Clashing with the critics!

I'm going to have to disagree with the critics here. While I appreciate the contrasts of innocence vs. lust, and while I understand the movie's goal of showing how violence is an addiction that can spin out of control... I found that the movie in fact lost control of itself. Its sort of like that girl in Traffic that went from smoking pot to being a crack whore over the course of what seemed like a couple of weeks. It was unrealistic... and this is coming from someone who's exercised personal pacifism for most of my life.

This is about the worst review I could find, they were all good, so rather than posting a good one and a bad one I'll just post this one:
A History of Violence

My take:
"A History of Violence" Is a god awful piece of crap. It was a waste of some decent acting talent (Ed Harris). This movie was an unintentional parody of gangster movies. Funnily enough the gangsters all have the Italian mobster accents... even though they couldn't look much more Anglo-Saxon. At times the cinematography seemed like it belonged in a "Dallas" episode, and at other times they were going for the heavy handed drama thing. Critics seem to throw out the "beautifully shot" adjective like free one month subscriptions to AOL. Most of the time it wasn't much better viewing than the average TV film.

I felt the script suffered. Once the initial "hero" scene passed, I felt myself constantly thinking, "I can't believe they are doing this" because it all seemed so obvious, it was almost unpredictable.... I'm not sure if that makes sense to you? Additionally, the movie was interspersed with ridiculous out of place one liners that took from the film's legitimacy.

There was a needless side plot with Tom Stall's (< Viggo Mortensen) son who is a "sensitive type" who gets bullied constantly. His acting is piss poor, and it might not have been so much the acting as it was the script. Tom Stall has a little girl who's sole purpose is to make you feel apalled at her youthful exposure to violence.

The believability of the entire story is extremely questionable. Nearly everyone in this film is a stereotype. The central character is the bad ass character to please action fans, the wife is hot, the little girl dollishly cute, the nerdy yet attractive son who suddenly stands up for himself... while later reverting to his "moral highground", the "Aw shucks" goofy, innocent, town sherrif, and the gangsters, oh those gangsters.... well I don't even know where to begin with that. It may have been a better cartoon, or perhaps it should have been done up Tarrentino style.

When Tom reverts back to his old "mobster" self "Joey" for the second time... of couse the daughter is there to see it. As the killing occurs, the director tries to be arty by focusing on several flies buzzing around on a window sill. The violence in this movie is increasingly gruesome as it progresses... which definitely adds to an unintended comedy quotient.

In perhaps the most bizzare portion of the film there is a scene where in the midst of an argument Tom (or Joey) and his wife have violent sex on the stairs which almost seems like rape, although as they say... you can't rape the willing. It is completely ridiculous, especially when she pulls up her panties and storms off angry as though it didn't happen. This is the same woman who earlier vomited upon learning the truth of her husband. Conveniently their son who was suspended for apparently suddenly out of the blue successfully fighting off 2-3 bullies at once and hospitalizing them..... conveniently he stormed out of the house right before the needless erotica. At a later point there was a needless full frontal nudity scene of the wife.. (I suppose I shouldn't complain about that).

Viggo Mortensen's character is like the Chuck Norris of the mobster world, able to defeat large well armed thugs at the drop of a dime. I was pissed... because I was fooled into believing this would be a legitamately serious movie.... If I had programed myself for the mindless crap that it was perhaps I would have found it more entertaining.