Eric Steals My Thunder. Film at Eleven.
He beat me to it, which is, I guess, an appropriate way to begin a review of A History of Violence. Here's what I like about the film:
1. Viggo's eyes: Indeed, Viggo Mortensen tells much of the story with his eyes. He's not a shout-it-from-the rooftops type of actor. In fact, I can rarely even understand his mumbling in most movies. For this role as Tom Stall, Viggo is perfect. He is subtle and introverted, and invites the audience to lean a little bit closer if they want to know what's going on (just don't get too close when he's mad, I'm just sayin').
2. Maria Bello: A rare occasion in film where the 'wife' role matters. She is strong and intelligent and wowza, she's got good balance--those two sex scenes require it.
3. Those two sex scenes: Pivotal, important, and truly illustrative of the connection between Bello and Mortensen's characters. Not gratutious, not pruient, but actually essential to the story.
4. Unpredictability: I saw the trailers too, so I knew the fundamental plot point. Still, I had no idea where the story was going. How refreshing.
5. Allusions: The story made me think of Unforgiven as well, one of my all-time favorite films, in which violence was turned on its bloodied ear.Both films feature heroes who do not want to kill, but circumstances lead them to do so. There's also this very Hitchcockian sequence, when Tom is afraid his family is in danger and runs to save them. I almost expected crop dusters to swoop into the frame, ala' North by Northwest. A really great homage to Alfred in that scene.
6. Thinking: Identity. Can you truly change who you are? Do you ever really know another person, no matter how intimate you are? Can you still love a person, even if you see it all? A truly Jungian meditation on repression of the dark side, and a plea for integration of the shadow and light? I'll expect a 500-word essay by next Friday.
7. Violence: I didn't like the violence, but I'll tell you this--it's not pornographic. It's fast and efficient. Compared to Sin City, for example, which made me sick to my stomach, this is nothing, man.
What I didn't like about the film:
1. Really, nothing about the film itself. I am repulsed by violence on the screen, but it wasn't exactly unexpected, gievn the topic. I just looked away.
2. ...which leads me to what I didn't like about the experience of seeing the film. When I looked away during the faces-getting-blown-off and garroting scenes, my eyes landed on the immature bozos at the end of our row, who were cheering the violence, clearly not the point of the film. Alas, I guess that's the price you pay for going to see films in the theater.
Should you see it? Yes, if you want to be challenged and intrigued and won't be put off by violence and sex. No, if you want to just eat some popcorn in a dark building.
Next on the docket: In Her Shoes. I'll post later tonight.
-Lori
1. Viggo's eyes: Indeed, Viggo Mortensen tells much of the story with his eyes. He's not a shout-it-from-the rooftops type of actor. In fact, I can rarely even understand his mumbling in most movies. For this role as Tom Stall, Viggo is perfect. He is subtle and introverted, and invites the audience to lean a little bit closer if they want to know what's going on (just don't get too close when he's mad, I'm just sayin').
2. Maria Bello: A rare occasion in film where the 'wife' role matters. She is strong and intelligent and wowza, she's got good balance--those two sex scenes require it.
3. Those two sex scenes: Pivotal, important, and truly illustrative of the connection between Bello and Mortensen's characters. Not gratutious, not pruient, but actually essential to the story.
4. Unpredictability: I saw the trailers too, so I knew the fundamental plot point. Still, I had no idea where the story was going. How refreshing.
5. Allusions: The story made me think of Unforgiven as well, one of my all-time favorite films, in which violence was turned on its bloodied ear.Both films feature heroes who do not want to kill, but circumstances lead them to do so. There's also this very Hitchcockian sequence, when Tom is afraid his family is in danger and runs to save them. I almost expected crop dusters to swoop into the frame, ala' North by Northwest. A really great homage to Alfred in that scene.
6. Thinking: Identity. Can you truly change who you are? Do you ever really know another person, no matter how intimate you are? Can you still love a person, even if you see it all? A truly Jungian meditation on repression of the dark side, and a plea for integration of the shadow and light? I'll expect a 500-word essay by next Friday.
7. Violence: I didn't like the violence, but I'll tell you this--it's not pornographic. It's fast and efficient. Compared to Sin City, for example, which made me sick to my stomach, this is nothing, man.
What I didn't like about the film:
1. Really, nothing about the film itself. I am repulsed by violence on the screen, but it wasn't exactly unexpected, gievn the topic. I just looked away.
2. ...which leads me to what I didn't like about the experience of seeing the film. When I looked away during the faces-getting-blown-off and garroting scenes, my eyes landed on the immature bozos at the end of our row, who were cheering the violence, clearly not the point of the film. Alas, I guess that's the price you pay for going to see films in the theater.
Should you see it? Yes, if you want to be challenged and intrigued and won't be put off by violence and sex. No, if you want to just eat some popcorn in a dark building.
Next on the docket: In Her Shoes. I'll post later tonight.
-Lori
posted by Eric. Lori. at 11:35 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home