I had high expectations when I went, with another film buff, to see "Eastern Promises" last night. Kronenberg is still a master, the cast was entirely convinvincing, but while the script was solid, it explained a few things too easily and left a few others too open.
I'd love to read some comparrisons of these two. :thumbup: :thumbdown: as I'm still not sure how to recommend it. :question:
I hated hated hated A History of Violence.
It took all of my willpower to sit through the entire thing. :thumbdown:
It wasn't just the story, it was Cronenberg's direction.
Either you love Cronenberg's work or you hate it.
I'm in the latter group.
(haven't seen Eastern Promises yet and don't know if I will)
Quote from: Ash on September 25, 2007, 01:24:37 PM
I hated hated hated A History of Violence.
It took all of my willpower to sit through the entire thing. :thumbdown:
It wasn't just the story, it was Cronenberg's direction.
Either you love Cronenberg's work or you hate it.
I'm in the latter group.
(haven't seen Eastern Promises yet and don't know if I will)
I love Cronenberg. I can watch Videodrome a million times and come up with a new explanation each time. However, I was not into A History of Violence at all. I liked the set up enough but I was the twist coming a mile away and was terrified that I was going to be right about it. I really wanted it to turn into some kind of mistaken identity movie about the lengths a man will go to protect his family in the face of a total breakdown of reason. Alas, it turned out there was a comic book as source material.
I just wasn't into it. Maria Bello was the only thing that kept me going.
I'm pretty stoked to see Eastern Promises, though. What a cast!
I loved A History Of Violence. The biggest problem that people have with the film is that there is very little question as to whether Tom is actually Joey or not. The film doesn't try to hide the truth and it puts some people off which is understandable.
I have the graphic novel that inspired the film and it's not nearly as good as the resulting film. It turns into a standard mafia story by the end of it and isn't as interesting as Cronenberg's film. I do really really like the last third of the film or so when Tom goes to speak to his estranged brother. William Hurt does a great job as Ricky and he is just so evil that you can see it almost oozing out of him. Not only that but Ed Harris did a fantastic job in the flick as well.
I highly recommend going back and rewatching the flick. It's a slow one but it has a story to tell and doesn't want to rush any of the events. It's a welcome change from all of the hyper-edited flicks that we see now.
I too loved A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE. But, as Ash says, you either dig Cronenberg or you don't, and I generally do.
There's a LOT of subtlety in the movie that I think is lost by being focused on Joey's true history. Notable in my mind is the conflict within Edie as she finds herself thinking "I'm supposed to be repulsed by this situation" but in fact she is really, really into the 'dark side' of her man. Cronenberg is a master at pulling these kinds of characterizations out.
I also get that he's not for everybody, and that's cool, too. I'd like to second Skaboi's recommendation of a repeat viewing - now you know the 'punchline' (who cares --- that's the not point) and can simply enjoy the visual telling of a cool story.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
I really liked A History of Violence, (could use a little more nudity on the part of Maria Bello though :) )
I'm definitely a Cronenberg fan. One of my favorite movies is Naked Lunch. eXisTenZ was pretty good, Videodrome was awesome (could use a little more nudity on the part of Deborah Harry though :) ). His movie "Crash" was OK, but I feel "Spider" fell off a bit, but, I've only watched it once.
On a side note, the search for Cronenberg's "Crash" accidentally (no pun intended) to the OTHER movie "crash", the one with Sandra Bullock. GOOD movie, I liked it. And yes, I feel it could use a little nudity on Sandra Bullock's part, , if you didn't already guess that. .
I'm indifferent towards A History of Violence. It had some great moments but overall I felt like it had nothing interesting to say. And I have to mention the little girl who played the daughter is one of the absolute worst child actors I've ever seen. It made me angry whenever she was on screen. Other than that I'd have to say that the climax and ending were quite good.
I really want to see Eastern Promises. I don't often love Cronenberg movies but I always like seeing them.
I thought that A History of Violence was a fantastic film but I can also see how some people would see it is offputting or whatever as that is pretty indicative of Cronenberg's oeuvre as a whole. He at times has a highly intellectual and some might say cold directorial style which I actually find fascinating in terms of some of the subjects of his films. I've always thought that Kubrick and Cronenberg would have gotten along great together if they had been able to become friends. :teddyr:
I haven't seen Easter Promises yet but have heard some good things about it.
Quote from: RapscallionJones on September 25, 2007, 03:28:27 PM
Quote from: Ash on September 25, 2007, 01:24:37 PM
I hated hated hated A History of Violence.
It took all of my willpower to sit through the entire thing. :thumbdown:
It wasn't just the story, it was Cronenberg's direction.
Either you love Cronenberg's work or you hate it.
I'm in the latter group.
(haven't seen Eastern Promises yet and don't know if I will)
I love Cronenberg. I can watch Videodrome a million times and come up with a new explanation each time. However, I was not into A History of Violence at all. I liked the set up enough but I was the twist coming a mile away and was terrified that I was going to be right about it. I really wanted it to turn into some kind of mistaken identity movie about the lengths a man will go to protect his family in the face of a total breakdown of reason. Alas, it turned out there was a comic book as source material.
I just wasn't into it. Maria Bello was the only thing that kept me going.
I'm pretty stoked to see Eastern Promises, though. What a cast!
There was a twist in A History of Violence?
Anyway, I didn't even realize Eastern Promises was a Cronenberg film. I'm lucky enough to know almost nothing about it, having seen only the TV ads.
I quite liked A History of Violence, as well as most other Cronenberg films I've seen. I find his treatment of violence pretty interesting in most cases. It's funny, I can appreciate it both in the way he seems to not intend and the way he intends... That is, I am entertained by gore and violence in film, but can find myself repulsed by his use of it at the same time.
I'll be seeing this one tomorrow most likely.
Alrighty, I guess I'll wait till after you've all seen Eastern Promises, and ask again.
:teddyr:
Can't wait to see "Eastern promises". Cronemberg is usually hit or miss for me. Either I love the movie ("Dead ringers", "Existenz") or I can't stand it ("Crash"). "A history of violence" is easily my favourite Cronemberg movie right now, I though it was fantastic, and although I was a bit let down when he decided to solve the "mistery", the final scenes are priceless.
Already seen it, i recommend it. It's not as brilliant as "A history of violence", but it doesn't share its weaknesses. The acting is top notch and there are a few scenes where you're going to go WTF?
I'm sort of surprised people are still that divided about Cronenberg, he seems to be doing an effort to make his films more accesible.
Well it was entertaining without being really good. Eastern Promises I mean. Viggo gave a brave performance(you'll know what I mean when you see him in the bathhouse.) Watts was ok but nothing special. The guy that played the old russion bastard and the guy that played his drunken son were pretty good. It gets your attention right away. But it just doesn't come together. i think it's the revelation about who Viggo really is. It's too pat an explanation for his behavior later in the movie. The revelation robs Viggo's character of his complexity. If they would have worked that angle out it would have been great. It's still entertaining though, there are a few good violent scenes that slap you in the face and some nasty passionless sex. I'll call it a renter.
Quote from: Hammock Rider on October 12, 2007, 02:24:54 PM
Well it was entertaining without being really good. Eastern Promises I mean. Viggo gave a brave performance(you'll know what I mean when you see him in the bathhouse.) Watts was ok but nothing special. The guy that played the old russion bastard and the guy that played his drunken son were pretty good. It gets your attention right away. But it just doesn't come together. i think it's the revelation about who Viggo really is. It's too pat an explanation for his behavior later in the movie. The revelation robs Viggo's character of his complexity. If they would have worked that angle out it would have been great. It's still entertaining though, there are a few good violent scenes that slap you in the face and some nasty passionless sex. I'll call it a renter.
Big ditto.