I don’t watch much TV. In fact I don’t watch any TV apart from the news, I use my television for watching movies I’ve bought on DVD and that’s about it.
And apparently it wasn’t on Capitaine Zombie’s radar either.
Haven’t seen it for ages but I recall one of the themes being quite interesting; the notion that ‘trouble’ is always shown in US cinema to come from outside - for example, riding into town. In this film it comes from within, like it’s part of the person (or society) itself.
At the time I remember thinking it was a very strong film with clear ambitions. Should see it again, really …
To me that was the whole point. The reluctant hero literally turned out to have a history of violence and the events of the first part of the film lead inexorably to his past actions catching up with him. The posters that feel there are two different movies here are reflecting the fact that this guy is two different men, the ruthless killer of the past and the peaceable family man of the present.
The key questions it left with me, and I’m sure Cronenberg intended this, were firstly, can the man of violence be laid to rest again now that he has so dramatically been brought back to the surface, and secondly, which of these diametrically opposed traits will prove dominant in the son?