A History of Violence: one guys review.


PDA






A Cleaner
October 4, 2005, 11:56 AM
Mods: the self-defense portrayed in this movie is almost exclusively carried out with a variety of firearms. Several autoloaders and a SxS shotgun. Most of the "graphic" shots in the movie are a result of gunfire and the make-up crew for this movie really earned their pay. If this isn't enough a connection to guns, please feel free to move the post as you see fit. Thanks.

Ok, so it's not really a review but this movie deals with some aspects of protecting self and family with lethal force. Cronenberg took some guff from more conservative viewers who said the movie was too graphic. First, that's one of the beautiful things about Cronenberg's style is that it doesn't flinch. Secondly, and this is the reason for this post, Cronenberg responded publicly to the guff in a WIRED magazine article saying, "if you want the exhilaration of seeing the bad guys go down, then you have to accept the consequences."

When the bad guys go down, the camera doesn't politely look away so that every man in the audience can have a cozy hero fantasy. It shows them the aftermath. The hero doesn't just get carried out on the shoulders of the crowd yelling, "HOORAY", he has to look at what he's done. From there the movie departs from this theme to some extent. But, it's there in the first half, to be sure.

That seems to ring true to what many of you on this forum write about lethal force. So, just thought I'd throw this out there and see what you all think. Should it be portrayed in full color or should movie makers shield the public from the reality of the situation. I vote the former. Lemme know what you think.

By the way, if I didn't already say so, this is a fantastic movie and I highly recommend it. However, it is not a "family" movie so you may want to go solo or with a buddy and leave the lady and any applicable kids at home.

If you enjoyed reading about "A History of Violence: one guys review." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
A Cleaner
October 5, 2005, 02:23 AM
No one posted. I don't know if this is because

A) no one has seen the movie yet
B) no one liked the "thumbs up" icon in the same line as violence or
C) no one who saw the movie already thought it was anything special

:)

106rr
October 5, 2005, 04:42 AM
I had planned to see the movie but was delayed by the hospitalization of a relative. I will reply to the post in a couple of days.

jdkelly
October 5, 2005, 07:37 AM
I've seen the movie but I didn't enjoy it. I thought the acting was poor, the characters hollow, and the sex scenes a bit gratuitous. I was often bored. Perhaps the movie was just past me.


Respectfully,

jkelly

Browns Fan
October 5, 2005, 09:04 AM
Thanks for the warning, I'll definitely pass on this one. I find gratuitous sex offensive.

Shear_stress
October 5, 2005, 09:06 AM
Yet, gratuitous violence is okay?

No_Brakes23
October 5, 2005, 02:34 PM
I find gratuitous sex offensive. Yet, gratuitous violence is okay? Reminds me of Hillary Clinton. She didn't have a problem in the world with GTA:SA letting you kill cops and recruit gang members to perform drive-bys. But god forbid the adult game have sex in it.

Violence=good, Sex=bad is the American way.

SpookyPistolero
October 5, 2005, 04:09 PM
I didn't post because I thought the movie was awful and didn't want to put a downer on something you enjoyed. I left halfway through, which I've only done twice before, and I see movies frequently. The plot was dull, the script was hideously one-dimensional and linear and the action was sparse and hackneyed to say the least. The gore and sex was not well placed and to me fit the exact definition of gratuitous, and I sure don't mind sex and violence when done correctly.

It was just a plain old bad movie.

Biker
October 5, 2005, 04:59 PM
I've not seen the movie yet, but I think I will based on this thread. I like realistic violence and gratuitous sex. Oh, and a decent plot helps. Doesn't even have to be good, just decent as long as the other two are done well. :cool:
Biker

Rob1035
October 5, 2005, 06:11 PM
it was entertaining, more so than the typical ganster movies.

buy guns
October 5, 2005, 07:02 PM
how can sex not be gratuitous? its sex :rolleyes:

Rob1035
October 5, 2005, 07:03 PM
yeah, I think a problem is that not everyone knew what to expect from this movie.

jdkelly
October 5, 2005, 10:06 PM
how can sex not be gratuitous? its sex
I would think if it helped the movie line it wouldn't be garatuitous, but I don't think it did.

Of course, I was summing up why I didn't like the movie, and not trying to make a moral judgement or anything like that.

Respectfully,

jkelly

Don Gwinn
October 6, 2005, 12:36 AM
It opened the same weekend as Serenity, which was the first movie I've seen in a theater since Fantastic Four. No competition there.

Maxinquaye
October 6, 2005, 10:46 AM
I saw it with my wife. She liked it, but I thought the acting was kinda stilted. The movies goes so slowly and shifts so quickly from domestic shangri-la to uber violence that the entire thing seemed like a vehicle with which to shock the viewer. Not saying it was crap, just very contrived. I'd wait for the rental...

Nando Aqui
October 6, 2005, 09:46 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=158878

If you enjoyed reading about "A History of Violence: one guys review." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!