A History of Violence: why was it so slow?

After being numbed by Serenity, I was hoping for a better outing at the least. A History of Violence was, definitely, but I wasn't too impressed overall.

Firstly, it was excruciatingly slow, for no particular reason that I could see. Even 96 minutes seemed long in the end. Another minor issue I had was whether so many sex / nude scenes were really necessary. Otherwise, the movie was realistic mostly and brought out problems of the situation well. The violence was okay for me, considering the plot.

Viggo Mortenson (Lord of the Rings series / A Perfect Murder) got one of his rare protagonist roles. He was good, but clearly lacked the charisma.

Ed Harris rarely misses the chance to steal the show. Yet again, in a small role, he left a lasting impression as the menacing villain.

Do you also notice the facial similarity between Harris and Mortenson? From that angle, I felt that it might have been better for them to play brothers in this movie. Instead, William Hurt (The Accidental Tourist / The Village) took that part and instilled his usual dullness into a character which might have turned out better.


Pictures courtesy: http://www.historyofviolence.com / New Line Cinema