I don't agree that A History of Violence is a as brilliant as many others say it is. There is definitely a lot to appreciate, it does pose some interesting questions, like the role of violence in human nature and whether or not it defines a man, if violence and the need for it can really be left behind, and why mutual trust may require sharing your issues with those you care about, even if you think they have been resolved.

Now it just sounds like I'm praising the movie, but I'm just briefly acknowledging some parts of it that I do appreciate.

But for a movie that revolves around violence and has a focus on trying to feel real, I don't think the action sequences come across as very natural. The choreography is very stiff and the pace is slow and a bit clunky, which makes it seem like everyone is just waiting their turn. I think the majority of the characters are very cartoony and simple, something that creates a weird contrast to the believable characters of Tom Stall and his wife. Like the movie couldn't quite make up its mind if it wanted to be a realistic depiction of the effects of violence on a normal family or a caricature of it. It makes it hard to take the movie as seriously as some parts require you to in order for them to be dramatically effective. For example, the kids give, in my opinion, pretty poor performances. And that wouldn't have been a big issue if they hadn't given the son his own subplot in order to establish how his father's past sins are passed to his son. The payoff falls a bit flatter when the son is basically a cookie cutter-outsider teenager and is acted with as much realism and originality as it is written. A son only there to fill the role of saying something about his father's ways, and written and acted as simply as possible while still serving this purpose. The mafia characters are all super clichéd to the point of being a bit goofy and that's not a very good thing when their biggest purpose is to be an intimidating and ominous presence in the movie.

But I've gone on for way too long. I do have other, mostly minor, issues with it but I'd need to take notes while watching it to actually remember it all. I'm not really meaning to do a proper review here.

Besides, I'm pretty tired while writing all this, so it's bound to be overly drawn out and less than ideally expressed.

I do realize that some of my issues with it are subjective and that there are things that I simply might not have quite understood in my 2 watches of it, but I'm only giving my current views on it.

All I'm saying is that for me, the movie has way too many problems to be the masterpiece some claim it to be. Still a pretty good movie, though.