a history of violence

Cash Rulz · Post by **Cash Rulz** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 7:24 am

My point is, I don't watch it for any of that shit, and truth is I'm really good at not recognizing them if its a good enough film.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 9:22 am

Trademark wrote:it has to do with cliches and whatnot but has nothing to do w/america's war. at least david cronenberg doesnt think so, but what does he know he just directed it.

Oh, you little bitch.

Here's an interview about History of Violence where he talks about just that:

The Way of the Gun
Blood not-so-simple: David Cronenberg takes aim at on-screen and real-life violence

by Dennis Lim
September 20th, 2005 2:32 PM

"The violence that matters most to people is the violence done to the human body," says David Cronenberg, whose newest film, A History of Violence, approaches its titular subject with the intensity and physicality you'd expect from the originator of body horror. "Blowing up cars and buildings would not matter without consequences for the human body

sneed · Post by **sneed** » Thu Apr 06, 2006 12:48 pm

i think that's cool that they did the opposites with the cliche's thing but that's not what I watched the movie for.

the plot isn't all that believable, it moves wayyy too fast and it's kind of cheesy at the same time

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:29 am

I also really enjoyed this film, and it stayed pretty close to the graphic novel which I read a while before the film came out.

This has to be Cronenberg's most straightforward film I've ever seen. That's not a bad thing btw. Its funny because its also has the quintessential elements of a Cronenberg film at the same time (i.e. graphic violence and a great twisted storyline).

I think what struck me most was what a great job Mortensen did of transforming his character from an aww shucks guy to a fuck you senseless on the stairs put my foot through your face killer. Gotta give him credit there.

William Hurt also repped it to the fullest.

Definitely a film that needs to be digested, one of those films you see and then go drink, smoke etc. talk about, then go see again.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:25 am

jamrage wrote:This has to be Cronenberg's most straightforward film I've ever seen. That's not a bad thing btw. Its funny because its also has the quintessential elements of a Cronenberg film at the same time (i.e. graphic violence and a great twisted storyline).

there's actually a scene they cut wiht ed harris and mortensen that had cronenberg written all over it. they decided to take it out because they felt it was too much of a reference to his earlier work, and was a little too crazy for the overall feel of the movie. it's on the bonus features on the dvd.

jamrage wrote: I think what struck me most was what a great job Mortensen did of transforming his character from an aww shucks guy to a fuck you senseless on the stairs put my foot through your face killer. Gotta give him credit there.

hell yeah, especially the first time you see him anknowledge that he's joey in the front yard

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:28 am

if you just watch the film with the directors commentary on you will find out what the film is about without having to have pointed questions from overly eager liberal minds decide for you. I don't think i need to explain to you how obviously framed that bit of questioning you quoted is...or do i? and that mock election missed the dvd.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:16 pm

drizzle wrote:there's actually a scene they cut wiht ed harris and mortensen that had cronenberg written all over it. they decided to take it out because they felt it was too much of a reference to his earlier work, and was a little too crazy for the overall feel of the movie. it's on the bonus features on the dvd.

yeah, I remember that one. Thats where he's dreaming, and he blows a gaping hole in Harris' chest at the diner only to have Harris shoot him from the ground as he's standing over him. The Bonus features on the DVD were dope.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:20 pm

double post

Nl5H · Post by **Nl5H** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:22 pm

i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:25 pm

jamrage wrote:
drizzle wrote:there's actually a scene they cut wiht ed harris and mortensen that had cronenberg written all over it. they decided to take it out because they felt it was too much of a reference to his earlier work, and was a little too crazy for the overall feel of the movie. it's on the bonus features on the dvd.
yeah, I remember that one. Thats where he's dreaming, and he blows a gaping hole in Harris' chest at the diner only to have Harris shoot him from the ground as he's standing over him. The Bonus features on the DVD were dope.

no doubt, the "too commercial for cannes" was also dope... It was funny in that scene when ed harris was like "it would be neat to have th gun inside my chest and I pull it out" and viggo was like "yeah thats great" and cronenberg laughs and says "I don't think we can do that, it is too close to my old stuff."

Trademark · Post by **Trademark** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:26 pm

Nl5H wrote:i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:23 pm

Nl5H wrote:i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.

I'm telling you man, read some of the posts on here and watch that shit again. Cronenberg wouldn't have been involved if it was all face value.

Nl5H · Post by **Nl5H** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:33 am

jamrage wrote:
Nl5H wrote:i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.
I'm telling you man, read some of the posts on here and watch that shit again. Cronenberg wouldn't have been involved if it was all face value.

i understood it when i saw it in the theater, the movie didn't outsmart me.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Sat Apr 08, 2006 11:32 pm

Nl5H wrote:
jamrage wrote:
Nl5H wrote:i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.
I'm telling you man, read some of the posts on here and watch that shit again. Cronenberg wouldn't have been involved if it was all face value.

i understood it when i saw it in the theater, the movie didn't outsmart me.

That wasn't an attack on your intelligence, but it sometimes helps to see a film more than once. The film brings up some very interesting ideas and it's solid from top to bottom: story, acting, effects, cinematography, direction etc. etc.

So yeah, the way it forces the viewer to examine violence as a whole: the gore, the aftermath as well as the other aspects that people have mentioned (cliches) amongt DO make it profound.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:37 am

Trademark wrote:
jamrage wrote:
drizzle wrote:there's actually a scene they cut wiht ed harris and mortensen that had cronenberg written all over it. they decided to take it out because they felt it was too much of a reference to his earlier work, and was a little too crazy for the overall feel of the movie. it's on the bonus features on the dvd.
yeah, I remember that one. Thats where he's dreaming, and he blows a gaping hole in Harris' chest at the diner only to have Harris shoot him from the ground as he's standing over him. The Bonus features on the DVD were dope.

no doubt, the "too commercial for cannes" was also dope... It was funny in that scene when ed harris was like "it would be neat to have th gun inside my chest and I pull it out" and viggo was like "yeah thats great" and cronenberg laughs and says "I don't think we can do that, it is too close to my old stuff."

best part of that is viggo having no idea what cronenberg was talking about, going "oh yeah, you did a movie like that already? didn't see it"

YouTube · Post by **Philaflava** » Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:46 pm

this movie was too predictable and did nothing for the acting abilities of hurt and harris.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:05 am

Philaflava wrote:this movie was too predictable and did nothing for the acting abilities of hurt and harris.

Hurt almost stole that movie and he was only on the screen for like ten minutes!

Harris did a very good job at being sinister I thought. That's what is so good about Harris, he can play a good guy or bad guy extremely well. I'll agree it wasn't much of a stretch for him, but he didn't do a poor job by any means.

ripweblo · Post by **ripweblo** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:23 am

after watching this for the second time, i realized this movie is complete trash and it is extremely corny, especially the scenes with the son and that bully, " hey you got a problem catching my flyball?".... if i got anything out of this movie it was that it made me laugh due to its cornyness

YouTube · Post by **Philaflava** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:16 am

jamrage wrote:
Philaflava wrote:this movie was too predictable and did nothing for the acting abilities of hurt and harris.

Hurt almost stole that movie and he was only on the screen for like ten minutes!

Harris did a very good job at being sinister I thought. That's what is so good about Harris, he can play a good guy or bad guy extremely well. I'll agree it wasn't much of a stretch for him, but he didn't do a poor job by any means.

Hurt being a South Philly Mafioso just didn't work for me. First off nobody with the name Cusack is running any mob. Second they didn't even nail the Philly accent down. But that was all minor shit to me, what I didn't like was how I knew the whole movie within the first 15 minutes. A lot of unrealistic scenes too.

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 12:02 pm

Philaflava wrote:
jamrage wrote:
Philaflava wrote:this movie was too predictable and did nothing for the acting abilities of hurt and harris.

Hurt almost stole that movie and he was only on the screen for like ten minutes!

Harris did a very good job at being sinister I thought. That's what is so good about Harris, he can play a good guy or bad guy extremely well. I'll agree it wasn't much of a stretch for him, but he didn't do a poor job by any means.

Hurt being a South Philly Mafioso just didn't work for me. First off nobody with the name Cusack is running any mob. Second they didn't even nail the Philly accent down. But that was all minor shit to me, what I didn't like was how I knew the whole movie within the first 15 minutes. A lot of unrealistic scenes too.

hurt didn't do much for me either, he's too high class to play a 'close to the streets' kind of bad guy like they imply it. i wasn't crazy about him going to philly in general, the tension that's built up in the town is kind of wasted

as far as the predictable story, it's kind of supposed to be like that. the charcters are the main focus, not the plot

Cash Rulz · Post by **Cash Rulz** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:00 pm

jamrage wrote:
Nl5H wrote:
jamrage wrote:
Nl5H wrote:i don't understand why we've had like at least 5 threads for the most overrated movie of 2005...there is absolutely nothing profound about this movie.
I'm telling you man, read some of the posts on here and watch that shit again. Cronenberg wouldn't have been involved if it was all face value.

i understood it when i saw it in the theater, the movie didn't outsmart me.
That wasn't an attack on your intelligence, but it sometimes helps to see a film more than once. The film brings up some very interesting ideas and it's solid from top to bottom: story, acting, effects, cinematography, direction etc. etc.

So yeah, the way it forces the viewer to examine violence as a whole: the gore, the aftermath as well as the other aspects that people have mentioned (cliches) amongt DO make it profound.

But the movie isn't that profound. Its actually quite obvious that he was making a point about how unattractive violence can be even when its done for reasons we understand. I mean, everything was just extra. It easy to understand the sex scenes. Quite when they were quite, crazy when they were crazy. It really isn't that deep.

It was a good movie.

StormShadow · Post by **StormShadow** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:18 pm

Do craft and style count for nothing?

I enjoyed the plot, but yeah, it is predictable, that doesn't matter. The actors were all in top form, and the directing was arguably the best of the year.

People complaining about the predictability of the movie: Are you the same ones who got mad at Punch Drunk Love for not being funny enough?

ripweblo · Post by **ripweblo** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:02 pm

StormShadow wrote:Do craft and style count for nothing?

I enjoyed the plot, but yeah, it is predictable, that doesn't matter. The actors were all in top form, and the directing was arguably the best of the year.

People complaining about the predictability of the movie: Are you the same ones who got mad at Punch Drunk Love for not being funny enough?

punch drunk was a good movie , this movie was trash in its purest form

drizzle · Post by **drizzle** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:10 pm

ripweblo wrote:
StormShadow wrote:Do craft and style count for nothing?

I enjoyed the plot, but yeah, it is predictable, that doesn't matter. The actors were all in top form, and the directing was arguably the best of the year.

People complaining about the predictability of the movie: Are you the same ones who got mad at Punch Drunk Love for not being funny enough?
punch drunk was a good movie , this movie was trash in its purest form

you found nothing redemeeing in it? plot, acting, directing, photography, whatever, all trash?

Andvil · Post by **Andvil** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:12 pm

PDL = best movie of 2002

YouTube · Post by **Philaflava** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 2:23 pm

PDL had much better acting even with Sandler at the helm. Stupid.

This movie was not complex. It was a simpleton's Married To The Mob with less funny.

Viggo should never play anything remotely close to a mobster again. Maria Bella who is a good actress was wasted in this film and both award winners Harris and Hurt really did not have the opportunity to shine.

Stop the hype. Forget the hate and start to realize a good film for what it is. This film was just mediocre at best.

Icesickle · Post by **Icesickle** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:02 pm

Philaflava wrote: This movie was not complex. It was a simpleton's Married To The Mob with less funny.

Philaflava wrote:Craziest thing you ever said on and you have said a lot of crazy shit my friend.

StormShadow · Post by **StormShadow** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 5:40 pm

Sorry guys, I guess Phila is right. Even though this was pretty much the only universally loved movie by all of the movie buffs in CYE last year, we're just gonna have to right it off.

History of Violence sucks now.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:43 pm

StormShadow wrote:Sorry guys, I guess Phila is right. Even though this was pretty much the only universally loved movie by all of the movie buffs in CYE last year, we're just gonna have to right it off.

History of Violence sucks now.

hahahah.

jamrage · Post by **jamrage** » Mon Apr 17, 2006 11:44 pm

Philaflava wrote:PDL had much better acting even with Sandler at the helm. Stupid.

This movie was not complex. It was a simpleton's Married To The Mob with less funny.

Viggo should never play anything remotely close to a mobster again. Maria Bella who is a good actress was wasted in this film and both award winners Harris and Hurt really did not have the opportunity to shine.

Stop the hype. Forget the hate and start to realize a good film for what it is. This film was just mediocre at best.

Most thoroughly incorrect post top to bottom I've seen since I've been here.