Is this Cronenberg's best film?
I believe so.
What do you think?
What is your favourite Cronenberg film, and why?
I think A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE is the better one, IMO DC's best film so far. It has more complexity and layers of meaning, and as terrific an ensemble cast. It also shows the most awesome work VM has done yet. I most liked the scene in the yard where he changes character completely in front of the camera, using his face, voice, and body language very subtly. One critic said it had been a long time since an actor's face had scared him, but VM's did then. At that point in the film he started putting the character's emotions out more openly -- they had been there all along, but less so -- and became the second character, and finally the amalgam character with which he finished the film. Not many actors could have done it, and even fewer directors would have recognized, encouraged, ahot, and edited that performance. To be fair to DC, he was generous with all his actors, and they repaid him in spades. I really liked WH's going against type to create the one flamboyant character that nevertheless meshes perfectly with his opposite.
I would put this one second, though. It simply doesn't have so much complexity in its story line as AHOV. The performances and direction are excellent.
That is a great choice, and my personal second choice after Eastern Promises in terms of Cronenberg's best films. It is undoubtedly one of the best comic book films of all time, alongside Road to Perdition, V for Vendetta, Sin City and The Dark Knight. You're probably right in that AHOV has a lot more depth, but I somehow find myself rewatching EP far more often than AHOV. Guess it's time to give the latter another re-watch.
shareCalling AHOV a "comic book film" feels quite false to me, considering how thoroughly it transcends its graphic novel origins by having such complexity and nuance, and placing it firmly in the real world. Not to mention that no one in it wears strange costumes or has any superhuman abilities (or at least fights in ways that often seem unrealistic).
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan
Calling AHOV a "comic book film" feels quite false to me, considering how thoroughly it transcends its graphic novel origins by having such complexity and nuance, and placing it firmly in the real world. Not to mention that no one in it wears strange costumes or has any superhuman abilities (or at least fights in ways that often seem unrealistic).
I suppose a more apt term would be "film adaptation based on a graphic novel". However, "comic book films" is still correct. Categorising all comic book films as movies with heroes dressed up in strange costumes and having little to no complexity in plot, nor being grounded on reailty feels quite false to me, considering how thoroughly many of them transcend the graphic novel and these clichés, as well as how many of the graphic novels themselves transcend these clichés. A History of Violence, Road to Perdition and American Splendor are all comic book films, yet they don't fit your description of what a comic book film is (nor do the comics), and like these, there are countless more examples. share
There's a difference between "superhero movies" and "comic book movies", there are plenty of comic books that have nothing to do with superheroes. Also there's lots of comics that have genuine artistic merit as well.
I actually think the fight scenes in AHOV are fairly unrealistic as well. In that the characters seem to have ridiculously slow reaction times. In both the fight scene in the diner and the scene at his house, he likely would have been shot as he was attacking the first guy in real life. Especially in the second situation where they knew what to expect from him.
Indeed the fight scenes were not believable. I wonder if they were shot this way intentionally for some artistic purpose.
Just re-checked the two fight scenes and, admittedly, they do kind of border on unbelievable - or at least the second one does. In the diner fight though, the other psycho doesn't have his gun out when Joey makes his move with the coffee pot and when he does get it out, he misses a moving target. That's conceivable. In the second fight, the first guy makes the mistake of moving within arm's length of the unarmed Joey, thus giving him the opportunity to engage in hand-to-hand combat while the overconfident Ed Harris has his back turned (which is a little problematic, considering he knows very well what Joey's capable of). The real issue is the third guy though who faces the action and yet doesn't manage to get a shot away while Joey is repeatedly striking the first guy's throat. Now THAT is hard to take. However, Joey does get shot and wouldn't have survived the encounter if it wasn't for his son. That sorta makes it all look better in the end.
"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan