Has anyone seen "A History Of Violence"?

[babylonsister]

Good, or not so much?

[Tallison]

1. Preposterous, implausible, derivative

Just saw it Thursday. I felt cheated.

[babylonsister]

4. Not even entertaining?

I'm sorry you felt cheated.

[Tallison]

5. Nope.

No entertainment value in a movie so busy insulting my intelligence.

I like character-driven narratives, and there wasn't a consistent, developmentally plausible one in the entire flick. Really shallow.

[Shine]

2. Well, I liked it.

of course, I'll see anything with Viggo in it. :evilgrin:

It was violent, yes, but well-acted and it kept you guessing.

William Hurt got nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in this movie, in fact. :thumbsup:

:hi:

[babylonsister]

3. Phew, thanks. I have to sell it to my husband.

Violence should do it. :D
I thought I'd read a review that it was good, so was hoping people would tell me how fabulous it was!

[Radical Activist]

7. Its not bad.

Not a great movie but I found it fairly entertaining. I thought the sex scenes were more graphic than the violence.

[Frank Cannon]

6. I liked it...a lot.

I'd say it's Cronenberg's best movie since Dead Ringers (which, I know, probably isn't saying much, but there you have it).

In fact, it was so good, that it made me take back all the bad things I've said about William Hurt being the most wooden actor in motion pictures today. He has a one-scene performance in this film that's pretty entertaining.

And Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello (in a role that could have been the usual stereotypical "supportive wife") are great too. And Ed Harris...what can you say? He's ED DAMN HARRIS!

Two :thumbsup: :thumbsup:.

[Midlodemocrat]

8. I bought the DVD, but haven't had a chance to watch it.

Maybe tonight.