Random Thoughts: A History of Violence
A History of Violence
10/10
Some people won't like this movie. Some will hate it. Just a warning.
A History of Violence is a cross between a schlocky B-movie and a slow burning character study. I get the feeling that hardcore genre film lovers will fall hopelessly in love with this. It's a movie that if you watched 10 random minutes of it, you might get the wrong impression. Some of it seems forced and awkward, some over the top, and some downright ridiculous. But we don't watch 10 random minutes, do we? No, we watch the whole thing. In the context of the film, everything works. Boy, does it work! There's not a moment wasted in the film's short, tight runtime. This is only the second Cronenberg movie I've seen - Existenz being the other. I really enjoyed that one, and I'm checking out The Fly this weekend. Scanners has been on my Queue for awhile, so maybe I'll get that this month for Halloween. A History of Violence feels very Coen-esque, but maintains a more disturbing, yet subversive, tone throughout. You can appreciate the film at surface level as much as you can disect the subtext. The score by Howard Shore adds a layer of eerieness in the way it sounds so completely ordinary. Most surprisingly, this type of film is usually a screenplay showcase. Not the case here. The screenplay is actually the weakest link, but that's not exactly unintentional. The strength of the film lies in the directing and acting. Cronenberg deftly observes the violence in regular ongoings, and when these explode, he takes it to an almost fetish level. The violence in the film is gruesome and gory, almost exploitive in a Kill Bill or Sin City way. Yet, it digs into you deeper than in those films, which look like feel good crowdpleasers in comparison. The contrasting sex scenes also resonate - watch how a 69 is handled versus how a standard missionary position plays out. I've never really been a fan of Viggo Mortensen, typically too bland for my taste. He gives one of the best performances of the year here, so normal and unassuming. The transition, not just of Viggo's Tom Stall but of everyone else, is executed perfectly. Maria Bello is equally impressive making every facial expression and body movement count. It's one of the most expressive performances by an actress since Diane Lane in Unfaithful. Ed Harris and William Hurt are great baddies, chewing with great relish into their roles. Ashton Holmes, as the son, is a terrific discovery. The movie works on all levels and multiple viewings will allow you to explore all the subtexts and symbolism. And you know you love that stuff.
I could say more, but I really don't feel like it. Just like at IMDB's boards for this film. What those people are saying is what I think, only reversed. :-)
10/10
Some people won't like this movie. Some will hate it. Just a warning.
A History of Violence is a cross between a schlocky B-movie and a slow burning character study. I get the feeling that hardcore genre film lovers will fall hopelessly in love with this. It's a movie that if you watched 10 random minutes of it, you might get the wrong impression. Some of it seems forced and awkward, some over the top, and some downright ridiculous. But we don't watch 10 random minutes, do we? No, we watch the whole thing. In the context of the film, everything works. Boy, does it work! There's not a moment wasted in the film's short, tight runtime. This is only the second Cronenberg movie I've seen - Existenz being the other. I really enjoyed that one, and I'm checking out The Fly this weekend. Scanners has been on my Queue for awhile, so maybe I'll get that this month for Halloween. A History of Violence feels very Coen-esque, but maintains a more disturbing, yet subversive, tone throughout. You can appreciate the film at surface level as much as you can disect the subtext. The score by Howard Shore adds a layer of eerieness in the way it sounds so completely ordinary. Most surprisingly, this type of film is usually a screenplay showcase. Not the case here. The screenplay is actually the weakest link, but that's not exactly unintentional. The strength of the film lies in the directing and acting. Cronenberg deftly observes the violence in regular ongoings, and when these explode, he takes it to an almost fetish level. The violence in the film is gruesome and gory, almost exploitive in a Kill Bill or Sin City way. Yet, it digs into you deeper than in those films, which look like feel good crowdpleasers in comparison. The contrasting sex scenes also resonate - watch how a 69 is handled versus how a standard missionary position plays out. I've never really been a fan of Viggo Mortensen, typically too bland for my taste. He gives one of the best performances of the year here, so normal and unassuming. The transition, not just of Viggo's Tom Stall but of everyone else, is executed perfectly. Maria Bello is equally impressive making every facial expression and body movement count. It's one of the most expressive performances by an actress since Diane Lane in Unfaithful. Ed Harris and William Hurt are great baddies, chewing with great relish into their roles. Ashton Holmes, as the son, is a terrific discovery. The movie works on all levels and multiple viewings will allow you to explore all the subtexts and symbolism. And you know you love that stuff.
I could say more, but I really don't feel like it. Just like at IMDB's boards for this film. What those people are saying is what I think, only reversed. :-)
posted by Darren at 10:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home