Best movie ever!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This movie is hard to watch not because of the graphic violence on screen but because of the consequences of the violence, it is a reflection of our real history of violence (wars, terrorism, murder etc.) and the unstoppable nature of violence, once violence starts it affects all of us and it spreads and makes all of us become animalistic. The two flaws i have with this movie are the child acting and the overly cheesy first half hour that took me out of the movie but other than that the movie is harsh and real and it unexpectedly got under my skin, simply great.

Predictable from a to z, that's why i give a 4, it's a hapsnatch precooked predigested story for a very lazy,for USA probably, public. very disappointing, cliché sleeping pill full of stereotypes....bla bla bla. ...even their sexual relationship turning kinky,is so predictable....i hoped for surprises and some depth,but none of that. Bad film.( PS: I'm a big lover of 'rêal' Cronenberg: The Brood, Dead Ringers, Naked Lunch,Crash, etc, and don't appreciate his latest try-outs at all, specially his Hollywood escapades like this one or the screaming J. Moore. Eastern Promises was okay though.:)

Another great drama by David Cronenberg that of course features his regular Viggo Mortensen. "A History of Violence" is a great movie that captivates from the first moment. The movie unfolds in the typical "Cronenberg Style" layer by layer and piece by piece. Mortensen delivers another amazing performance and shows why Cronenberg can always count on him. William Hurt, in his limited screen time, is even better and I wish we could've seen more of him. The movie lives less from the story and rather from it's characters and the effects the events have on them. All the actors have a great chemistry. Cronenberg does another great job directing and, as in many of his movies, the focus is more on the character building than the story. Also he is not afraid to show the violence and blood which really makes the movie more authentic. The cinematography, also as usual, is excellent. The many medium shots and close ups are perfect for portraying all the emotions and feelings that are portrayed on the characters faces. In conclusion we can say that "A History of Violence" is a great movie with Cronenberg's usual mystery and plot twists, great acting and usual great camera work.

I saw this in the theater the week it opened and deeply disliked it. I didn't dislike it because it was violent or had sex in it, I disliked it because its story was ludicrous and predictable. I have not read the "graphic novel." Well, I just watched it again, hoping that I was simply wrong and it was better than I had originally felt. After all, I do enjoy Viggo and Maria Bello a lot and maybe I was just in a bad mood when I first saw it.But I had the same problems the second time too. The opening scene simply exists to introduce two very unpleasant characters. They have already killed a couple who run a motel; when one of the bad guys goes back to steal something or other, the couple's daughter appears and she is going to be killed as well. This whole sequence was completely unnecessary to the narrative. These two unpleasant characters could have shown up at Tom's cafe with no introduction and done the same things. So the opening scene has literally nothing to do with the rest of the film other than prepare us for ugliness.And from then on, once again I was confronted with one cliché scene after another, "I know you're really Joey" "No, you're mistaken I am Tom" etc., leading to two violent bloodbaths. Oh, and Tom's kid can suddenly and miraculously beat up bullies. At the very end Tom goes home and no one can speak at the dinner table. Whoa. Really profound. Reviewers go on about how there is a "sense of menace" throughout the film -- I never felt anything but tedium. The movie held no surprises and goes nowhere that I haven't seen in many films before. Yet that means it is "ironic" and "distanced"? No, the only irony is that films like this used to be B-movies and were considered throwaway trash. Now they open festivals and are considered major works.