A History of Violence

Now that I've seen A History of Violence, I understand why it was only nominated for two Oscars, and why it got those noms in the categories it did. It was a good movie, there's no doubt about that, but it just couldn't hold a candle to all the other great movies out last year. Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello were fine in their roles, although not quite believable. I could sort of tell they were acting, you know what I mean? Maybe in a different year, against less strong candidates, they could have pulled off noms, but they didn't really stand a chance this year, Viggo especially. I was really happy to see him not as Aragorn, and I think his day is coming, but this wasn't it.
William Hurt, on the other hand, was absolute perfection. He has six minutes of screen time, maybe seven, and I was in his clutches the moment he came on screen. He was totally brilliant, and even though I haven't seen Syriana, I'm going to say that William Hurt was robbed on Oscar night. He should have won. If you think you won't be into the whole movie, rent it just for those six or seven minutes. Ed Harris also kicked ass, but doesn't he always?
As for the violence: it's in there, in full force. It's brutal and horrifying, but completely necessary for the film. I think the violence was the best aspect of the movie. It catches you off guard every time it happens, and its magnitude draws you in and you can't tear your eyes away. I would say A History of Violence is not for the squeamish, but also not for fans of "action" violence. It's not stylized, it's graphic, but damn, it was powerful.

Overall, a good movie brough down a bit by some just average acting

A History of Violence - B