The History of Violence

Early B.

This movie is for real men only. Hardcore. Good SQ. Even the sex scenes are as hardcore as it gets. Definitely not your ordinary shoot 'em up movie.

Recommended rental or purchase.

bobman1235

Just got shipped from Blockbuster yesterday, should have it tonight or tomorrow. Been looking forward to this since it hit the theaters..

Ron-P

Cool, I plan on giving this one a rent, not sure if it's got a high rewatch factor to make it purchase worthy.

MacLeod

I want to watch this too. After Lord of the Rings, Ive become a fan of Mortenson. Even sat thru the stupidest movie of all time, GI Jane, just to check out his performance.

bobman1235

I just finished watching this. Really .... interesting. Odd pacing, but I liked it. I agree with the "hardcore" qualifier. Very "raw" movie.

ohskigod

yep, i'll be picking this up.

Early B.

bobman1235 wrote:

Odd pacing, but I liked it.

Yeah, the movie moved slowly at times, but I didn't get bored. I liked the fact that it wasn't a long movie. Lately there have been lots of movies over say, 100 minutes, that tend to have unnecessary scenes.

MrNightly

Just rented it tonight.. haven't seen it yet tho.. interesting comments. Have to pop it in the ole playa and see what I think...

zombie boy 2000

I was amazed by how realistic Cronenberg attempted to make the film -- the violence was so quick and disjointed (over quickly with gruesome results). Kind of like the difference between a cop taking out a perp in a movie vs real-life (the former generally happening in a blur with all limbs flailing:) )
My wife generally hates violent movies (I mean DESPISES), but she felt this was the best film of the last two years.
It's good to see Cronenberg come out of his rut with this one, because he really does have a unique vision.

Toxis

Zero wrote:

I beat puppies. It doesn't get any more violent and serious than that!

was there animal abuse in this???

Musophile

No, but there was definitely people abuse.

stonepimp

...watch the deleted scenes ... i don't normally bother with the extras but a friend of mine told me to check it out ... i won't say anything more ... don't want to spoil it for you.

Polk65

I saw it on DVD, the extras and then watched the movie again.

Interesting but this will not make my list of movies to recommend to friends for the reason of depicting the killing of a child. The director chose to delete scenes and this should have been one of them as it serves NO purpose.

It pains me with the stupidity of the MPAA.
Killing a child = ok!!!
Killing = ok.
Sex/Violence = whoa!

The extras include voting by cast members for the last U.S. Presidential election. This portrays the mentality of Hollywood and our Northern neighbors that want to influence us.

bobman1235

Of course it serves a purpose - nothing makes a person look like the worst scumbag on the planet more than murdering a child.

Not saying you have to agree with it - I can't imagine many parents would - I'm just sayin, it serves a purpose.

reeltrouble1

The bush was well grown, might need a bit of sprucing up.

The child scene bothered me too, I suppose it was intended to.

RT1

Polk65

bobman1235 wrote:

Of course it serves a purpose - nothing makes a person look like the worst scumbag on the planet more than murdering a child.

Not saying you have to agree with it - I can't imagine many parents would - I'm just sayin, it serves a purpose.

For the MPAA they slightly played down a squirting bloody nose, and a gasping bloody neck.

Gesturing towards a child to be quiet then leveling a gun towards her and seeing the gun fire is ok?

edit: As for establishing the young gangsta, I think they covered that with him walking into the motel lobby, twirling the postcard rack, hitting the desk bell, stealing a soda pop, then moving the cleaning lady's cart to reveal two dead bodies before stealing some bottled water. This was all before blowing away the child.

reeltrouble1

I know some people who have done this, killed a child, its all over the news on a much to regular basis, hiding a bad thing will not make it go away. The movie was not rated for children.

I understand if someone does not like it, or want it in any film, you don't to have to agree with it, watch it, you can rant against it, protest and so on, but yes its OK, as in legal.

RT1

Polk65

reeltrouble1 wrote:

I know some people who have done this, killed a child, its all over the news on a much to regular basis, hiding a bad thing will not make it go away. The movie was not rated for children.

RT1

This movie does not help the problem by illustrating how to do it.

reeltrouble1 wrote:

I understand if someone does not like it, or want it in any film, you don't to have to agree with it, watch it, you can rant against it, protest and so on, but yes its OK, as in legal.

RT1

That is exactly what's wrong with Hollywood. Portraying what is illegal to seem legal.

ohskigod

Polk65 wrote:

This movie does not help the problem by illustrating how to do it.



That is exactly what's wrong with Hollywood. Portraying what is illegal to seem legal.

like seeing that scene was an instruction manual? step a) take gun, step KABLOOOIE!!! of course, lets not forget the important detail of shushing the child. was this the instructional part? the part all potential child killers were missing? Right now there is a slew of people going "oh, I should shhh the child first, thats why I have been so unsuccesful in my endeavors of Child killing" WTF?????

the film's title was "a history of violence" you had to assume there would be some hard hitting scenes of....well...you know.....VIOLENCE.




secondly, I really dont know where your getting the "portraying what is illegal to seem legal" I saw nothing in the movie that even hinted to the possible legality of shooting a child. The scene was there for a huge shock and impact, striking home the point of the limitless amount of Evil and general douschbagginess of the particular charachter. that is all.

zombie boy 2000

ohskigod wrote:

secondly, I really dont know where your getting the "portraying what is illegal to seem legal" I saw nothing in the movie that even hinted to the possible legality of shooting a child. The scene was there for a huge shock and impact, striking home the point of the limitless amount of Evil and general douschbagginess of the particular charachter. that is all.

agreed and agreed and agreed....
if anything this movie made an attempt to do what so many other "violent movies" fail to do -- and that is tackle the issue of violent behavior as objectively as possible
it happens all the time, all around you, to varying degrees -- from calling people names to killing children; Cronenberg was simply trying to ask the question of whether or not this was inate human behavior, and as such are we "hardwired" to act this way
by objectively portraying scenes of violence (quite effectively, i might add, by refusing to adhere to standard Hollywood methods), he did anything but fall into the trappings that make many other films so subjective, and therefore even open to the possibility being for/against violence;
this film was neutral on the point, much more of a scientific study
certainly not condoning it

Demiurge

Simple solution, don't watch it. Supporting censorship is a terrible thing. I understand the frustration with people constantly pushing the envelope, but the only recourse you have is what you do with your money.

Polk65

As media has become more progressive, society is paying the price. People are influenced by and remember what we see. There are other ways the scene could have been done to illustrate Billy as a violent person in training by Leland. He could have shot the bodies again for target practice, or looked at himself in a mirror while drawing his gun.

Where I'm coming from is not about censorship, but angst that mainstream movies glorify certain things or behaviour that are illegal or unacceptable in our society. Drugs, killing, now implying the killing of children are acceptable for an "R" rating.

I found the answer to my issue with the common MPAA rating of "R" for this movie versus a stronger "NC-17" for a movie with graphic sex.

"The Rating Board can make its decisions only by what is seen on the screen, not by what is imagined or thought." http://www.filmratings.com/about/content3.htm

Demiurge

As media has become more progressive, society is paying the price. People are influenced by and remember what we see.

Idiots are influenced solely by what they see. I'm not saying there aren't a lot of them, but like I said....write your letters and don't see the movies. It's your only real recourse. This is one of those moral battles not worth fighting. It's funny that the top grossing movies are those with some good moral value to them. People still want to see a wholesome movie that's not hokey.

reeltrouble1

Most people I have talked to liked this movie, they did not even mention this one scene.

RT1

kingsqueak

Saw this last night finally, like it a lot. Definitely a good score for Cronenburg.

I don't get the grousing over violent scenes in a violent themed movie....what else did you expect? It was R after all. It isn't as if the title is "Fluffy Bunny".

I find it far worse what they slip into a PG or PG-13 movie, those ratings are very inconsistent. I've never kept my son from watching anything really, but other people trust those lower ratings and I don't find them accurate. With R at least, a movie should be real, this one did a reasonable job with the restrictions they had to face.

I thought the child shooting scene was very effective, you didn't see anything....but you felt it. Classic.

szhleppy

Saw this over the weekend. Solid, well-done movie. Didn't think to watch the extras though...thanks for the recommend.

landry_p2000

Good movie to me, and I was not crazy about the child killing scene either, but it was real as life gets, and has happened. I am glad they did not show it. As for the **** that did it, he got what he deserved. A very well done movie overall.

PolkThug

Good flick, I like the shock factor.