4 of 4

"In addition to the R-rated content issues that push this film so far out of bounds, I found the story itself critically flawed," writes Adam R. Holz (Plugged In), in a review that spoils some of the film's central surprises. "The first half, while including seriously objectionable content, at least paints a picture of family members who love and care for one another. In the second half, however, Tom, Edie and Jack all behave in ways that are radically inconsistent with their characterizations earlier in the film." Holz concludes that those "heavy-handed and unrealistic character changes" are reasons to "let History become exactly that at the box office."

Mainstream critics hail it as one of the year's best.

Michael Leary (Image Facts) writes, "The film is as straightfoward as Mystic River in its attempt to actually show us violence in a generational scope. Comparisons to Unforgiven also seem to be helpful; perhaps we could classify this as Cronenberg's 'western.' Tom certainly is the lone 'white hat' going back into a world of outlaws, knowing that he has to be like them to defeat them. Eastwood is heavy handed at the end of Unforgiven with the idea that vengeance can send one straight to the living purgatory of unforgivable sins. And though Tom's actions could be described as self-preservation or the protection of others, the ease with which violence comes to him easily places him within the moral scope of the gunslinger."

Andrew Coffin (World) compares Oliver Twist and A History of Violence and concludes, "Oliver Twist may seem simplistic in its representations of good and evil, but the fact that they are allowed to exist together on screen—and even in the same character—provides for complexity that powerfully overshadows Mr. Cronenberg's existential muddle."

first page |  4 of 4