A History of Violence

thelitguy · 10-08-2005, 07:25 PM

Has anybody checked out the newest David Cronnenberg film?

At this point and time it is my pick from best movie of 2005. It tells the story of Tom Stall (played beautifully by Viggo Mortensen), a diner owner in an averge small town in mid-America, who supposedly has a past no one knows about. One of the most dramatic (in that good kinda' way) films I have ever had the pleasure to see.

Anyone else agree?

nathanp · 10-10-2005, 02:43 PM

i haven't seen it yet but it looks cool
and viggo mortensen is one of my favorite actors so i'll have to see it

psalm63adam · 10-10-2005, 10:51 PM

I want to see it. I'm sick of crappy movies. Although I haven't seen very many movies in the theater this year:

- Sin City

- Star Wars III

- The 40 Year Old Virgin

**slap_j** · 10-19-2005, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelitguy

At this point and time it is my pick from best movie of 2005. It tells the story of Tom Stall (played beautifully by Viggo Mortensen), a diner owner in an averge small town in mid-America, who supposedly has a past no one knows about. One of the most dramatic (in that good kinda' way) films I have ever had the pleasure to see.

I totally agree. Best movie of 2005 thus far. Viggo is...he's sooooo good.

**bread man** · 10-20-2005, 12:53 AM

I'll have to see this. I've been pretty dissapointed by movies this year, pretty much the only ones I've enjoyed are Be Cool, Hitch, The Interpreter, Sin City, Batman and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. And I've seen a lot more movies than that.

EDIT: Damn, apparently it doesn't come out until Febuary next year in Australia

**Skeeter** · 10-20-2005, 03:35 AM

I'll be seeing this as soon as possible. I'm writing a paper on David Cronenberg for my Canadian Cinema class, so I'd like to see it for that reason, but it also looks like a great film. Based on a comic book, I might add.

rockin4theking · 10-20-2005, 10:21 PM

Eh. I saw it and wasn't impressed by the movie at all. It was a combination of "oh that's funny....ah! Gross!" and "did he just do what I thought he did?" And it contains the most graphic sex scenes I've ever seen in an "R" rated movie.

Viggo was amazing in the role, don't get me wrong. It's just something about how the scenes played out that was very odd to me. It seemed so over the top with everything that it was almost funny in a Scary Movie type of way, and yet wasn't meant to be funny. Maybe it's just me though.

I enjoyed parts of it greatly, and other parts left me sick inside. The story was played out well, and engaged me as a viewer, but the shorts bits of senseless, graphic violence and senseless, graphic sex in between the main storyline ruined, in my opinion, what could have been an excellent movie.

My two cents.

PaidInFull · 10-21-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

Eh. I saw it and wasn't impressed by the movie at all. It was a combination of "oh that's funny....ah! Gross!" and "did he just do what I thought he did?" And it contains the most graphic sex scenes I've ever seen in an "R" rated movie.

Viggo was amazing in the role, don't get me wrong. It's just something about how the scenes played out that was very odd to me. It seemed so over the top with everything that it was almost funny in a Scary Movie type of way, and yet wasn't meant to be funny. Maybe it's just me though.

I enjoyed parts of it greatly, and other parts left me sick inside. The story was played out well, and engaged me as a viewer, but the shorts bits of senseless, graphic violence and senseless, graphic sex in between the main storyline ruined, in my opinion, what could have been an excellent movie.

My two cents.

Thank you for the warning, i guess some people besides me still do have morals.

**slap_j** · 10-21-2005, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaidInFull

Thank you for the warning, i guess some people besides me still do have morals.

What're you implying there, slick?

thelitguy · 10-21-2005, 12:39 PM

Quote:

enjoyed parts of it greatly, and other parts left me sick inside.

Did you ever think perhaps it was supposed to make you feel that way?

Quote:

The story was played out well, and engaged me as a viewer, but the shorts bits of senseless, graphic violence and senseless, graphic sex in between the main storyline ruined, in my opinion, what could have been an excellent movie.

I would argue that the so-called "senseless" scenes of violence and sex helped to get the point of the film to exactly where it is. I thnk the film would not have been half as powerful without some of those scenes, especially the second sex scene in the stairway.

Based on a few interviews I've read with Cronenberg, the movie is sort of a comment on violence in the media, which would explain the over-the-top qualities in some scenes.

I will fight to the end that this film should win at least 5 Academy Awards this year. It's near perfect.

**slap_j** · 10-21-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelitguy

I would argue that the so-called "senseless" scenes of violence and sex helped to get the point of the film to exactly where it is.

Aye. If you felt the sex and violence in this particular film was senseless then the film is definately not for you. I was personally repulsed at lots of the things that happened but that was the point. We're supposed to be disturbed at the way it's presented. Cronenberg is holding a mirror in front of us and asking "what's wrong with this picture?"

It's troubling that Hollywood chooses to glorify sex and violence so often that it almost automatically forces us to write off every instance of it we see in film as nothing more than a shallow fulfillment of carnality.

rockin4theking · 10-21-2005, 02:34 PM

I saw how the sex and violence were making a point about the rest of the film; I just view that level of graphic violence and sex as disturbing, as there are plenty of people out there who don't realize (or in my case even care) that it is meant as a sort of social commentary. I go to films to be entertained, and was not entirely entertained by this movie. I realized the social statement being made, but that in and of itself didn't make in a good movie, in my opinion.

I really fail to see the need for that sort of thing in a good film. But that's just me. And don't think that I don't agree that there is a time and place for portraying violence. I think that war films today should show the inherent violence in war, not just the "glory" side of things.

I guess my point is that it is a very well made movie, but I just can't recommend it to anyone because even if the violence and sex are a purposeful commentary on violence in modern media, it's still over the top and disgusting. Sure it makes a good point, but to me the sex and violence were intolerable, and that's why I can't say "yes, go see this now."

PaidInFull · 10-21-2005, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slap_j

What're you implying there, slick?

I dont know Slappy, maybe that some of us dont like to be entertained by so much fornication and sensless bloodshed. If you'de like to discuss it more please PM me and keep the thread clean.

PaidInFull · 10-21-2005, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

I saw how the sex and violence were making a point about the rest of the film; I just view that level of graphic violence and sex as disturbing, as there are plenty of people out there who don't realize (or in my case even care) that it is meant as a sort of social commentary. I go to films to be entertained, and was not entirely entertained by this movie. I realized the social statement being made, but that in and of itself didn't make in a good movie, in my opinion.

I really fail to see the need for that sort of thing in a good film. But that's just me. And don't think that I don't agree that there is a time and place for portraying violence. I think that war films today should show the inherent violence in war, not just the "glory" side of things.

I guess my point is that it is a very well made movie, but I just can't recommend it to anyone because even if the violence and sex are a purposeful commentary on violence in modern media, it's still over the top and disgusting. Sure it makes a good point, but to me the sex and violence were intolerable, and that's why I can't say "yes, go see this now."

Like a breath of fresh air.

**slap_j** · 10-21-2005, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rockin4theking

I saw how the sex and violence were making a point about the rest of the film

Weird, 'cause in post #7 you said "senseless" which means it lacks meaning or purpose. But now you say you knew it had a purpose. You criticize it for achieving what it set out to do by your own admission. That's confusing to me.

Quote:

I realized the social statement being made, but that in and of itself didn't make in a good movie, in my opinion.

These things are subjective. I never said your reasons for not liking it weren't valid. All I said is that the sex and the violence wasn't senseless. And then you get all defensive yet you're agreeing with me.

Quote:

And don't think that I don't agree that there is a time and place for portraying violence. I think that war films today should show the inherent violence in war, not just the "glory" side of things.

This distinction you make is arbitrary to me but it's yours to make.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PaidInFull

I dont know Slappy, maybe that some of us dont like to be entertained by so much fornication and sensless bloodshed. If you'de like to discuss it more please PM me and keep the thread clean.

No, nothing to discuss. That's not what this movie's about. I guess you were confused.