"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.

Yes, I think it's fair to say a new horizon from which we can appreciate this fabulous director is the best way to sum it up. Unfortunately, I've talked to others who would prefer an old school Cronenberg despite noticing these subtleties you pointed out, which leads me to my next point.

I'm glad you replied in detail. So, to sum up your stance, you don't think that Cronenberg has lost his edge and is now relying on his reputation but you are now perceiving him in a new light due to the knowledge you've gained since you initially explored him. Is that about right?

arsaib, I'm a bit bemused that you think that's what I extrapolated from his initial post when it's plainly clear that I was just conveying someone else's opinion about Cronenberg and Eastern Promises in contrast to R6dw6C's own observations.

Btw, I forgot to add what really flawed the film most: It is far too plot-driven. But maybe, this is only an early impression out of a small disappointment that Cronenberg preferred a very linear and, in a way, conventional narration here. Perhaps, it'll seem more suitable within a second viewing.

I might have to agree with you there, though I was not really bothered by it as I watched the film but only when thinking back about the inpetuses driving the characters. There's a significant scene at the end that I think drove home the point of corruption (of the more profound sort, I'd imagine) a bit too far into the ground.