History of Violence comparison
As I suspected, the 'history of violence' graphic novel was VERY different from the movie. I think I liked it more, though both stories get a "meh" rating from me.
It was odd, it felt like the screenwriter wrote the story after reading 'history' and then felt guilty halfway thru about taking so many ideas from that book. But the movie is NOT the book. It's not like 'The Island' and that other horrible movie who's title I've already forgotten - now that one was a xerox of the script with "Ewan" inserted for whatever the main characters name was.
First, the simple thing - they changed the family name. In the book, he's Tom McKenna, in the movie he's Tom Stall.
There are no awkward sex scenes in the comic, thank goodness! Those were just weird to watch on film, mostly because I don't think Viggo and the actress had any chemistry.
Also, his wife is not weird in the comic. In the movie she flips out when he tells her the truth and then he flips out at one point and pretty much tries to hurt her. Not so in the comic, he tells her his side of the story (and we get to see how he pissed off the mob!) and she accepts that was who he was and he is who he is now.
All in all, the movie has a very different moral from the book. I think the book, which actually felt less violent to me, Tom goes into town to save his friend who has been tortured for the past 20 years by the crime boss' son. In the movie, he drives to New York to take out the crime boss because he feels he should plus his family is pretty much not liking him anymore.
The book made you feel like yes you could start over. At the end of the movie, i felt like their relationships would neve be the same, that if you fast forwarded 5 years from those last minutes of the film, you'd find out Tom and his wife got a divorce. I didn't feel forgivness from any of them. Just sort of "oh well I guess you can stay because the youngest child who doesn't understand what is going on gave you a plate". Hm?
It was odd, it felt like the screenwriter wrote the story after reading 'history' and then felt guilty halfway thru about taking so many ideas from that book. But the movie is NOT the book. It's not like 'The Island' and that other horrible movie who's title I've already forgotten - now that one was a xerox of the script with "Ewan" inserted for whatever the main characters name was.
First, the simple thing - they changed the family name. In the book, he's Tom McKenna, in the movie he's Tom Stall.
There are no awkward sex scenes in the comic, thank goodness! Those were just weird to watch on film, mostly because I don't think Viggo and the actress had any chemistry.
Also, his wife is not weird in the comic. In the movie she flips out when he tells her the truth and then he flips out at one point and pretty much tries to hurt her. Not so in the comic, he tells her his side of the story (and we get to see how he pissed off the mob!) and she accepts that was who he was and he is who he is now.
All in all, the movie has a very different moral from the book. I think the book, which actually felt less violent to me, Tom goes into town to save his friend who has been tortured for the past 20 years by the crime boss' son. In the movie, he drives to New York to take out the crime boss because he feels he should plus his family is pretty much not liking him anymore.
The book made you feel like yes you could start over. At the end of the movie, i felt like their relationships would neve be the same, that if you fast forwarded 5 years from those last minutes of the film, you'd find out Tom and his wife got a divorce. I didn't feel forgivness from any of them. Just sort of "oh well I guess you can stay because the youngest child who doesn't understand what is going on gave you a plate". Hm?