Release Date: September 30, 2005

(out of 4)

Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) is a simple and content man who loves his wife (Maria Bello) and his teenage son (Ashton Holmes) and doesn’t demand much more out of life than that. They are just small-town folk in Millbrook, Indiana. But an encounter with two deadly criminals at Tom’s diner changes his simple mode of life. Dangerous and merciless, the two gunmen enter Tom’s diner with intent to rob and kill everyone in it. Once Tom has sized up the urgency of the situation, he reacts without delay. He disarms one of the men and shoots both of them in self-defense.

Something is not so ordinary about Tom in "A History of Violence," and you wonder immediately if he’s had a similar encounter before. He didn’t foil the bad men in a way that a first-time victim would handle it. He’s calculated, exact and quick about it. Nevertheless, he’s a hero.

As now customary for such survived experiences, Tom is thrown under the media spotlight for his heroics. He does not feel comfortable with all the attention, but it stirs up more business at his diner so he no reason to complain too much about it. Everything should be okay Tom and his family again, in a matter of speaking, but then the arrival of a mysterious character (Ed Harris) sends the film off in a provocative new direction. Harris, as a one-eyed mobster dressed in a black suit, suggests that Tom pulled off a disappearing act years ago in Philadelphia. He suggests that Tom used to go by another name, and that he was once dangerous. Tom insists that it’s clearly a case of mistaken identity. But he can’t seem to shake away from this unwanted visitor.

What follows is a slowly escalating drama of unrelenting tension as Harris and his associates threaten and harass Tom and his family. You inevitably expect, and get, a stand-off scene between good and evil – it’s one of the most suspenseful and nerve-tingling encounters you’ve seen at the movies in years. But such simple descriptions don’t do justice to how psychologically complex and sublimely humane this picture is.

Before you ever get to the first deadly encounter at the diner, you get something rare that you’ve rarely seen but might have longed to have seen in the movies for sometime. And that is, a sense of love in marriage. Mortensen and Bello are indelible as a married couple who have managed to be very in love, intractably so, for a very long time. They keep their marriage fresh and spontaneous, and they seem to share mutual respect for each other in ways that are far more defined than any traditional sudsy romantic drama you might have seen in recent times. This is a couple that lives by the code of daily affirmations, reminding each other just how much they love each other. They’re a filmmaker’s idea of marital perfection.

As for their son Jack, he’s a respectable student that doesn’t do anything wrong. He gets bullied at school by an angry, angst-ridden rival, but he doesn’t engage in any violence. He talks his way out of violence, using self-effacing humor instead of insulting his opponent like most kids would do. He’s a son that would do any parent proud.

What’s going on here in this film is a depiction of how easily family values and family harmony are corrupted when sinister malevolence invades the boundaries. Harris, so cunning with words, gets the Stall family to turn on each other. As the family’s sense of safety deteriorates, so does their faith with each other. The Stalls’ lives were idyllic while there was nothing but idyllic bliss surrounding their everyday lives, but as soon as dark outside forces nudged their way into town, there befell less comfort for them. A History of Violence is a portrait of a family breaking apart, and alas, ultimately forced to redefine their family dimensions after a series of distressing situations.

This is the most superb work of acting in the entire careers of Mortensen (famous for "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy) and Bello (famous for "The Cooler," "Secret Window"). “The greatest acting experience in my life,” Mortensen remarked to the press at this year’s Cannes Film Festival, which is a believable assessment. The film also features William Hurt, in a ninth-hour surprise appearance, in the most unlike-William Hurt performance of his career. Hurt makes a piercing impression in the few brief minutes that he is on film, and it could be the most Oscar worthy performance by a short screen appearance that I’ve ever seen. It’s not likely that anybody walking out of this film will be feeling anything less than an awe of appreciation for the actors in this film.

The most beguiling fact about "A History of Violence" is that it is based on a graphic novel by John Wagner and Vince Locke. The screenplay adaptation by Josh Olson seems to take a realistic approach to the “domestic thriller” elements, concerning itself more with the qualities of human character over anything else. Only the action scenes feel semi-comic book and over-the-top (in an un-pushy yet dazzling way), but that’s no surprise because the film has been directed by David Cronenberg. Expertly shot and infused with tension every step of the way, Cronenberg is certainly the best director to tell this story. But to punch up the action the way he does is to play up on the story’s metaphors so they are emphasized properly.

As for Cronenberg, he has on his hands his first mainstream movie – or to put it more bluntly – his first widely accessible movie in nearly two decades. He directed the 1986 blockbuster "The Fly" (a horror film as gruesome as it was brainy and metaphorical), but since then has indulged in low-profit, disturbing surrealist fare that range from the absolute brilliant ("eXistenZ"), to the troubling and unsettling ("Crash" with James Spader and Holly Hunter), to the ridiculously beserk ("Naked Lunch"). Cronenberg also made "Spider" (2002) and "Dead Ringers" (1988) that contained great performances by Ralph Fiennes and Jeremy Irons, respectively, but are the type of movies that would turn off as many viewers as they entice.

I have a feeling however, based on these credits, that Cronenberg couldn’t care less if he made a mainstream movie that made money. I think he just wants to make movies that he’s interested in making. He has utmost respect for the story he’s telling, however outlandish as it can get, and has no interest in dumbing it down for any audience demographic. There are two extended love scenes in this film (which are graphic enough to offend more conservative moviegoers), but while some will criticize Cronenberg for indulging in his fetishes, a more keen viewer will recognize that the two love scenes work in contrast to each other – Mortensen and Bello’s characters seem to be two different people before and after the crucial incident of the story. One scene seems to be about genuine tenderness, while the other contrasting scene seems to be about desperation and possession.

Despite such deviations, Cronenberg has a big movie on his hands nonetheless.

He might be happier with a small and loyal fan-base than he is by a large viewer-ship with dissenting approval. As for "A History of Violence" is concerned, it’s quite possible to believe that a large number of audiences are going to be entertained and that strong Cronenberg-devotees are going to be mesmerized. I know I was mesmerized by it – it’s the first American movie this year that has made me want to go back to watch it a second time.