A History of Violence (C+ or 2/4 stars)
Woe is me. I've just watched 'A History of Violence'. Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), family man & owner of a quaint restaurant, lives a quiet life in Millowbrook, Indiana. One evening, Tom stops a robbery from happening (at his restaurant) and is locally praised all over the news. Tom plays it down and defies the attention ... why? You find out in this poorly directed (by David Cronenberg), oddly plotted, wildly savage crime story on the 'culture' of violence.
Model citizen, ideal dad, caring husband, Tom seems to have it all. But by the time news of his heroic feat reaches Philadelphia, members of an Irish mob recall Tom's face and venture to his town for a peaceful confrontation. Leading the way is the manipulative, scar-faced Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris, a Mortensen lookalike). Carl claims Tom to be one, Joey Cusack, the former hit man who disfigured his face some 20 yrs. prior. Tom denies this and runs home to his wife, Edie (Maria Bello). She's proud of her morally regarded mate. Though, she's confused by the accusation, as well. Carl persists, remaining in town to haunt the Stall family.
Tom quells Edie's suspicions by laying down the law in the bedroom. But they don't all go away. Meanwhile, Tom's son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), always avoiding school fights, now retaliates against his foes (if dad can now do it, why can't he?). Before long, Jack is kidnapped by Fogarty and Tom is the ransom. Gangsters die. Blood is shed by everyone. Tom & Jack are in a fight for their lives. Does Jack live? Who saves who? Will Tom die? Or should I say ... Joe Cusack? Once the dust settles & nothing but the truth remains, will the Spall family be able to regroup and support each other as they once so lovingly did?
The human spirit is tested. And it's quite something to watch Tom's humble, Indiana life be turned completely upside down. Either this is a case of mistaken identity, or something darker lurks beneath the surface. Does Tom have a checkered past, a history of violence, or not? This is the best aspect of this film: Mortensen never allows us guess if he's Tom or Joey. We're forced to sweat bullets, just like Tom. The film starts and there's tension in the air; it's eerie, it's dark. When Carl hunts down Tom and stalks his family, I got chills. The marriage between Tom & Edie is fascinating (though a gratuitous sex scene early on is completely uncalled for!). Betrayal leads to bloodthirsty revenge (though, too bloody for my taste).
And that's just it. The bloodshed is not fun, exciting, gripping ... it's cold & meaningless. The 1st hour of this movie has its moments, but they dissipate in a sea of rape-like sex, sudden bursts of gruesome gore, and implausibility. The dialogue wanes to the point where people are saying nothing, staring at each other. Eventually, all suspense goes out the window. Nothing is overly original here. The film drags at a crippled snail's pace. The 2nd explosive hour reduces the effectiveness of the 1st hour, completely. 'A History of Violence' is deceptive, but not always in a good way. Violence can be ultra cool (in a Death Wish type of way). But it's handled strangely here. When it fails, so does other aspects of the film.
Model citizen, ideal dad, caring husband, Tom seems to have it all. But by the time news of his heroic feat reaches Philadelphia, members of an Irish mob recall Tom's face and venture to his town for a peaceful confrontation. Leading the way is the manipulative, scar-faced Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris, a Mortensen lookalike). Carl claims Tom to be one, Joey Cusack, the former hit man who disfigured his face some 20 yrs. prior. Tom denies this and runs home to his wife, Edie (Maria Bello). She's proud of her morally regarded mate. Though, she's confused by the accusation, as well. Carl persists, remaining in town to haunt the Stall family.
Tom quells Edie's suspicions by laying down the law in the bedroom. But they don't all go away. Meanwhile, Tom's son, Jack (Ashton Holmes), always avoiding school fights, now retaliates against his foes (if dad can now do it, why can't he?). Before long, Jack is kidnapped by Fogarty and Tom is the ransom. Gangsters die. Blood is shed by everyone. Tom & Jack are in a fight for their lives. Does Jack live? Who saves who? Will Tom die? Or should I say ... Joe Cusack? Once the dust settles & nothing but the truth remains, will the Spall family be able to regroup and support each other as they once so lovingly did?
The human spirit is tested. And it's quite something to watch Tom's humble, Indiana life be turned completely upside down. Either this is a case of mistaken identity, or something darker lurks beneath the surface. Does Tom have a checkered past, a history of violence, or not? This is the best aspect of this film: Mortensen never allows us guess if he's Tom or Joey. We're forced to sweat bullets, just like Tom. The film starts and there's tension in the air; it's eerie, it's dark. When Carl hunts down Tom and stalks his family, I got chills. The marriage between Tom & Edie is fascinating (though a gratuitous sex scene early on is completely uncalled for!). Betrayal leads to bloodthirsty revenge (though, too bloody for my taste).
And that's just it. The bloodshed is not fun, exciting, gripping ... it's cold & meaningless. The 1st hour of this movie has its moments, but they dissipate in a sea of rape-like sex, sudden bursts of gruesome gore, and implausibility. The dialogue wanes to the point where people are saying nothing, staring at each other. Eventually, all suspense goes out the window. Nothing is overly original here. The film drags at a crippled snail's pace. The 2nd explosive hour reduces the effectiveness of the 1st hour, completely. 'A History of Violence' is deceptive, but not always in a good way. Violence can be ultra cool (in a Death Wish type of way). But it's handled strangely here. When it fails, so does other aspects of the film.