I really expected more out of this movie. I was disappointed that it was nearly 100% predictable and slow-moving.
For starters, the opening scene is basically a waste of time and it doesn't really contribute to the movie. Basically they could have cut it down to 2 minutes instead of nearly 10 minutes, because the main guys in the scene do show up again later. But you can understand why they didn't because that would shorten the movie even more than the barely average length of 96 minutes.
Then we have the sex scenes. The first sex scene in the movie was also way too long and completely unnecessary. The second one was just dumb. If you watch it you'll see why. I suppose it could be designed to metaphorically link lust and violence or whatever as another user has suggested, but it's basically just another waste of time in my view. By the time all the unnecessary content in the opening scene and the sex scenes are eliminated, we end up with about 80 minutes of meaningful film.
With all that being said, A History of Violence has a couple of good things going for it. The performance of basically all the actors is quite good. I especially liked Ed Harris and William Hurt's work in the movie. The scenes with Viggo Mortenson's character laying the smack down on the other guys are well done and entertaining. I would have gladly traded the sex scenes for two more of those. Though far from being one of the goriest movies I've seen, there is plenty of bloodshed to go around.
There is nothing really special or captivating about the plot either. I wouldn't say that the movie "sucked", but it I wouldn't label it as "good" either. The actors do a good job with what they were asked to do, and the violence is pretty well done. But the predictability and mundaneness of the storyline coupled with too much unnecessary content in a just barely average length movie really hurt this one. It's worth watching if you can split the DVD rental cost with somebody, but I'd have to tell you to pass if otherwise.
For starters, the opening scene is basically a waste of time and it doesn't really contribute to the movie. Basically they could have cut it down to 2 minutes instead of nearly 10 minutes, because the main guys in the scene do show up again later. But you can understand why they didn't because that would shorten the movie even more than the barely average length of 96 minutes.
Then we have the sex scenes. The first sex scene in the movie was also way too long and completely unnecessary. The second one was just dumb. If you watch it you'll see why. I suppose it could be designed to metaphorically link lust and violence or whatever as another user has suggested, but it's basically just another waste of time in my view. By the time all the unnecessary content in the opening scene and the sex scenes are eliminated, we end up with about 80 minutes of meaningful film.
With all that being said, A History of Violence has a couple of good things going for it. The performance of basically all the actors is quite good. I especially liked Ed Harris and William Hurt's work in the movie. The scenes with Viggo Mortenson's character laying the smack down on the other guys are well done and entertaining. I would have gladly traded the sex scenes for two more of those. Though far from being one of the goriest movies I've seen, there is plenty of bloodshed to go around.
There is nothing really special or captivating about the plot either. I wouldn't say that the movie "sucked", but it I wouldn't label it as "good" either. The actors do a good job with what they were asked to do, and the violence is pretty well done. But the predictability and mundaneness of the storyline coupled with too much unnecessary content in a just barely average length movie really hurt this one. It's worth watching if you can split the DVD rental cost with somebody, but I'd have to tell you to pass if otherwise.
Tell Your Friends