Hmm, went to see the "pre" premiere of "A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE", based on the graphic novel of Vincent Locke and John Wagner, directed by Canadian director David Gronenberg which we all know from horror classics and satires. And I went out of the cinema a bit confused, not that I didn't know how the story went, but I was confused a bit because I didn't really know what to think, I felt tricked. It managed to drop off those standard film laws, or as you may call them: cliches, which is a good thing. And on the other hand, I thought it did a goob job in projecting the difference between simplicity and lazyness. And that is not a good thing. The movie is seperated in two parts, which are storywise just as long and storywise not as long at the time same time. This is visualized quite clever. The first part is really great, and that is were this distinguishes itself from other movies, it's perfect timing to litteraly switch to the second part which is where the negative part starts; it is too hasty and too simple. I loved how things are taking into excess in movies, in a serious way. Especially violence and to some extend sex aswell, because especially violence is honest and when it is seriously taken to excess, it moves me, it hurts me, I can feel a character and for me it is the most beautiful way to express a character in a movie. The best way to make a character come alive for me is anger, hate, violence, because it isn't faked that often as love. But, in this movie love is also brought in a violent way, and that makes the perfect combination, it is not rape, it is a passionate, violent and honest love scene. All in all it's a good movie, but has one important flaw, and that takes it down. If the second part would've been worked out better it would've gotten a 8.5 out of 10, but now I am giving it a 7.8/10.