blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
Tools for this page
A History of Violence
-
Is it age appropriate?
About our ratings(Flash is loading. If this text does not disappear you need to install the latest flash version)
Not age appropriate for kids under 17, age appropriate for kids over 17; suggested age 17. -
Is it any good?
-
Common Sense says
Complex examination of violence; not for kids.
Why We Rated This 
What to watch out for
-
Violence:
-
Sex:
-
Language:
-
Consumerism:
-
Drinking, drugs, & smoking:
What Parents Need to Know
About A History of Violence
Parents need to know that this movie is not for kids. It features brutal, deft violence (based on a graphic novel, the film's title is indicative of its focus). It opens with a scene showing dead, bloody bodies (after the murders take place), then shows frequent violent acts, including bone-cracking martial arts, hand-to-hand fighting (one character has his nose pushed through his skull), shooting, knifing, and strangling. It also includes fairly explicit sexual material (including passionate kissing, a cunnilingus scene, and a frankly rough intercourse scene on a stairway). Characters curse frequently, smoke, drink, and do drugs.
Read our full review by Cynthia Fuchs
Families Can Talk About
- Families can talk about the way violence destroys families in the film. Not only does Tom's current family come to distrust him once he kills the men in the diner and is identified as a former gangster, but also, his relationship with his brother, premised on violent macho codes, can only end badly. How does the movie suggest that violence is "hereditary"? How is also not so much "genetic" (as Jack's transformation when he stands up to the bullies seems as metaphorical as it is literal), but more culturally conditioned? How does the movie critique media (movies, tv news) as they celebrate violence as a means to masculine identity?
Our Members Say
Most Recent Reviews
- I rate this title on for age 10 and give it
blah blah blah blah blah blah
- I rate this title iffy for age 15 and give it
Violence is OK for fifteen year olds
One part I desire is when a gun shot killed an actor.
- I rate this title off for age 2 and give it
Trash, Garbage
First let me say i can handle violence i've seen a great deal in my time, some quite explict. yet i found this film 2 be utteerly rediculess there was no need for the amount or detail put into the violence of this film. to be honest i wish i had never watched it, i've seen shooter, punisher, resident evil, just 2 name a few, though they were voilent they had perpose, this is just garbage. A man has his throut stepped on and crushed, a mans nose is beaten flat into his face. a man starts to rape his wife in a marital dispute then she consentes and they have steamy sex on the stairs 4 like 5 mins compleate with moaning and screaming, maria bello enters the room the following scene in an open path robe revealing FULL FRONTAL!! the movie was bad don't watch it!!
- I rate this title iffy for age 17 and give it
Brutal.......
But Amazing now 17 is making it a bit harsh but I would say a 16 year-old could see it. It is a must see movie though.
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
WORST movie I've ever seen
This movie sucked. It was not what I expected. I was excited to see the movie but when I finally did, I was very disappointed. It was really boring and it never took off. The sex scenes were way too graphic. I'm really surprised that this movie isn't N-17. The violence wasn't that bad. There was a part where a guy gets his nose smashed and it looked disgusting. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
- I rate this title iffy for age 2 and give it
it's a drama, not an action movie
One thing that I really disliked was that this movie was advertised an action packed thriller. It is not. It is a Cronenberg film in the vein of Spider. It is slow and thoughtful. This is not supposed to be action packed. It is intended as a meditation on the horrific effects of violence and one's past, and on this level, it succeeds fantasticly. The best movie of 2005.
- I rate this title off for age 2 and give it
Very, very, very bad.
I watched this movie after reading the book (which is very different and much better), and thought it was horrible. I think the book was a little more violent, but I don't understand what was up with the whole sex scene. That was no where in the book.
- I rate this title off for age 2 and give it
It sucks!
- I rate this title off for age 2 and give it
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
drama
this is not for kids to see only got adults.
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
This movie is definately not for kids. When a couple of ruthless thugs try to take over a small town diner, the owner Tom Stalls, a well respected family man, brutally kills the robbers when they turn violent on a female employee. Media attention on Tom draws an East Coast mob out to his quiet town. They insist they have unfinished business with Tom, calling him "Joey." Tom's family begins to question his past while Tom struggles to handle his situation non-violently....which proves futile. This movie presents the issues of running from your past, the ongoing consequences of violent actions and a persons struggle for redemption. There are some steamy sex scenes between Toma nd his wife. The violent scenes short and quick, but pretty graphic. A very interesting film for adults.
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
Such a waste!
We saw this movie in London (so the cut may have been different than in the US) because we love Viggo Mortenson! However, this fell *far* short of our expectations. There was a lot of frontal nudity (female), a scene in which Viggo rapes his wife, and excessive un-necessary violence including children seeing / killing others. Sometimes violence - such as when building the foundation of a story - is understandable; but it was excessive gore and not necessary. In one scene, Viggo shoots through the back of a man's head and blows his lower jaw off with a shotgun - I ended up looking away from the screen because it wasn't just a brief image, the camera stayed on the man's face for more than 10 seconds. I do *not* recommend this movie - even to adults! The plot was weak and seemed rushed; the actress who played the wife seemed neurotic even though Viggo's character was loving and supportive throughout the beginning of the movie. My husband and I were very disappointed we didn't see Nanny McPhee instead!
- I rate this title on for age 13 and give it
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
I was shocked at the really visual sex scenes
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
I gasped
I am married with two kids. I went to see this with my husband and I know at least twice my face turned red with embarassment.I understand why they put these parts in the movie yet I have trouble believeing that they in any way changed the overall appeal of the movie.
- I rate this title off for age 17 and give it
Give Recommendations, Get Them, Too!
Become a member and get recommendations from other parents based on your child's age.Tell us your child's age:
Already a member? Log inOur Members Rate It
Have you seen it? 
For Your Family
Get age-based recommendations for your kids:
Customize based on your child's age
