I wouldn't have even noticed this movie, were it not for the fact that various critics were flipping out over what a gift to humanity this film is. Even Viggo, while appearing on the Daily Show, suggested this film was better than LOTR. Of course, Viggo is a very strange man, so that might explain how wrong he is.
This movie, I think, gives a major insight into how film critics work. If I go see a film that makes me say “what the hell was that all about,” that's a film that critics will love. If you feel like you want a friend to go see the movie, just so they can tell you what the hell they think it was all about, that's a film that critics will love. Beyond that, they're not very discerning people. There's a difference betweem “oh, that could have so many meanings, I need a friend to see what they think” and “uhh, I'm pretty sure that was insane and meaningless, Hussain, care to confirm?” These, to a critic, are about the same. Being confused, apparently, makes them feel entertained.
A History of Violence was insane and meaningless. That's my conclusion. It wasn't a horrible film, I didn't feel angry about watching it, but that's about it. Hence the 6/10 score. It's just a bizzare movie. It's confusing. It's not confusing as far as what's going on, in fact, it's so linear and straightforward that when combined with the rave reviews, it's confusing.