Mensch tracht, und Gott lacht

Sunday, October 09, 2005

TRC Film Review: A History of Violence

By virtue of his work in the LOTR trilogy, Viggo Mortensen has clearly made his way into the top tier of Hollywood leading men. The fact that he got the juicy role of Tom Stall in A History of Violence proves it.

HOV is a superb film. I haven't seen anything in the theatre that has caught my interest in the way this movie did in a long time. It is violent, graphically violent in a smoothly choreographed fashion, but this isn't action movie violence. It isn't glorified. At every point you see the dualistic nature of violence, justified or not, and the way even the justified violence leaves you feeling a little sick.

The basic story is about a simple, small-town man who kills men about to commit rape, robbery, and murder in his cafe'. He is so successful in thwarting the attack of these bad men, he attracts attention from the media who view him as a hero and from less savory characters who think he is one of their number from the past. These big-city mob types want to kill Tom Stall as revenge for something they believe he did years ago. They think his name is Joey and that he maimed a made man.

Whether he is the man they are looking for or not, I leave for you to find out.

In any case, the film is very successful in riveting the viewer's interest and stimulating thought. You care about the characters and become invested in the outcome.

Finally, William Hurt had a small, but very important part in the film. He may be on screen for ten minutes, but they all count. He's magnificent in his role. If they give an Oscar for a brief, but powerful appearance, it's his.

Side note: There are two sex scenes in the film between Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello. The scenes are semi-gratuitous. I say semi because they do contribute to the development of the story, but the same could have been done with less graphic scenes. I wouldn't mention it except that the scenes are far from cookie-cutter, so you end up reflecting on them.

Side note 2: Despite the fact that I clearly asked for a ticket to A History of Violence, the cashier gave me a ticket to The 40 Year Old Virgin. Since it was a weeknight and it didn't matter, I didn't ask for a new ticket. After the film, however, I wondered whether the mistake could have been intentional. Think of it, my money went to a film I didn't see. Unethical individuals could arrange something like that with bribes or favors to cashiers. I could be on an imagination trip, but it seems possible.

12 comments:

Hunter Baker said...

Interesting, Burwell. I wonder if it's something that happens more often than we know. How frequently do we look down and even check our ticket.

HB

Matt Huisman said...

I believe that 'first run' movie theaters pay for their movies on a percentage basis. These percentages vary from distributor to distributor, and usually decline over time.

So in your example, if you went to see HOV during the first week of its release, and The 40 Yr Old Virgin had been out for over a month, the theater would pay less to the distributors for the older release.

I don't know how significant the numbers here are, but my guess is that this is a simpler explanation of 'rigged' ticket sales.

Hunter Baker said...

Brilliant idea, Matt. I knew about the percentage change, but didn't think of that as a reason for charging a different ticket.

To Connie, I'm not sure why you'd be surprised TRC would have a positive review of the Cronenberg/Mortensen film. I'd have to be an absolute hack to give a film a bad review simply because of who made it. I am quite aware of Mortensen's ideology, but I can't ignore the superb work he does in this picture.

Tom Van Dyke said...

This is the article Connie refers to, which I enjoyed very much.

It has a partisan blind spot, namely toward the bunch that calls Bush & Cheney "evil," but the principles are sound.

I'm also happy that Bush is dropping the "evil" rhetoric lately, in favor of more accurate terminology.

But just because al-Qaeda is, non-dualistically speaking, not "evil," that doesn't mean they still aren't the enemy of all human decency.

Jay D. Homnick said...

Thanks, Hunter, for the review. My schedule only allows one theater visit per three months or so, and I used my current quarter's allotment on Flight Plan. Which was a solid film in that it delivered on its promise.

So I won't hurry in the HOV lane to see HOV. I'll wait for HOV to go DVD and watch it in the VCR, the advantage being that I can enjoy it in my BVDs.

Hunter Baker said...

Given your scruples, I'm quite sure those BVD's are free of any trace of VD.

You should make sure to invite our friend TVD when you finally make time. Unfortunately for thrill seekers, I don't think the film will be available in 3-D.

Tom Van Dyke said...

"Well, I think the buddhist would say that al-Qaeda has two of the roots of evil within them as they have ill-will towards Christians and America and they are delusional. Of course I'd say the same thing about us. But then I'm a confirmed peacenik."


True, dat. But although peaceniks have ill will against Christians and America and are delusional, I still won't call them evil.

James F. Elliott said...

But although peaceniks have ill will against Christians and America and are delusional...

Buh-wha?

Asphinctersayswhat?

Tom Van Dyke said...

Buh-wah.

James F. Elliott said...

Damn. Here I thought "wah" should be an abbreviated form of "what."

Tom Van Dyke said...

Quakers ain't peaceniks. For one thing, they bathe.

Have you forgotten my first blog post ever?

I don't think it's telling tales out of school to reveal you were my unnamed correspondent. Besides, nobody's reading this thread anymore. :-)

(Still waiting for an answer, BTW.)

Tom Van Dyke said...

But there are things worse than war, like sanctions.. War gets a bad rap sometimes.