A History of Violence – Directed by David Cronenberg – 2005

Aragorn isn't bad with a gun!

Story: The story is probably the worst part of this movie. Without summarizing the plot and keeping spoilers to a minimum, if the cops in Indiana and the cops in Philadelphia were to compare notebooks, it would be very easy to identify the killer at the end of this movie. Also, Viggo manages to overcome the odds so many times that it wouldn't surprise me if he were to also win the next week's powerball after the end of the movie, and William Hurt's character even points this out when he has the infamous line to his mooks, “How do you f-ck that up?” Some of the characters are written to be supershallow, such as the two killers at the beginning of the movie and the high school bully. That said, there enough story to keep this movie afloat. I wouldn't have minded a little more, but it gets the job done... but, then again, this movie was nominated for an Oscar for best writing of an adapted screenplay in 2006, so what do I know? C

Acting: There are a lot of great actors in this movie, but I'm going to skip to the Sheriff who is played by the great Peter MacNeill. What? You don't know who Peter MacNeill is? Well, I'm not surprised. He played Hawk on Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future, probably my favorite TV show growing up, even if it only went one season. I want more work for Peter! Anyhow, Maria Bello was amazing(ly hot in that cheerleader outfit) in this movie, Ed Harris isn't on screen very long but leaves a major mark, William Hurt got an Oscar nomination and I support that one, and Ashton Holmes has some of the best facials in this movie I've ever seen. The scene where Maria Bello gets out the shotgun and Viggo runs home and bursts through the door was made by Ashton Holmes reaction as their son, sitting eating his cereal, confused beyond reason about what's going on. I loved that scene, and I think Ashton's reaction could make any scene in any movie funny.

Enough about the supporting characters: How does Viggo do? Well, that's a difficult question to answer. [SPOILER ALERT IS OFFICALLY SET TO FUSIA] I didn't find his portrayal of Tom Stall to be all that convincing, but I almost think they did that on purpose because he's not really Tom Stall. I believed him as the action hero, even in the most implausible circumstances (except when William Hurt shot at him at point blank range three times and somehow managed to miss... Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy, it's the only explanation!) and I believed him when he became Joey again. So, him playing Tom a little fake isn't necessarily a bad thing, and may have been a deliberate thing. [SPOILERS ALERT IS NOW LIFTEDED]

All in all, the acting gets an A!

Direction: The first shot in this movie is almost two minutes long... and it's beautiful. The cinematography in this movie is beautiful. The editing is beautiful. It creates such a brooding mood and it completely sucks you into the movie. The action sequences are over very quickly, but they're good and powerful enough that they'll be the strongest memory that you have of this movie. I also love the way that this movie uses the way the characters have sex to show the differences in their personalities. Cronenberg is one of the best directors working today, and this is one of my favorite performances of his. A

Visuals: The line between direction and visuals is always a bit ambiguous, (I only break them up because Yahoo! movies makes me assign each one a letter grade and I can't give a grade with no explanation why it's there or it becomes meaningless) and it's even more difficult to define with Cronenberg because his strong visuals are so rooted in his style, so I'm using visuals to describe the special effects in this movie. Specifically, the blood. There's lots of it. It's disgusting and yet stylized in an oddly beautiful sort of way. I know the fight sequence with the coffee carafe was done using chroma keying and the results are spectacular. The bullet entry and exit wounds are some of the most realistic I've ever seen. Also, the contrast between the simple country house that the Stall's live in and the elegant mansion in Philadelphia really does an effective job of characterizing the inhabitants for us, but also make Philadelphia and Indiana seem like completely different worlds. The visuals also get an A.

Overall: I really liked this movie. It's not for everyone, particularly if excessive amounts of blood or on screen sex of any kind at all offend you. I can't see a broadcast television clean cut of this movie ever being made that doesn't completely neuter the effect of this movie. It needs the violence and the sex to work, so again, if you don't like those things then you shouldn't watch this movie, although if you are into expanding your point of view then I think maybe you should watch this one anyway because this movie makes a great case for why blood and sex should not be taken away from filmmakers on the grounds that it would negatively affect their art. To everyone else out there, see this movie! All around, I have to give this one a B. It would have been an A if the storyline had been stronger, but it's still a damn good movie. It's well worth your money.


Tacmovies: We're not failed film students who bitterly criticize successful movies... really... sniffle... so, um... yeah, ahem: Follow our reviews on blogspot, myspace, flixter, amazon, imdb, yahoo movies, and youtube.