A History of Violence
Tags: comedy, neo noir, murder, stupid, violence, insanity, romantic, revenge, storytelling

Plot synopsis:
Leland Jones and William 'Billy' Orser (Stephen McHattie and Greg Bryk) exit their room in a quiet, rural motor court motel in what appears to be the midwest. One says he's going to check out. The two men are unlikely traveling partners. Leland is over 50; Orser is in his 20s. Leland comes out of the motel office, and Orser asks him what took so long. Leland said he had a problem with the maid, but it's all fixed now. Leland asks for a drink but the jug is empty. He tells Orser to go into the motel office and fill it from their water cooler. Orser goes inside the office. There's a bloody hand print on the counter. The motel clerk is sitting in a chair, slumped backward, dead. The housekeeper is lying in a pool of blood on the floor. As Orser fills the jugg, a young girl opens the door between the office and the managers residence, quivering with fright. Orser shushes her and calmly shoots her.Tom Stall, the owner of a small town diner, is married to Edie, an attorney. They have two children, 16-year-old Jack and 10-year-old Sarah. Tom and Edie are very deeply in love and dote on their children. Everybody in the diner knows each other by their first name. It appears to be a typical middle America small town.Jack is playing baseball at high school and catches a fly ball, ending the game and getting Bobby, a bully, out. In the locker room, Bobby tries to bully Jack into a fight. Jack talks his way out of Bobby's challenge with a sense of humor. Later that night, Bobby and a buddy are driving around, obviously bored, looking for trouble. They spot Jack and his girlfriend, Judy Danvers (Sumela Kay) sitting on a corner smoking a joint. They decide to taunt them but they almost collide with a pickup truck. Bobby gives the finger to the people in the truck but quickly backs down when he sees the looks on their faces. Leland and Orser glare at the two high school students with a look that implies, "You're about to make a big mistake." Orser rants about how he is "sick of these damn podunk towns and the damn podunks in them."Leland and Orser enter Tom Stall's diner at closing time. Leland calmly orders coffee and pie. Tom tells them they're closed. Leland loudly demands coffee in. Tom, always diplomatic, agrees. He tells the waitress, Charlotte (Deborah Drakeford), to go home. On her way out, Orser grabs her, forces her into a chair, and runs his hand over her breast. He orders her not to move. Tom assumes they wan to rob him. He offers them all the cash in the register. Leland pulls his gun and says he knows the money is his, then tells Orser to kill Charlotte to show Tom they mean business.Leland is momentarily distracted when Orser attacks the waitress. Tom smashes the pot of hot coffee in his hand across Leland's face, knocking him to the floor and the pistol loose from his grip. Tom leaps over the counter and in one swift move, retrieves Leland's gun. Orser fires at Tom and misses. Tom shoots back, hitting Orser three times in his chest, and Orser falls through the window in the door. Leland crawls back and stabs Tom in the foot. Tom shoots Leland in the head, killing him instantly.The local media portray Tom as a hero. When they ask to interview him, he declines and goes to the hospital. His story is featured on the front page of the newspaper and on the local news. Tom's injury is minor and he limps for a few days.A day or two later, Tom is working at the cafe when three well-dressed men enter the cafe, crowded with well-wishers and customers. They are obviously not local. They sit at the counter and the man in charge, who wears a suit and dark sun glasses, asks for a cup of coffee. He calls Tom "Joey" several times, although Tom says he's got him confused with someone else. The man insists Tom is from Philly. The man clearly believes he knows Tom. Tom's wife, Edie, gets annoyed at their comments. She insists they order or leave. The leader hands Tom a hundred dollar bill and says, "Now we're paying customers." When Edie threatens to call the police, the men leave.The men are driving on a rural road when a patrol car pulls them over. The sheriff, Sam Carney (Peter MacNeill), is a seasoned cop and looks like he means business, the three men, especially the leader, appear not the least bit fazed by his implied threats. "We're tourists" and "Keep up the good work, officer," are the leader's replies.Later that day, Sam visits Tom and Edie to speak to them about the incident. Sam warns them that these three men are mob figures... organized crime from the east coast. He called some police contacts in Philadelphia as well in the FBI, but he couldn't get any information on Joey Cusack (the name they called Tom)... but there is a Richard 'Richie' Cusack in Philly... the leader of an Irish-American crime family based in Philadelphia which the three men are connected to.However, these men have just begun to stalk Tom and his family. A few days later, after Tom sees their car going in the direction of his house, he limps back to his house and, huffing and puffing, runs in and grabs his shotgun only to find that nobody is coming.Another day later, Edie is shopping at a local mall when her daughter runs off. In going after her, Edie runs into Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), the leader of the men, who casually begins talking to Edie, claiming that her husband is not who he claims to be. Edie defends Tom, and Fogarty simply suggests that she ask Tom about Richie Cusack, who Fogarty says is Tom's brother... and to ask Tom, "How come... he's so good... at killing people."Meanwhile on that same day, Tom's son, Jack, gets confronted by Bobby again and is unable to walk away. Enraged at the continued taunts, Jack suddenly proceeds to seriously beat down Bobby and his buddy, putting Bobby in the hospital. (We now see that Tom and his son can be capable of serious damage if they are pushed far enough.)Tom and Jack argue over the incident after Jack returns home, and Jack makes a snide remark over Tom's shooting the two killers. Tom slaps Jack, who runs out of the house.A while later, Tom sees Fogarty's car pull up to his house. They suggest he needs to put down his shotgun and come with them. When Tom says no, one of the men step out of the car holding Jack. Fogarty makes it clear that he knows who Tom really is and that Tom has no choice but to get into the car and drive back to Philadelphia to "see some people." Tom is forced to put down his weapon and the men release Jack who runs into the house. When the men tell Tom to get in the car, Tom suggests: "it would be better if you just leave."One of the men points a gun at Tom's head. Edie watches from the second story window and sees Tom grab the man's arm, break it, strike the man's nose upward repeatedly with his palm, and shoot the other man with two rounds in the man's chest. It's apparent Tom knows how to use a weapon and his hands with lethal intent. Fogarty shoots Tom, wounding him in the shoulder, and Tom loses the pistol in his hand.Fogarty stands over the wounded Tom and asks him if he has any last words before he kills him. Tom glares at Fogarty and says, "I should have killed you back in Philly." Fogarty smiles, agreeing. Jack silently retrieves Tom's shotgun and before Fogarty can pull the trigger, Jack kills him. Tom looks at his son with a glare that suggests that Tom may have lived a different life "back in Philadelphia." He takes the shotgun from Jack, but then suddenly hugs him in gratitude and to comfort him, as Jack begins to cry.That evening, Edie confronts Tom in his hospital bed, tearfully begging him to tell the truth and tells him that she witnessed him kill both of Fogarty's men with his bare hands like a professional fighter. Tom admits that he was in fact a teenage mob hit man named Joey Cusack, but he left the mob life many years ago after messing with Fogarty (who we later learn is a 'made man' above any type of harm from any crime family) and became a new man, Tom Stall. Tom claims that he used to kill, both for pleasure and for money.Although Edie is naturally horrified and angry at the revelation, she later defends Tom when Sam arrives at their house the next day to ask more questions about Fogarty, saying that these urban mob figures are extremely secretive men and they wouldn't have traveled so far away from Philadelphia and into the open unless they were sure they were looking for the right man. Tom is about to confess that he is Joey Cusack, but Edie suddenly steps and defends Tom still. Sam acquiesces and leaves (though he wiggles a finger in a way that shows he knows they're either lying or hiding something). After Sam leaves, Edie turns away from Tom in revulsion, slapping him and shouting, "Fuck you, Joey!" Tom/Joey pushes her down onto the staircase and they engage in a pretty intense sex scene that contrasts with their more playful/romantic lovemaking in an earlier scene.Later that night in bed, Tom is awakened by a phone call from Richie (William Hurt) himself. Richie makes an implied threat when he says, "Are you gonna come see me, or do I have to come see you?" Tom leaves his house at dawn and drives all day and night to Philadelphia and meets a young, rough looking guy in a bar. The man drives him to a large mansion where Tom meets a well dressed, confident man who appears very happy to see his little brother.After some small talk about Tom's new life, Richie begins telling Tom about the considerable, expensive trouble and loss of status within the mob caused by Joey's actions before he disappeared. Tom, who no longer wants any part of the mob life, asks Richie, "Tell me what I have to do to make things right." Richie calmly replies, "You could die, Joey," and turns around, so as not to watch the driver as he wraps a garrote around Tom's throat and tries to strangle him. Joey (Tom) anticipates his action and gets his hand inside the garrote. He launches backwards off Richie's desk with his foot and kills the driver and two other body guards with his bare hands. Richie tries to shoot Joey (Tom) but misses. Thinking that Joey has run out the front door, Richie follows him outside, gun drawn. Joey (Tom) kills the last body guard inside the house and locks Richie out. Richie gets his keys out to open the door when Joey (Tom) opens the door. He shoots Richie in the head.Tom drives home and finds his family beginning to eat dinner. Looking exhausted after being away for two days, he sits at the table. His daughter Sarah sets a place for him as Edie lowers her head and appears to be praying. Jack sits at the table with his parents and doesn't say a word. Finally Edie looks back up at Tom, tears starting to run down her face. Tom looks back at her with a grieved expression. Tom and Edie look at each other in a way that shows that their relationship has changed.

Review: Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) owns a little diner in a small town and has a nice house on the outskirts of town, where he and his wife Edie (Maria Bello) raise their two kids apparently living the American dream in their own way.
It is so masterfully directed that, although the plot is not entirely unpredictable, you are right there in the action with the characters and feeling what they feel so that, though you may know what's next, you never exactly see it coming and you never know how it will take you there.Viggo Mortensen, in his best mainstream role since Aragorn, and Maria Bello (one of the actors who made The Cooler worth watching), head an impressive cast in this adaptation of a Wagner and Locke graphic novel.
The graphic violence (handled with morose tension by Cronenberg) is the main character in the film, regardless of any past history that Stall may have had, the violence arrives into this family, totally unwanted and unexpected, and then latches on to them to maybe destroy them?
There is the use of the husband and wife's ongoing sex life as a seriously smart strand in the escalating story, where once at the beginning there is fluffy erotic intercourse, then the on going danger in their lives brings darkness and borderline sadism, it's very relevant, as is the son axis as he goes through a dramatic change when the violence and threats engulf the family.
Title: A History of Violence (2005) Director: David Cronenberg Cast: Vigo Mortensen, Ed Harris, William Hurt, Maria Bello, Ashton HolmesReview: David Cronenberg.
I personally became accustomed to seeing Cronenberg address his usual themes mixed with some sort of fantasy, yet here comes A History of Violence a film without a single creature, monster or decease to be seen.
Maria Bello may as well be married to Viggo Mortensen, Ed Harris is his usual intimidating, brilliant self, and in a role that can't take up more than ten minutes' screen time, William Hurt almost steals it with a character unlike any he has played before.
There is in fact a scene you could believe had been written by Tarantino, which doesn't sound like it should work in such an otherwise serious film, but it is perfect.The review wouldn't be complete without mentioning the violence, of course.
In the end, it does make you think about violence, if it's something ingrained, how it affects people, if it can sometimes be justified and if it can be overcome.Let's not forget a very interesting mystery aspect regarding the past of the main character played solidly and subtly by Viggo Mortensen.
After writing my review I'll be spending a few hours compulsively hitting on the did-you-find-this-review-helpful-YES-button for all the negative reviews of this appalling film, in the sincere hope this will bring them all up in the front page, where they belong.Because, the problem is, if you read the critics' reviews or the first viewers' comments on this website you may actually think that this is a good movie!!!
Which is tragic.I am of the no-story, awful scripting, badly acted, deadly boring school of thought as far as a History of Violence goes, but I won't dwell on that because so many do it so beautifully already, and please believe them.
Perhaps the sort of star power behind it helped; Viggo Mortensen coming off of Lord of the Rings with a healthy career, as well as good actors like Maria Bello, Ed Harris, and William Hurt.
By the end I understood that Cronenberg saw how the nature of the material worked best by being completely straightforward, so that what lies beneath with the protagonist comes like a ton of bricks.The film is also appealing for one because it is more about character than story (as Ebert also pointed out), and will either suck you in by that or leave you dry.
The story, like Cronenberg's camera, doesn't pull punches either, it's just what it is; Mortensen plays Tom Stahl, a local in a small town running a diner, who becomes a local hero when he somehow stops (in the harshest sense) a couple of robbers and killers (they also appear in the first scene of the film, making a point perhaps about how violence is, of course, a very horrible thing).
This film must be a certainty for Oscar nominations and awards, not least for Cronenberg himself and definitely for the amazingly understated playing by Viggo Mortensen in the role of Tom Stall.
Most of the movie is pretty low-key.What I didn't care for, or thought stretched credibility, was our hero's wife, who was way too big-city-hard looking and profane to be some small-town country girl who would marry such a nice guy as "Tom." Maria Bello ("Edie") did not fit what this character should have looked and sounded like.
While the audience and the characters are trying to determine the true identity of the protagonist, Tom Stahl -- played flawlessly by Viggo Mortenson -- the real story is how the protagonist himself is trying to determine who he really is, and it is this journey that unravels the entire life he has built.Cronenberg is nothing if not indirect in his explorations.
And as Cronenberg shows through the rise in anger in Stahl's son and the altering of sexual energies with Stahl's wife, sometimes these changes can be completely unpredictable and difficult to cope with.Few films rise to the level of being a completely new focus on an age-old paradigm, but A History of Violence's deconstructionist take on the simple, small-town America is as refreshing as art as it is enlightening as social commentary on an inescapable aspect of human life: the role of violence (both physical and emotional) in personal identity.
In The History Of Violence, every single scene populated by the wife and children of the main character, Tom Stall, are throw-aways.
Sadly there just isn't enough substance in any of Cronenberg's movies to make it worth my while to spend a lot of time thinking and writing about them individually but as a whole it makes for an interesting psychological profile study.My final thought on The History of Violence (and most of Cronenberg's movies) is this: What was the point of that?
This is far, far inferior to the later effort (and I will stress - EFFORT).Why do they keep on giving this man money to try to make movies when it's painfully apparent he hasn't even got what it takes to make a third rate film, and this is with a cast including Ed Harris and William Hurt?
If he's a film-maker fascinated by violence, we'd all be better served by leaving him in a dark room to tell himself what he'd like to do to all those intellectuals who make witty, themed movies full of body, charm and charisma (Wes Anderson for instance), directors who hit the mark on every outing with courageous invention, multi-layered creativity and possibly much lower budgets?While there are Cinemas still able to break even in the face of recession, it seems madness that no-one can spot meaningless operas of mayhem before they get any further in production than the story-board.
I now think he's capable of screwing-up any and every idea he's handed, and the man must be restrained physically from entering any studio with the intent of telling a tale HIS WAY.Of the actual film, William Hurt, miscast as a Philadelphia heavy, and Ed Harris with ridiculous mob uniform of black suit,tie and shades are given clunky clichéd dialogue the like of which (sorry for the cliché) has not been heard since the original '50s series of Dragnet.
Like I said the acting was so good and focused and the direction was truly incredible..I had no idea who David Cronenberg was before watching this movie and now I can't wait to see some of his work.
The way the sex and violence is depicted is totally gratuitous, but it is the only thing that stands out in this otherwise run of the mill film.The acting is some of the worst I have seen in a long time.
It actually resolves the issues that both these stories introduce.There is also a film called "Out of the Past" which has a similar premise and it is much better than this one.If you enjoy graphic sex and violence in an otherwise slow film, you might like "A History of Violence." It is not a bad film but there is really nothing special about it other than the performance by Ed Harris.
From this point on we're confronted with the changes within this family as a whole and those in each of the characters.The independent feeling that Cronnenberg carries with him, no matter where he goes, gives a perfect psychological mood to the picture - as with "Eastern Promises"- and the pace, always very calm,tells us that this is not a movie about action but violence.
The diner incident is of course big news in Anytown, USA, and Tom finds himself attracting not only local reporters who want to know "how it felt," but also the Reservoir Dog-type Mr. Foggerty (Ed Harris), who isn't surprised that Tom knows his way around a gun, and waxes nostalgic about good times in Philadelphia involving barbed wire and a guy named Joey Cusack.
It is a far superior film, and doesn't feel nearly as smug as A History of Violence, a movie I feel like I've seen fifty times before..
"A history of violence" is one of those rare films which lack usual David Cronenberg bite.If you have seen this film and Eastern Promises you will be able to recognize that both of them are similar in style.It is true that this film is violent but its violence is that of a different nature.It is a violence which unleashes itself under tremendous pressure.This violence is a quiet violence unlike gory blood bath of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and The Wild Bunch.Ed Harris has done one of the most vicious roles of his life for this film.Canadian auteur Cronenberg handles social issues well as he proves that there is no respect for an ordinary man's privacy.It is due to this anomaly that one gets an idea about American violence.It was nice to watch how people crave for fame but fail to deliver as most of the people act as if they were silly bystanders remaining motionless all the times when violent acts are committed.This is a good film for a family as it shows how a simple family man's life is made hell due to excessive violence..
Butterfly, and Crashmovies that appear to be more art-house than horrorfailing to pique my interest.However, on the strength of some very positive reviews, and an intriguing trailer, I decided to give this one a go, to see if the film could reignite my interest in the Canadian auteur's career.A violent (natch!) tale of revenge and redemption, A History Of Violence sees Viggo Mortensen as Tom Stall, a small-town family man who becomes a media sensation after he foils a violent robbery in his diner (by disarming the criminals and killing them both!).Unfortunately, Tom's sudden fame brings him to the attention of a gangster and his cronies, who believe that the reluctant hero is actually a fellow criminal who has gone into hiding after upsetting his peers.
The bad guys show up in Tom's town and begin to cause trouble for him and his family.Whilst I wouldn't exactly say that I have seen the light, and returned to the fold, happy once more to worship at the altar of Cronenberg, I will admit to enjoying A History Of Violence.
I believe Cronenberg's intention was for his audience to think long and hard on the subject of morality (was Mortensen's character good or bad and did he deserve a second chance at happiness), and how not being honest with those that you love can result in tragedy.Unfortunately, I wasn't completely sold on the deep and meaningful stuff; it seemed a little forced to me.
There's also quite a bit of frenetic sex in the film for all of the pervs amongst us, including impromptu rutting on the stairs and a 69 (between Tom and his tasty wife, played by Maria Bello, who kindly flashes her beaver).A History Of Violence isn't classic Cronenberg, but it has made me interested enough to want to see what his next film can offer me in the way of sex and violence..
The film stars Viggo Mortensen as Tom Stall, a small town everyman who owns a diner, is married to an attractive lawyer (Maria Bello)and is the father of two children whose life is changed forever when during what appears to be a random act of violence at his diner one night, Tom kills two people in self-defense and in defense of his business and patrons.
The big ideas which everybody is raving about actually seem pretty facile  yes violence is all pervasive and inescapable, yes, it is difficult to escape your past, yes, there is something interesting to be done with a movie about somebody attempting to escape their past (think Hal Hartley's vastly superior Amateur), its just this didn't get there.For the most part the cast did a good job with the material they were given.
Frankly, I think it is clear the fault lies with the director.I see from the listing that the movie has evolved from a graphic novel and this may be the clue to two things, on the one hand why the too literal lifting of source material doesn't work as a film, and on the other why there are such numbers of ten star reviews here..
Low production values combined with high school drama level acting really just left me wishing I had chosen a different movie to view.I have also always enjoyed Cronenberg's ability to leave enough to the imagination but this film seems like he left all of the work up to the viewer.
Mistaken identity, amnesia, schizophrenia...The involvement of Viggo Mortensen (as Tom Stall), William Hurt and particularly Ed Harris appealed to me, and suggested that the film was more than just the usual Hollywood fare.
The high-school experiences of Tom's teenage son Jack (Ashton Holmes, who performs well) form a side-story that cleverly illuminates certain aspects of the film's themes.I was pleased to see Viggo Mortensen (who was in danger of forever being "Aragorn") play a convincing 'real-world' character, in a more weighty role than his (nevertheless likable) 'Eddie Boone' in "28 Days" (2000).
Another movie which pretends to be artistic but is nothing more than two hours of tedium and atrocious acting.Yes, we get that people are supposed to be animals, you don't need two hours of looking at a guy scratching himself to show us that.The sex scenes and graphic violence was a poor attempt by the director to add some shock value to the film.
In conclusion we can say that "A History of Violence" is a great movie with Cronenberg's usual mystery and plot twists, great acting and usual great camera work..
This might sound like a far-fetched opinion but believe me if you watch this movie and you are a reasonably sane person you will agree with me.The acting is so horrible and pointless it in fact becomes funny, with perhaps the only exception being Edd Harris playing his usual 'Bad Guy' role its clear that he has absolutely no integrity accepting roles as long as he gets paid.
With a tenderness that almost makes it a love story, a warmth that encompasses a family flick and a sudden horror that never looks away from blood, gore and an awesome talent for killing, Croneberg builds upon Viggo Mortenson's heroic Lord of the Ring performance with few words, intimate close-ups and a thoughtfulness reminiscent of Clint Eastwoods' wonderful Unforgiven, Mystic River and Million-Dollar Baby, in which company, this excellent film certainly deserves to be mentioned.On my dollar scale, where rentals score $5 and ownership is $20, I give History an easy $15, maybe $20.
It certainly could not be called a character study - yet it is the relationships of the Stall family that perfectly illustrate what can only be described as a commentary on violence.Movies like this really aren't made anymore, and so it is remarkable how Cronenberg wields passion and induces deep thought in what is for all intents and purposes a sparse film in many respects.
Within the first five minutes, you're like, this movie has issues.But Viggo Mortensen's character gets the bad guys, but good.
It also appeared that, while the graphic violence in the film was shown with real purpose, one of two relatively graphic sex scenes was entirely gratuitous and as such was more an interruption than anything else.A History of Violence is a relatively short movie clocking in at just over 90 minutes.
And the final scene of the family at the dinner table with no words said, is one to remember.THE HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is well written, with tremendous character development and direction from Cronenberg, and a superb cast.
It isn't long before a mob boss is on his tail, believing him to be another man by the name of Joey Cusack, and soon he and his family are forced to learn the true horror of violence.I spend a lot of my time watching horror movies, and most of the time with these films; acting isn't an important element.
I was completely wrong, and this film is actually one of the best action movies I have seen for a long time.
As for those who go through the whole thing, Mortensen and Bello are astoundingly real as the slowly unraveling couple, while on the bad guy front, Ed Harris and William Hurt (who plays Joey's brother Richie) are stereotyped but chillingly excellent.Behind its apparent simplicity, A History of Violence has many surprises, and it's with no doubt one of the year's best films.Probably as close to mainstream as Cronenberg can get....