A History of Violence

A History of Violence is a slow-moving film that has little action (and it's terribly naive and stupid), the main theme is addressed only superficially, and even Viggo Mortensen and Ed Harris don't really save it. The reveal in the second half wasn't surprising, the film flowed so blandly that I actually have no feeling about it at all after watching it and won't remember it tomorrow. And that's probably too bad. Some may look for a "the past will catch up with you anyway" point behind it, but for me, the film doesn't have enough depth to think about a it. (02/09/2021)

David Cronenberg avoids family clichés and holds the reins of this essentially simple film firmly in his hands. His almost sick perversion of blood and brutality is clearly evident here, as you really don't see this kind of raw action in every other film, with detailed close-ups of a head being shot through or a broken face. Similarly, the disfigured Ed Harris will definitely not leave you unaffected. Surprisingly, Viggo Mortensen is quite credible and handles the action scenes brilliantly and convincingly. Maria Bello is also worth watching, though she doesn't surpass her role in ER. What I am unable to understand, though, is the Oscar nomination for William Hurt. Otherwise, it's basically the same Cronenberg, so different from the majority of others. (06/26/2006)

A History of Violence is a great film that shows how Cronenberg has matured. He can create scenes that have such an incredible impact on you that you might have trouble believing it. The scene on the stairs, after the sheriff leaves, is absolutely incredible, as is the moment when the killer’s blood splatters on Mortensen after his teenage son saves his life. Cronenberg isn’t averse to naturalism; on the contrary, this, in my opinion, places him high among contemporary directors. Life just isn't pretty sometimes. Why keep filming it like a fairy tale? (11/22/2013)

Cronenberg interestingly mixes various styles, with the "western" style being particularly notable. The simple and civilian story moves forward thanks to the strength of the performances and the interweaving of scenes, which, despite their genre differences, work together more than decently. Marital sex pushed to the edge of uninhibited soft porn raises the eyebrows of Puritan viewers at the very least, and the detailed camera work during headshots leaves even the toughest folks unsettled. Even though it's true that the shallowness of the screenplay in the second half could have been masked by a faster pace, it is ultimately compensated by a masterful ending in which Cronenberg clearly demonstrates his ability to manipulate the audience, even against their will. (12/17/2005)

It’s more like a 3.5*, but I’ll go a bit higher. It’s true that as a whole it’s not such a gripping thriller. Especially, after the entrance of Ed Harris, I was convinced that Cronenberg would come up with some unexpected twist, but I guess I was wrong. The film continues to move at its established pace, with only a few bloody shootouts and suspenseful scenes intervening. But the story is far from uninteresting, it’s well shot and those 90 minutes finishing with a graphic head shot and a typically American family happy ending can’t be considered a waste of time. (02/24/2012)