A History of Violence is based on the graphic novel of the same name. From the things I've heard, the movie is great, and the comic sucks. I have never read the book so I can't verify that claim. Writer Josh Olson was nominated for an Academy Award for his adapted screenplay.
To be honest, I thought the film version was okay. Certainly nothing to write home about. The film started slow by introducing the characters, starting with the killers that flip the world upside down for the Stall family (Viggo Mortensen, Maria Bello and Ashton Holmes) when they walk into the small town diner owned by Tom Stall. They start to hold the place up but when one has his head turned he gets nailed with a coffee pot, allowing Tom to murder both of them. Tom is named a national hero by the media, which attracts the attention of Philadelphia mobster Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris) who comes to town with hopes to kill him.
Where as the action scenes and the brief nudity scene by Maria Bello are really stimulating to the eye, they are both very short and cut and paste. The blocking is very well rehearsed just like the fight scenes in The Bourne Identity, which gives the audience the sense that all these memories and emotions are rushing back to Tom as he disarms and kills a small number of henchmen in under a minute. The gratuitous acts of violence are nothing we as an American audience haven't seen before, which makes me question why two scenes were tuned down. The unchanged scenes the European audience saw are hardly noticeable.
The film's pace started to pick up but just as soon as an action scene was over it slowed back down to a crawl. There's a lot of talking which explains the plot, but most of it is rehashed until the truth comes forward. The biggest question comes from the ending, when Tom returns home from killing his enemies. His family is seated down during dinner when he walks in with his head down, hoping they can accept him for who he is.
