Reviews Reviewed

I had a feeling that I might be alone in my distaste for the movie A History of Violence. I identified it as an extremely arrogant film, and lo and behold, the critics loved it. Roger Ebert would be better served to just make out with the director, he's so sycophantic. He actually compares Viggo Mortensen's character in the movie to Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life. This is so laughable it's almost not worth refuting. I just thought I'd give little snippets of the suck-up reviews, the same ones, who, of course, thought The Passion of the Christ was full of "pornographic violence with no point." Hmm...

Roger Ebert's opening (if this doesn't prove my point, I don't know what does):

David Cronenberg says his title "A History of Violence" has three levels: It refers (1) to a suspect with a long history of violence; (2) to the historical use of violence as a means of settling disputes, and (3) to the innate violence of Darwinian evolution, in which better-adapted organisms replace those less able to cope. "I am a complete Darwinian," says Cronenberg.
~~I couldn't have asked for better proof of my assertion about the director (see my review).

Here again, Roger proves my point. (Man, if I were in court, I'd so pull this guy as one of my witnesses.) Emphasis mine.
This is not a movie about plot, but about character. It is about how people turn out the way they do, and about whether the world sometimes functions like a fool's paradise. I never give a moment's thought about finding water to drink. In New Orleans a few weeks ago, would I have been willing to steal from stores or fight other people for drinkable water? Yes, if it meant life for myself and my family.

From The San Francisco Examiner:

Cronenberg is careful to not foist his opinions on the viewer, instead allowing you to draw your own conclusions. But one thing is certain: Violence is a part of everyone's life and this movie is quick to point that out.
~~Is that so? But I thought guns killed people, not people? Apparently, violence is a part of everyone, except our evil troops fighting for our evil President and his evil ideas about freedom. That violence is apparently unacceptable.

The Hollywood Reporter (apparently we saw two different films altogether):

David Cronenberg's "A History of Violence" is a cleverly told "what if?" movie that raises significant questions about trust, redemption and forgiveness.
~Except that none of those questions are ever really raised and certainly never answered.

One of the Canadian director's more straightforward pictures, it should delight mainstream audiences who prefer their action pictures to have some depth of character, several twists in the plot and a satisfying conclusion.
~~Here we see our first problem: Canadian director. Second problem with this analysis: there is absolutely no satisfying conclusion whatsoever. And these so-called plot twists? More like further excuses to show more gratuitous violence. Oh, and delight would hardly be the word. I'm thinking more along the lines of horrify.

The story moves so swiftly
~Except that it doesn't

Ashton Holmes does fine work as the son, and Heidi Hayes is eerily wise as the young daughter.
~Both kids were terrible overactors, and the girl had all but two lines. I suppose, by wise, he means "better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I can't bear to subject you to more of this. I had a great laugh when reading some of these. I maintain my original advice: DO NOT SEE THIS FILM. It will do nothing but disturb you, make you hate Hollywood even more, and make you feel like a horrible person for 1.) not walking out, and 2.) giving money to this piece of trash. I should know.