After watching a movie of this genre I always sit down and right my understanding of what I THOUGHT the director was attempting to say. I did this one too quickly for I had a business outing immediately after. Going back I realized I felt some great need to explain "on behalf of the director" a movie that was not easy for anyone, especially me, to understand. Basically I could have said the movie was saying that violence is as much a part of humanity as sex, dinner around the table, etc. We don't like to think of violence as a lurking reality in all of us, so we are distrubed by such a movie, or attempt to soften its statement by a "strained" attempt to explain it. It is now obvious that people either hated it or loved it. Therefore, the forum reveals that the movie spoke to us on so many different levels that we heard different messages. Perhaps, that was the films greatest power: to touch us with a subject that is "entertaining" in the horror genre, but disturbing in the "here is our humanity, like it or not" genre. (a genre I didn't create, just worded it differently) Where did you fall in your experience of this movie; love it or hate it? And, what is your basic reason for liking or hating? Most importantly for me personally, is your opininion concerning the cultural value of movies that create such a stark division of thought and evaluation. Do they serve a purpose that makes you strongly believe more such movies need to be made, or that they are a waste of time, money and talent?

I'm going to have say I would cast my vote for "Love It" the acting was excellent, the story was intriguing and the closing scene was breathtaking.

love is my response. i only wanted to see a little of it last night, but i got hooked and watched it until real late

"A History of Violence" is my favorite movie so far this year.
One of the things that I think makes this movie so unusual is the acting, which is awkward. Cronenberg has proven that he has a reason for every scene, every camera angle, every raise of the eyebrow.
I've read a few people describe the acting in this film as "really bad". It's awkward, but by design (and certainly not bad). It feels like everyone in the film knows (maybe subconsciously) that this isn't real. I got the sense watching the film that (even though the title gives away the ending... as well as imdb listing Viggo Mortensen as "Tom Stall/Joey Cusack") anything could happen at any moment. Everything has two sides.
I'm surprised that no one has attacked a particular scene, calling it an inconsistency. The scene when Tom drives to Phili, when earlier his truck would only start for a minute. This film, exploring the duality of the main character(s), includes the damn truck! It won't run for Tom Stall, but it will for Joey Cusack.

quote:

LordSmoogsbottomIII posted:

My only complaints are that some of the dialogue wasn't perfect and the ending seemed like it left the story unfinished, but overall, id give the movie about 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

I thought one of the strong points of the movie was the ending just because of the way it ended. Too many times, the audience is offered up finished endings that really don't give leave anything to the imagination and in most cases its so phony and artificial - like the live happily ever after story or just the opposite. The unfinished ending was suggestive and provided a much more realistic finish to a fine movie.

I liked it, but Im not gonna write a lengthy evaluation about it. The acting was pretty good, it was an interesting story, some of the camera angles were... different, but in a good way, and I liked how it didnt give the guy's complete backstory, it left some of it to the imagination. My only complaints are that some of the dialogue wasn't perfect and the ending seemed like it left the story unfinished, but overall, id give the movie about 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

I suspect you already know my answers to your questions.