Change Your Image
Upload An Image
Crop And Save
A History of Violence (2005)
Struggling for material?
In my opinion, which is all I can give, this was a very average film. I will give some specific examples and so people can see where I am coming from...
1) They spent quite a bit of time at the start showcasing the characters of the 2 initial killers. There seemed to be an uneasy relationship and it seemed like that might prove interesting as the film progressed... it didn't... they died in the first 10 mins.
2) The whole sub plot of the brother being teased by the 'jock' was so obvious and stale as a piece of writing. Lazy, actually. How many times have you seen that storyline? It was like watching an episode of the OC.
3) The sex scenes were a little OTT, and what was the second, rape-like, one all about? Just because something is weird doesn't make it good. Also the flash of muff and boob from Maria Bello was superfluous (and awesome) in the same sort of way as Halle Berry in Swordfish. Lazy.
4) His brother Richard was the least convincing mafia boss I have seen in any movie. And when he goes down over to the lake afterwards and shouts 'Oh, Richie!', did anyone else think... hmm that was a bit weird/cr*p.
5) I have seen many people post on here talking about the subtlety of the film. I would object and say it was the least subtle piece of movie-making I have seen for a while. All the characters acted as you would expect, the story was totally one dimensional.
Overall, I think there were lots of scenes that were irrelevant and not all that interesting... so why were they in there you ask? I believe the reason is that the plot was so thin they needed to stretch it out. The whole film was 91 minutes before the credits came up. No serious film nowadays is under 90 mins. I think they were struggling for material and so made too much of what little substance the film had.
I look forward to hearing your views....