|Movie #1: A History Of Violence
||[Feb. 6th, 2008|09:10 am]
let's talk film
Our first ever bi-weekly movie to watch is (based on voting) A History of Violence. Let the discussions begin!|
2008-02-06 10:17 pm (UTC)
A History Of Violence
I guess you would have to say what made the movie for me was the cast. Ed Harris what a great job he did. He sold me on how bad he wanted to kill Viggo's charecter. William Hurt did a good job of playing it down, he could have gone over the top but didn't.
I am not a huge Cronenberg fan as far as loving all that he has done, but I have seen all of his movies and they all leave you wondering a bit about humans and what clicks them on and off. I have a top three of his movies, this is in order Videodrome, The Fly, and Naked Lunch.
I liked History Of Violence and a bought it, but for me it is not one of his best movies .
I totally missed this post! Seems like a few people did... perhaps we should have a larger initial post next time? Community rules say only one post per movie, and this one doesn't lead to a lot of conversational roads. maybe in the future the person who first suggests the movie could write up something indicating why they chose it and what would be good for discussion?
In anycase, I thought the movie worked well within a somewhat nihilistic theme... I've heard people say the movie fails because it just has a man confront his violent past by "shooting it in the face", but I think the point is more broadly that when push comes to shove, it is exactly the men who can commit that kind of violence without hesitation who triumph. The father solves his problems with violence, his son solves his problem with violence - if violence is something to be confronted, it's only in the sense that violence genuinely *works*, and it lies under everything we try to build up around us.
Our lives are a lie either way, because either we harbor the ability to enact that kind of violence to defend ourselves; or our lives are as frail and out of our control as the people those two men kill in the beginning of the film.
You might be right; I was wondering why traffic was so slow around here. I'll make a new post reminding everyone about the movie. Thank you for your input and your thoughts on the film.
2008-02-18 03:20 pm (UTC)
3 of 5
I did not expect much from this movie really. I kind of thought it would be a typical action-thriller. In many ways it was, but it was done incredibly well and I enjoyed the story, which was definately present. Viggo Mortensen was pretty good, I think I like him more as an action Hero then as a romantic lead (I really did not care for him in Lord of the Rings). Ed Harris was well, Ed Harris, he is almost always great. All told, it was a better movie than I expected, and I enjoyed watching it, though I am not sure I would watch it again, so I probably won't buy it.
I agree with the comment above. It was a decent movie, but not anything special. Slightly better than the run-of-the-mill gangster type of movies, but definitely not a masterpiece of its kind. I liked Viggo Mortensen, especially because the only previous films I saw him in was The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and it was nice to see him in something different. 3/5 for me.
Try Eastern Promises he was good in that as well, and did a lot of research for the role. I think as an action hero he does very well conveying violence with intelligence (if you understand what I mean by that).
I do not know if you are a Stephen King fan or not but I personally think he would be perfect for Roland of Gilead (the Gunslinger) from the Dark Tower series if they ever made it into a movie.
Yes, I get what you mean about Viggo; Eastern Promises is on my to-watch list. I like Stephen King, but never read the Dark Tower series...