A History Of Violence

By misscb
Written February 03, 2010
A man just trying to protect his family...
7 out of 14 found this helpful. Did you?

Just recently saw and i think.....

By Scoot M16
Written September 12, 2008
This movie had a great story, i thought the acting was strikeingly pretty goodm, and the violence, i understand why they have 'VIOLENCE' in the title of the movie now. I won't spoil it, i'm just saying that it is a movie you must see at least once. After this rent Eastern Promises, same director, same actor, same greatness. I'll be writting a review on Eastern Promises so check it out.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Did you?

Five Word Review

By critcallyme
Written October 08, 2009
Violent Dramatic Psychological Crime Thriller
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Did you?

A history of violence

By Drez_Digital
Written February 11, 2010
A small town family man has a dark past.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Did you?

"A History of Violence" excels in some areas where it fails in some. It left me disappointed and not that shocked but gave me something to think about.

By Dominic LeRose
Written July 03, 2016
Violence is a part of human nature whether you want to except it or not. Directer David Cronnenberg puts that idea in our heads with his film "A History of Violence" that examines how different encounters lead to violence in our nature. Viggo Mortensen stars as Tom Stall, a small-town family man who owns a diner. Tom has a wife Eddie (Maria Bello) and two kids. One day two criminals make a violent and threatening scene that causes Tom to react by killing them in self defense. When other Mobsters come into Tom's diner, they recognize him as Joey and accuse him of being a mobster. Ed Harris is Carl Fogarty, the main guy giving Tom a hard time by threatening his family and constantly antagonizing him. The truth will be revealed as to if Tom is a former ruthless mobster or a regular small town guy. We are forced to sit through horrible directing by Cronneberg who puts together a film with cheesy music put in at the wrong time to take away intensity from each shocking scene and does terrible camera work to break away the ominous vibes. The dialogue by Josh Olson is so pathetic and stereotypical that it almost becomes laughable. The more I think, I wounder if Olson and Cronneberg are trying to spoof violent films that have dialogue from violent films. If that's the case, then the two are reflecting the title on the history of violence in cinema and making a statement as to how we are polluted with worthless violence. There are many scenes in which our characters show violence in them to live out the title and reflect the violence inside of us. Viggo Mortensen says his lines pathetically and shows how he's acting rather than really being driven by his performance. Ed Harris acts stereotypical as a bad guy, Maria Bello is annoying. The theme of how violence comes naturally in us fascinates me and makes me appreciate what David Cronnenberg was striving for, but the poor directing, ridiculous acting and dialogue and no riveting scenes take away the films value.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Did you?