Maria Bello appeared completely naked. Unnecessary to the film. I turned it off after that. Disgusting.

I saw this in the theater the week it opened and deeply disliked it. I didn't dislike it because it was violent or had sex in it, I disliked it because its story was ludicrous and predictable. I have not read the "graphic novel." Well, I just watched it again, hoping that I was simply wrong and it was better than I had originally felt. After all, I do enjoy Viggo and Maria Bello a lot and maybe I was just in a bad mood when I first saw it.But I had the same problems the second time too. The opening scene simply exists to introduce two very unpleasant characters. They have already killed a couple who run a motel; when one of the bad guys goes back to steal something or other, the couple's daughter appears and she is going to be killed as well. This whole sequence was completely unnecessary to the narrative. These two unpleasant characters could have shown up at Tom's cafe with no introduction and done the same things. So the opening scene has literally nothing to do with the rest of the film other than prepare us for ugliness.And from then on, once again I was confronted with one cliché scene after another, "I know you're really Joey" "No, you're mistaken I am Tom" etc., leading to two violent bloodbaths. Oh, and Tom's kid can suddenly and miraculously beat up bullies. At the very end Tom goes home and no one can speak at the dinner table. Whoa. Really profound. Reviewers go on about how there is a "sense of menace" throughout the film -- I never felt anything but tedium. The movie held no surprises and goes nowhere that I haven't seen in many films before. Yet that means it is "ironic" and "distanced"? No, the only irony is that films like this used to be B-movies and were considered throwaway trash. Now they open festivals and are considered major works.

I admire the director Cronenberg and like most of his works, but A History of Violence is not about violence, it is exploitation of violence in sick, disgusting manner. There is something wrong with the way of handling violence and sex of this film. Even the sex scenes between the couple is somehow different, crude and nasty. In real life, it is OK maybe, but the question is what is the point? If it is to show us the passion between them, there are lots of ways to do that. I think this movie is an example of violence porn. The movie starts out well with a powerful opening scene, good atmosphere like a modern Western, amazing villains, but then it turns into a nasty B movie in the end. I love B movies from 90s and 80s especially, but it doesn't fit here. The cinematography here is very well done, Ed Harris was the real star of the movie for me. However, our anti hero and his origin story don't work because of all those sickness and sadism and it is like the movie glorifies his nasty actions and probably want us to accept his acts and root for him. The story with memory loss or secret identity themes make no sense here. Sorry, but this movie is not Total Recall which is a real masterpiece. The man who appears in the final act doesn't add anything to the story in spite of that great actor who was wasted here. The final act that reminds you a bad B movie is another violence porn, softer this time. Our anti hero is not another manly man unfortunately. His violent actions cause some sick and sadistic moments, so what would you do if your anti hero is a hateful man? I was with Ed Harris's character though. By the way, I disagree with the idea that A History of Violence is a deep or thought provoking film. This film is no Shakespeare, it is like a violent action movie for video with some great actors and good cinematography. I enjoyed some parts, but overall I was disgusted. One final word, I think Eastern Promises is a better film.

Glorifying gun violence with extremely shallow characters and terrible hokey dialogue, this movie never gets off the ground. And of course, the protagonist, rather antagonist in hiding, has kung-fu skills that allow him to kill several men in the span of several seconds. The plot is hardly believable: The wife wants to spice up the sex life with her husband so she dons a cheerleader costume. At one point she kissed a visiting sheriff on the lips to bid him goodbye. Then, after finding her husband has been living a lie(which causes her to throw up in the toilet)passionately make loves to him on the stairs. Even the son becomes superman in a fit of rage and sends a bully and his friend to hospital. The movie has no climax. The main character feels the need to drive somewhere far off to settle a score. Then, after putting a bullet hole in his brother's head, he takes off his shirt to show his manly torso and wash the blood off in a nearby pond. Even the ending is unbelievable, as he returns to an unloving family with tears in his eyes. This movie's aim to glorify violence is achieved while it leaves plot believability and realism discarded by the wayside.