This could have been a really good movie.A History of Violence tells the story of Tom Stall--portrayed admirably by Viggo Mortensen--a mild-mannered, middle American everyman who may or may not have a dark secret. He lives in Nowheresville, Indiana, with his wife, son, and daughter, all of whom have lives so achingly common that you could weep. But is there more to Tom Stall than meets the eye?
Yes, of course, obviously there is. The trailers give that much away, so I don't feel bad about doing the same. I won't tell you what it is, so you can enjoy the hour of the movie that actually is enjoyable.
The remaining half hour--after you learn Viggo's secret--is both confusing and disappointing. Supporting characters begin acting in noticeably head-scratching ways, revealing that their true purpose was never to be characters in this story, but merely props in an attempt to make Viggo's plight all the more compelling.
The fault here lies partly with the screenwriter and partly with the actors. Maria Bello, playing Viggo's wife Edie, is a particularly noteworthy offender. She's not helped at all by the script, but her tenuous grasp of subtext and layers would I think be evident even with a masterpiece of a script. Ashton Holmes does a better job as Viggo's son, Jack, but even he falls victim to the nonsensical behaviors foisted upon him by the writers.
Viggo is really the only who acquits himself flawlessly, but then again he plays the only character that the movie really bothers to develop properly. William Hurt also deserves an honorable mention for his brief-yet-Oscar-nominated role, though he seemed to have recently taken a crash course at the Will Ferrell School of Acting, where they teach you to completely sell out to your role no matter how silly you look or feel. But the Ferrell School might be onto something: It's much more compelling to watch an actor who seems to be sold out to his role than it is to watch one who seems embarrassed by it.
Acting matters aside, what really prevents the movie from soaring to the heights it initially promises to are two things: a mild disregard for plausibility, and an apparently misplaced climax.
Having come down so hard, though, I will concede that this isn't a terrible movie. It's certainly watchable from start to finish, if a bit dicomfiting at times. And even the slow-moving sections--of which there are more than one--do a good job of keeping you interested with a certain intangible "what's next?" factor.
In the end it amounts to a movie that's better than bad, but still not really good enough to be good.
Numerically speaking, that averages out to a 4.
6 comments:
What specific plausibility issues did you have? Was it the ability of certain characters to dodge bullets?
No, I actually had very few problems with the physical improbabilities. My plausibility issues are with the reactions of Viggo's wife and son upon realizing the truth about him. It seems to me that something like that would provoke a host of competing emotions, and so a subtle, nuanced acting job is required. But I didn't get that from either of them, and that's the source of my disappointment.
That's true.
I quite disagree with DW's review.
I think the point of the film was to show that the wife and the family accept what took place because they don't want things unsettled. I think this is what the director wanted to tell us: that we don't mind a bit of violence in our name (say, in Iraq) as long as we ourselves are comfortable (say, oil prices are down).
Their indifference, which you complain about, is the film's main message.
Wow, Moshe, that's terribly insightful. I will say that I did not get that message watching the film. Whether that's down to my lack of perception as a viewer or the filmmakers' lack of clarity is an open debate.
Obviously, I could be dead wrong. Interpretations are all highly personal affairs anyway, and Cronenberg is one meanly eccentric director… But that’s what I took with me out of the theater.
Post a Comment