Metacritic.com
Film Video/DVD Music Games Books TV
Metacritic    Metacritic Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Movies  Hop To Forums  Dramas    History of Violence
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
Slacker
Posted
Saw this film last night. I was/am apalled by it. I don't think I have sense of humour deficiency but I couldn't find anything remotely amusing about it. I don't really understand Cronenberg's philosophy but I would like to think that the main protagonist, who had somehow been redeemed in the final scenes because he had finally murdered his mob peers and was now therefore 'clean', 'forgiven', even if he had to face his family, did get his deserved comeuppance in the end, after Cronenberg's actual ending (at the hands of his wife (there speaks the violence in me)).

[Swipe above for spoilers -- LT]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: LinnTate,
 
Posts: 2 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 07 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Jedi
Posted Hide Post
Hmm..I liked History of Violence. I saw it as more of a concept film with humor in violence to contribute to the 'Culture of violence' theme.

I agree with the review that called it an 'art film posing as a thriller'.

Now...it is certainly raw, bloody, and violent. But..realistic? No.

Stall/Cusack probably wouldn't have been able to win those fights in real life. And, Fogerty would have never shown him his face. The hit would have come in the form of two shots to the back of the head when he didn't even expect it. And Richard probably wouldn't have tried to kill him in his house and potentially left evidence that would directly implicate him.

But, it doesn't matter that it wasn't realistic, because realistic wasn't the point of the movie.
 
Posts: 1783 | Location: Around Boston. | Registered: 24 February 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Slacker
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by paxsoprano:
I think it's fair to say this wasn't the standard violent/action/summer movie. The humor was supposed to be macabre, not "amusing."

I've had a weekend away...
Okay, the preposterous scene where William Hurts character looks incredulous as his men are all dispatched one after the other, brought a smile only because it was so preposterous.

I don't see that many films but I can see the macabre humour in David Lynch's or Tarantino's work but not Cronenberg's. He's trying too hard to shock...
 
Posts: 2 | Location: London, UK | Registered: 07 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Guru
Posted Hide Post
I think it's fair to say this wasn't the standard violent/action/summer movie. The humor was supposed to be macabre, not "amusing."
 
Posts: 778 | Registered: 19 February 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
ZBF
Slacker
Posted Hide Post
Well, it isn't suppost to be amusing, it's suppost to be Raw, Violent, Bloody and Realistic.
I thought the film was great and is my number 4 of the year so far.
 
Posts: 7 | Location: California | Registered: 01 October 2005Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community  
 

Metacritic    Metacritic Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Movies  Hop To Forums  Dramas    History of Violence

©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Home | FILM | DVD/VIDEO | MUSIC | GAMES | BOOKS | TV | About Metacritic metacritic.com