A History of Filmmaking

"A History of Violence" was unlike any movie I've ever seen. The fact that it was such a unique experience made it worth the price of admission, even if there were some things I didn't like. I awkwardly giggled for close to half the movie, and I'm not convinced I wasn't supposed to be.
Part of the movie's uniqueness comes from its broad exageration of cliched film techniques. For instance, there were several sex scenes that were definitely way more drawn out than they had to be, but maybe that was intentional; the discomfort caused by watching something like that, and with fifty strangers, made me laugh. The school yard bully and his motivations were so over-the-top I'm thinking it was a spoof about just how flawed the logic of people like that is, and yes, this too made me laugh. There were some clever, obvious jokes that made me laugh as well, for instance, a scene when a respected mob boss locks himself out of the house during a suspensful confrontation.
There are those who fault the movie because one character shrugs off clues about his friend's true identity. I, for one, am grateful that it did play out this way however. He had known this man for years, what's wrong with showing a little trust and emotion? I would have been angry if he had pressed the issue further, despite whether he was right or not.
As well, The acting was superb, especially on the part of the film's villains, in particular William Hurt as a Philadelphia crime kingpin. And the characterization of all of them was awesome. In this case as well, the villains' motivations were laughable because of their absurdity. For example, Hurt's character Richie lives in a mansion and has guys willing to kill for him on a whim, yet he wants to kill his brother for making him work to attain his perceived success and because his family name has become a little tarnished, honestly. I did have problems with the characters who made up the film's protagonist family though.
The members of the Stall family were supposed to be the good likeable characters, but the one I like the most was the one who used to be the hitman (woops, did I just say that out loud?). The son though, was one of the most pathetic characters I've seen on film. He could have talked his way out of any of the several fights he engaged in with guys twice his size, with just an ounce of wit, in fact the first time he did, but only barely. I mean come on, everyone knows that if you're not smart then you at least you're supposed to be a cool jock! What a loser! That aside though, we're supposed to endear to him, a guy who can't take the emotional stress of a bully and that bully's friend standing too close to him and verbally jabbing him and his girlfriend? And then, he gets angry at his dad, arguing that he solves his problems with guns, when he solves his own with his fist. Yeah, the dad acted when someone was about to be murdered, the kid's problem was just his fragile ego. Then after getting merely slapped he runs away because he's so offended, but he then tries to defend his own hospital inducing blows on a bully at school. And to boot, he was a pot-head, yeah he's the true model of an American son. As I said, this was a character audiences are inclined to try and like, please don't experiment with satire on him, as I can only hope was the point of making him so hard to enjoy. It does nothing but make the movie less enjoyable.
The other part main part I've taken issue with is the incredible gory violent detail of the feature. This was no contest the goriest movie I've ever seen. If the makers were trying to go over the top with the violence like they were with everything else, they have to learn that seeing a guys face dangling from its skull isn't funny, it makes people cringe and want to vomit, the other over the top parts aren't things that involve utter disgust, they don't deal with things that could keep people up at night, they're just true satire at best, at worst a good instance of what someone should satirise, in either case, barring the instance of the son, the rest of it was successfully funny. Make no mistake though, this was a serious drama of a movie. This movie was too serious to try and make jokes by going overly graphic with the violence. Up to a point it increases the meaning of the scene, but this was totally unnecessary, it must have taken hours to create some of those graphic effects and it'll take people hours to get it out of their heads. We get the point, it was ruthless violence, we don't need to see meat to realize that. A movie like Kill Bill can poke fun at violence, it's an almost upbeat adventure comic book. And even when they do, they just have massive amounts of blood, not realistic skin and bones and organs, and if Tarantino or the other respective directors did try and pull it off they could at least make a case for themselves due to the tone of the movie. I'd still disagree with it but they'd have an argument.
Despite all of this, I walked out of the theater giggling, I was utterly confused about whether I liked it or not. I had a hard time handling the gore but it was so darn different from anything I have a hard time faulting it too much. At the least, this movie had a good message, the people who stuck to the Mafia life payed for it, and even the reformed crime-lord must endure a great deal just to repent for his checkered past. His history of violence nearly tore apart his innocent family, and forever altered it. When it comes down to it though, what it truly says is simply that people can change successfully.