First some background: Your host for this site, Tom, is often a reliable source of information relating to film. So I find myself asking him, from time to time, to recommend something for the weekend. With the recent Oscars still fresh in our minds we got onto the subject of great movies that missed out on Oscar nominations. Young Tom suggests ‘A History of Violence’ was a terrific film that should have been in contention for an Oscar. As you may well imagine, I was excited. Roll on the weekend I thought… And so it came, the day I hired…A History of violence.

I remember it like it was only a few weeks ago. Picking up the cover at my local Blockbuster. ‘Brilliant!’ I thought, ‘They have it in stock!’ I purchased my popcorn and left happy in the knowledge that on this night I would be watching Oscar quality product.

Well Tom, I watched the film, I really did. I was speechless, what can I say…

I know what I can say, what a fucking load of old pony. My time would have been better spent that night inserting inanimate heavy objects up my own rectum. I would rather have shit on my own hand than to have watched that totally average, overacted, underscripted, didn’t know what kind of film it wanted to be, rip-off pile of stinky turtle shite.
OK, to be fair, the first few minutes were ok, you know all the trailers and stuff you get on those rental DVD’s, but that’s about it.

Here are the FACTs:

1. Superkiller-man has superkiller-man-semen! His son is a scrawny nerd, BUT DON’T MAKE HIM MAD, oh no! Out of nowhere this little prick turns into a superhero and starts beating the shit out of the school bullies!!! What? And to make it worse TOM thinks this is some kind of intelligent perspective on how growing up with a violent father can damage a child!!! WHAT? My dad can kick arse so I have superhuman strength…yawn.

2. Is this film an intelligent look at life and violence? It’s effects on a family? Regret? Or is it a black-comedy in the vein of Pulp Fiction? Or maybe a very poor attempt at one and then an even poorer reflection of the other.

3. The ending! I wont give it away, but for people who have seen it, two words: kid and plate… What the fuck! Is that supposed to be touching?

4. That fella in it; the leading man, Lord of the Ring-head… He has the face of an old dead man, but somehow it looks young? He has the kind of face you’d like to slice off, in a bacon slicer or similar.

5. Cinematography; the thing looks like it was shot by the guy who did the last ‘dairylea cheese triangle’ advert! It’s so bad I got a twitch in one eye.

6. BaconSliceFace’s brother!! WHO cast him, isn’t he a Disney Actor? What on earth happened there….

Director: “I need to cast someone as his mean sibling, you know, the kind of guy that wouldn’t flinch at killing his own brother”

**short pause**

Casting Director: “I know! Let’s get that guy from Disney, you know, the one that looks like he would talk to a dog”…

7. Random sex scenes.. This is how I see it; at private screenings the main feedback was ‘its not exciting enough’. Solution? Random sex scenes! I mean, I like to see it in a movie as much as the next person, but it doesn’t work for me in this movie. Tom would say it’s a reflection on his personality and their relationship, but what does he know? He said this film should be up for an Oscar!

8. Violence; the violence was good. I enjoyed it. But that’s the point for me, this film is pretending to be something else. It eludes to being deeper than it is. The fact that the violence is so graphic and enjoyable, proves to me that the film doesn’t have a clue what it is. It’s a very average action film, nothing more and that’s a FACT.

Conclusion:

A truly dreadful film recommended by Tom. FACT.