A History of Violence – spontaneously reviewed
This is the result of several arguments with fans of this awful movie. I needed to vent

This movie has its detractors and its fervent supporters, but a fundamental difference between the two (at least the ones who argue seriously and back up their claims) is not that one side “gets it” and the other doesn't, it's that the movie is judged on subjective grounds. In other words, some, like me, just don't like the way it is presented. One can, for example, watch a pirated version of Star Wars on an old television, or one can go to a THX equipped stadium theater, and the delivery – the impact – of what is being presented will contrast sharply. One can take the subway to work or one can drive a luxury automobile – both will get you there but the fundamental difference is how.

A History of Violence isn't as risky as many people want it to be. The director wants to show those demons that reside in us all; the demons that can drive us to extreme violence, whether in retribution or within the context of a violent life. These acts result in the same bloodshed and sorrow for the bystanders, but the written-in-stone ethics of violence are ambiguous. Is it justifiable? And are we ourselves capable of it?

A blurb on HOV might read: Man with violent past is living decent, wholesome family life until extenuating circumstances and former associates force him to confront the past for one last time. Of course that's the superficial tagline. It is indeed deceptively simple, and perhaps this is one of the reasons those who “cracked it” or “get it” almost cry with joy when someone dares question its worth as movie. Of course, there are people who went into this movie expecting Vigo Mortensen to whip out swords; wanted seat-rattling explosions; and couldn't handle the ambiguous ending. Not getting easy gratification, many said the movie “sucked” or something to that effect. Empty claims with nothing to back them up - and they are rightly taken to task.

But then there are those who for legitimate reasons disliked this movie, not based on the deception of it not being an out-and-out action flick (or any number of other preconceived notions that were quashed) but because there really wasn't anything stellar about the movie. What is an average movie with an interesting subplot (and, I continue to say some great acting too) has been lauded as a great movie; a riveting movie; a movie that takes to task, in some ways, the hypocritical two-sided coin that is the American consciousness. Those who disagree with its merits as a movie are unfortunately lumped in with those the movie is criticizing. If one doesn't like the movie it's because they can't see past themselves or question their values, therefore they don't “get” the movie.

One of the most striking things about A History of Violence is that it is not striking at all. Nevertheless, there are moments in the movie that really worked. Subtle moments that the action fans probably hated, but worked really well in the context of the story. Take the diner scene where Tom's character is revealed. It is not through obvious spoken or visual signposts, but through action. Suddenly we realize he might not be the wholesome small town guy he presents himself as. On the surface he's mild-mannered, treats everyone deferentially, is endearingly simple, but when confronted with the two killers, he is ruthless. You wonder why he is so tight-wound, where that apparent ease and confidence come from. You wonder about his past. It makes you question what lies beneath the surface.

The ending worked well for its ambiguity – so perfect for what this movie was trying to do. He's reunited with his family after the battle but it's not happy - or sad. Another theme in the movie is nicely revealed in the expression on Maria Bello's face – that of coming to terms with a radically changed perception of a loved one. Someone she has lived with for so long is capable of acts she can't even fathom, has a past darker and more mysterious than she ever thought possible. It works very well and it cuts to black on just the right beat. So I commend Cronenberg for that.

But the movie fails in so many other aspects. Laziness and lack of storytelling rigor produced scenes like the obligatory introduction of the family. Of course, it is necessary to find the mechanism to do so, but here's the scene: one of the killers has just blown away an innocent little girl. We hear the shot. We cut to another scene with a girl screaming from a nightmare about monsters. Mom and Dad and son come rushing in and pile on the bed to console her. It came off as monumentally contrived, I'd have to say, not to mention totally unnatural, except in a cheesy Hollywood movie.

Ah ha, say the admirers, that's exactly the point. The characterization is cynical – this is the much maligned “ideal American Family”. I really wanted to believe that – and in the hands of another director, like say Lars von Trier, that might have been true. Or take Mulholland Drive , for instance, where in the beginning we have Naomi Watts arrive in Hollywood . That was cynical and over the top. Take the exaggeration down a notch or two, and the same scene – just like in this scene in HOV – becomes a badly executed cliché. This middle ground between run-of-the-mill characterization and an interesting concept is the movie's purgatory. It almost never comes out of it.

The convenience of the scene is glaringly obvious, and detractors of the movie are right in pointing it out. We get the idea, this is a picture perfect family, with two lovely children, loving mother and father … but the scene is trite because it doesn't go far enough in the satire – and this leads me to believe that satire wasn't the intent. It leads me to believe that the movie was simply looking for a convenient way to introduce the characters and their dynamics. About as skillful as superimposing “Decent loving family” in capital letters on the screen. Almost from the start, then, the movie deflates any hope of it being what could have been a provocative movie.

Bases loaded, Tom's son Jack is out in right field “ready to suck hard” - as he said to his dad in an earlier scene. Up steps the biggest jackass you can imagine, so unimaginatively presented that again, some viewers would almost think this is a parody. In later scenes this mullet-wearing miscreant swigs forties, drives a badass black pick-up truck. Wait a second, is this a serious movie we're watching here, or some after-school special with second-rate, obvious writing? Unfortunately, this is still pretty much the beginning of the movie, and we've already been subjected to two unbelievably clumsy expositions. The bully threatens to kick the kid's ass after he catches the ball. It's important, yes, to show that Jack is having problems with other kids in school – that he is being “mobbed” by the bully and his minions. But again, he took the easy way to convey it. Van Sant's Elephant did a fantastic job with the same isolated theme. But here it's spelled out for you in bold colors, not to mention it's reaching a bit far to think anyone would take a gym class that seriously – first to talk to dad about “sucking hard”, then to have the bully threaten him for catching the ball. In other words, the gravity of the situation felt contrived.

It's time to introduce Tom and Edie as a loving couple. They have two picture perfect children, one of whom looks to be about 16 years old. That's more than 16 years of marriage – and while it's not impossible to still be in love after that amount of time there is a distinct difference between the first phases of a love affair and an actual long term relationship that has gotten over the initial fireworks and has been chastened by the experience of having children and getting to know one another. A couple that has been together for all that long would not act the way Tom and Edie do; would not need to re-affirm their love with self-evident truths in their everyday speech. (I don't mean, as some might be quick to point out, perfunctory speech used in greetings are departures). Unless they had been separated for some time, and were just getting back together – re-kindling their love – they wouldn't need to gush (both verbally and physically) in each other's presence. In one scene they talk about going to a drive in theater – one, to show that their ardor is stronger than ever, two to point out that there haven't been any drive in theaters in that town for a long time. The exchange more importantly established the fact that they didn't know each other when they were teenagers, and that he's not originally from that town. The director's hand swooped in here. It was plain that this important information had to be established for the audience. But this was just another clumsy way of doing it. A couple that has been together for that long wouldn't have to explain what they already know unless they were in love with the sound of there own voices – or unless they had an audience that needed some explanations that would come in handy later on.

The sex scenes didn't convince either. In the first one we have Edie dressing up as a cheerleader in an effort to spice up, or add another dimension to their sex life. Absolutely nothing strange, or wrong, or unbelievable about a little role playing in a marriage. An important element in this scene is also introduced – we get to see Tom's reaction – surprised, almost a little embarrassed – and this further established his “wholesome” side. That works, but then what happens is the encounter drags on after we already know the dynamics being presented, and it becomes gratuitous. They end up in a 69 position, meanwhile the spectator is disengaged from the momentum of the movie. A result of this was unintentional laughter in the theater. Again, the momentum is lost by showing too much, when less would have been just as effective - and less distancing.

Later there's another scene and the dynamic is entirely different. He's dejected, she fears him. He grabs at her while she's ascending the staircase and they wrestle before she succumbs to him – this isn't forceful in any way, but it's evident she's reluctant. It establishes that she is still in love with him, and that her attraction for him is a bond that will be very difficult to break. Again, the same problem here as the previous scene. It drags on after we already know enough, the spectator is distanced, and the scene ends up looking ridiculous.

I can watch a movie that pushes the bounds of reality. I don't like being spoon-fed plots that perfectly mimic our “reality”. But there's a big difference between rigorously breaking out of that reality, and sloppy editing and storytelling. I'm talking about incredible ellipses of time that just don't make sense.

He has the confrontation in the diner, gets stabbed in the foot, goes to the hospital, and that same night he gets home. Meanwhile he has become a minor celebrity. At the time he got stabbed the diner was closing, when he got home it still is night. Not more than 4-5 hours have elapsed, but we already have Forgarty, Ed Harris's character, spying on them outside – meaning somehow he magically made the 15 hour drive up from Philadelphia after seeing him on the nightly news.

The most ridiculous was where he runs on a foot that was stabbed the night before to the outskirts of the city, through fields, to his house in the same time it took his wife to run down the stairs. It's not exactly around the block, and the montage failed to produce the intended tension because one, the idea of this guy running like that, even if he is limping and grimacing (because he still is running) is ridiculous. It's not a few feet we're talking here. He's running a distance that he normally takes by car, on a wounded foot - and if this isn't obvious just check the changing scenery. Meanwhile his wife has to go downstairs. There is no way to make sense of this timing or the fact that he can run, however desperate he is, on that wounded foot. Common sense and a rigorous story were eschewed in favor of pacing. Pacing didn't have impact because it was ridiculously impossible. Once he enters the house his son just happens to notice that his mom was standing in front of him with a double-barreled shotgun. This nonchalant reaction was funny, and not intentionally so, and further proves that the satire wasn't always intentional - for his son would be totally out of character.

And I don't know how many times we have to be subjected to obvious christ imagery, if it wasn't already evident with the cross he wears (yes he is a pious “good” man) then we have him going to the desert to cleanse himself. It's not shocking or provocative in 2005 to make allusions like that. And I wish I had the script in front of me because the dialogue between the two lapsed yet again into explanations that felt forced and injected for the sake of rounding out the story. You can do this kind of thing in a book through internal reflection, but in a movie it becomes tedious.

The dialogue between Tom/Joey and Richy has the same forced feel to it. They talk to each other as if they don't know each other. Even if they haven't seen each other for years Rich wouldn't have to remind Joey of what wild guy he was. He was there with him when he took Fogarty's eye out. He witnessed it first hand so he wouldn't have to rehash the event so episodically. Neither would he have to explain that Tom/Joey screwed up Richy's chances of getting “made” in the lines, “Before all that sht with Fogerty ……” These are self-evident truths between them and it is another example of forced dialogue. Of course he needs to get this across, and it would be more challenging to convey it without condensed and unrealistically explicit dialogue. Plenty of movies, Dogville and more recently Broken Flowers, for example, have dealt with the themes of mysterious pasts in more artful ways.

Accompanying all this was a second rate soundtrack, that was so bad, so like cheapy after-school specials that I almost think this was intentional. A cynical gambit on Cronenberg's part. Perhaps had the rest of the movie consistently lived up to the exaggerated stereotypes I would be more convinced of this.

It's not a terrible movie but it's not by any means great. Plot: nothing new, nothing especially shocking, but worthwhile in my opinion. I give it a 6 (out of 10). Characters: Very poor in some aspects, mediocre in others. Nothing is memorable about any of them, except perhaps Ed Harris' Fogerty. I give them a 5. Quality of acting: the strongest part of the movie with great performances by Vigo and Maria and Ed. The material they worked with wasn't very good so that brings things down a notch. 8. Originality: comb through this movie and look for it. Common theme, uninteresting dialogue, the look of the movie, no matter what techniques were used still is unassuming. Convenient and hackneyed setups to introduce certain elements. An extra point for the gore which worked in the scenes in an effective manner, and it had that Cronenberg touch. Still not enough to save the rest of the movie. So, originality 3. It's “cinematic” quality: technically it's not a bad looking film, but in my comments above I point out why it's too sloppy in some parts (like editing, which may be due to poor scripting). No glaring technical faults, but neither does it blow you away. In other words, it's not innovative, but it's got an experienced hand guiding it, that's obvious. 7.

Overall, the movie's a 5.8. That almost seems generous.