A History of Violence

[Adam!]

I always suspected that somewhere deep down inside David Cronenberg there was a good movie waiting to get out. This was one of the best movies I’ve seen this year. Fantastic action scenes: David isn’t afraid to show you what’s going on. Menacing and stylish and surprisingly sexed-up (well, given this director, not really surprising). My only complaints are that some scenes can go on a little too long and that a side-plot about the son feels like it gets dropped part way through the movie. A-

I can’t believe this was based on a comic.

[Future Boy]

Ya, we dug this one. I'd read some negative reviews and basically I just don't agree with them. Noticing it was based on a graphic novel helped, maybe.

[blue]

fffffffffffffucking awful. what the hell kind of story is that? it had all the wrong parts of a comic book - immortal hero, detached vengeance, and man-ass. they totally left the kid's story hanging after he shot the dude, even tho they spent all that time in the beginning building up the moral dilemma of being a badass, and the kid-beats-crap-out-of-other-kid thing was as trite and "done" as they come.

i love me some ed harris, and i was deeply disappointed in this pile of shit.

[jute gyte]

I always suspected that somewhere deep down inside David Cronenberg there was a good movie waiting to get out.

Maybe you need to watch The Fly again.

[jb]

Or Dead Ringers, or Crash, or the Dead Zone, and I'd say Existenz although I may be alone in that.

I didn't like A History of Violence either, though. Dude can't direct actors.

[Wally Harbinger]

or videodrome! "kill your partners! kill them!" or scanners! dude should have gotten an oscar just for making louis del grande's head blow up.

i found h.o.v. to be very satisfying, but the invincibility blue mentions did cross my mind. i never really felt dude was in peril. great action though.

loved the ending, but thought it was too short. i mean, unforgiven was like two and a half hours or something. and wasn't h.o.v. kind of the same movie? ok not exactly the same, but essentially an updated western about failed attempts at repentance.

oddly enough i ended up watching the ice harvest within a few days of this one, which i also enjoyed immensely. i was thinking they might make an interesting compare-and-contrast review, two movies that show the unpleasant side of violence.

[jute gyte]

And Scanners!

[Brick Pig]

My wife and I just watched this last night. I thought it was okay, but I'm really glad we didn't shell out twenty bucks for it in the theater. I knew it was from a comic, but I was still expecting it to have more depth than it does. I certainly expected us to get more inside Tom's (or is it Joe's?) mind.

I dunno...not a bad rental, but much less than I had hoped for.

[jute gyte]

I knew it was from a comic, but I was still expecting it to have more depth than it does.

Go read Watchmen and get your mind right, man.

[Brick Pig]

I knew it was from a comic, but I was still expecting it to have more depth than it does.

Go read Watchmen and get your mind right, man.

No, no, didn't make myself clear. I don't mean comics don't (or can't) have depth. I read 'em all the time, and I know how great they can be. (Although I will admit that I never caught on to the attraction that so many people feel for Watchmen. Or for LXG for that matter; I thought the movie was every bit as entertaining as the book -- which is my comment on the book moreso than the movie, if you get my drift.)

What I meant about History of Violence though, was that usually movies based on comics don't accomplish that depth, but I expected this one to do a better job of it than most. But in my opinion, it didn't.