Good movie, bad movie

This past week I watched a few movies, with a friend and alone. They were Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (which I had already seen and were of course a lot of fun) and A History of Violence. I thought A History of Violence would be good, based on Viggo’s performances in other movies (Eastern Promises, Hidalgo, A Perfect Murder) but I was wrong, so very wrong. IMDB’s writeup, as follows: "A mild-mannered man becomes a local hero through an act of violence, which sets off repercussions that will shake his family to its very core."

The plot caught my attention, but the movie itself rambled and was disjointed. His wife (Maria Bello) was annoying, his son and daughter were afterthoughts, and the best part of the movie was Ed Harris’ character, who knew Viggo’s character Tom from his previous life as Joey Cusack, a member of some mob in Philly who was "always the crazy one.” A hot love scene was included, but it was… well… violent. Plus, I was so surprised that I burst out laughing when his wife emerged from the bathroom after, naked under her flapping robe. Whuh huh? I was so not expecting bush! Gratuitous nudity ain't always good.

Sure, I enjoyed watching Viggo. The man is hot! But he is so much better playing darker characters. This “mild-mannered man” was almost painful to watch. He needs a character he can really sink his teeth into.

Apparently the movie won a bunch of awards, but in my opinion, it can just be tossed in the trash. What was David Cronenburg thinking? Granted, this movie was made a few years before Eastern Promises (which was AMA-ZING! Plus, we get to see him totally naked -- in that case, gratuitous nudity works for me) but if you have the chance to watch this one, take my advice, and let it pass...