Overall Rating: ****
A History of Violence @ IMDB
Synopsis:
Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a quiet family man that runs a diner in a small town. When two murderous thugs come in to the diner and start to attack a customer, Tom springs in to action killing them both. Tom is quickly elevated from average joe to hometown hero. The media coverage, however, brings Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) to town. Carl is a mobster claiming that Tom is really Joey Cusack, a hit man from Philadelphia. Fogarty’s persistence not only threatens Tom but his wife, Edie (Maria Bello) and their children. Does Tom have a real history of violence, or is he just a small town hero caught in a case of mistaken identity?
Review:
This was a pretty solid movie. I enjoyed it more than I thought it was. I wasn’t really sure what to expect. From what I’ve learned about David Cronenberg (the director) since I watched this movie, it seems that I got slightly lucky. Cronenberg has a tendency towards the graphic and perverse, but this movie was almost untouched by that particular problem of his. This movie is violent, not as much gore as you would expect, but still a lot. The thing is, the story requires it. Violence is at the core of this movie. It would be pointless if it didn’t look real.
The truth is, the plot is simple yet interesting. I think there is something about Tom that makes you want to cheer him on. He seems like a nice guy who’s caught up in something that’s just bigger than him, or is it? A lucky guess would probably land you on the “twist,” but I won’t ruin it here (just in case there is someone out there without any imagination). The acting was solid from a fairly stong cast. I’ve been a fan of Mortensen ever since he played Aragorn and Ed Harris has long list of great performances. Maria Bello on the other hand isn’t the greatest in my opinion. She did a good job in a supporting role here, but it didn’t seem that different from her performance in The Cooler, though better than her role in Assualt on Precinct 13.
Now its time for one of my recently-all-to-frequent rants. I have a little bit of a problem with Cronenberg and this movie. Apparently the original screenplay for A History of Violence had no sex or nude scenes in it. Unfortunately, Cronenberg felt that “you can’t really understand characters until you’ve seen them have sex” and added some in to the movie. Now I have to ask, why? I personally think the point is to get more people to watch the movie to see Maria Bello nude. Not exactly what I consider admirable ambitions in filmmaking. The scene I take particular exception to is the one of Bello. It is a completely pointless scene and does nothing but give the audience a full-frontal view. Come on Cronenberg, show a little class.
Other than the subject of my little rant, I took no other major exceptions to this movie. I think it would be a great movie, if you cut a few choice (or I should say trashy) scenes. I think it should be obvious, but I’ll say it anyway: this movie is not for kids. Keep them far, far away from the tv. Its definitely worth the rental, and possbily the purchase. This is probably a movie I’d buy off the $5 to $7.50 rack when it gets there.