Review of A History of Violence (2005) by Tyler M — 31 Mar 2012

I don't know... And I don't want to know.

It's an interesting Hitchthingyian tale, but does it really warrant a second look?

The Story: A mans violent past catches up to him when he becomes a minor celebrity after killing two men in self defense. It's not the most complex story, so if you're expecting film noir complexity you're in the wrong place. What drives the film is the fact that you just don't know what to think of our main character, Tom Stall. The first time I watched this, I had my hopes up, I was thinking it was going to be like Cape Fear, a man and his family being tormented by figures from his past relentlessly. In a way it is like that, but it's missing that sense of urgency and fast pace. There is actually some character development here but it's still a little on the lacking side of things. At first glance it might seem like a boring drama with a touch of violence, and the characters might seem simple and one dimensional, but in all reality there is a little more to them. His wife unsure of the man she once loved, or still loves. The son going through the high school version of his father, being bullied by tough men until he finally cracks. The daughter, that only sees a father and nothing more (that's kind of stretching). It's got an odd style, it's not the dark gritty world Sin City, but it's not the bright vibrant world of Memento either. Instead David Cronenberg opted for a more plain, more bland look. Looking at it once, you might miss the subtle style, but the second time around you'll notice just how real this film looks. It's a little on the slow side, and the violence while truly realistic is a little more sparse than you'd expect, and the ending a little lackluster is still unsettling enough to make you wonder, but despite its flaws it's a true gem.

The Cast: Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Ashton Holmes... Viggo Mortensen is Tom Stall, case of mistaken identity or killer? Either way he plays the part perfectly. He gives a powerful performance here as he goes from one extreme to another. There's a solid connection to be felt with his unsettling character. Even the most cynical viewer can agree to that. Maria Bello is Edie Stall, Tom Stalls wife. She gives a good performance here as the wife that doesn't quite know what to do, say or think. Throughout the film you get an idea of who she is and there is actually a connection to be felt between her and the viewer, but she still feels a little on the hollow side from time to time. Ashton Holmes is Jack Stall, Toms son. Being bullied at school he's constantly being pushed around until there's little left to push. While the thought of a younger version of Tom living side by side with an older version may sound interesting, you might be a little disappointed. After all, you still need an interesting actor to play the part of an interesting character. I firmly believe that Ashton Holmes doesn't "act" he merely stands in front of the camera and makes noise. That might be a little harsh, but honestly, he brings the film down a bit as he's the worst part of it and still one of the biggest parts of it. Ed Harris is Carl Fogarty, the best villain this side of the north east film noir river. He gives a chilling performance from the first time you see him to the last time you see him. Truly a villain you won't soon forget. He's almost enough reason to watch the film in the first place. Yeah, he's that good. William Hurt is Richie Cusack, a mob boss looking for his long lost brother. He gives a good performance, but he's not he stand out special that he's been made out to be. Not his greatest performance but still intense.

One to Five Scale: 4.

At first it was a three, it was lackluster in every way, the characters were boring, the cast was mediocre... But a second time around, knowing what to expect you'll notice that beneath the surface, History of Violence really does warrant a second look... But still rent first, buy later.

WARNING: RANTING AHEAD.

William Hurt was nominated for Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role at the 2006 Oscars. What's wrong with that you say? Well, for beginners, it wasn't that GREAT of a performance to begin with. AND he was only in the movie for 15 minutes! FIFTEEN MINUTES! Wasn't there any other supporting roles to nominate? Granted he didn't win, and the other nominees were better suited for the prize, but still...

Tyler.