponent either. i enjoyed the fly when i saw it ages ago, and scanners was a fairly entertaining blast from the past that i only saw for the first time maybe 5 years ago. i don't think i've seen any of his other movies, but at this point i'm certainly not putting it at the top of my list.

my only possibility of enjoying this movie was on number 3. to me the movie perfectly straddled the fence between "serious" and "popcorn" and managed to suck on both fronts. if it had committed to either side (and executed it well) i'm sure i could have enjoyed it. i'd say, for example, that i enjoyed that geena davis/samuel jackson movie "the long kiss goodnight" (goodbye?) better than this one when i watched it. she was a trained killer with amnesia, etc. total popcorn flick.

[astroglide]

that's why i said "whether he's been booked before or not." i was referring to joey/tom being fingerprinted in the past.

they would be looking for anybody's fresh data, i would imagine. i'm not interested in drilling into minutae about it either, but i would suspect that if actual analysis was given to whatever fresh stuff that was found it could be pretty easily-discovered that his brother (dna compatibility) was there recently and it could lead them down the path of finding him since they know who william hurt is.

the whole point of that stanza was to emphasize how totally over the top the lake scene was, though. falling to his knees, deliberately splashing the water, rising the shot up the hill from his face, etc. i think it was completely overdone and the people with whom i saw the film started laughing at how cheesy it was. i think that was the point where my gf said, "jesus christ this movie [censored] sucks." i was trying to force her to give it a chance for a while through the movie but all hope was lost for me too.

i really did like the pacing, though, and i thought there were some fair innovations in it. i had a couple positive things to say about it in the short review i made in the original thread about the movie, but i would not recommend that anybody take the time to watch it even if it's free.

[astroglide]

a number of people were laughing at the dinner table end scene in my theater. but some also applauded after the high school fight as was mentioned by somebody else.

[HopeydaFish]

One thing that you need to take into account when judging the "believability" of this movie is the fact that it was based on a graphic novel (ie. a comic book). The whole movie was meant to have an unrealistic air about it. The heroes and villains were charicatures. The violence was comic book violence. Cronenberg was trying to stay true to the graphic novel that the movie was based on -- the movie wasn't meant to be believable.

[Frills]

How did this movie not get the NC-17?

The man impaling woman scenes could have left more to the imagination. Walking into the movie I didn't think the wife and I would be watching someone muff dive.

[astroglide]

i don't "need" to take that into account because it's not at all apparent. you would need to have tracked this movie, read the graphic novel, or been a cronenberg fan in order to have that information. with something like sin city, for example, it's obvious and it becomes your fault if you find yourself surprised by this.

my problem isn't specifically with the lack of realism, though. it's the lack of realism, lack of depth, and lack of fun. they could make it much less realistic and more fun and i would have enjoyed it. or more realistic (at least to a point where it wasn't distracting) and deeper. either way.

[astroglide]

[ QUOTE ]
How did this movie not get the NC-17?

The man impaling woman scenes could have left more to the imagination. Walking into the movie I didn't think the wife and I would be watching someone muff dive.

[/ QUOTE ]

some idiot early-20s couple brought three children all under the age of 8 into the theater. probably ages 4, 5, and 7 - somewhere around there. they sat through the whole cheerleader bit and eventually left when people started cursing excessively in the movie. it really gave me pause because i realized i must STILL overrate the intelligence of the public at large. it's amazing that i don't get killed on the way to work every day. how do these people function? the movie is rated R, it's called a HISTORY of VIOLENCE. dead people and sex right from the beginning of the movie.

[xadrez]

Wow, you and wife seem to be strung a bit tight.

[Frills]

Nah it was just unexpected...but the fact remains, I know there are ignorant jackasses around who take kids to movies they have no business watching.

They found the line between R and NC-17 and did a great balancing act.

[Dominic]

check out Videodrome - it's arguably his best film. That, and Dead Ringers.

The Brood is also one of the creepiest movies I've ever seen.

[astroglide]

ok i won't pass checking it out if the chance presents itself