Movie Review: A History of Violence
Directed by: David Cronenberg Starring: Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris

Seldom does a movie come along that critics hail as "one of the year's very best" or talking about how "other movies will have to sweat bullets to match the thrills and subversive wit"
So when it does, one decides that they had better go see it, especially when they're a film-addict like myself.

When I first saw the preview for this film, I went through my normal reaction "ooh, that looks good, but it's probably really going to stink." Because history has taught me that the best parts of a film are always in the previews. So it's relatively smaller precentage of the time when a film actually lives up to expectations. Why is this? We'll have to save that for another time...

So upon hearing that this film was receiving very positive buzz, I grabbed my friend Jackswillydilly and headed to the theatre, expected to be drawn into a film of intrigue and mystery as we learned why Viggo Mortensen is (as Ed Harris' character puts it) "so good at killing people." Yes, indeed, why?

Let me first tell you what I thought the plot summary of this movie would be:

Viggo Mortensen's character (Tom Stall,) a small-town family man runs a diner and all is well with the universe until Tom foils a potential heist on his restaurant. His bravery attracts nation-wide media attention, and he is recognized by Philadelphia Mafia boss, played by Ed Harris. Ed Harris comes to pay his respects (i.e. kill) to "Johnny." Eventually Tom ends up killing Ed Harris and his cronies as well. My thought was that throughout this movie, Tom Stall would be revealed as a military operative, or something equally enthralling, allowing us to watch the violent deaths while still celebrating Tom's heroism. He kills only bad men. It's not the most original idea, but its not the story, its how you tell it. After killing all the bad men, he returns home to his wife and family to resume his quiet life, and his family would tearfully welcome him home. Fade out.

What really happens:

Tom Stall runs his diner, and brutally kills two men who attempt to rob him. When we start to wonder why Tom is so good at killing people, it turns out, that used to be Tom's living - a hitman for the mob. And it's not even as cool as it sounds. Tom just walks around and twists of arms, bashes in noses and shoots people through the top of their heads. And those were just the first few murders.

Am I supposed to laugh this much during a film? I usually don't laugh this much during comedies.

There was so much wrong with this film, it's hard to know where to start. The script itself was such a horrible display of re-heated cliches. It would seem that the screenwriters sifted through reject scripts from various slasher films, and assembled their own script, page by page. For being "small-town" Indiana, everyone in it seemed horribly out of place, as though they were uncomfortably cue-carding their way through scenes of rural simplicity. Having seen the previews, we know there's more to Viggo than meets the eyes, but I didn't know they were going to telegraph it during the whole film.
Another of the most unbelievable and outlandish parts of this film was the relationship between Tom and his wife, who is the second most important character in the film. Not only did they look out of place in Hollywood's version of Small Town, but their intimate life is apparently something the filmmakers decided we all needed to take part in. This was akward enough for the film, but the unbelievable circumstances under which their romantic encounters took place bordered on ludicrous. (Think cheerleader outfits and comically close camera shots of various armpits.) The other encounter ends up more like a rape than anything else. What in the world does this have to do with the film?!

One of my favorite funny scenes of this film deals with the local high school bully whose the nemesis of Tom's oldest son. After catching the bully's pop fly during phys ed class, the bully has it out for Tom's son in the most comic of manners, glaring daggers and grinding his teeth as hard as he possibly can. I'm not sure I'd call this "razor-sharp wit" Mr. Cronenberg. It's not exactly wit if you smack us in the face with it, is it?

Ed Harris, a fine actor, seemed to be a cardboard representation of a mob boss constructed from the left-overs of all the other B-grade mob films. He dies halfway through the film, and I'm sure he was happy about it.

As Tom Stall's character unfolds, we would hope there would be some valid explanation for his alter-ego and how he came to live in Buttcrack Indiana. But no. What they supply us with is a tossed-off dialogue between husband and wife about how Tom "killed" Jackie, and he "thought he was gone!" as though Tom were a real life Smeagol, who had easily disposed of the evil Gollum.
See, doesn't that make alot of sense?

Eventually, since everyone in America has heard about Tom's bravery, his older brother, a mob boss in Philly has him brought back to Philly to - what else? kill him for being such a jerk when he was younger. Ah, sibling rivalry. But it wouldn't make much sense to have our hero die now, so let's have Tom kill everyone in as violent a way as we can concoct, and then have him drive the 16 hours back to Indiana just in time for a luke-warm meatloaf dinner with mashed potatos and peas. And the little wavy-cut carrots. Those are yummy.

This is a horrible review. Disjointed, mispelled and half congealed. Thank goodness it's still ten times better than this film.

One out of Five