Explanations

[chani]

I usually don't review a film I didn't like but I think it's necessary to explain why I was so disappointed by  A History of Violence. Oh and there are a few moments I liked.

 I went to see it because I found the pitch intriguing, but I must confess that I've never been impressed by Cronenberg's movies in the past so I should have expected to be disappointed. It isn't the story or even the usual Cronenberg's messages (violence is inherent to mankid so you can't get rid of it and sex is connected to violence) that I didnt' like, it's the film. It had potential but what I saw on screen was disappointing. It was full of movie clichés and everything was done in a so not subtle way. Without Viggo Mortensen who was actually good and whose acting gave some ambiguity and subversion to the film, and without Ed Harris' charisma, it would have been lame. Both actors saved the movie, but still it isn't a good movie.

I started cringing during the first scene that introduced the killers. It was obvious in many details that they were bad boys, the kind of bad boys you ran into in westerns. I was okay with that wink because it set up things and when the elder said he's going to check-out we had to expect something bad. When he came back from "checking-out" you could see him cleaning his hands with some cloth and throwing it away. That's the details telling us he did some dirty job inside of the office!

We couldn't not guess that he had killed the people, besides he casually told his young partner who asked him why he was so long, that there was some issue with the maid but he fixed it. So far it was good and it was enough. But then the scene took a turn for the worse.  Because of course the director had to show us the office in the most conventional way. The young killer had to get some water, the elder told him there was  a water fountain inside, the camera followed the young guy, not showing the corpses and the blood first (as if there was the least suspens about it!) and then we got the shots of the people who have been killed. Then a frightened little girl showed up of course and the young guy killed her.

And the film is like that all the time. Almost every scene is predictable and stereotyped in that movie. It's so unsubtle.

Here's another example. When Viggo's character is injured, lying on the grass after he killed Ed Harris' minions. Of course we got the line "I should have killed you in Philly". First it's again a cliché-line that you expect (of couse I hoped he wasn't going to say it and crossed my fingers but he did) and secondly I think the revelation came too soon, ruining the only interest/suspens of the movie that was to know whether our good guy was really Tom Stall, the good father/husband and good citizen, or a former man of violence named Joey Cusak. BTW here again we have a cliché: the small town is peacefull and violence comes from the big city (Philadelphia). So Tom Stall turned out to be an impostor who lied about his past, and yes he was really the crazy mobster Harris was looking for.

 The film seems to show a certain spiral of violence, but I think it would have been more intriguing to see violence spreading within the small town and the hero's family. Cronenberg did it a little with the son who is kinda contaminated by his father's violence, or with the Tom/Edi couple. The raw sex scene in the stairs is well done btw. That's one of the things I liked in the film, not only Tom's violence but also Edi's and because it's obiously the first time they have it rough. Tom revealed himself through his couple's sexuality that was rather vanilla until then. It showed also that you can share someone's intimacy and still not knowing that person. You hide and reveal as well in sex. Here Cronenberg explored interesting depths. I also liked the scene in which his son shoots the villain, Ed Harris, saving Tom's life (reproducing Tom's actions when he shot the 2 crooks to save his clients and thus became a hero among the community). The father stands up then with that look on his face and you can feel a real menace and a thrill. For a few seconds we aren't sure that he is not going to kill his own son. Viggo Mortensen played that ambiguity quite well.

But the film left the thriller when Tom's past, as Joey, came to haunt him again through a phone call and he had to return to Philly and faced his brother. In the brother's house the film suddenly changed its style and we got some unrealistic scenes of violence that called Schwarznegger's movies to my mind. It was simply enormous and laughable. Did the director want to make a parody here? The problem is when Mortensen comes back home, how can we care about that supposedly moving ending after such laughable scenes?

Besides the so predictable scenes, the change of style is really a big problem in the movie. I think that whether you make a parody (like the  "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" with Downey Jr and Kilmer) or you stick to the thriller but you can't do both in one film .