A History of Violence

Movie review by
Cynthia Fuchs, Common Sense Media
A History of Violence Movie Poster Image
Complex examination of violence; not for kids.
  • R
  • 2005
  • 96 minutes

Parents say

age 15+
Based on 13 reviews

Kids say

age 16+
Based on 7 reviews

Did this review miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive, diverse representations in books, TV shows, and movies. Want to help us help them? Suggest a diversity update

A lot or a little?

The parents' guide to what's in this movie.

Positive Messages

Mobsters are brutal, killers ruthless, and even the well intentioned dad has to murder his enemies.


The film's title speaks to its concerns, and the fight scenes are rough.


Sexual imagery ranges from tender to rough, twice quite explicit.


Gangster talk, frequent uses of "f--k."

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Smoking, drinking, some drug use.

What parents need to know

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.

User Reviews

  • Parents say
  • Kids say
Adult Written bydavidr1998 July 17, 2015

Good Film

This movie great. It should not be seen by anyone under 16.
Adult Written bychristian2011 May 20, 2012

A History of Violence. Too violent and sexual in nature for teens.

The violence in this movie is quite graphic yet frightening; two men rob a diner and forces the man to give them money or his partner will forcefully try to rap... Continue reading
Teen, 14 years old Written byStevie111 July 30, 2012

Mature drama

:Lots of graphic bloody violence, some sexuality and graphic nudity, and some language. Not for young or immature kids
Kid, 9 years old January 12, 2009

Violence is OK for fifteen year olds

One part I desire is when a gun shot killed an actor.

What's the story?

In A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE, Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen) runs a popular diner in sleepy-town Millbrook, Indiana, loves his wife Edie (Maria Bello) and their two kids, six-year-old Sarah (Heidi Hayes) and adolescent Jack (Ashton Holmes). The collapse of Tom and Edie's domestic serenity begins when two killers swagger into the diner at closing time one evening, demanding coffee and looking for trouble. When it appears certain they mean to murder an exceptionally helpless-looking victim, Tom reveals extraordinary fighting skills, killing both assailants. This attracts tabloidy media attention and within hours, a visit from Irish mobster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris), who insists Tom is "Joey," a thug from back in the day in Philadelphia who, no small thing, left Carl blind in one eye and badly scarred. While Tom works to resolve his own identity, his son Jack is only beginning to understand his own. Finding that his own past might be a collection of lies, the boy is also faced with daily and increased bullying at school. He finally fights back, revealing his own frightening capacity for violence.

Is it any good?

Smart and compelling, A History of Violence is not for kids. David Cronenberg's film -- based on John Wagner and Vince Locke's graphic novel -- moves with a deliberate, sometimes difficult slowness, featuring sets and performances as such, not quite real, more emblems than lived-in experiences. Each moment seems equally strange, fragile and vaguely artificial. History soon breaks open into a meditation not only on sensationalism and violence, but also, and more emphatically, on identity and masculinity, as these notions are entangled in U.S. self-puffing mythology. The plot problem has to do with Tom's re-identification: is he lying when he denies being Joey? Is Carl mistaken? And how else to explain Tom's killer skills?

The movie examines the slippage between myth and realism. While it's easy to be thrilled by the hard-hitting and frequently explosive action (fantastic action-movie action), the film also asks you to step back and contemplate the ideals, costs, and bodies in play. Tom's mutation into a killer is surely startling. And Edie's struggle to believe him and also to protect her children is surely poignant (Bello is stunning). But the more crucial point has to do with what you want to see: a revenge picture, a familial resolution, a heroic triumph, a just punishment, or maybe some hysterical combination of all. If A History of Violence is, to some extent, a history of U.S. excesses and self-images, it is also a critique of unself-conscious consumption of same

Talk to your kids 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?

Movie details

Our editors recommend

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

See how we rate

Streaming options powered by JustWatch

About these links

Common Sense Media, a nonprofit organization, earns a small affiliate fee from Amazon or iTunes when you use our links to make a purchase. Thank you for your support.

Read more

Our ratings are based on child development best practices. We display the minimum age for which content is developmentally appropriate. The star rating reflects overall quality.

Learn how we rate