"A History of violence" and "Eastern Promises" certainly forced many to rethink about their access to Cronenberg and that's what I also felt while watching "Eastern Promises" after "A history of Violence" was a personal let-down for me two years ago - and as I hadn't seen anything by Cronenberg before, that probably was no surprise (a rewatch would be necessary, I guess). So, it maybe isn't merely a change of perception but the opening of a new horizon which has already been there [in Cronenbergs previous films] but took a time until now to be opened. 

That's probably what you meant, Justin, wasn't it? 

In my opionion, "Eastern Promises" has a lot in common with "Videodrome" and "eXistenZ" (and it only a coincidence that those two films are very similar). Because - as I stated before - "Eastern Promises" seems to be a     reconciliation after a whole bunch of films which deflorated the wanted innocence of mankind (innocence in several ways, not only sexual and religious, though this seems obvious at the first sight) and now, in this film, Cronenberg finally agreed to learn how to understand this aspiration. That's maybe the reason why (to me) the only strong difference between his last two films and the earlier ones seems to be within the style and the narration.

And to me our point-of-views seem pretty much the same. Despite the fact that "masterful" is an adjective I associate with A History of Violence, not Eastern Promises, as it's obvious from my post/grade, I do admire the latter quite a bit.

Well, maybe I misunderstood your review a bit, arsaib. It's difficult to read quality reviews in english and understand everything without a dictionary. It's all a matter of the formulation and the tone. Now, that I've seen many of Cronenberg's films within the last two years and appreciate "Easter Promises" that much, I'll maybe agree with you about the "masterful" AHOV when I see it again.

Good point. Cronenberg's oeuvre was fresh in my mind while I reviewed A History of Violence but that unfortunately wasn't the case here. If one looks closely enough at the likes of Scanners and Videodrome, his fascination with isolated communities and subcultures does make its mark.

I agree. But beside that ("isolated communities and subcultures") don't you think that Cronenberg even kept some of his early surrealism/symbolism which makes the disappointed comments from "Cronenberg-Fans" even more strange? The kitchen talk between Watts and Mller-Stahl or Mortensens forced sex with the Ukrainian Girl had a total otherworldly and surreal note, especially the first one. Naomi Watts being the virgin lamb (her naivety in that [not only that!] scene is so over-the-top that it has to be intentional) and Mller-Stahl the Uncle wolf. Certainly a simple metaphor but it can be developed further and further - a movie about aspired innocence which cannot be reached by returning only to a profane lifestyle certainly wins by using such fabulous symbolism.

Perhaps. Her character was relatively straightforward when compared to that of Mortensen's or even Cassel's.

The more I thought about her character and the mentioned scene with her and Mller-Stahl, the more her acting enhances in retrospect. Her dubbing voice was a bit weaker compared to the other actors, though. That always an unpleasant fact to incorporate nowadays...(over here, of course).

Interesting. I find it difficult now to consider the two as separate entities. In fact, that may be virtually impossible to do.

A stand-alone film and a Cronenberg-Film as two separate entities? If you meant that, I totally agree, though I'd love to read "Written and Directed by David Cronenberg" in the credits of his next film. Too bad that I couldn't utilize "A history of Violence" while recepting (and reviewing [in German]) this one, your high appreciation for it evokes new interest. 

@ Justin again:

Probably, we're talking of the same things.