A History of Violence

[Figure 8]

That's the exact way I felt about it as well.

[cine]

you know you have the best/worst girlfriend ever when she likes this movie more than you do ..    

[mutinyco]

I liked it.

Not as much as Spider, but I liked it.  

This is a B-movie directed as an art film. Nothing more.

It's funny that you say this because as most people realize, the majority of his films are the exact opposite.  Art films made as B-movies.

I think everything's overrated and this is probably no exception, but it's ridiculous to say it's "nothing more" than a B-movie because B-movies don't have anything to say and whether you feel this did a good job or not, it had more going on.

I think that considering what is going on, it's extremely disconnected from what the critics are billing it as: basically an all-out masterpiece.

I don't know whether they genuinely believe this, or whether it's another example of their support for a safe, well-made film that's hardly exceptional: Sideways, Mystic River, L.A. Confidential...

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not slogging those films. They're solid. I simply don't believe they rise to the level of praise they encountered. Perhaps, that's what the critics like about them: they're solid. But, for me, that's not enough if you want to throw the "masterpiece" word around.

Solid = 3 stars.
Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

[RegularKarate]

Really, I can only disagree with you on Sideways there... and even then, I see where you're coming from.

[Gamblour.]

Well, if you were a critic and had to sit through piece of shit films 80% of the time (and that's a modest number), then seeing these films would probably knock you out of the park.

They're good, even great (i think LA Confidential is as good as they say), but when people like us with low cash and discerning tastes have to be choosy, we tend to be too critical about the best of the bunch. I think if we and the critics met somewhere in the middle, that's where it needs to be.

[ShanghaiOrange]

Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

Actually, originality + innovation = redundancy

[SHAFTR]

well, I'll interject with a very good, not great comment as well.  It was well worth my money and I'd like to see it again, but it was not a masterpiece (and that is ok).

That opening shot was pretty incredible.

[Pozer]

I think that considering what is going on, it's extremely disconnected from what the critics are billing it as: basically an all-out masterpiece.

I don't know whether they genuinely believe this, or whether it's another example of their support for a safe, well-made film that's hardly exceptional: Sideways, Mystic River, L.A. Confidential...

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not slogging those films. They're solid. I simply don't believe they rise to the level of praise they encountered. Perhaps, that's what the critics like about them: they're solid. But, for me, that's not enough if you want to throw the "masterpiece" word around.

Solid = 3 stars.
Originality + innovation = masterpiece. (when successful, of course)

Well, I'm not afraid to rate it like the critics.  This film was strong, and if I must, I'll use the damn word masterpiece because of what it accomplished.

SPOILERS

The opening was such a fantastic set up.  This is one of those movies that I really wish I went into blind though - without viewing the trailer or reading about it because I would have been led to believe that these two thugs would have played out through the entire picture.  The way it opens with them then goes into the life of this family and then of course how the criminals enter their lives and then they're gone like that.  I soo love when a movie steers into a direction like this.  The same with Ed Harris' character.  I remember thinking how Ghostboy said the film was short and to the point, and when he was killed, I thought, 'damn, that was damn short and straight to the damn point.'  In that moment, Tom was safe, he got rid of what was haunting him from his past.  And then of course with his wife witnessing his actions this time, the side note of the brother comes into play leading into what I thought was an outstanding third act.  I just loved the set ups and misleadings.  I loved how we saw the genes flowing through the son and what that eventually leads to.

END SPOILERS.

This is the best film of the year for me, thus far.  The entire cast was excellent, but not enough are mentioning Viggo.  He played his character so calm and believable making you wonder, 'was he or wasn't he?'

[mutinyco]

All of these things are what didn't work for me. This really was B material. And when you sew in these intellectualized plot points, that's exactly what they feel like. The choices seemed too clean. Too logical. Too thematically justified -- his wife is an attorney, his son learns to use violence, the sex scene on the stairs combining attraction/repulsion and love/violence.

Ultimately, I wasn't convinced that THIS film -- this narrative -- truly formed a solid foundation for the themes being expressed.

I would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

[Pozer]

All of these things are what didn't work for me. This really was B material. And when you sew in these intellectualized plot points, that's exactly what they feel like. The choices seemed too clean. Too logical. Too thematically justified -- his wife is an attorney, his son learns to use violence, the sex scene on the stairs combining attraction/repulsion and love/violence.

Whaaat?  You mean B grade or B-movie material?  Cause I hope you wouldn't give a B-movie three stars, that would be ridiculous.  I don't get too clean and too logical and too thematically justified -- did you understand why his son learns to use the violence?  Did you see her reaction after the sex scene on the stairs?  How does this apply to all your too's.  

Ultimately, I wasn't convinced that THIS film -- this narrative -- truly formed a solid foundation for the themes being expressed.

Wha-wha-whaaat?

I would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

Why do you give a sailing shit about this?  And how could you let it influence your enjoyment?

[Tictacbk]

I would've enjoyed it more had the critical establishment not swarmed around it as they did. Because I think, while it's a good movie, it's simply not on the level they're trying to raise it to.

Why do you give a sailing shit about this?  And how could you let it influence your enjoyment?

Its like expecting Lucky Charms and getting Cheerios...sure its still good, but no fuckin marshmellows...

[Pozer]

dumb.

[Tictacbk]

the truth hurts...

sure i put it in a strange(/what i thought was funny) but you can't deny that when you're expecting something in the realm of one of the best movies of the year and you find it to be just "good" (as many of us did, myself included), its harder to enjoy it for what it is, and easier to see the things that were disappointing.

[SiliasRuby]

Pretty Awseome movie, although it was quite frusterating that there was a baby in the theatre, a cell phone went off and there were these blabbering teenagers talking throughout it all.

[Jeremy Blackman]

MINOR SPOILERS

This is a B-movie directed as an art film.

I love this movie, but I know what you mean. The plot is superficially normal, even formulaic. But that's not what we're looking for here. The beauty is in Viggo Mortensen's eyes, in the constrasts and revelations, in the filmmaking (remember my "style is substance" argument?), the flashes of violent compulsions in each character when they're at their most vulnerable. (The daughter may be an exception to that last one.) It's not a highly complex or ambitious film, but--and I agree with Ghostboy--it does what it does almost perfectly.