Did you people see the same film I saw?

Beautiful, moving film.

Absolutely Fantastic

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

This movie is hard to watch not because of the graphic violence on screen but because of the consequences of the violence, it is a reflection of our real history of violence (wars, terrorism, murder etc.) and the unstoppable nature of violence, once violence starts it affects all of us and it spreads and makes all of us become animalistic. The two flaws i have with this movie are the child acting and the overly cheesy first half hour that took me out of the movie but other than that the movie is harsh and real and it unexpectedly got under my skin, simply great.

Been a fan of viggo mortensen since watching lord of the rings trilogy and eastern promises. The attitude/screen presence this guy can bring to the screen is near perfect and can only be matched by some, and he delivers yet again in the cronenberg movie A History of Violence. As the name suggest the violence in the movie is good, the action scenes are superbly coordinated. The story gets predictable as the movie goes, but still Cronenberg keeps us immersed in the movie. u know cronenberg is a great directer by just watching the opening scenes which include the family of the protagonist. at the very moment we will feel the bond between the family. every family member did their utmost best, special mention for Maria Bello(as she was great as the wife). the character development of the protagonist is well and tightly done. if you loved eastern promise, i am sure u will love this one too.

Another great drama by David Cronenberg that of course features his regular Viggo Mortensen. "A History of Violence" is a great movie that captivates from the first moment. The movie unfolds in the typical "Cronenberg Style" layer by layer and piece by piece. Mortensen delivers another amazing performance and shows why Cronenberg can always count on him. William Hurt, in his limited screen time, is even better and I wish we could've seen more of him. The movie lives less from the story and rather from it's characters and the effects the events have on them. All the actors have a great chemistry. Cronenberg does another great job directing and, as in many of his movies, the focus is more on the character building than the story. Also he is not afraid to show the violence and blood which really makes the movie more authentic. The cinematography, also as usual, is excellent. The many medium shots and close ups are perfect for portraying all the emotions and feelings that are portrayed on the characters faces. In conclusion we can say that "A History of Violence" is a great movie with Cronenberg's usual mystery and plot twists, great acting and usual great camera work.

A History of Violence follows a father who supposedly had a history with some mysterious people who arrive in his town. They begin to pursue him, and he and his family have to deal with them. One standout of this movie is the violence itself. It's underglorified quite a bit, and it really works with the movie and the tone it's trying to set. Throughout the movie I actually found myself questioning it, whether or not the men pursuing Mortensen's character did know him or had the wrong guy. It ends up going for the predictable route, which was disappointing, but it did okay with the unclear build up. The story itself is pretty generic, and while that isn't a bad thing, it doesn't do much about that. It handles it's plot in a way that one might expect, and falls short as a result. There were a handful of moments throughout the movie where I thought "Wow, that was really good" and then 4 seconds later it was back to mediocrity. The writing and presentation just wasn't all that unique, and frankly it was uninteresting. The movie takes about an hour to get going, and for a 95 minute movie that could prove problematic. In this case, that is true. The movie drags for at least a full 60 minutes before anything really impactful happens, leaving about 35 minutes for it to wrap itself up, and it rushes. The climax is so quick and anti-climatic. And with the dragged out hour of almost nothing I was nowhere near invested. A rushed climax didn't help that. Also William Hurt got an Oscar nomination for this movie. Is he in it? Not really, he's an extra at best. He has a role for about 10 minutes of the climax, maybe less, and his performance is nothing short of okay. This isn't a flaw with the movie, but rather just an expression of my frustration. I can't believe this guy got an Oscar nomination for saying a few (emphasis on 'a few') lines and walking around a little. He doesn't even do anything in the movie, and it makes me so frustrated when the Academy pulls stuff like this. Overall A History of Violence is an unconventional movie done completely wrong. It's drawn out to an almost boring degree, and the vast majority of it is generic, with the exception of the violence, some of the build up, and just a few miscellaneous points here and there. In the end I wouldn't recommend this movie.