Donate to help run the site
and get a custom "Supporting Member" forum member title.
Welcome to Studentfilms.com, the online film discussion forum for filmmakers and students who are applying to film school, attending film school, need advice on making films, or just want to share their films with the world.
I absolutely despised this film. I laughed while I was watching it, and afterwards I literally asked the woman who I bought my ticket form for my money back. It was god awful. I know that people have been saying it's brilliant and fresh and everything, but I did see it recently as well as in theatres and both times it was the most disgusting, pretentious, horrificly overdone set of images I have ever seen. David Cronenberg should've been hung for making such a film. I don't want to get into what I hated about it(everything), but I would like to see how everyone responds to this.
"Fuc*ing Fascist!"
Posts: 248 | Location: Miami | Registered: July 10, 2006
You clearly missed the point. Such a strong reaction shows that Cronenberg largely succeeded.
When I saw the film I was appalled to hear the great unwashed sitting around me nervously guffawing at each instance of on-screen violence. I guess you'd be one of those people. It seems that the film made them nervous, and they couldn't figure out anything else to do.
Everytime I think I'm going to agree with Evan he sabotages are relationship. "The Great Unwashed." Please. It is the oldest elitist trick in the book to say: "if you didn't like it, you didn't get it." History of Violence was my number one film of last year but if this is what the people who like it are like than i don't want to be one of them. Seriously dude, you need to lay off and understand that you are a pretentious provocateur and are insulting people on a daily basis.
But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.
Posts: 237 | Location: Orange, CA | Registered: March 03, 2006
Actually, in this case, the term applied: the theatre literally smelled like unwashed bodies and/or feet. Americans are either getting too lazy to shower regularly in this area or there is something else going on.
I find it funny that since the OP didn't post any specifics of what was so 'offensive' or 'bad' about the film, this kind of mud-slinging has replaced actual discussion.
The film was extremely well-conceived and brilliantly executed. Cronenberg is one of the few modern directors who can tell a story economically and crafts films that are both relevant, entertaining, and complex.
'A History of Violence' was worth seeing just for the way it skewered American self-perception, but it has so much more to offer.
I tended to assume that someone registering as blatant yet vague a complaint as the original poster was put off by the violence, since for most people that seemed to be a huge issue. America is truly strange.
You honestly thought this movie was brilliant? I know you think that I'm part of the mindless Hollywood mainstream, but I'm shocked. This movie just sucked.
And Evan, you're the one who replaced discussion with mud-slinging. YOU started it. You know a lot about filmmaking and I think you ought to shape up or stick to what you know, because your social skills are despicable.This message has been edited. Last edited by: Josh,
Alright. I have to see it now. I've heard such incredibly polarized reactions to it, from "worst movie of the year" to "amazing" from friends with good taste, and now this thread.
"If not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled." Wodehouse
Posts: 5204 | Location: Tisch at New York University | Registered: June 03, 2003
It's good. Has an almost operatic feel to it, as far as the pacing and adrenaline levels go. The tangential subplot with Aragorn's son was trite and near insulting, and William Hurt has been better (of course, he's been worse, too). It's good to see Aragorn's range, though -- he may prove to be a viable Harrison Ford upgrade. On that note, Maria Bello and Aragorn bounce off one another really well here.
I guess it's the same Cronenberg formula: Take a simple idea and twist it until it stands out. I would have liked it more had Jeff Goldblum turned into a fly, but it's still a very enjoyable movie.
((Spoilers)) Wow, I'm surprised noone's mentioned this dude yet.
It's Ed Harris who really made this movie interesting. Unfortunately, after he was killed off things just kinda fell apart, although that was a great scene.
The first half was mysterious and had a nice creepy vibe, but after we found out what was really going on, it just didn't go anywhere else. I hated the part when William Hurt and Viggo met. Reminded me of the ending of "Scanners" which was far superior . William Hurt could've done better, plus he looked nothing like Viggo.
The part I really liked about this movie was the end scene. It was very powerful, although it may just fly past a lot of people, because it's not your typical movie ending where all questions are answered. It's not a happy ending. It really leaves a profound effect if you know where it's going. That being said, Cronenberg's done better. It's definitely not brilliant, but it's worth a look because it's original and thought provoking and has some great moments.
Posts: 389 | Location: Kansas City USA | Registered: June 23, 2005
It's Ed Harris who really made this movie interesting. Unfortunately, after he was killed off things just kinda fell apart, although that was a great scene.
I cannot see how you could liked Ed Harris in this film. Of an abomination of horrendous performances, Ed's was the most dispicable. The lines he delivers are pure garbage, Viggo shows he can't act even when given the coolest of plots. The first half on the film is so horrendously written that I spent the rest of the movie just making fun of the actors and laughing at the over spew of piss poor dialogue and annoying action sequences. Violence doesn't bother me in the least, it's when you have bad violent scenes that bother me. i.e. the shotgun scene. Just unnecessary. Cronenberg should be shunned from Hollywood and banished to Bollywood where he can remake this film into a case where people of a small indian town think that Muhammed Mortenson is really the prophet Muhammed. Films like these are why babies cry and children are raped, not becuase we're inspired by the violence, but the film makes us want to vomit so much that we vomit our way into the nearest woman's bathroom, slap the baby being changed at the changing station and proceed to rape the woman trying to get your vomit spewing mouth away from her baby.
"Fuc*ing Fascist!"
Posts: 248 | Location: Miami | Registered: July 10, 2006
Originally posted by "Fuc*in Fascist!": I cannot see how you could liked Ed Harris in this film. Of an abomination of horrendous performances, Ed's was the most dispicable. The lines he delivers are pure garbage, Viggo shows he can't act even when given the coolest of plots. The first half on the film is so horrendously written that I spent the rest of the movie just making fun of the actors and laughing at the over spew of piss poor dialogue and annoying action sequences. Violence doesn't bother me in the least, it's when you have bad violent scenes that bother me. i.e. the shotgun scene. Just unnecessary. Cronenberg should be shunned from Hollywood and banished to Bollywood where he can remake this film into a case where people of a small indian town think that Muhammed Mortenson is really the prophet Muhammed. Films like these are why babies cry and children are raped, not becuase we're inspired by the violence, but the film makes us want to vomit so much that we vomit our way into the nearest woman's bathroom, slap the baby being changed at the changing station and proceed to rape the woman trying to get your vomit spewing mouth away from her baby.
Wow, you're a douchebag. Cry harder next time will ya
Ed Harris > you Cronenberg > you
/End
Posts: 389 | Location: Kansas City USA | Registered: June 23, 2005
"I think you're a fake. I think you're a phony. And a bad reporter. Tell me, does this seem fake? Did it seem fake when my friend was eaten alive in front of my face?"
Steve Zissou > You. You lose.
"Fuc*ing Fascist!"
Posts: 248 | Location: Miami | Registered: July 10, 2006
Evan said: I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be that way. Except when it wasn't (and then it wasn't).
Could you elaborate on this, please? Was it intentionally trite or was it not trite at all and intentionally so?
And to "Fuc*in Fascist," why do you start threads about movies you dislike? Your posts are obnoxious and often dually impertinent, in regard to others' opinions and to the subject of the thread which you started.
Posts: 598 | Location: Mobile, AL | Registered: May 10, 2005
yeah, if ur looking for a real battle just start a thread with the title "only real filmmakers go to film school and shoot on film and wears a monocle" or "ten reasons why Ordinary People can Knockout Raging Bull anyday"
Posts: 2173 | Location: n/a | Registered: May 06, 2003
It felt like the subplot was aware of its own nature, at least when the son was getting pushed around by bullies. His eventual choice to embrace the family 'history of violence' (ha-ha) was less conventional and played nicely against the small-town Norman Rockwell veneer of the first half. Cronenberg was clearly aware of this angle and completely skewered that false and deceptive image, especially with the final scene.
. William Hurt could've done better, plus he looked nothing like Viggo. 
